Sitting of 14 July 1992

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

    SUMMER TIME
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House, That its Address of 9 July relating to Summer Time had been presented to Her Majesty and that Her Majesty had been pleased to receive the same very graciously and to give the following Answer:
    I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
    Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    PRICES'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords]
    Orders for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

    RIVER HUMBER (UPPER PYEWIPE OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (RIVER LLIEDI) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions exist on the number of pay beds in hospital trusts.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): It is a statutory requirement that private practice in national health service trust hospitals does not significantly interfere with the performance, by the trust, of its obligations under NHS contracts or imposed by order. The actual number of private patient beds that may be made available at any one time is for local determination.
    Mr. Williams: As trust hospitals are not required by law to make contracts with the NHS, and as private insurance companies are seeking a greater use of trust hospitals to reduce their premiums, is there not a danger that the number of private beds in those hospitals will dramatically increase without anyone being consulted? If the Government want us to believe that the NHS is safe in their hands, why do they not make the 10 per cent. limit for private beds that applies to health authority-managed hospitals apply also to trust hospitals?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded, not least because the local population is protected by the purchasers who are responsible for purchasing health care on their behalf.
    Ms. Harman: Is it not the case that the more hospital trusts such as Guy's hospital in London concentrate on private patients, the longer NHS patients like the Slennet family, whose case was reported recently in the newspapers, have to wait? The longer NHS patients must wait, the more they are forced to go private. To protect NHS services and justify the Minister's claims that trust hospitals are not about privatisation, will he impose a strict and specific limit on the proportion of private work that NHS trusts can do?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady should be aware, better than most, that common waiting lists for urgent or seriously ill patients exist in all hospitals and that those arrangements were agreed with the medical profession. She should be aware also that there is a statutory requirement that private practice in hospital trusts must not interfere, to a significant extent, with performance under NHS contracts. The hon. Lady is trying to scare patients unnecessarily.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether special considerations can be applied to health units or organisations wishing to seek trust status in very rural areas; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: No. Each application for trust status is measured against four main criteria: that the establishment of the trust will give clear benefits and improved quality of service to patients; that management has the necessary skills and capacity to operate independently;

    955
    that senior professional staff, particularly consultants, are involved in the management of the unit; and that the trust will be financially viable.
    Mr. Kirkwood: But is there not a case for giving special consideration to small health board, district and regional health authority areas providing health care in disparate rural communities and, where they are performing well already, leaving well alone? In particular, what guidance is being given to those authorities in rural areas on the purchaser's ability to keep in touch with local communities so that they can deliver the kind of services that those communities seek?
    Dr. Mawhinney: That is a perfectly fair question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all purchasers have the responsibility to assess health needs and the preferences of the local population. That is true in both rural and urban areas. Given the distance that some patients may have to travel, purchasers in rural areas need to have particular regard to accessibility of services. Let me encourage the hon. Gentleman by giving him one example: a purchasing project in North Yorkshire, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, covering about four and a half former districts, has developed 25 natural communities around which it has planned the sort of health care that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that when trust status is conferred on a hospital, the local people virtually run the hospital themselves and they, after all, know best?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As is so frequently the case, my hon. Friend is exactly right.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Then how would the Minister explain the situation that has arisen in my area, which has a large rural contingent, where one fund-holding general practitioner can distort the provision of health care by demanding that the practice's patients go ahead of those of every non-fund-holding general practitioner?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have to say to the hon. Lady what I said to her last time, which is that I am not prepared to accept her interpretation of events. If the health authority has such a problem, it is perfectly free to get in touch with me.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have now achieved trust status.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the national health service trust programme.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): A total of 156 national health service trusts are currently operational and 151 applications have been received from hospitals and other units to become operational from April 1993 in the third wave of NHS trusts.
    Mr. Martin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result of the general election, particularly in Portsmouth, has led directly to applications for trust status there? As the British Medical Association has withdrawn its misguided opposition to that sensible policy, is it not high
    956
    time that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats followed suit and stopped misrepresenting it as privatisation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Since the election, a great many people have said that the future lies in NHS trusts, which provide a better form of management. I was delighted to hear that the BMA chairman said:
    "The reforms exist. Our task must be to ensure that, for the sake of our patients, we do everything we can to make them work."
    I visited the hospital where he works, which has become a trust, and was most impressed with its progress. I know that hospitals in my hon. Friend's constituency are applying for trust status in the next wave, with the warm support of the clinicians. I hope that the Labour party will be able to adopt a similar approach.
    Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that trust hospitals result in reduced waiting lists, an improved number of patient treatments and an improved quality of service? Therefore it is not surprising that Dover and Deal hospitals are applying for trust status to deliver to my constituents an even further improved quality of service.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Trusts are cutting their waiting lists, improving the quality of service and increasing the number of patients treated. They are also a good place for the staff to work. There are overwhelming reasons for devolving the management of health care to the level nearest to that at which decisions on clinical work are undertaken. NHS trusts are the model for the future and provide important new freedoms. They are better for staff and for patients.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will be aware that among the 151 third wave applications, there is one jointly made by the two Coventry hospitals, which want to become a single trust. Is she aware of fears that that will result in the closure of the Coventry and Warwickshire hospital and of the refusal by the management at either site to give any assurances? Will she ensure that there is full consideration and that the assurances sought are given before trust status is approved?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I give the hon. Gentleman a clear assurance that the most important criterion for agreeing trust status is better service for patients. A trust must certainly be financially viable and there must be good management—under which clinicians and managers work closely together. The criterion for the future is improved services to patients and that is the basis on which decisions will be made.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Guy's and Lewisham Trust is so strapped for cash that it is moving more and more towards private medicine? What reassurances can she give Lewisham families that they will not be forced into private health care, as was the Slennet family in my constituency so that they could have their child treated in a hospital?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have no time for the politics of envy, in which criteria for the success of the health service are judged against the work of the private sector. Frankly, that is immaterial. I want ever-greater improvements to the national health service. I ask the hon. Lady to re-examine

    957
    the situation at Guy's, which is paying its low-paid workers an extra £6 a week, is tackling junior hospital doctors' hours a year ahead of schedule, has made excellent inroads into waiting times and is treating more patients. Improved patient care, not the criterion of redundancies, should measure the national health service's success.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend recall a survey undertaken among trust patients at the beginning of this year, which showed that seven times as many thought that services had improved as a result of trust status as those who noted a decline? Does she agree that such noticeable gains should be spread further and wider throughout the health service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: How much I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks; as ever, she hits the nail exactly on the head. We ought to consider the effect of trust status on patients and others who use the service. An independent survey published earlier this year showed that 96 per cent. of patients were very satisfied or quite satisfied with the quality of service that they received from NHS trusts.

    Personal Social Services
    Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss its concerns regarding the personal social services.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): My hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I met representatives of the local authority associations, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, on 1 July.
    Mr. Stevenson: Will the Minister acknowledge the continuing concern that is felt in Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere about the Government's intentions for the funding of community care? What progress has been made in the Government's discussions with the AMA on the principle of ring-fencing community care resources? Given that these are the last health questions before the recess, will the Minister state clearly when an announcement will be made about the transfer of resources for social security purposes, and not allow human community care to be sacrificed on the altar of council tax, as it has been under the poll tax?
    Mr. Yeo: The Government have made it clear on several occasions—and I gladly do so again—that community care policy will be fairly resourced and that local authorities will be given adequate money to implement it. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about ring-fencing. Staffordshire county council's record is a prime example of why ring-fencing might be needed. Throughout the 1980s, social services spending in Staffordshire was consistently below the level indicated by the Government's grant-related expenditure assessment. In the eight years from 1982 to 1990, its cumulative underspend was almost £50 million. Any shortage of resources in Staffordshire is nothing to do with the Government, who provide adequate and generous resources, but has everything to do with the county council's decisions.
    Mr. Rowe: When my hon. Friend met representatives of the AMA, did he discuss the crucial importance of increasing opportunities for volunteers in the personal social services? There is no doubt that volunteering not only provides a remarkable service but prevents the many volunteers who have a valuable and important task to perform from becoming a charge on the personal social services themselves.
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, he is a well-known expert in the field. We want to encourage all local authorities to maximise opportunities for volunteers which are useful to the volunteers themselves and to those whom they seek to serve. We are very concerned about the attitude of a few Labour-controlled local authorities, which are obstinately reluctant to increase usage of the independent sector.
    Mr. Rooker: In view of today's devastating report from the Policy Studies Institute, which shows the total collapse of the Government's inner-city policies over the past 13 years, will the Minister join me in congratulating social workers on their work in inner-city areas? They sometimes enter unlit blocks of flats in dangerous circumstances to try to settle disputes of which they know nothing beyond what they have been told in a telephone call, and sometimes emerge with injuries. It is they, not Members of Parliament, who are on the front line.
    Mr. Yeo: I gladly pay tribute to a number of local authority employees who work in inner-city areas. Their major handicap is the fact that too many inner-city local authorities are controlled by the loony left.

    NHS (Expenditure)
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proportion of the national income which is spent on the national health service has changed since 1979, and over the periods (a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1970 to 1974.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The share of gross domestic product spent on the national health service from all sources has increased from 4·7 per cent. in 1978–79 to an estimated 5·8 per cent. this year—a rise of more than 1 per cent. Figures for the earlier period are not available on the same basis, but show a similar 1 per cent. increase in the share of GDP spent on the health service between 1970 and 1974. Between 1974 and 1979, however, health spending as a proportion of GDP rose by only 0·3 per cent.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations—and, I believe, those of the whole House—on that record of achievement under Conservative control? Such a record was never matched or even dreamt of by the so-called friends of the NHS on the Opposition Benches.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that performance in the NHS can be measured not only by the amount that is spent but by the return in terms of health benefit? Does she feel that her recent White Paper will help to produce further achievements?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Indeed, the purpose of our latest White Paper, "Health of the Nation", is precisely to maximise the health gain that is achievable for the nation. Inevitably, any Secretary of State must achieve best value for money, but

    959
    real health gains can be achieved through concentration on disease prevention and health promotion as well as on the delivery of services. We are in the business of health as well as health care.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Before the Secretary of State disappears in a puff of complacency about her expenditure, may I invite her to report on her income? Will she admit that, since 1979, the rate of increase in charges to patients has been double the rate of increase in spending; that the increase in prescription charges has been eight times the rate of inflation; that pay bed charges have risen tenfold; and that, on top of that, any dental patient who seeks treatment must pay three times more—provided, of course, that he or she can find a dentist to provide treatment? If the Government really want us to believe that they are committed to the NHS, will they stop turning it into a pay-as-you-go service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Charges have been part of the NHS since its early days. We must ensure that we maximise its ability to provide high-quality services. We have never provided such good dental care; we have never immunised so many children; life expectancy has improved over the past 12 years. On a number of criteria, health has been improving through the achievement of good value for money.
    I worked in the health service when the Labour party was in power. Then, it was not a case of putting cash before care; it was a case of cash-free, care-free national health service. Expenditure was cut in real terms.

    Patients, Barnet
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital patients were treated in the Barnet health authority in 1991–92.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I understand from locally provided figures that Barnet health authority purchased in-patient and day care treatment for 39,814 patients in the year 1991–92. This represents an overall increase of 3·4 per cent. over the previous year.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the staff, nurses and doctors who made that record achievement possible? Will he also note that one of the hospitals that made that achievement possible was the Royal Free trust hospital which, in its first year as a trust, treated 6 per cent. more patients and cut waiting lists substantially? Is my hon. Friend aware that the hospital waiting lists in Barnet are much better than those laid down in the guidelines in the citizens charter?
    Mr. Sackville: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that. I remind him that on I May no one was waiting for more than two years for in-patient treatment in Barnet health authority, that the number of patients waiting between one and two years was down by 66 per cent. and that the health authority's aim by December 1992 is to reduce the maximum waiting time to nine months for general surgery and several other specialties.

    Health Education Budget
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her budget for health education for 1992–93; and what is the change since 1991–92 in real terms.
    Dr. Mawhinney: We have provided £33·9 million for the health education authority in 1992–93, a real increase of 5·2 per cent. on the previous year. This is more than matched by health education of literally incalculable value throughout the national health service, sustained by the successive real increases in funding provided by the Government.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is not that a paltry sum compared with the £72 million spent by the tobacco industry each year on recruiting new customers to take the place of those whom it kills off? Will the Government reconsider the question of an advertising ban and ensure that shopkeepers who sell cigarettes to children are prosecuted?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman must focus his mind on the ends and not the means to the ends. The ends are that cigarette consumption in this country has decreased substantially over the past few years. The targets that we set in the White Paper suggest that tobacco consumption will drop even further in the years ahead. We have made that commitment. The means to achieve that end will be reviewed constantly, to ensure that it is achieved. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that the Children and Young Persons (Protection From Tobacco) Act 1991 addresses precisely the concern that he expressed.
    Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend recall that at the time of the scares about salmonella and listeria there was criticism of his Department for lack of action and of any sense of urgency, yet when he issues a White Paper pointing out to people the need to pay particular attention to sensible drinking and a balanced diet and to cease smoking, he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health are accused of interfering and nannying? Will he ensure that adequate resources are made available so that although people remain free to make their own choices in these matters, they can make informed choices?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have a responsibility to set before the public information on which they may wish to draw in making individual decisions about individual lifestyles. We are not in the business of nannying. However, we are in the business of discharging our responsibilities to put before people the sort of information that we believe they need and which would give them, if they were to follow it, a better quality of life.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recognise that the end that the tobacco industry hopes to achieve by advertising is to encourage people to take up smoking? Why does he not adopt, as one of his means, the banning of tobacco advertising? Is not the real reason to be found in Rothmans' annual report, out this month, which shows that Rothmans gave £100,000 to the Tory party in this election year? Can we really expect the Tory party to take on the tobacco barons so long as they are taking their money?
    Dr. Mawhinney: If they were the ends of the tobacco companies, measured against the fall in the consumption of tobacco in the past few years, they have not met those ends—on the contrary. The Government will meet the ends that they have set out by way of targets in the White Paper. It is a matter of great sadness that on his last appearance at the Dispatch Box—almost certainly, dealing with these matters—the hon. Gentleman will not commit the Labour party to achieving the same ends, which will benefit the health of the whole nation.

    Education Nursing Service
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the education nursing service under the health service reforms.
    Mr. Sackville: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just written congratulating the profession on the centenary of the education nursing service. In "The Health of the Nation" White Paper we emphasise how important the establishment of healthy lifestyles in childhood is to health promotion. School nurses have much to contribute here—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway will allow us to hear what the Minister has to say.
    Mr. Sackville: School nurses have much to contribute here and we will be monitoring their vital involvement in the implementation of our health strategy.
    Mr. Winterton: May I advise my hon. Friend that, despite what he may hear, I shall be taking an increased interest in health matters. Having just told the House how important the education nursing services are to education and to the health service, will he tell us who will pay for the vital services under the new provider-purchaser system—the Department for Education or the Department of Health?
    Mr. Sackville: May I have the honour of congratulating my hon. Friend on his years of service on the Select Committee on Health? I look forward to his many further contributions.
    I stress the importance of the education nursing service. It is up to health authorities to provide adequate cover for the monitoring of school children's health. We must accept that the number of school nurses has remained constant against a background of massive extra GP provision as well as special child surveillance clinics, and the fact that the overall health of children has markedly improved in recent years.

    Patients
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in national health service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A record 8·8 million patients were treated as in-patients and day cases in 1990–91 compared with 6·5 million in 1978. That represented a 34 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures provide strong evidence of the improvement and
    962
    expansion of the national health service since the Government came into office? Will she confirm that the increase in the number of patients treated has been faster since the national health service reforms were introduced?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, I can confirm that. I have already made it clear that the rate of increase in the number of patients treated has doubled since the Government came to power, as opposed to when the Opposition were in power. There has been an increase of something like 7 per cent. since the introduction of the NHS reforms. There can be no doubt that, on any test, the NHS reforms have resulted in improvements to the quality of health care.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware of the unacceptable delays occurring yet again at the Birmingham children's hospital? Is she aware that Andrew Brown, a 10-year-old boy in my constituency, has been waiting more than a year for serious open heart surgery? Having been told to prepare himself to go into hospital tomorrow for surgery, he received a message yesterday that he could no longer go in. Two days' notice was given of the cancellation. His parents are distraught as they have been preparing him for weeks. When will we learn to treat our children properly? When will we do something about the Birmingham children's hospital?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady illustrates exactly why it is so important for us to tackle waiting times, and why the achievements of the last year, with the number of those waiting more than a year falling by one third, are so important. All the cases are individual cases like the one to which the hon. Lady refers. That is why the achievement of reducing those waiting more than two years from 51,000 to under 2,000 has been so important. With regard to the individual case that the hon. Lady mentioned, I shall make inquiries myself on her behalf. She has mentioned one case: we are anxious to ensure that all NHS patients are seen as swiftly as possible, and we have made real progress in achieving that.

    Heart Campaign
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had about the Look After Your Heart campaign.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The Look After Your Heart campaign, jointly funded by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority, is one of the largest and most comprehensive coronary heart disease prevention programmes in the world. It includes a wide range of preventive activity. I am not aware of representations on a large scale on any particular aspect of the programme.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use our heads to look after our hearts? Will the congratulate Bolton health authority on its pioneering initiative to promote the sale of fresh fruit and vegetables through cut-price co-ops. Should not others follow that example?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have heard about the project not only from him but from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I am happy to commend those who have taken that important initiative.

    Patients Charter
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress being made within the national health service to put the patients charter into practice.
    Mr. Sackville: The national health service has made substantial progress in implementing the patients charter, which came into effect on 1 April.
    NHS staff at all levels have given the patients charter a warm welcome. Their response and commitment to providing a high-quality health service as embodied by the patients charter is to be applauded.
    Mr. Cummings: Does the Minister really believe what he has just told the House? If so, how does he square his remarks with the case of the 19-year-old youth in my area who has had his operation cancelled four times since March, on the last occasion at three hours' notice? Will he now admit to the House that his charter is a con trick and a sham?
    Mr. Sackville: The more I hear Opposition Members trying to denigrate the patients charter, the more confident I am that we are very much on the right track. In the case of operations that are cancelled—often unavoidably, as a result of emergencies and so on—we have given specific guidance in the patients charter to the effect that all such operations should be given priority wherever possible.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that GPs themselves will play an important role in pursuing the patients charter? Is he aware that, in my constituency, no less than 78 per cent. of the population will be dealt with by GP fund holders by the end of this year? Is not that an example of the way that doctors are taking advantage of the Government's health reforms to provide better services for their patients?
    Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. GP fund holding gives an opportunity to respond directly to patients' needs.
    Ms. Lynne: The first right in the patients charter is the right to health care based on clinical need, regardless of ability to pay. Given that there are only 55 salaried dentists in the country, will the Minister explain how the Government can meet their obligation if there is a mass exodus of dentists from the NHS?
    Mr. Sackville: I should like to make two points. First, family health services authorities have a responsibility to provide an NHS dentist to anyone in their area who needs one. Secondly, I remind the hon. Lady of the fundamental review announced in the past two days, which will ensure that we shall not arrive at this situation with dentists again.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I recognise the excellence of the patients charter, but does the Minister agree that patients and their families have an obligation to ensure that public money is well spent and that many operations are delayed because patients do not turn up—either to an appointment or for the operation itself.
    Mr. Sackville: We have made it very clear through the patients charter that we believe that it is a two-way street: the patients have responsibilities as well as the health service. The public can do many things to improve health.

    Community Care
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the preparations of the national health service for its role in the provision of community care services after April 1993.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the preparations the national health service has made for its role in the provision of community care services after April 1993.
    Mr. Yeo: The national health service is working closely with local authorities to play its part in ensuring the successful introduction of the "Caring for People" reforms.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister tell the House who will pay for the extra community nurses who will be needed to care for the ill and frail elderly people who are being sent out of hospitals too soon by doctors who are under pressure from administrators who want to increase their bed-throughput to achieve the targets required by the Government's new market economy in health care?
    Mr. Yeo: As an important plank in our community care reforms, we have made it clear that all health authorities must agree with social services departments robust arrangements for the discharge of patients and that a care plan in respect of each patient who is about to be discharged must be agreed. With regard to resourcing, as we have made clear on many occasions, there will not only be a transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security to increase resources available to local authorities, but continuing increases in the nearly £5 billion of personal social services expenditure available to local authorities every year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister take time to study the report by the Royal College of Nursing entitled "A Scandal Waiting to Happen"? Will he assure the House that he intends to act on some of that report's recommendations, not least in respect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), about the inappropriate discharge of elderly people into a community which does not have the resources to care for them?
    Mr. Yeo: We have studied the report to which the hon. Lady refers. I can assure her that we will certainly take into account the nursing needs of all elderly people in residential and nursing home care, when decisions about that care are made and when the local authorities enter into contracts for the arrangement of such care.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that after 1 April next, every mentally ill patient and schizophrenia sufferer discharged from hospital can be guaranteed a package of care in the community best fitted to their needs? In that event, should we tolerate older hospitals for the mentally ill being kept open for a minute longer?
    Mr. Yeo: I am aware of my hon. Friend's very close interest in mental illness and schizophrenia. I am glad to be able to inform him that from last April, under the care programme approach, all health authorities are required

    965
    to initiate individually tailored care programmes on the basis of a full assessment for all in-patients about to be discharged from mental illness hospitals.

    Information Disclosure
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received about the employment protection of national health service staff who disclose information about internal affairs within the national health service, other than information related to patient confidentiality.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Representations have been received recently from hon. Members, staff representative associations, and national health service employees. These have concerned both the general principles governing expression by NHS staff of professional concerns about health service issues, and the personal cases of some NHS employees.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Secretary of State aware of the case [Interruption.]——
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should be much obliged if the House would settle down. It is impossibly noisy and very hard work for hon. Members who are trying to ask questions and for Ministers who are trying to reply.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Secretary of State aware of the case of Dr. Chris Chapman, a biochemist who faces redundancy tomorrow at the Leeds general infirmary? His only offence was to tell the truth about scientific fraud and financial irregularities. While Dr. Chapman is to be sacked, those who have committed the frauds and financial irregularities will remain in their jobs. They prosper and have been promoted. They include Mr. Stuart Ingham. the £90,000-a-year chief executive of the Leeds General Infirmary Trust. Will the Secretary of State now agree to set up a full public inquiry into Dr. Chapman's case? Or is she just happy to see a man of integrity lose his job, pension and livelihood while those responsible for his sacking remain in their posts and prosper?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers have, of course, been investigated by the independent auditors, and any new evidence has also been referred to them. It would be quite inappropriate for me to instigate an inquiry into an individual case where there are already statutory rights of appeal. Dr. Chapman has the right to take his case to an industrial tribunal. He has a right of appeal under the Employment Protection Act 1975, which I understand he has not yet exercised. Until he has done so, it certainly would not be appropriate to discuss the matter in the House.

    Immunisation
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards reaching national targets for immunisation against the major childhood diseases.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am pleased to say that the latest estimates show that we have passed the national immunisation coverage target of 90 per cent., which was set in 1985.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the GP contract which the Labour party opposed has been remarkably successful in improving the rate of child immunisation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It has been remarkably successful, and GPs are to be congratulated on 90 per cent. of them reaching targets and 70 per cent. reaching higher targets. This might be the last moment for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at health questions to say that he was wrong when he said that those targets were too heroic. The GP contract has led to benefits in the services delivered by general practitioners. They have done excellently in immunisation; they have done excellently in cancer screening and that bodes very well indeed for our strategy under "Health of the Nation".

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some people have still not learnt the lesson that real and lasting growth can come only with an economy that is based on low taxation and low inflation? Is not that the reason why last week's figures were so good? Will my right hon. Friend keep at it and ensure that his election pledge to lick inflation is fulfilled?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. I want to ensure that our record on inflation in the 1990s exceeds that of the 1980s, that we get inflation down to the lowest possible level and that we keep it there. Economic policy is geared to that end.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall his promise in the election that a Tory victory would provide the spark to ignite recovery? Will the Prime Minister now admit that no such ignition has taken place and that there will be no real recovery as long as he continues with the policies that have already brought us two full years of recession?
    The Prime Minister: I shall turn to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment, if I may, for this is the last occasion that we will be able to exchange comments over the Dispatch Box in this fashion. We have done so on many occasions in the past 20 months. We have often disagreed, sometimes we have agreed, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: He's going to resign."] That is quite wrong; I am staying.
    I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support at times of crisis, for his strong support throughout the Gulf war and for the support that he has given us throughout the difficulties in Yugoslavia. On many occasions when he and I have had to deal privately with matters, without exception he has respected the

    967
    confidences of those occasions. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to thank him for that and to do so publicly and with warmth.
    In direct response to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he will know the view of the OECD and of the London business school, both of whose latest surveys forecast that recovery will be under way from the second quarter of this year. We share that view.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his kind remarks. I consider it a great honour to have been able to serve my country in the way that I could. I know that he shares that vocation, and I hope that the country and its people can achieve greater success in the future.
    I put it to the Prime Minister that his strategy of perpetuating recession, combined with high unemployment, in an attempt to suppress inflation, has all the features of the slump of the 1930s. For the sake of our country, I put it to him that he should now recognise that continuation of those policies will not achieve durable or sustainable recovery, and will certainly not put our country at ease with itself.
    The Prime Minister: I respect the view that the right hon. Gentleman expresses, but I say in all sincerity that I cannot agree with him. The recovery—the jobs, the prosperity and the security—that everyone in this House wants for all our citizens can be based only on sustainable growth and low inflation. Unless we have low inflation as a base, we shall not get a form of growth that is sustainable. I realise that it is not easy, that it is uncomfortable and that it is frustrating when growth does not appear immediately, but I know of no other way to ensure the medium and long-term growth and prosperity of the nation, and I am determined to stick to the policies that I believe to be in our medium and long-term interests.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I say to the Prime Minister, with equal sincerity, that, after two years of recession, there is a very great danger that continuation of the present policies will risk driving the economy down so far as to make the prospect of recovery recede by years. I hope that the Prime Minister will use this summer to think again about the course of that policy and will adopt different policies that can give this country and its people the chance of jobs, growth and success, which we have not enjoyed in the immediate past.
    The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition and I agree about what the objective is, but I regret that we do not agree about the basis that is necessary to achieve it. One needs to look at what is happening. The volume of exports was at a record level in May; our volume share of world trade has recovered, after being in decline for many years; car sales are increasing; producer price inflation is at a very low level indeed. The ingredients are there. I return to the independent view of both the OECD and the London business school that recovery will be under way in the second half of this year. And it will be recovery based on a rate of inflation that is far lower than anyone in this House predicted 18 months ago. It is from that base that we shall get the growth that we all wish to see.
    Sir Michael Marshall: In a week that marks the 75th birthday of the British space pioneer Arthur C. Clarke and his visit to the House of Commons will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of assuring the House that during our presidency of the EC Her Majesty's
    968
    Government will make every effort to take initiatives in the space field to improve the quality of life and assist British industry?
    The Prime Minister: I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I welcome the visit of Mr. Clarke to the House. We shall continue to take initiatives, within Europe, internationally and in other forums, in pursuit of space priorities. We are particularly interested in the development of Earth observation systems for the monitoring of the environment and of climate change.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: May I take this opportunity to register the thanks of the Ulster Unionist party to the Leader of the main Opposition party for the leadership he has given to Her Majesty's Opposition. It has been a privilege to work with him in recent years.
    Now that the inter-party talks on Northern Ireland have advanced to strands 2 and 3, in which Her Majesty's Government are no longer in the chair but are equal partners with the other participants, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recognises that progress towards real understanding, recognition and mutual respect in the island of Ireland depends upon the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the southern Irish republic? Will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity available to them in strands 2 and 3 to request the Dublin Government to remove their constitutional claim over that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that articles 2 and 3 are important ingredients in the progress that has to be made. I welcome the talks at Lancaster House last week and I look forward to further substantive talks in Belfast later this week. This is an historic opportunity. I have made that clear to the Taoiseach. I think that he shares that view. He was generous enough to do so in a joint message just a few days ago. It would not be helpful for anyone to say a great deal about the talks while they continue, not least because the participants have agreed on the vital importance of confidentiality. But the talks have gone further than many imagined. The position is more hopeful than it has been for many years. We must all hope that the talks can make further progress.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: In the light of the harrowing plight of the children of Sarajevo, is there any immediate prospect of medical assistance being sent or provided to help with the terrible suffering which is occurring there?
    The Prime Minister: Some progress has beeen made this morning. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a team of eight doctors and nurses from the South Manchester accident and rescue team is assembling its emergency supplies. Subject to the necessary clearance from the United Nations, which we expect to receive shortly, the team will fly out to Zagreb later today or

    969
    tomorrow. It will link up with the United Nations and United Kingdom medical teams already in the area. l t will be there both to offer immediate medical assistance as required and to report back to me with an on-the-spot assessment of the best way in which we can help those tragic children.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister's previous statements, can he deny that unemployment will be at or through 3 million by Christmas?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no Minister of any Government has made projections of unemployment. I do not intend to start. We shall have some more figures later this week. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own assessment.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the former leader of the Labour party that
    "inflation is the father and mother of unemployment"?
    Does he agree that inflation is a social as well as economic evil that has dogged this country for a generation? Does he accept that he has wide support in the country in his determination to seize the opportunity that we have now to defeat inflation decisively?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I well recall the quotation that he uses. We have the headline rate of inflation down to 3·9 per cent. and the underlying rate of inflation effectively down to 4·8 per cent. Both are falling. That is very welcome news indeed.
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cummings: Is the Prime Minister aware that tens of thousands of chronically sick and disabled people are awaiting the determination of their application for disability living allowance? Is he further aware that, following a period of 10 months, the family of a late constituent of mine received a determination two days after the lady died? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about that disgraceful state of affairs?
    The Prime Minister: We seek to process such applications as speedily as possible. The Benefits Agency is examining the difficulty and putting in staff to address it as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pride in the north-east of England that Britain is shortly to become once again a net exporter of cars? Is not that a tribute to both the motor industry in general, which has restructured in the past few years, and to the Government's success in attracting inward investment to Britain?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the attraction of inward investment is very important. Among other things, it relies on very low inflation and stable economic policies which do not change and are well understood. There is no doubt that the British car industry has made excellent progress in improving competitiveness and significantly reducing the balance of payments deficit on trade in the automotive industry. In welcoming that, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of inward investment, most notably, in that instance, in the motor car industry from Japan.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Prime Minister aware that his notion of the freedom to choose is an empty gesture to millions of people in this country? When they have paid their electric, water and gas bills, they find that they have nothing left for the simple pleasures of life. When will he do something to help those people, instead of helping the better off whom his Government have always helped?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that that is the invariable view of people who would call themselves better off. Of course we are concerned to help people who find themselves in such difficulties, and our policies have done so consistently during the past 12 years. What the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not like is choice itself. That is why they did not want to sell council houses, why they did not want people to choose what schools they have, and why they do not like choice in health. The truth is that when people choose, they choose conservatism and not socialism.
    Madam Speaker: I should be obliged if those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly or resume their seats, as we have a statement.

British Rail (Privatisation)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, which are set out in a White Paper published today.
Under Conservative Governments, there have been many examples of the benefits which privatisation has brought to former nationalised industries. It has taken different forms in different industries, but common objectives have been the harnessing of the management flair and enterprise of the private sector, the application of the disciplines and incentives of the marketplace, the opportunities for private finance and for greater competition and choice which privatisation brings, all to provide better services for the public.
The Government believe that it is now time to extend those benefits to the railways. British Rail is dependent on substantial subsidy from Government and makes large losses so it is not possible to sell all of BR, either as a single entity, or as separate businesses. But our objectives, of improved efficiency, of new incentives for operators to provide the services which the customer wants, and of new opportunities for the railways can all be achieved in other ways than a single outright sale, and that is the purpose of our proposals. Altogether, they comprise the most radical changes to Britain's railways since 1948, but our flexible and practical approach to change will ensure that they are workable and realistic.
First, our proposals provide a variety of opportunities for the private sector. For passenger services, the Government have decided that the most effective way is through franchising, enabling private sector companies to bid for the management and operation of passenger services, in return for grants where necessary. Franchisees will be required to meet specific standards of service, which will be set out in their contracts.
Franchising will be carried out progressively and flexibly. The Government intend that in due course all BR's existing passenger services should be franchised to private operators. The establishment of local or regionally based franchises will help to revive local pride and identity.
Secondly, BR's existing freight and parcels business will be sold to the private sector. Thirdly, we will additionally provide a new right of access to the rail network for private operators of both freight and passenger services. We want as much freight as possible to be carried by rail rather than road; these new opportunities should help to bring this about.
Fourthly, to facilitate those new arrangements there will be a new structure for the railways. BR will be divided into two separate parts. One will become a track authority—Railtrack—with responsibility for all track and infrastructure. The other will become a residual operating company responsible for operating the passenger services which are not yet franchised. When franchising is complete, BR's sole function will be as Railtrack.
Fifthly, we will set up two separate independent authorities responsible to Government: one, a new franchising authority responsible for negotiating, awarding and monitoring franchises; and the other, a new rail regulator to oversee the application of arrangements for
972
track access and charging, to promote competition, prevent abuse of monopoly power and promote the interests of customers.
Sixthly, we will provide opportunities for the private sector to purchase or lease stations, which will bring benefits to passengers, operators as well as to others. Finally, we will substantially alter and improve grant arrangements. At present, a single grant is paid to BR to provide supported passenger services. Under the new franchising regime, by contrast, grants will be made for individual services or groups of services. This will be more transparent and will enable the taxpayer to know precisely what services his grant is buying.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement the proposals later in the year. In the longer term, the Government would like to see the private sector owning as much as possible of the railway. We therefore propose to take powers in the legislation to allow the future privatisation of all BR's track and operations.
There are a number of other vital points I should stress. In developing the proposals, safety has been of paramount concern. The Government are committed to ensuring that their proposals will not lead to any weakening of the high standards of safety on our railways. Operators will have to meet strict safety requirements overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. I have been advised in the framing of the proposals by the Health and Safety Commission, and it will be making detailed recommendations for the appropriate safety arrangements.
We fully recognise the importance of regional and commuter services to the people who depend on them. The Government have throughout made it clear that we are committed to continuing support for socially necessary passenger services. The statutory procedures for any closure proposals will be retained.
British Rail has made significant improvements in recent years. Investment in the railways has greatly increased. The productivity of the British Rail work force is among the highest of any European railways. I pay tribute to the considerable efforts of everyone in British Rail in bringing that about. Private sector involvement will help develop the quality and quantity of rail services even further. There will now be new opportunities for those who work in the railways and I want to ensure that they are able to benefit from them. The existing work force will be able to transfer to new companies when they are established, and there will be opportunities for employees to take a stake in their industry when they are in the private sector. Management-employee bids for franchises will be encouraged and assistance will be given to staff seeking to make such bids. Pension rights and entitlements to concessionary travel for present employees will be safeguarded.
The detailed proposals I am now putting forward are based on our election manifesto commitments. I look forward to working with the chairman of British Rail, with whom I have agreed new objectives for him to implement; and all those in the industry to bring about the changes I have outlined. Our aim is simple: to improve the quality of railway services for the travelling public and the freight customer. Improved quality of service will make the railways more attractive, improve their competitiveness, and enable them to take full advantage of the new opportunities open to them. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. John Prescott: This White Paper has been subjected to more delays and cancellations than the average commuter train on the Government's rail services. After 10 years of ideological rhetoric from numerous Secretaries of State for Transport, we have a White Paper that reflects a clash of reality with rhetoric. Its 20 pages are concerned more with presentation than with substance.
It appears that we can be thankful that the White Paper rejects past solutions and that there is to be no wholesale sell-off of British Rail, no regional break-up and no sell-off of the passenger sectors. But unfortunately, there is no recognition of the way in which a modern railway system can meet the transport needs of an economy which is increasingly plagued with mounting congestion and environmental costs.
The White Paper is no passengers charter, judged even by the Government's limited standards. It is more a cherry-pickers charter—ripe for exploitation by property speculators, by route operators bribed by public subsidies and, inevitably, by Tories' City friends growing fat on commissions and fees—[Interruption.]—resulting from the disposal of public assets. That has been the real record of the privatisation of every public utility under the Conservatives—higher prices and higher profits, all paid for through higher prices paid by the consumer.
The White Paper is irrelevant to the requirements of the railways for financial support, an adequate infrastructure and rolling stock investment, as evidenced by the excellent publicly owned railway systems in Europe. They have shown not only that sufficient financial resources are needed but that investment can produce a modern railway system, even when owned by the state. It is equally irrelevant to the needs of the economy, with millions of people unemployed, the nation diving into deeper recession, a collapsing infrastructure and a declining investment base.
The White Paper takes Britain in the opposite direction to that of our European partners, which in the last 10 years have invested billions of pounds in their railways' rolling stock and infrastructure, allowing for sufficient financial support, while we, over the same period, have reduced support by billions of pounds, providing a more costly railway system of lesser quality. That is the reality of 10 to 13 years of Tory railways policy.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the recent Economist intelligence unit report, which made a comparison between British Rail and railway systems in Europe. It revealed the levels of efficiency and productivity and placed British Rail among the top three in Europe. Everyone should acknowledge the contribution made by the workers and management to achieve that position.
That report showed that quality and reliability of service had been achieved through the resources provided by other European countries for investment in their railway systems. It also pointed out that the sums available for the railways from the private sector, by way of private loans or leasing, made an important contribution to the quality of their railway services.
Will the Secretary of State say, as he is considering a leasing arrangement for private operators, whether British Rail will be allowed to lease its trains, as is the case in most European railway systems? Is he aware that, if he does not
974
allow that to happen, it will be felt that there is an ideological prejudice against British Rail, and that that will prevent our system from being improved?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that bus deregulation and privatisation, on which much of the White Paper is modelled, has led to a reduction in the number of passengers travelling by bus, to a lowering of services, to older vehicles being in service because of a failure to invest, to the need for heavier subsidies and to increased fares? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman intends for our railway system? Does he think that that is the way forward to create a modern railway system for Britain? Is it not a fact that a reduction in standards has resulted from most privatisation exercises?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the evidence of conflict between a business-led railway and the high safety standards necessary for passengers, a point emphasised by safety inspectors in their conclusions following inquiries into terrible railway tragedies that have occurred in this country, connected directly to a lack of resources in the railway system?
Will he now accept that the new Health and Safety Executive authority, about which he talks in the White Paper, should become totally independent of the Department of Transport? Will he assure the House that he intends to make it totally independent rather than answerable in the last resort to his Department, as it is now?
What will be the total cost to the taxpayer of the extra personnel and bureaucracy in the various authorities that he is to establish to discipline the market? Will the estimated £10 billion that could be raised from the sale of British Rail stations be made available to British Rail to invest in its track, rather than simply go to the Treasury, as has happened in previous privatisations? What are the Government's estimates of the investment needed in the infrastructure in the next five years? Does he accept British Rail's chairman's statement that he still needs, even under those plans, at least £1 billion from the Government each year for the next 10 years?
The White Paper will not increase our railway services, but will cut the rail network. It will not modernise the railways but will privatise bits of it. It will not produce new trains but will mean new paint on old trains. It will not integrate our rail and other transport systems but will disintegrate them through competition and selling off profitable parts. Furthermore, it will not help to reduce the massive congestion and environmental damage that a modern railway system in a modern economy can contribute to reducing.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall take as many of those points, one by one, as possible.
Since the election, there have been no delays in bringing forward the White Paper. We made our position clear during the election and the proposals are based on our manifesto. It is nonsense to say that the White Paper is presentation rather than substance. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) well knows that it contains a great deal of detail, but I am the first to acknowledge that, in working through some of the proposals, it is clear that much more work remains to be done. Naturally, we must have a Bill, which will take a considerable time to pass through both Houses, and it will

975
be possible to go into much more detail then. The White Paper has the full support of the Cabinet, and the entire Cabinet is fully behind the proposals.
May I deal with one of the hon. Gentleman's critical points and return to his rhetoric at the end? He put much emphasis on finance, and I agree that levels of efficiency and productivity in BR have greatly improved thanks to many of the steps that we have taken, as well as those that the BR management board and employees have taken. I have accepted that, and have already said so. However, as most passengers and potential freight operators would acknowledge, that does not mean that there is not scope for much more improvement, which is what our proposals are designed to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake by putting the entire focus on expenditure. He said that, if only we would spend more, everything would be all right. Substantial investment is and has been going into British Rail. There is now a record level of capital investment of more than £1 billion, which is the highest in real terms since 1962, when the network was much more extensive. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. We spent more than £1 billion last year, too. The answer to one of his last points is that, as he knows, we operate only within the confines of the public expenditure White Paper, but it is clear that the current White Paper contains considerably more investment.
It is not only additional money that matters but how that money is used to ensure more effective value for money and better services that are more oriented towards the customer. That is what our proposals are designed to do. The hon. Gentleman implies that the Labour party would have spent much more on British Rail, whereas we know perfectly well from comments by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the hon. Gentleman would not be permitted to spend more from public resources on British Rail. The hon. Gentleman pretends that he would spend more and criticises us for not spending more, when he would not spend more.
The hon. Gentleman tries to get out of that by saying that private sector finance can be additional. But there too, as I have tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and as I have no doubt his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East will point out to him, he runs into a trap. It is perfectly reasonable to have a lease from the private sector if that leasing company is private-sector financed, but if it is public-sector money in the leasing company, or in any borrowing, it is public-sector money borrowed from the private sector that is effectively at risk. That has to be included within the overall public sector expenditure total. At the end of the day, there is a Government guarantee that that money will be repaid. Sometimes the debt is written off, so there is a real cost to the public purse; and there are also high financing charges.
The hon. Gentleman gave France as an example. At present, SNCF has a debt of about £9 billion after a recent debt write-off of £3·8 billion—
Mr. Bob Cryer: So what?
Mr. MacGregor: "So what," the hon. Gentleman says. That is a direct cost to the taxpayer. That compares with a debt for British Rail of about £2 billion.
Mr. Prescott: That is nonsense.
Mr. MacGregor: It is not nonsense. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand. He would happily remove all controls over public sector finance and let it rip. No wonder the electorate rejected him at the election.
Another factor is the annual interest payments for financing that ever-increasing debt. As a percentage of turnover, the annual interest payment in SNCF is 20 per cent.; for British Rail, it is just over 2 per cent. Somebody is paying the high cost of that high borrowing by SNCF.
If the hon. Gentleman is looking to some of those other financing arrangements as a way out, he is barking up the wrong tree. That is why our proposals will put genuine private finance into the operation, genuinely done.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the conflict between safety and privatisation. I see no conflict because we shall insist on strict safety standards, just as we did on the privatisation of British Airways. There is no reason why such safety standards cannot operate equally on the rails.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the extra cost of the authorities. I can assure him that I intend to keep them as slim as possible. I do not yet have a figure forthe cost, but we shall be developing that during the months ahead.
The hon. Gentleman talked about British Rail stations, and quoted a figure of £10 billion. In terms of the likely return of proceeds in the comparatively near to medium-term future, that figure is way over the top. We must be realistic about the level of proceeds from the sale or leasing of stations, and I do not think that it will be anything on that scale. Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the infrastructure over the next five years, and I have already dealt with that.
The old rhetoric comes not from the Conservative but from the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman no doubt said the same in 1979 about what privatisation would achieve in the 46 major state industries which have been privatised. We all know what a success those have been and how they are copied by many countries, and I believe that other member states in the Community will be looking with great interest at what we are now proposing for British Rail.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Front-Bench spokesmen have taken almost 25 minutes in their exchange, and Back Benchers have so far had no opportunity to intervene. I ask them to give me support and ask one or two brief questions, and I ask the Secretary of State to reply briefly. This is a Back-Bench occasion, and I want as many Back Benchers as possible to intervene.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, representing as I do a constituency which has the worst commuter line in western Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—the Uckfield line—as his proposals could attract new financial capital for investment which has been much neglected by British Rail. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, when bidding for such a franchise, the line will not be fleeced by British Rail?
Mr. MacGregor: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The rail regulator is designed to ensure fair access to the track and fair competition between those who operate on it. I hope that we will attract more private finance, but that will partly depend on the terms and

977
conditions of franchises. I intend to be extremely flexible in that regard. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that not only private sector finance but different management and skills, added to that which is already in British Rail, will provide a strongly customer-oriented service.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the money raised from franchising will go back into the railways? Will he think again about the long-term objective of allowing the track to pass into the private sector, and instead regard it as an asset that the new freight and passenger operators can use in competition with their road rivals?
Mr. MacGregor: It is not an objective of privatisation that it will yield large proceeds for the Treasury—nor is that expected. That is not its purpose. I indicated that substantial publicly financed capital investment of about £1 billion is currently being undertaken by British Rail. British Rail's external financing limit this year is some £2,000 million. I am not sure that British Rail would get a particularly good deal from the kind of approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests. As to the track authority's longer-term situation, I expect that it will be some considerable time before matters develop to the point at which they should be considered. It is, however, right to include all the possibilities in the legislation.
Mr. Paul Channon: I also warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on a step which I am sure will have all the advantages that he set out in his statement, and which will he widely welcomed. Will there still be control over fare increases on Network SouthEast, and will he undertake that there will be no extra delays in the provision of rolling stock on lines even worse than that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—such as that linking London, Tilbury and Southend?
Mr. MacGregor: One franchise condition will be controls over the maximum level of fares, because clearly there will be continuing public subsidy of any particular franchise in Network SouthEast. It is not possible to answer my right hon. Friend's second question in relation to an individual line, because much will depend on the private sector operators who come forward and the offers that they make in respect of particular franchises. However, it is certainly the intention to get a lot more private sector finance into the system.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State explain to my constituents—who saw what happened with British Rail Engineering Ltd.—the advantages to them of selling off the assets of a system that is already under-capitalised? They know that for them it will mean loss of income, jobs, and pension benefits, and a much worse system for the customer.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made a brief mention of pension benefits, which are also spelled out in the White Paper. There will be no loss of pension benefits, as the hon. Lady suggests. In the sale or long leasing of stations, there is considerable potential for better commercial exploitation, which is another good reason for the proposals that we have made. I do not share the hon. Lady's view that a single, monolithic nationalised industry can provide better services than one that embodies all the impetus and
978
management skills of the private sector, competition, and choice. I could quote so many privatisations in which there has been a reduction in real terms in charges—
Mrs. Dunwoody: And in jobs.
Mr. MacGregor: There has of course been some slimming down, because some of the former nationalised industries were extremely inefficient. That is not a good way of making use of the nation's scarce economic resources. Those privatisations also resulted in better services to the customer.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Can my right hon. Friend give a reassurance about the protection of small stations—particularly those along major lines—and that one will continue to be able to purchase tickets for the network from any one station?
Mr. MacGregor: If there are to be any station closure proposals, the procedures will be exactly those followed until now. We hope to improve their administration, but the principle will remain entirely the same. In the past 10 years or so, there have been many fewer station closures than there have been reopenings or the provision of new stations. The White Paper contains a paragraph on through ticketing. We acknowledge its benefits, and we will ensure that it is maintained.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question about paragraph 85 of the White Paper? By what means will the Government
"encourage employees to take a direct stake in the future of the franchised or privatised businesses in which they will work"?
Will the issue be discussed with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers at an early stage?
Mr. MacGregor: I very much hope that it will be possible to make arrangements to ensure that employees have a direct stake. That has happened in other privatised industries when there have been bids for franchises and private-sector companies have been involved, or there have been buy-outs. We shall develop such arrangements over the months ahead. I wrote to the general secretary of the union today offering talks, which I hope will take place in September.
Sir David Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his progress in fulfilling our election manifesto commitment. How does he propose to ensure the continuation of a national timetable throughout the system?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That will be a matter fundamentally for Railtrack, but discussions will take place about the timetable with the franchise operators and, of course, the regulator. When difficulties or disputes arise over the timetable, or over access to train paths generally, it will be for the regulator to resolve them.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Bearing in mind the example of Tiger Rail—a private company operating on British Rail which has gone bankrupt—how will the Government ensure that, when the franchisees go into liquidation and finish up bust, services for both passengers and goods will continue? Is not the position summed up by the action of the Industrial Bank of Scotland, which

979
refused to provide leasing money for the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme, saying that it was too dangerous with privatisation around the corner?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman has interpreted that last development very strangely and inaccurately.
Mr. Cryer: I know about it.
Mr. MacGregor: I know quite a lot about it, too.
Let me deal with freight and passengers separately. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of freight services have been withdrawn in recent years, and I am keen for them to be built up again. I am anxious for more private sector operators to come onto the track as freight operators, either in respect of groups of service or in respect of particular services for their own companies. It will be for them to develop those services.
As for passenger services, where there is a franchising operation, the franchising authority will be responsible first for establishing the financial status of any bidders, and then for monitoring it throughout. If—this is entirely hypothetical, but I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's point—a franchisee runs into problems for any reason, he will be able to return to the franchising authority to discuss the terms and conditions of the contract. In the unlikely event of a failure on the part of the franchisee, it will be for the franchising authority to find alternative operators for the franchise.
Mr. Neville Trotter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his aim of improving the railways so that they are used more. He will know of my involvement with the British Transport Police Federation. He rightly referred to the need to ensure safety standards; does he envisage a continuing role for that nationwide force, which specialises in dealing with the problems of policing people in the operating environment of a railway, especially at times when terrorist threats are being made?
Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, and I am grateful to him for raising it: he has enabled me to pay tribute to the work of the British Transport police. In the White Paper, we have made it clear that the Government have no plans to end the arrangement whereby the British Transport police are responsible for security and the enforcement of law and order on the railways. We have also said that we shall consult interested parties about appropriate future arrangements. I think that the talks are scheduled for September.
Mr. David Marshall: Exactly which parts of British Rail does the Secretary of State not intend to privatise? Does he agree that it is a disgrace that ScotRail is not mentioned once in the White Paper? What will happen to it, and, especially, to the highland and rural areas in Scotland? Will the Government make available additional resources for the running of those essential services, or will the railway system end at Edinburgh and Glasgow?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will find that an awful lot of areas of the country that have rail services are not identified. That is because there is no need to do so on this occasion. However, there is a clear reference to
980
continuing subsidies for socially necessary lines. The current level of subsidy to regional railways is clearly spelt out. It is about £645 million—a very high figure. The hon. Gentleman's point is covered by the proposals we have put forward in the White Paper.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I understand that my right hon. Friend is to leave to the British Railways Board the individual decisions about allocation of capital, but unless the British Railways Board does commit more capital to the modernisation of the commuter lines that run through Sussex, it will be very difficult indeed to attract franchisees to this very good area, simply because the underlying conditions—the infrastructure—will not be
good enough for franchisees to commit themselves to running an efficient and punctual service.
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend will agree with me that there have to be limits to the level of public expenditure in any year. I am sure that he also wishes us to have the right order of priorities. In 1991–92, the grant to Network SouthEast amounted to £345 million, so a very substantial subsidy is going into that network. A large part of it has in the end to be directed to investment. Considerable investment is being made in rolling stock at present.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State able to clarify whether franchising can take place on a piecemeal basis for InterCity? Can he give an assurance that the socially necessary passenger services to which he referred will be safeguarded by way of finance if franchising takes place piecemeal in certain areas? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the InterCity services in Wales between north Wales and London, south Wales and London, and north Wales and Cardiff can be guaranteed under this set-up?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give guarantees for all time, but I have said that British Rail has been looking at individual services and changing the arrangements between InterCity and the feeder lines. I would not wish to give a guarantee for all time, but we have said very clearly that we expect the national network broadly to be maintained. It is not our intention to franchise InterCity services as a whole. We intend to seek franchises for individual parts of it, the exact arrangements for which will depend on the responses we get from potential bidders.
Mr. Matthew Banks: While I welcome this gradual approach to introducing private sector competition, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, with the creation of the safety executive, private sector operators, as well as British Rail, will be subject to the most stringent safety criteria in order to protect the interests of the travelling public?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed. I have already said that the Health and Safety Commission has approved proposals that we have made today from the safety point of view. I have asked the commission to make detailed recommendations for the arrangements that we shall be making in due course. It is absolutely crucial, in the interests of passengers and in the interests, if one is a franchisee, of ensuring that one attracts passengers, that, just as with individual airlines, the highest standards of safety are provided—not only for the reasons that we all understand but also from a commercial point of view. It

981
will certainly he crucial that Railtrack operates to the highest safety standards. All those who are providing the track and operating on the railway will have to conform to the stringent standards that will he put forward as a result of the advice that we receive.
Mr. Keith Hill: Can the Secretary of State name a single London commuter service that is likely to be affected by his franchising proposals over the next four years? Can he identify any direct benefits at all as a result of his plans for the London railway network, the busiest in the world? Is not this White Paper a monumental irrelevance for the hard-pressed London commuter?
Mr. MacGregor: No, it certainly is not. Every London commuter believes that the service can be improved, so the White Paper is certainly not a monumental irrelevance. I do not want to specify particular lines today, because it will not be possible to start the arrangements for making franchise contracts until the franchising authority is set up, and the franchising authority cannot be set up until we have received parliamentary approval to do so. There is a good deal of time for potential bidders to develop an interest in individual franchises. From approaches that have already been made, we know that a considerable number of companies are interested in taking up the possibilities.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: In view of the relatively poor level of public satisfaction with the railways in the past 40 years, does my right hon. Friend agree that, provided of course that there is proper regulation of safety and timetabling, a better future for the railways lies in the injection of additional and alternative management, new ideas and, hopefully, new finance?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him. One of the parallels in transport is British Airways. Its prospects have been transformed in financing, in the way it has expanded its services and in its competitiveness since it was privatised.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Paragraph 36 of the White Paper refers to the east coast main line. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the definition of the east coast main line as being Aberdeen-London and London-Aberdeen? Does the White Paper bring the electrification of the Edinburgh-Aberdeen line nearer or push it further away?
Mr. MacGregor: It does not make a difference, because the arguments for the electrification of particular lines and the priorities will depend on the financial and cost-benefit analyses, which would be undertaken anyway. I hope that some franchisees of a particular line may wish to contribute to the track infrastructure investment but, at this stage, it would not be possible to say where, and the franchisees must make their own financial appraisal.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reference in paragraph 36 to the east coast main line is an example of the way in which we believe the franchising of InterCity services will take place. We are not giving specific definitions today, for the simple reason that it is important to discover what the potential franchisees want to bid for, and there will have to be a process of negotiation and discussion between them.
Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend rightly enjoys good will throughout the House, and we
982
hope that his intentions are justified and will produce a better railway service. Will he bear it in mind the fact that 16,000 trains are run daily by British Rail, that for most of the passengers they are an essential part of daily life and that a few more Sock Shops on platforms and a few gaudy carriages will be no substitute for an essential service? Is there any set timetable in his proposals under which British Rail is being forced to dispose of its assets? Finally, will he also bear in mind that perhaps the last and most significant statement made in his place by a Conservative Minister was by Mr. Marples, and it spawned Dr. Beeching?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind words in his opening comments. Let me reassure him that we are talking of operations which range a good deal more widely than Sock Shops on platforms and gaudy carriages. I am sure that he will agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the private sector operations or British Rail itself seeking to market their services better and to find more attractions for their customers.
The timetable is flexible. I have made it clear that I want to pursue a flexible, workable and realistic approach, but I can say that, once the Bill has Royal Assent, we intend to proceed as quickly as possible with the freight and parcels businesses. I expect and hope that such arrangements will be made next year. As for franchises, we need first to set up the franchising authority and then to get the response from the marketplace and, I believe, management-employee bids from British Rail. Effectively, that will mean that we shall be thinking in terms of franchises from about April 1994 onwards.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that he said a little earlier that pensions and concessionary fares would be safeguarded? Does he further recall that, when we considered the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, he said that he would not write such safeguards into legislation? Unless he includes provisions governing pensions and concessionary fares in legislation, there will be no guarantee that, if any of the franchises are sold on later to another bidder, those entitlements will be safeguarded. Will he give a guarantee that pension and other entitlements will be written into the legislation, and that there will be no regional pay?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must await the publication of the Bill. That issue will be discussed when we consider the Bill, but the position is as follows: the pension rights of existing contributors and past employees will be properly safeguarded on the privatisation of British Rail. After privatisation, employees will be entitled to preserve pension rights already accrued in the BR schemes. Alternatively, they will have the opportunity to transfer their accrued pension into a broadly comparable scheme in their new employment.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend spell out how the proposals will help to resolve the long-running saga of the privatisation of British Rail's Isle of Wight line from the end of Ryde pier to Shanklin, as every proposal that we have advanced in the past has run into the old buffers of the British Rail management?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to consider that proposal in detail, but I would think that, under the Government's proposals, the line may well be capable of being franchised

983
and ultimately sold. I repeat that I shall need to look at the details, and stress that, in the end, it will be for the franchising authority to draw up the arrangements for individual franchises.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The Secretary of State will be aware of the extremely poor rail provision on the west coast of Scotland, and especially to the Stranraer port. What assurance can he give us with regard to the future of links between Stranraer and Glasgow, bearing in mind the fact that, last year, 1·8 million people moved between the Stranraer and Lame ports?
Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, we intend that the national network will be broadly maintained. Whether that line will be a candidate for franchising will depend on whether potential bids come forward from franchisees and on whether proper franchising arrangements can be drawn up.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in these matters. Can he confirm that the integration of bus and rail services in remote areas of the United Kingdom, including parts of Scotland, will be a factor that is taken into consideration?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, that may well be part of the arrangements for the franchises. I am well aware of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, and I know that he will agree that there are considerable possibilities for open access for new operators to the British Rail network, in respect of both freight and passengers.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Can the Secretary of State give any guarantees on the continuity of standards and security of employment for railway staff under the new fragmented franchise set-up? Can he say something about the future of passenger transport executives in local authorities in operating local rail services under the proposals?
Mr. MacGregor: PTEs will remain, and there will be the opportunity to franchise the services to which their subsidies at present apply. I should not wish to say that that will be within precisely the same boundaries as those within which passenger transport authorities currently provide grant. In some cases, there may be groups of passenger transport authorities, for the simple reason that a franchise arrangement may look rather different from the present arrangements. We would expect PTAs to make their subsidy contributions if they wish to do so in the same way as the Government will be making theirs, and we have already had discussions with them.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many commuters in my constituency who use the Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street lines every day, who view with great anticipation the possibility of the trains running as frequently and being as cheap and as clean as many buses in our area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven of those bus companies have already expressed interest in taking over the Fenchurch Street line because they think that they can make a big success of it? Will he assure my constituency commuters that he will seriously consider
984
selling off the line lock, stock and barrel, possibly to the many commuters who have expressed an interest in buying shares in it?
Mr. MacGregor: I am very interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the possible prospects for franchise bids. We certainly look forward to making more of the details about franchising arrangements available over the months ahead as we complete our work on them. I am sure that the people to whom my hon. Friend referred will want to consider those arrangements, and they will then have to discuss them with the franchising authority when we have the appropriate parliamentary consent to go ahead.
With regard to sale, I must state that our first objective is to get the franchises set up. I have already made it clear—and the Bill will make it clear—that outright sale could be a prospect in due course.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is already intense pride in the railways in my constituency of York and in many other constituencies? We do not need to break the railways up into regional fragments to install that pride. Given that the bus-building industry virtually collapsed after bus deregulation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give to the 1,700 men who build railway trains in my constituency that their jobs are secure? What job guarantees can he give to the 3,000 people working at British Rail's eastern region headquarters in York?
Specifically, as 25 men who worked at the BREL works in York in the 1950s and 1960s have died from asbestos-related diseases, and sadly, it is likely that more will die, and given that BR has continued to maintain responsibility for compensating the families of the men who died, even though——
Madam Speaker: Order. We must have questions. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier when I said that I wanted direct questions to the Secretary of State so that I might call a number of Back Benchers.
Mr. Bayley: Who will pay compensation in future in such cases? Will it be the track authority or the residual BR operating authority?
Mr. MacGregor: I would obviously want to look into the latter point. I imagine that, for some time to come, it will be the BR board. However, that is a very precise detailed point that I would like to look into. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's request for guarantees for jobs, it simply is not possible for me to guarantee for many years ahead the jobs of people in a manufacturing industry: the hon. Gentleman will be aware of that. The best guarantee is that we continue to expand the railways; that we have a significant level of capital investment, such as we have now; and that, through that operation and through successful completion of the capital investment programme, we attract more customers.
Mr. Peter Fry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing a balance between reassuring the public on safety grounds by creating the track authority and on introducing competition by what one can call gradual privatisation. The remarks about possible management and employee buy-outs were encouraging. Will my right hon. Friend go a little further

985
and give them a little more encouragement by saying that they will receive treatment similar to that which is likely to be offered to employees in municipalised bus companies, which are also contemplating privatisation?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I share his desire that we should encourage management-employee buy-outs. The precise arrangements by which we should do that have still to be completed, but I have noted my hon. Friend's interest. The White Paper fills out a considerable number of the details and all the broad approaches that we will be taking to privatisation and to the Bill itself. However, there is still quite a lot of work to be done on many details between now and Royal Assent.
Mr. Peter Snape: Having rightly paid tribute to the contribution of railway workers in the United Kingdom, does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals in the White Paper directly contradict the recent reorganisation of BR, conducted at a cost to public funds of at least £150 million? Does he accept that that damages the morale of those who work in the railway industry? Will the new private owners of railway stations, big or small, be allowed to propose the closure of those stations and the disposal of the assets once they accrue to them?
When will the Government acknowledge the inherent unfairness of the investment criteria that are applied to our railway system compared with our road network? Will the newly privatised lines or services be expected to deliver an 8 per cent. return on investment, unlike the proposed toll roads that he has proposed for the west midlands?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first question, of course I recognise the benefits that have come from the reorganisation British Rail is not alone in facing the fact
986
that further changes take place in organisations after 10 years of reorganisation. I strongly believe that there are additional benefits to come from these proposals. It will, of course, mean a further process of change for British Rail—I recognise that, and the chairman of British Rail recognises that. I have been very keen to ensure that the transition and the changes are managed properly. That change should take place is a feature of life at present. I have said that I believe that, in terms of morale, there are big opportunities for British Rail staff.
On the closure of stations, it will be a condition of any sale or long lease that the operation of the track and the station aspect will be secured.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about investment, as he will see from the White Paper when he gets a chance to read it, there are quite a number of references to investment in the track. Time forbids me to mention them all, but the view is sometimes around that there is unfair treatment between the level of capital investment in the road programme and on rail. In fact, the level of capital investment in the trunk road network and in motorways this year is about £2 billion. British Rail's extra financing limit is £2 billion.
Mr. Prescott: What about the different criteria?
Mr. MacGregor: The criteria have been referred to. No doubt we will be able to examine that matter in more detail later.
There is also the suggestion that, somehow or other, the playing field is not level, because those who operate on the road pay much less towards the infrastructure than those on rail. The contribution from fuel duty and other vehicle taxes is about two and a half times the annual programme of expenditure on the road construction programme.

Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry
4.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific, important and, above all, urgent matter.
For 900 years, a ferry has plied between Tilbury in Essex and Gravesend in Kent. For many years, it was run by British Rail before the ferry was privatised. At 9 am tomorrow, that ferry will cease. It will stop not because of under-use but because of the precipitate and unreasonable instruction of the Crown Estate Commissioners who control the ancient rights of ferry. That decision by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who are unelected, unaccountable and highly favoured establishment figures, jeopardises that ancient ferry and puts at a substantial disadvantage the good people of Essex and of Kent, and it raises a number of urgent issues.
The Minister has been aware for some days that the ferry is in jeopardy, but he has declined to take any action in safeguarding that public service. That is reprehensible and an example of double standards. The ferry is used daily by 300-odd passengers, and it is important to workers, industry and commerce and shops at Gravesend. They now face serious disadvantage, because the alternative will be a 45-minute trip by road instead of a five-minute trip by ferry.
The Minister should reconsider his action and use the remaining hours until 9 o'clock, perhaps with the support of the House, to intervene and use his good offices to persuade the feudal barons who run the Crown Estate to think again.
If British Airways were to decide, or was instructed, to halt the shuttle between London and Belfast or Edinburgh, there would be an almighty row in this House, and the Minister would intervene. But because we are dealing here with Essex, and because the passenger-carrying capacity is relatively small, he has shown a marked disinterest in this ferry and in the passengers it carries between Essex and Kent. I believe that that is not abdication by the Crown but abdication by the Minister in the face of the Crown, because the Crown is involved here. I hope that people will decide—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that his time is now up. All the same, I have listened very carefully to what he has said. As he knows, I have to give my decision without giving a reason. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House at this stage.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you can give us any guidance on the protection of the rights of Back Benchers. The lists of Members' names relating to the Division that took place at 12.10 last night will not be published in Hansard until tomorrow, so I refer to sheets from upstairs.
The Division to which I refer relates to the amendment concerning membership of the Health Committee of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). These are Back-Bench Committees, whose purpose is to look into and oversee departmental functions. In the same Division Lobby opposed to the nomination of the hon. Member for Macclesfield were a majority of the Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for Health, the head of the Department that the Health Committee will inquire into. She went into the Division Lobby with the other members of the Cabinet to oppose a certain hon. Member's retention of his membership of the Committee.
Does not this make a mockery of the way in which these Back-Bench Committees are set up? What protection can we have? There is supposed to be a free vote, and the Government deny that there is any whipping, yet it has come to my notice that the Government Chief Whip sent all Ministers, senior and junior, a letter asking them to be present.
Madam Speaker: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to column 830 of the Official Report of yesterday. He raised this point with me, and I gave a ruling, in which I said:
"In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, it is a matter entirely for the House and for every individual Member of the House, whether a Minister, Back Bencher or whatever, to make up his or her mind".—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 830.]
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Wise: On a new point of order.
Madam Speaker: May I just finish?
The way in which hon. Members vote in this House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.
Mrs. Wise: Is not the point that we—and I am sure you, Madam Speaker—want Members to make up their own minds and to be free to do so? Is it not clear that some hon. Members were under a very serious constraint not to make up their own minds but to follow instructions? Is not that an abuse of the House?
Madam Speaker: Having been in this House for some time, I understand that from time to time disciplines are exercised by people called Whips. It is not for the Speaker to know whether a Whip is issued in respect of a certain matter. I would not be aware of that. It is not the business of the Speaker.
Dr. John Reid: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Does not a contradiction arise here? As has been made absolutely plain, the Select Committees were established to oversee the Government,

989
and they were to be constituted in such a way that the Whips' Office would have no power or control over them. In this regard, I quote——
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply continuing last night's debate and points of order with which I have already dealt. The House should accept the rulings that I have given. I cannot allow continuation of a debate that took place when I was in the Chair. I have heard it all before.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Dalyell: It is a variant on the point of order. Should there not be a code of behaviour for senior Ministers, not least the most senior, in voting on the composition of Select Committees? You say that it is not a matter for the Speaker, but it is at least a matter for the code of behaviour of each Member of Parliament. Some of us might think that we have been rebuked for far lesser things than voting on matters in which we have a definite interest.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that point, I am sure that it may well be pursued with the Procedure Committee. He cannot pursue it with the Chair at this stage.

Water Charges
4.35 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable water companies to vary charges in order to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education, and to allow an abated charge for single-person households; to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be income-related benefits; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to redress a considerable and widespread wrong. I seek to assist the most needy in our society to meet payments for a utility which is a basic daily need. It is, in the words of the Roman poet Pinder, "the noblest of elements". I seek to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education with their water bills by amending the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be made through the income-related benefit system. I also seek to enable companies to vary charges to allow an abated charge for single-person households.
Between 1980–81 and 1992–93, water charges in Wales have risen by 80·3 per cent. in real terms. That is a truly astonishing figure. Unfortunately, the trend is ever upward and water charges are evidently becoming more and more of a burden on families each year. The privatisation of the industry was strongly opposed by my party and others in the House. We now see the effects of a policy which created a damaging monopoly in the provision of water and environmental services so utterly important to all of us. We still believe that water should be a public service.
The water companies have made fantastic profits-for example, Welsh Water made a profit of £128 million two years ago and £138 million last year—yet the upward curve in charges continues relentlessly. The sum of £138 million is a fantastic return on a turnover of £293 million. The last increases in charges were twice the level of inflation.
I am mindful of the large burdens which have fallen on the water companies in the form of long-awaited environmental work which should properly have been undertaken and paid for by central Government, but the astonishing fact is that each household now pays £130 per annum directly to Welsh Water's profits. I am sure that the figure compares with those for all water companies. I find that position utterly intolerable and unacceptable. It amounts to taxation without representation.
We all know only too well of many thousands of good, honest people who simply cannot pay their water bills. The principle of fair play appears to be markedly absent. The Government acknowledge the important principle of ability to pay. That principle appears in the law courts daily in connection with the unit fines system.
Indeed, so important is the principle that it has been thrust from above upon magistrates courts as if it were a commandment, and no cogent contrary argument existed. The principle is even enshrined to some extent in the odious community charge and will apply to the council tax when it eventually sees the light of day. I venture to suggest

991
that it is a vital principle and a most welcome one, particularly in the context of a utility and of all-important resources such as water and environmental services.
The report of the Office of Water Services last year referred to the fundamental aims of charging policies. It said that the policies must achieve
"fairness and equity to ensure that customers in similar circumstances pay similar charges; and that, where they face different bills, the differences in charges properly reflect relevant differences in circumstances."
The current position is certainly not fair and equitable. During the past 12 months or so, I have had dozens of complaints from people in my constituency about the high level of water rates and, more importantly, their sheer inability to meet them. The point was forcibly driven home to me recently by a retired lady in Bala, who was in tears as she showed me her water rates bill.
That lady was in debt for the first time in her life. She was a shining example of a person who lived by the possibly outmoded work ethic. She lived in a modest flat, with one bedroom. To my alarm, I found that her water rates were £248 per annum—only a few pounds less than mine. We are a family of four with a larger house, and I have a teenage daughter, who spends a substantial portion of her waking hours in the shower. There can be no justification for that, since it is painfully obvious that the old lady is paying too much in comparison with my situation. I am not seeking a change that would result in remaining consumers having to pay more, but I strongly urge that that lady's plight is answered, and that of the tens of thousands like her.
During the election campaign, that was one of the most prominent issues that I heard on doorsteps. Time and time again, I found that people living alone were paying disproportionately for water and environmental services. I also found that those people most in need in our communities received no help, and were slipping into debt, frequently for the first time in their lives.
When I discussed this Bill with a Conservative Member, I was told that he accepted the position and that it needed redressing, but he went on to say, quite flippantly, "Why stop there? Why not television licence fees, and telephones next?" Some pensioners pay reduced television licence fees, and rightly so, but that misses the point completely. Water is a utility. We could not exist without it. The argument that if the Bill became law it would somehow set a precedent is too facile for words.
Welsh Water is a league leader for disconnections in the United Kingdom. That gives me no pleasure whatsoever. Possibly it does not give it pleasure either. The main issues involved are debts and disconnection. The crisis was highlighted last week when Ofwat met at Aberystwyth and urged upon Welsh Water the need for a reappraisal of the methods of payment, and a more sensitive approach to disconnection. I reiterate that there is a crisis in Wales, and I suggest that the situation is also serious elsewhere.
What is a person whose water has been disconnected to
992
do? As Aristotle put it "When water chokes you, what are you to drink to wash it down?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Wine."] Thanks for the suggestion.
I seek two changes. First, I want a 25 per cent. reduction for single-person households. That would be practicable and straightforward to operate, as the data will be freely available under the new council tax structure, which provides a similar 25 per cent. reduction for such householders.
Secondly, people on low incomes, including the retired, disabled, unemployed and those in full-time education, need direct help. Assistance could be given to those people by introducing a water charges benefit, which would operate as an income-related benefit. Again, the database is readily available and the solution is simple and straightforward. It would require an amendment of the Social Security Act 1986, but I venture to suggest that such an amendment would be easily achieved and simple to introduce and to operate.
Theoretically, income support takes into account the cost of water, but there is evidence that the shortfall of years up to 1991 was not made good. That is the contention of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and I am sure that it is right. Historically, we in Plaid Cymru have always taken an active interest in the provision of water. Some say that it is one of our pet subjects. Pet subject or no, there has never been such an urgent need for reform. That is reflected by the fact that my Bill is sponsored by hon. Members from four parties in the House.
To quote from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux' June report:
"water is a vital service, and immediate action must be taken to ensure that it remains available and affordable to vulnerable members of the community".
If we merely stand by and take no action, we are failing thousands of our constituents. I therefore commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Paul Flynn, Ms. Liz Lynne and Mr. Alex Carlile.

Water Charges
  WATER CHARGES
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented a Bill to enable water companies to vary charges in order to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education, and to allow an abated charge for single-person households; to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be income-related benefits; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
Orders of the Day
  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
    New clause 3

      RESTRICTIONS ON TIME SPENT AT SEA—APPEALS
      'After section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
      "Restrictions on time spent at sea—appeals.
      4AA.—(1) For the purposes of performing the functions conferred by this section there shall be a tribunal to be called the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal.
      (2) If—

      (a) a licence under section 4 of this Act contains a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea, and

      (b) no licence containing such a condition has previously been granted in respect of that vessel,
      the person to whom the licence is granted may make an application to the tribunal requesting it to review the time which according to the condition the vessel may spend at sea.

      (3) The Ministers shall by regulations make provision as to—

      (a) the manner in which and the time within which applications under subsection (2) above are to be made, and

      (b) the principles on which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at;
      and the quorum and procedure of the tribunal on dealing with an application shall be such as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations made by the Ministers.

      (4) On an application under subsection (2) above the tribunal, consistently with the principles referred to in subsection (3)(b) above, may—

      (a) dismiss the application, or

      (b) determine that the licence should be varied either by increasing or by reducing the time which the vessel may spend at sea.

      (5) If the tribunal makes a determination under subsection (4)(b) above, the Minister who granted the licence shall vary the licence so as to give effect to the determination, and shall make a corresponding variation of any other licence in force in respect of the same vessel.
      (6) The tribunal shall consist of members appointed by the Ministers, and the number of members shall be such as the Ministers may determine.
      (7) The Ministers shall make such provision as they think fit as to—

      (a) the remuneration of the members of the tribunal, and the reimbursement of their expenses, and

      (b) the staff and accommodation of the tribunal; and any expenses reasonably incurred by the tribunal shall be defrayed by the Ministers.

      (8) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Curry.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.45 pm
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 4—Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.
      New clause 2—Licence appeal tribunals—
      '. The following Schedule shall be added after the Schedule to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967—

      RESTRICTIONS ON TIME SPENT AT SEA—APPEALS
        SCHEDULE

          LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNALS
          1. The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint up to five licence appeal tribunals for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
          2.—(1) Each tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two assessors, appointed by the appropriate Minister, and shall be supported by a secretary and such other staff as the Minister may appoint.
          (2) A chairman shall be an advocate, barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing.
          (3) An assessor shall be a person who appears to the appropriate Minister to have practical experience of the catching sector of the fishing industry.
          3.—(1) The Ministers may by regulations make provision for the procedure to be followed in appeals to a licence appeal tribunal.
          (2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision—

          (a) as to the time within which any proceedings before the committee are to be instituted;

          (b) for requiring persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents; and

          (c) as to the manner in which any decision of the tribunal is to be implemented.

          4. With the leave of a tribunal or of the appropriate Minister, an appeal shall lie from any decision of that tribunal—

          (a) in England and Wales, to a Divisional Court;

          (b) in Scotland, to the Outer House of the Court of Session; and

          (c) in Northern Ireland, to a Judge of the High Court.".'.

          Amendment No. 6 in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
          '(6C)(a) The skipper, owner or charterer of a vessel named in a licence may appeal to a licence appeal tribunal on the grounds that a condition imposed under subsection (6)(c), or provision made under subsection (6B) above, is unfair or unduly restrictive, provided that not more than one appeal may be made in respect of any one licence in any period of twelve months.
          (b) Schedule (Licence Appeal Tribunals) shall have effect.'.
          Government amendments Nos. 9 and 11 to 13.
          Mr. Curry: In Committee, I undertook to table a Government amendment to introduce a system of statutory tribunals to hear appeals against allocations of days at sea. The new clause establishes a tribunal, which is to be known as the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. Its purpose will be to consider appeals from fishermen against their initial days at sea allocations. It will not cover licence suspension or revocation.
          Ministers will be empowered to make regulations to specify the time during which applications can be made, the principles on which time at sea allocations will be adjudicated and the procedural arrangements for the tribunal—for example, what will constitute a quorum.
          The tribunal will be empowered to dismiss appeals that are not valid and to increase or reduce allocations. The

          995
          tribunal's decisions will be binding on Ministers, who will be required to amend licences in accordance with its findings.
          Ministers will appoint the members of the tribunal and make provision for their remuneration and for the reimbursement of expenses. They will also provide staff and accommodation for the tribunal and reimburse expenses.
          Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is typical of the haste with which the Bill has been pushed forward that we should be considering a complicated new clause such as this. If the Minister is making provision for the pay of tribunal members, why is he not making provision for compensation for the fishermen who will have to give up fishing to appear before the tribunals, and will waste considerable time at them?
          Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman had spent less time talking and more time listening in Committee, he would know the answer to that question. We intend to take the tribunals to the fishermen. We have made it clear that they will meet in the major fishing ports, and we intend to establish a number of fishery tribunals. There might well be a dozen or even 15 tribunals, and their job will be to listen to the cases put to them by the fishermen. They will be modelled on the dairy quota tribunals, which worked extremely well in the dairy sector. We envisage a three-man tribunal—as happened with the dairy quota tribunals—which should be presided over by someone from the legal profession. There should also be a lay member and someone with expert knowledge of fisheries.
          The tribunals will be placed under the supervision of the Council of Tribunals, and that is provided for in new clause 4, which is consequent on the measure establishing independent statutory tribunals. I have tabled a new clause which fully honours the commitment that I gave in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
          Mr. Paul Channon: I had intended just to intervene rather than to make a speech now, but I shall turn that intervention into one.
          I welcome the new clause. Will my hon. Friend explain what criteria and rules would lead the tribunal to give an extra allocation to someone who applied to it? I know that my hon. Friend will make the regulations, but can he tell me how they will govern how the tribunal works?
          A fisherman in my area might fish for white weed, which was not recorded in the number of days that he spent at sea in 1991. Would the tribunal be asked to take such activity into account before deciding that fisherman's allocation for 1993 and other years?
          My hon. Friend will be aware that, in my part of the Thames estuary, when the stocks of sole are low, many fishermen spend a lot of time fishing for white weed, which is a type of white coral. I am not asking my hon. Friend to say whether my fishermen would win in a tribunal, but whether such activity is the type of thing to which the tribunal would be bound to pay attention before deciding on what the allocation should be to individual fishermen.
          Mr. Curry: The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is yes. If it was clear that those boats were not seeking fish, but seeking a different product, it would be perfectly possible for the tribunal to adjudicate on that.
          996
          Similarly, in other areas, boats may ferry equipment to oil rigs in the North sea or they may take people around a bay. It would be perfectly possible for the tribunal to adjudicate when there is a sharp distinction between fishing and unrelated activities carried out by those boats. However, we intend that that is precisely the type of non-fishing activity that we would take into account when setting the original number of days at sea. We therefore hope that fishermen would not feel obliged to go to a tribunal, because we hope to accommodate such activities at a much earlier stage in the process.
          Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I move new clause 2 now?
          Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly permissible for the hon. Gentleman to speak to that new clause, but we deal with one new clause at a time.
          Dr. Godman: In that case, I shall speak to new clause 2 and offer a couple of comments on new clause 3.
          I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about local tribunals, because, as I specify in new clause 2, that is an important factor.
          Given the type of decisions that will be taken on whether fishermen should continue fishing or be denied the right to go to sea, where they have traditionally sailed, it is important that the appeals tribunals should form an integral part of the legal systems of our countries. That is why I emphasise in new clause 2(1):
          "The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint up to five licence appeal tribunals".
          The Minister proposed between 10 and 15, which goes well
          beyond my suggestion.
          Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman's new clause and mine are similar. We envisage setting up sufficient tribunals to deal with the volume of appeals as expeditiously as possible. There is a legal unbrella for those tribunals—the Council of Tribunals. The most sensible thing to do is to ensure that the licence appeal tribunals fall within the jurisdiction of that supervisory body in the same way as tribunals in other sectors. We have therefore deliberately brought the licence appeal tribunals under that framework, and a separate, consequential new clause has no other purpose but to put those tribunals under the legal umbrella of the Council on Tribunals.
          Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and for what appeared to be a back-handed compliment to new clause 2.
          New clause 4 refers to the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill, which is now going through the House. It makes good sense for the licence tribunal and the appeal tribunals to be covered by that Bill. I am pleased to note what the Minister said about the legal status of the appeal tribunals.
          Paragraph (2)(2) of the schedule in new clause 2 states:
          "A chairman shall he an advocate, barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing".
          I was anxious to ensure that those tribunals follow the
          traditional practice adhered to by social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and others.
          Paragraph (2)(3) states:
          "An assessor shall be a person who appears to the appropriate Minister"—
          that could be the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland or Northern Ireland—
          "to have practical experience of the catching sector of the fishing industry."

          997
          I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the importance of such experience, because the decisions reached by those tribunals will have a profound effect upon the lives not just of the fishermen, but of their families and, in some cases, their communities.
          Paragraph (4) states:
          "With the leave of a tribunal or of the appropriate Minister, an appeal shall lie from any decision of that tribunal … in Scotland, to the Outer House of the Court of Session".
          I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would agree with that. An appeal on a decision taken by a tribunal sitting in Campbelltown or Fraserburgh could finish up in the Outer House of the Court of Session. Perhaps I could be given a judgment on that point later. Similarly, an appeal in Northern Ireland could go before a High Court judge.
          It is absolutely essential for our fishermen to know that, notwithstanding the fact that they will receive a fair hearing before a tribunal—composed of the people that the Minister and I have suggested—they have the ability to make a challenge.
          Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will outline the Scottish circumstances, but in England and Wales a fisherman would have recourse to judicial review. If a fisherman is not satisfied with the outcome of a tribunal, he has further legal recourse. If the tribunal was not a statutory one, the fisherman would appeal to me or other Ministers with responsibility for fisheries. However, because it is a statutory tribunal, legal recourse will be sought through a judicial review of the verdict.
          Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for another helpful intervention.
          It is essential that the tribunal should be located as near as possible to the fishing ports. It appears that a number will be set up in England, and obviously a similar number, or even more, should be set up in Scotland. In view of the size of the Scottish fishing fleet and the way in which it is scattered around the coastline and islands, it is essential to establish tribunals that are as local as possible to the fishing communities, which are often remote.
          5 pm
          Mr. A. J. Beith: I will not lose the opportunity to welcome—it will not happen often this afternoon—a change in the Bill by the Government. We appreciate the Minister moving the new clause in response to a new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) in Committee. Indeed, the Minister said at the time that he found himself in an unusual position and that it was rare for him to be able to invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his proposal because he intended to table a similar provision at a later stage.
          If the tribunals are so busy that there is a queue of fishermen wanting their cases to be heard in 12 or 15 ports, that will be a demonstration of how fiercely the Bill is biting into the livelihood of fishermen. While we need an appeals procedure to deal with grievances, we do not want the measure to operate so harshly that it removes the livelihood of fishermen.
          My hon. Friends and I would rather the Bill was not brought into effect, or was at least subject to later amendment which ensured that it did not come into effect unless the circumstances changed significantly. Frankly, if
          998
          the situation develops in the way that I described, the one line of opportunity for fishermen will be to seek places on the tribunals for people with experience of the fishing industry. That will be about the only way to make an honest penny out of one's experience of the industry. There will not be much other chance of using that knowledge.
          There is even a danger, from the way in which the new clause is drafted and the regulations are likely to be drawn, that the time spent by fishermen attending tribunals could affect their entitlement to days at sea in subsequent years.
          Mr. Elliot Morley: It could have an effect on a fisherman's track record.
          Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right: having to attend a tribunal could have an effect on one's track record.
          The tribunals procedure, necessary and welcome though it is, represents only a tiny alleviation of some of the most unfair consequences of what, in any event, will be disastrous for many people in the fishing industry. We are glad that it is in the Bill, but we would rather it was not needed, or had to be used only rarely.
          Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a bad Bill, which is not made much better by having regional tribunals. I am glad that the Minister has accepted the principle of tribunals and that, even at this late stage, he has introduced the new clause.
          I echo what has been said about the need for tribunals to be localised. In the context of Humberside, where does the Minister envisage the tribunal being established? We have the two major ports of Hull and Grimsby. The overwhelming majority of the fishing fleet is in Grimsby. May we have an undertaking that the tribunal will be there?
          I fear that the Minister is opening a Pandora's box by establishing tribunals. If milk licensing is anything to go by, the tribunal system will be enormously complicated and time-consuming, so we must have an undertaking that the people who compose the tribunals know the fishing industry. We do not want a legalistic framework with a pedantic formula of rules which will dazzle and baffle the fishermen. We need people on the tribunals who are from the fishing industry and who know how it works and about its problems.
          The Minister must also give an undertaking that there will be compensation. The tribunals will not be out on the fishing grounds, which means that fishermen cannot carry on fishing while attending tribunals. Days at sea will be lost appearing before tribunals. The system will not be akin to milk licensing tribunals. The cows are milked while the farmer appears before a tribunal and has his complaint heard. It is not the same with the fishing industry. Fishermen cannot appear before a tribunal and fish at the same time, so there should be compensation for the fishing time lost.
          Mr. Morley: While we welcome the tribunal concept, it is sad that, in the context of the Bill, such tribunals are necessary. Once the measure becomes law, there will be a queue of fishermen wanting to attend tribunals to ascertain their track record and see how the Bill applies to them.
          One of our main objections to the Bill is that it adds yet another tier of bureaucracy and more expense to fisheries management. That money could be used in more

          999
          constructive ways, such as for gear options and support of that type. I hope that the Minister will respond to the sensible points that my hon. Friends have made, which were made by us in Committee and featured in Opposition amendments dealing with the concept of tribunals.
          Dr. Godman: I had intended to refer to the need for tribunals to hear cases quickly. A common complaint that we receive at our surgeries is about constituents waiting for cases to be heard by, for example, medical and social security tribunals. I hope that fishermen will not have to wait an inordinate time before having their cases heard.
          Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, especially as people's livelihoods are being threatened because of a reduced number of days fishing at sea. There will be a tremendous initial rush of people wishing to appear before the tribunals. The Minister said that a sufficient number of tribunals will be available in the ports. We need to be assured just where the tribunals will sit and how the Minister will deal with the initial demand. Will there be enough tribunals or some sort of flexible arrangement to meet the undoubted peak? Unless adequate arrangements are made, fishermen will be waiting a long time for tribunal decisions on matters affecting their livelihood.
          Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the Minister's positive response in recommending the establishment of tribunals. While they will not overcome the apprehensions of the fishing industry about the Bill, they represent a step forward.
          I am reminded of the problems we had when milk quotas were allocated after 1985. There were then separate panels for different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, we had a Northern Ireland panel because quotas were allocated to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the other regions.
          For the fishing industry, it seems that there will be one tribunal, or one set of tribunals, dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not against that in principle, but I trust that there will be consistency in the decisions made by the various tribunals. That will be achieved if only a small number of people are involved, allowing consistency to apply in decision making throughout the United Kingdom. We do not want disparity in such matters.
          Where will the tribunals sit? Most fishing ports in Northern Ireland are remote from the main centres of population. Transport facilities are not good, and the public transport system is not favourable in terms of our fishing ports. So I hope that the tribunals will meet in the fishing ports. I hope that, in terms of Northern Ireland, the tribunal will not meet in Belfast. It should meet in the main fishing port of Northern Ireland, which is Portavogie. I do not want my fishermen to have to spend all day travelling on bad roads to and from Belfast. Will the Minister explain his thoughts on the location of the tribunals when they sit to examine applications?
          Mr. John Home Robertson: The fishermen in my part of the world already have to travel considerable distances to find harbours large enough from which to work. I share the hope of other hon. Members
          1000
          that the tribunals will inject at least some justice in to what will otherwise be a position of chaos and considerable injustice.
          I am spurred to take part in the debate by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who referred to the membership of the milk quota tribunals. I recall that the chairman of the milk tribunal in Scotland was Mr. David Miles, who was given that job shortly after losing his seat as a Conservative Member of Parliament. I wonder whether Chris Patten or Chris Chope—at least his constituency was on the sea—will end up as chairmen of the tribunal. The mind boggles.
          It is important that the tribunals should be manned by people who know what they are talking about.
          Mr. Alex Salmond: Surely we can have no fears in that regard after the speech of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who seemed to give an absolute assurance that the Government would stop stuffing committees with Conservative placepeople. Has the hon. Gentleman no confidence in that assurance?
          Mr. Home Robertson: Precious little.
          Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend laughs at the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) but it is an important point. I am sure that my hon. Friends agree that there must be no political patronage, which is why I emphasised during our discussion of new clause 2 that the chairman should be an advocate or lawyer of 10 years' standing. That might provide work for Lord Fraser.
          Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend fills me with even more alarm. We could end up with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who already has two jobs on the Scottish Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee.
          The matter is serious. The tribunals must be seen to be credible and fair, and manned by people of standing who have credibility in the fishing industry and the wider community. The Government do not have a good track record in nominating people to run such establishments. I have already cited the example of the milk tribunal. The tribunals have an important job to do and had better do it well.
          Mr. Curry: I wish to reassure the House on almost all of those points. I have responded in interventions to the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Port Greenock (Dr. Godman). I do not know how many tribunals there will be because we shall institute the tribunals in function of the work load. Therefore, if the work load is heavy we shall have more. I shall not lay down a maximum number of tribunals. It is important that they get off the ground quickly and we intend to bring them into existence at the earliest possible moment, once we have secured the Bill. They will then be in a position to operate immediately and we shall invite them to look at the most severe cases first, so they would prioritise their cases.
          They will be three-men tribunals, and the chairman of each tribunal and the overall president of the system would come from the legal profession. I am sure that they would be of sufficient standing to meet hon. Members' concerns.
          We shall ensure that the criteria are consistent and the tribunals will be peripatetic. We do not intend to establish them in a particular port and tell them not to move from it. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) is

          1001
          right to say that the tribunals would be United Kingdom-wide. They would go to where they were most useful and meet in the principal fishing ports. We aim to take the tribunals to the fishermen.
          The House agrees that this is a sensible move. It fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 4

      TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES ACT 1992
      'In Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (tribunals under the general supervision of the Council on Tribunals), in Part I, after entry No. 40 there shall be inserted—
      "Sea fish (conservation)
      40A. The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal established under section 4AA of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.".'—[Mr. Curry.]—
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
      'After section 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
      "Regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A.
      4B.—(1) The Ministers may by regulations make provision as to—

      (a) the manner in which a licence under section 4 or 4A of this Act is to be granted, or a variation, revocation or suspension effected, and

      (b) the time when a licence, or a variation, suspension or revocation, shall have effect.

      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under this section may include provision—

      (a) for documents to be delivered, or notices given, to the nominees of person to whom licences are granted;

      (b) for documents or notices to be treated as delivered or given if they are posted or otherwise communicated in accordance with the regulations;

      (c) for notices to be given by publication in newspapers;

      (d) as to the transitional effects of variations.

      (3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases.
      (4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'—[Sir Hector Monro]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman: With that it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 1 page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      '(4A) After subsection (7A) there shall be inserted—
      "(7B) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

      (a) entry in any logbook kept, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;

      1002

      (b) declaration made, under such an obligation—

      (i) by the master of a vessel or by an agent, as to fish landed; or

      (ii) by the master of a vessel, as to trans-shipment;

      (c) information required to be provided under—

      (i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above, by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, or by an agent;

      (ii) subsection (7) above, by the master, owner, or charterer (if any) of a vessel,
      shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'.

      No. 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 29, at end insert—
      '(2A) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
      "(8A) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

      (a) declaration made, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;

      (b) information required to be provided under—

      (i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above;

      (ii) subsection (7) above,
      by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'.

      5.15 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: New clause 5 is a measure to reinforce the workings of the licensing system, which is necessary as we are to rely on that system for administering days at sea limits.
      The issue of a licence, the variation of that licence and, if necessary, suspension or revocation are functions undertaken to apply conservation measures. At present, fishermen sometimes deploy the argument that because they were at sea when a licence variation was delivered to their address, they cannot be bound by its terms. Towards the end of last year, when fishermen became aware that the closure of the haddock fishery was imminent, a large portion of the fleet went to sea and stayed out as long as possible, thus maximising their catches before they had to admit that they knew that the fishery was closed. Such behaviour is unfair on law-abiding fishermen who stop fishing as soon as they hear on the radio that the fishery is closed. It is unfair and cannot be allowed to continue.
      The new clause will enable us to overcome the problem. The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 empowers Ministers to grant licences but does not specify how they should be granted. The new clause will enable Ministers to spell out in regulations how a licence or a notice of its variation, suspension or revocation will be granted, whom it should be delivered to and when it will take effect. We intend to specify that a licence will have been granted, and therefore take effect, once it is delivered.
      We also intend to require licence holders to nominate a person with a United Kingdom address to whom the licence should be delivered and to specify that as far as the law is concerned, delivery to that nominee's address will be regarded as the same as delivery into the hands of the licence holder. That will overcome the problem of the licence holder being at sea at the time of delivery. It will also ensure that vessels that spend much of their time operating from foreign ports are on a par with those from United Kingdom ports. It will be up to the licence holder to make suitable arrangements for ensuring that the nominee passes the information contained in the licence on

      1003
      to him if he is at sea. Obviously, one must be flexible because it may take a day or so for that to happen, particularly if a boat is in foreign waters.
      Regulations will also be able to provide for notices of licence variation, revocation or suspension to be given by means of publication in newspapers where necessary.
      Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 provide that, in any proceedings for an offence under sections 4 and 4(A) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, it will be unnecessary for a witness to speak to the documents listed or for those documents to be corroborated by other witnesses. They will accordingly be admissible as proof of what they say, unless and until the contrary is proved.
      The House may find it helpful if I describe how fishermen record their activities, the additional information that will be required to monitor days at sea, and how that leads to the need for the two amendments. On each trip, a fisherman is required to keep a record of his activities in his EC logbook and, on returning to port, send a copy to my Department, keeping a copy for himself. The logbook records when the vessel left port, when it fished, what it caught, when and where it returned to port and various other details.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister is now talking about the logbook and said "when the vessel was fishing". If the vessel cannot fish for a day or two because of bad weather, would that be taken into consideration in terms of days spent at sea? When a vessel is on the fishing grounds but the gear is fastened down because of severe weather, will allowances be made?
      Sir Hector Monro: All those matters are part of a vessel's track record. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on the previous amendment, all those matters are taken into account when days at sea are accounted for. What the skipper puts in the logbook will be important information.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy. Does he agree that, in winter, there could be a pronounced distinction between days spent at sea and days fishing?
      Sir Hector Monro: I am well aware of that. As a fellow Scot, I know the hostile conditions that many of our fishermen face in the north, particularly in the far north.
      Similarly, a landing declaration is required to confirm the quantities of various species caught once they have been measured accurately in the course of landing and selling the fish.
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister will remember that, under the iniquitous eight-day continuous tie-up regulations in Scotland, when it was days in port that were being counted, provision had to be made for when a boat was caught in a storm and could not return to its home port. Will provision be made in this legislation to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), when a boat cannot fish because of the prevailing weather conditions at sea? The Minister will appreciate that the issue of fishing safety arises if boats are forced to fish in all conditions, about which people from fishing communities feel strongly.
      Sir Hector Monro: I accept that fishermen feel strongly about that, as they did about the tie-up rule. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that he is pushing me pretty far towards saying that, if the weather is bad, it does not count as a day at sea. One must be cautious about that, because it is particularly difficult to say when and at what time the weather turns so perverse that the nets have to be brought in and fishing cease. All the information on the log must be taken into account when drawing up the track record.
      To monitor days at sea, we shall need additional information so that records are available for time spent at sea on trips which did not involve fishing and fishing trips where the EC does not require a logbook to be completed—for example, trips of less than 24 hours in duration where the vessel is less than 17 m in overall length. Both my Department and the fishermen will keep copies of the log book, landing declarations and returns on long fishing trips. We shall thus be able to monitor how many days at sea a vessel has done in a year.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State has described how procedures followed by Departments plus an independent appeals tribunal will ensure that the allocation of days is fair. So that the whole system is fair, we must ensure that we can prevent people from going to sea for more days than those to which they are entitled. The amendments are required to ensure that offences under the Bill can be effectively prosecuted in Scotland. They will ensure that crucial documents such as logbooks and landing declarations are admissible in Scottish ports as proof of what they say without the need for any witnesses to speak for them.
      It will be open to fishermen to bring evidence before the court if they dispute the provenance or content of a log sheet, and in such instances the Crown will have to lead its own evidence of the authenticity of the documents. It is in everybody's interests that, if a case involves 50 or more log sheets which are not disputed by the fisherman, those can be introduced into evidence as simply as possible.
      Fishing is unusual in that it is an activity which is necessarily tightly controlled by the law in order to conserve fish stocks, yet it takes place in remote places where, despite all the efforts of our protection services, there is usually little evidence beyond the documents that the fisherman himself provides. It is therefore entirely reasonable that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the fisherman's own records of his activities should be accepted.
      Amendment No. 14 introduces the arrangements that I have described for the generality of documents kept by fishermen, and amendment No. 15 does the same thing for documents relating to the transhipment of fish from one vessel to another. The amendments address issues that arise in Scottish courts, and I commend them and new clause 5 to the House.
      Mr. Salmond: I cannot help feeling that the Minister's introduction of the new clause and the amendments reinforces the view that many of us have that we are seeing the addition of a new layer of bureaucracy on to an already complex position within the industry.
      The Minister may recall that on Second Reading I detailed at some length the hugely variant and different standings for which boats within the white fish fleet could be fishing, depending on where they were fishing and what their historical track record had been, whether they were on tied-up days or what their mesh size was. There are

      1005
      already five different standings for the white fish fleet. In pursuance of the Bill, the Minister seems to be adding another maze of regulations.
      Having heard the Minister, I can well understand why the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, could not give an estimate of the duration or even the number of sittings of the tribunal which the Government are proposing to establish. The Government have not taken on board the full complexity of the regulations that they are trying to enforce.
      Members of Parliament representing fishing communities would like to know whether safety at sea and bad weather conditions will be taken into account and be a significant factor in adjudicating whether a boat has been fishing at sea or has merely been at sea sheltering from bad weather. The Minister may consider it almost impossible to make such a distinction, but what he has already outlined seems to be impossible in bureaucratic terms.
      Dr. Godman: I want to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on amendment No. 14 and logbook entries. The Minister opened up a chink of light in terms of the need to be concerned with our fishermen's safety with his responses to my interventions and to one made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
      The Minister will recall that I gave an example from my brother's experience of a vessel having to sail into wind during severe weather conditions off the west coast of Greenland, far outside the province of the Bill. That vessel was on the fishing grounds but unable to fish for almost eight days. I do not envisage such a problem arising in Shetland waters, the Pentland firth, off the west coast of Scotland, in the channel or off the east coast of England, but it is essential that the appeal tribunals recognise, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, the need to pay due cognisance to the safety requirements of fishermen and fishing vessels.
      We should be aiming by way of the logbook entries and the appeal tribunals for a position where the skipper of a vessel on the fishing grounds can say, "Hey, lads, the weather is worsening. We are now coming up to a force 8 and we should not be shooting the gear, so we shall bring it in or tie it up and go in for a bit of dodging. We won't suffer because we have had to dodge for one or two days." During a severe winter, those one or two days could add up to a number of days lost as a result of the severity of the fishing conditions.
      I shall be looking to the appeal tribunal to take serious notice of weather conditions if skippers make appeals on that basis. They may have been unable to fish for as many as 20 days in a period of two or three months, despite the fact that they were on the fishing ground, because of the severity of the weather. Had they shot the gear they might have endangered the lives of the crew. That must be taken into account by the regulations and, perhaps more importantly, by the appeal tribunals.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome the establishment of the appeal tribunals, but will a skipper be required to provide evidence that, for example, his boat suffered engine trouble when applying to the Department for a longer licence, or would he apply direct to the appeal tribunal for a licence to be granted?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The amendments relate specifically to Scotland and to its separate legal system, and it was difficult to follow the Minister's explanation. If they are approved, will they create a situation similar to that which currently obtains in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—or will they offer some advantage to fishermen in Scotland that will not be enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Michael Stephen: A brave and hardworking group of my constituents earn their living out of Shoreham harbour, by fishing in the English channel. The life of a fishermen is dangerous enough, and I would not wish any regulations or legal powers in the Bill to make it even more dangerous. In exercising any powers that Parliament may see fit to give the Department, I hope that it will give paramount consideration to the safety of our fishermen.
      Mr. Morley: No one could disagree with any measure concerning licence variations that is designed to apply fairly and equally to the whole fleet. The Minister mentioned boats operating from foreign ports. On occasions, our own vessels do that for all sorts of reasons. However, a number of foreign boats that fly under a British flag operate exclusively from foreign ports, and fish on British quota. How will the regulations be enforced in the case of boats that spend most of their time outside this country, who will enforce them, and what will be the cost?
      Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) spoke of the "bureaucracy" of the new arrangements, but he must accept that, throughout agriculture and fishing, anything to do with Europe involves a great deal of bureaucracy. When the regulations for the new common agricultural policy are introduced in the not-too-distant future, the hon. Gentleman will see how much additional administration will fall on farmers. As we all know from our daily postbag, there is noticeably more administration involved in keeping up with the modern world.
      The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) related bad weather conditions to the work of tribunals. The track record will be based on the year 1991, when many boats fished in bad weather or had to hove to and bring up their gear. That will be allowed for when licences are considered.
      On the good side, fishermen may find that the Department is able to offer even more days at sea than they expect. It is wrong to imagine that everyone is on the starting blocks, waiting to run to a tribunal. We must wait to see how the Department operates the arrangements throughout the United Kingdom. I do not believe that they will prove to be as complicated or as severe as hon. Members suggest.
      In the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), the skipper would apply first to the Department. It wants to be as helpful and as flexible as possible. A fisherman would refer to a tribunal only if he felt that the Department's decision was unacceptable. I am certain that the Department will be able to resolve problems such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked about the provision's implications for Northern

      1007
      Ireland fishermen. New clause 5 covers the whole of the United Kingdom, but amendments Nos. 14 and 15 specifically ensure that Scottish law is covered. They will not affect Northern Ireland. New clause 5 and the amendments will prove helpful in effectively implementing the regulations, and I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      RENEWAL OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 4(6)(c)
      '. In section 20 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—
      "(2A) Section 4(6)(c) of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of each period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed unless before the end of that period—

      (a) the Ministers have laid before each House of Parliament a statement of their intended exercise of the power conferred by section 4(6)(c); and

      (b) that statement has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Trotter.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Consultation prior to making orders—
      '.—(1) Section 20 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (which makes provision as to orders) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) At the beginning of subsection (5) there shall be inserted the words "Except as provided by subsection (SA) below".
      (3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
      "(5A) A statutory insutrment containing an order made under section 4 of this Act shall be of no effect unless

      (i) a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament and

      (ii) before the laying of such a draft—

      (a) the Ministers have consulted with such persons and bodies as seem to them to be representative of operators of fishing vessels and their employees,

      (b) the Ministers have laid before both Houses of Parliament a report upon the effect upon operators of fishing vessels and their employees of restricting the time which such vessels may spend at sea, and

      (c) any report laid under paragraph (b) above has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.".'.

      Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 13 [Clause 4], after 'Act', insert `, except section 1(2),'.
      Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 13 leave out from 'shall' to end of line 14 and insert
      'not come into force until similar measures are adopted throughout the European Community.'.
      Amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 13 leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 14 and insert
      'not come into force until a commencement order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'
      Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—
      1008
      '(1A) Section 1(2) of this Act shall not come into force until a statement by the Ministers of their intended exercise of the powers conferred by this Act has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—
      'provided that at that time provisions equivalent to those contained in the amendments made by this Act to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 have the force of law in each member state of the European Community and that the application of such provisions is not to the disadvantage of British owned and registered vessels; or
      (b) on such later date as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, provided that the condition in paragraph (a) of this subsection has been fulfilled.'.
      Mr. Trotter: On Second Reading, I and almost every other speaker—and certainly all those closely involved in the fishing industry—expressed concern at the way in which the Bill's powers were extending into the industry's future to an extent that I have not experienced in my time in the House. Those powers can accurately be described as draconian in the way that they could be implemented. That has created unity from one end of the country to the other—to an extent that those of us who know the industry well find remarkable. It was exemplified by the enormous rally held in central hall a few days ago.
      I had hoped that the Bill would be amended in Committee to counter those concerns and to make it acceptable, but that did not happen. While I certainly welcome some amendments—such as the appeals procedure—more amendment is needed if the Bill is to be acceptable.
      Everyone connected with the industry is well aware of the problems of over-fishing. There has been commendable co-operation in employing technical measures. Some say that, if more time is given to their application, those techniques will go a long way to deal with the problems. However, we must accept that they will not on their own be effective in the time scale that we must consider. Stocks are becoming so depleted that the industry will be not just harmed but destroyed. Major further steps must be taken.
      I cannot accept that there is a need for the Bill's powers to be as extensive as they are—hence the reason for new clause 1 and my amendment No. 5. The Bill's powers would enable the Department to say that the whole fishing industry will tie up except on Christmas day. I readily accept that my hon. Friend will not use the power in such an absurd way, but he is nevertheless seeking to take such power for the future without parliamentary scrutiny. Under this power, he could order any boat to be tied up at any time, or all the boats tied up all the time. After the Bill is passed, that will be the end of it, and he will have ultimate power over the whole industry. That cannot be right. I believe that the Minister should be required to give the House details of his proposals on an annual basis: he should be required to demonstrate responsible stewardship of his power to deal with a problem whose existence we all accept.
      One of the Bill's peculiarities is the way in which it anticipates what may happen in Brussels—indeed, what will happen there. We all know that the European Community fishing policy is a shambles; many of us would apply the same description to other aspects of Community policy as well, but the fishing policy is a particularly good example, and there is no doubt that it will be reviewed in the months ahead.

      1009
      What I find it hard to understand is why we are anticipating that review, and seeking powers now to penalise our industry in the expectation of what will presumably happen to the industry in other Community countries. An image is being portrayed of our boats being tied up while their foreign competitors continue to fish outside the harbour entrance. That must be countered, and I hope that the Minister will give us the assurances that we require.
      I consider it essential for Parliament to subject such draconian powers to regular scrutiny and the House should have some knowledge of the way in which the Minister intends initially to implement the great power that he is seeking.
      Mr. Morley: I support what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has said. I believe that such far-reaching measures need some accountability. I urge the House to support amendment No. 18, in the light of some of the points made by the hon. Member. If restrictions are to be placed on fishermen, they should be applied fairly and reasonably across the European Community.
      I pay tribute to Conservative Members who have put their names to amendment No. 18. It is not intended to score political points; we recognise that a serious problem exists in the fishing industry, and we have consistently said in our many fishing debates that we accept the existence of conservation difficulties and the need for difficult decisions. We do not wish to duck those decisions, and we are prepared to support the Government in that regard. Such decisions may be hard for the fishing industry to accept, but they are necessary none the less.
      We are not convinced, however, that forcing British fishermen to lie up in port while their competitors are free to fish outside the ports concerned is fair reasonable, or, indeed, an effective conservation measure. Last week—on 7 July—3,000 fishermen came down to London to take part in a demonstration organised by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and supported by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Many hon. Members attended the demonstration, and many were lobbied by fishermen who had taken a day off work to make their case known.
      Those who saw the demonstration were left in no doubt of the strength of feeling in the fishing industry about what the Bill will do to livelihoods and communities. There is almost a feeling of betrayal: our fishermen alone will face restrictions that will not affect their European counterarts, and that seems hard to justify.
      I am sure that many hon. Members will have received a great many letters from fishermen's organisations all over the country. The National Federation of Fishermen, which speaks for many English and Welsh fishermen, said in a letter sent to every Member of Parliament:
      "Why is it that only British fishermen are subject to unilataral restrictions when other Europeans are not? The bitter truth is that flag of convenience vessels will have the ability to land abroad unchecked, and the only fishermen suffering the restrictions will be British fishermen, not Spanish, French, Dutch or even the Republic of Ireland."
      The Cornwall sea fisheries committee wrote:
      "Most importantly, there is no mention of similar restrictions on foreign vessels fishing in British waters. Fishermen feel aggrieved that, whilst their activities will be curtailed, foreign vessels will be free to fish in our waters … Many vessels, particularly the smaller ones, will simply not be able to earn a living under the Bill's restrictions."
      1010
      5.45 pm
      The North East Fishing Forum, a combination of local government and fishing communities over a wide area, wrote:
      "Local authorities are concerned that there will be grave damage to local interests. Small inshore fleets such as those operating between the Tyne and the Tweed could be particularly disadvantaged by a system based on past performance, because of the tradition of voluntary restraint already practised."
      The South Eastern Fishermen's Protection Association also wrote to say that the measures were unfair and unilateral, and that they discriminated against our fishing fleet.
      There are many more examples from around the country. All that shows that the industry has never been so united by a single issue, which is an achievement in itself. The reason why the industry is so united—an industry that has traditionally operated in different sectors, whose members have not always co-operated as well as they might have done—is that every fishing community in the country faces a severe threat.
      We shall discuss other amendments which present alternatives to days-at-sea restrictions. I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will be willing to accept that the fishermen's organisations are anxious to co-operate with him and his Ministry to introduce workable measures that will deal with the problems of over-capacity and the need for conservation without the introduction of draconian powers.
      The main thrust of many of the amendments in the group—especially amendment No. 18—is this. If there is an argument for forcing fishermen to remain in port for a certain number of days per week—we can debate that—it is only right and proper for the measure involved to be implemented through the Council of Ministers and the European Community, and to apply to every fishing fleet in the Community and every fishing fleet that is part of the common fisheries policy.
      I do not believe that that is the way forward; I feel that we should have a proper decommissioning scheme, allied to a package of measures to deal with the problem. It is important, however, for the many hon. Members who are present tonight representing their constituents—local fishermen and their families, and the industries that depend on fishermen—to make one thing clear. If there is to be fairness, and if restrictions are to carry any credibility—it is generally accepted that they will have a drastic effect on fishermen's livelihood—those restrictions should apply across the board. In its present form, the Bill does not allow for that.
      The amendment gives the House an opportunity to decide that, if the Minister has made a case for the restrictions and gets the Bill through, it should not be enacted until other members states have introduced similar measures. Any restrictions that we impose should be applied equally and fairly to every EC fishing fleet. Our fishermen must not be put at an unfair disadvantage, as they will be if this measure is passed without amendment.
      Mr. Iain Sproat: I support strongly the new clause that has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). A fishermen's delegation came to see me last Tuesday. Its members expressed deep concern and deep hostility to the Bill. The

      1011
      fishermen of Harwich are totally opposed to the Government's proposals. I was deeply impressed by the strength of their arguments.
      The fishermen of Harwich recognise, as do fishermen in all parts of the country, the need for conservation. They all accept that fish stocks must be conserved. They do not, therefore, object to conservation. They object, however, to the way in which the Bill proposes to enforce conservation. They followed, as I did, in detail the consideration of the Bill in Committee. Not a great deal of what happened in Committee has convinced them that they ought to change their minds.
      The fact that the Bill came before the House while consultations were still going on with the industry did not help. I know that the Government will say that merely the details were discussed, whereas the Bill is concerned with the principle. However, fishermen's minds were not put at rest. They felt that the result of the consultations would not lead to the Bill being amended.
      The fishermen in my constituency fear a huge and drastic cut in their income. They fear, too, that many families who have been fishing for generations will be forced to leave an industry that they love and that the decommissioning funds are pitifully inadequate. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, they cannot see the justice, fairness and rightness in these measures being imposed on British fishermen while all the other European Community fishermen are unaffected by them. They believe that foreign vessels will not be bound by any conservation measures that are introduced, with the result that the British industry will soon be decimated. Foreign vessels will then take over what was once the British fishing industry.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some assurance that all the other member states of the European Community will speedily introduce measures that lead to the imposition of similar conservation requirements on their fishing industries.
      I share my constituents' fears about the Bill. That is why I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said. The very least that the Government can do in an attempt to assuage the fears and concerns of the fishermen is to say that they will look again at this question in a year's time and that, if the fishermen's fears are proved to be correct and have substance, the House will be given the opportunity to amend the clause.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: When I spoke on Second Reading I stressed why we were concerned about the implications of the Bill. I mentioned that it was not just the Bill that caused us concern but the powers that we were giving to the Minister to exercise without our approval. The purpose of the new clause is to give back to the House the power to approve what the Minister does as a result of this measure. It is tremendously important that all hon. Members should have a say in the implementation of the Bill.
      I find it difficult to accept many of the Bill's provisions. One relates to the mandatory fine of £50,000 if fishermen are found to be in breach of the measure. That fine would not be affected by the new clause. It would stand. That is one reason why I do not like the Bill.
      The second reason why I do not like the Bill was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glanford and
      1012
      Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—that the provisions of the Bill do not apply to other European Community fishermen. We in the ports of Kilkeel, Portavogie, Donaghadee and Ardglass have a particular concern in this respect when it comes to Republic of Ireland boats. I was glad to see that at the beginning of this week the fisheries spokesman for the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), aired his concern in an article in Irish News. He expressed great concern about the fact that, if the Bill is passed, the fishing fleet in Northern Ireland will be seriously threatened by fishing fleets from the Republic of Ireland.
      There is no way in which I can support the Bill unless the Minister can assure the House, especially the fishermen of Northern Ireland, that he has already held consultations with the fishing authorities in Dublin to ensure that they implement similar legislation that will apply to both Irish boats and British boats in the Irish sea fishing areas.
      We hear a great deal about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that has brought about stalemate in Northern Ireland since 1985. At last we are beginning to make political progress in Northern Ireland. Discussions are now being held between Dublin and London. I hope that the Minister can therefore assure us that he has been in discussion with Dublin, has brought to its attention the measures which are to apply to the United Kingdom and those which will apply specifically to Northern Ireland and that Dublin will therefore agree to introduce identical measures to apply to Irish vessels. If he cannot do so, there is no way that I can support the Bill.
      I mentioned also on Second Reading the day on which fishermen will not be allowed to fish. How will that day be decided? Will there be a different day for different ports? Will there be a different day, depending upon the type of fish that fishermen try to catch, or will there be a different day according to region of the United Kingdom? There is already one day in Northern Ireland upon which most of our fishing fleets do not fish. It applies to parts of Scotland, too. That day is Sunday.
      If there is to be one day on which we cannot fish, that day must continue to be Sunday for us. If it is to be any other day, it means that we shall be unable to fish on two days of the week. Therefore, we want the Minister to clarify whether it will be one standard day throughout the whole of the United Kingdom or whether that day will vary according to region.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if he looks at the lead clause he will see that it has to do with the timings, not with the days when one may or may not fish. It relates to how long the legislation will last before it is brought back here for renewal, or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman must address that point.
      Mr. Roger Moate: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the selection list incorporates a number of other amendments, including the nature of the restrictions to apply within the United Kingdom and to other European Community countries, is it not in order to dwell upon the nature of the conditions as well as the timing referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) in new clause 1?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be in order provided that hon. Members relate the issue strictly to one of the

      1013
      group, but it was my understanding that the right hon. Member for Strangford (M r. Taylor) was dealing with the new clause only.
      6 pm
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: Like other hon. Members, I welcome this proof of the Government's commitment toconservation and especially to the conservation of fish stocks. It is remarkable—other hon. Members have remarked on the fact—that fishermen also welcome it.
      Worries arise because of the nature of the Bill. It is an enabling Bill and, like all such Bills, it leaves many questions unanswered. When questions are unanswered, worries exist and may be magnified. I certainly found that to be the case in my conversations with fishermen in the port of Newhaven. Although we have had good discussions and although I provided them with as much information as I could to try to explain the details of the Bill, which may have allayed some of their fears, there still remains considerable worry in their minds. fishermen's worries are magnified by the lack of direct information in the Bill about how it will bite.
      In my short intervention, I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to dwell on all elements of the amendments selected. I hope that the Minister can at least give some information to allay some of the worries, especially those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). How will the fishing day restrictions apply? How will they be chosen? How are they to apply to different fishing areas if they are to be differentiated in various parts of the coast of the British isles? How are they to apply to different sizes of boat? Questions are left unanswered even on that detail. In what circumstances will action be taken under the Bill's enabling powers?
      As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) stressed, the overriding concern is for an even playing field. Can one refer to an even playing field when talking about fishing? That may be mixing metaphors, but that is what we are talking about. We are seeking even-handedness between the fishing fleets of all the nations of the European Community.
      For the sake of the continued support of our fishing fleets and fishermen for the principle of conservation, it is imperative that they feel that their efforts to conserve are matched by the efforts of others and that any actions taken to make it necessary for them to act in a way in which they might not like will also be imposed on other fleets.
      With that menu of comment ringing in his ears, may I ask the Minister for some reassurance on those terribly important points? If such reassurance is not given, I fear that it is highly unlikely that fishermen will support the Bill or obey any orders made under its enabling powers, and we do not want to pass such legislation.
      Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. I support the new clause and was pleased to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat). With regard to amendment No. 18, the Government could have avoided some of the problems into which they have sailed if, under Standing Order No. 94, they had agreed to the setting up of a Special Standing Committee which would have met no more than four times. Such a Special Standing Committee can take evidence from interested parties, and I think that it would have greatly
      1014
      helped our fishermen if it had been set up. However, the Government chose another route, which is unfortunate for all involved.
      I have been around the fishing industry almost all my life, and I believe that, given the urgency of the need to conserve the dwindling fish stocks, our fishermen would have accepted the draconian measures if they were to be applied uniformly throughout the whole of the European Community. As I said in Committee, it has been said ad nauseam that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and our fishermen know that as well as anyone else. I believe that they would be willing to accept the measures if they were to apply as rigorously to Irish or Spanish fishermen or to others.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that he hoped that the Minister would speak to his counterpart in Dublin. It is much more important that he speaks to the Spanish Fisheries Minister because—
      Mr. Rathbone: And the Belgian Minister.
      Dr. Godman: And the Belgian Minister but, without sounding too ethnocentric, the Spanish punch holes in any Communitywide regulations. Anyone who knows any-thing about the Spanish fishing fleets knows that, which is why amendment No. 18 is so important. The Spanish fishing fleets and their operators encourage their skippers to break the rules. We know about the insurance clubs of skippers and owners in Vigo. If a skipper is caught off the west coast of Scotland or Ireland and hauled in and fined in the sheriff courts or in an Irish court, the fine will be met from the moneys in the club barrel in Vigo.
      The hon. Member for Harwich was absolutely right to say that the measures must be uniformly applied throughout all the fishing nations of the European Community. If they are not, there will always be resistance among our fishermen. If there is uniformity, I genuinely believe that our fishermen, from Shetland to Cornwall, will accept them, but they must apply across the Community. Failure to ensure that will mean that our fishermen should challenge the legislation if it is passed.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: While fully agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said and standing on the principle of absolute uniformity across all nations, I must say that the menace of the southern Ireland fishermen to the Northern Ireland fishermen is greater. While the Fisheries Minister from the Republic was prepared to close a blind eye to what was happening in northern waters, the northern authority—the Secretary of State—was quick to try to make every fisherman from Northern Ireland conform. We need not only uniformity but a power to ensure conformity.
      Dr. Godman: If I dare say so in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker, "closing a blind eye" is a very Irish expression. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that there are discrepancies between north and south. I assure him, however, that, for all their skills, the Irish have nothing on the Spanish fishing vessel skippers—and owners, because the skippers are encouraged by the owners to punch holes in the regulations.
      On this occasion, we may need to fly in the face of article 3 of the mortally wounded Maastricht treaty, which argues for subsidiarity in these matters. If we are to have regulations that severely restrict our fishermen's incomes, and if the only way to ensure uniformity in the policing of

      1015
      fishing activity in EC waters is to have the rules applied by Brussels, so be it. If a domestic Parliament cannot control all the fishing activities in its waters, let us give Brussels the power to do so.
      I believe in regional policing. This Parliament ought to be able to stipulate who can fish when and where in United Kingdom territorial waters. But, if that is not to be the case, and if we are to have uniformity in the policing of our fishermen's activities, the regulations must be applied throughout the Community without fear or favour.
      This is a bad Bill. It imposes harsh restrictions on our fishermen in advance of the deliberations that will take place concerning the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that, if the Bill goes through, our fishermen or their associations will eventually be able to challenge it at the European Court of Justice because it discriminates unfairly against them. The House should support new clause 1 and amendment No. 18.
      Mr. Stephen: I have no doubt that the fishermen of the United Kingdom accept the need for conservation—indeed, their livelihood depends upon it. It is essential, however, that conservation measures are seen to apply fairly, as between them and their counterparts elsewhere in the European Community.
      The principle of conservation must depend for its effectiveness on a large number of fishermen cutting down their effort a little, not on British fishermen cutting down their effort a lot, allowing all the others to continue to fish at the same or at similar levels. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give me an assurance that, in exercising the powers that he seeks today, his Department will have careful regard not only to the legislative provisions applying to the fishermen of other member countries but to the extent to which those provisions are enforced on those fishermen by the authorities of their own member states.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Salmond: I propose to refer to new clause 6 and amendment No. 22, standing in the names of members of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
      The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) certainly put his finger on an important point in tabling new clause 1. It would be remarkable if we had to write into a Bill a measure to enforce consultation but, given the present circumstances of the fishing industry, that is the stage that we have reached.
      In new clause 6, we seek to do the same thing but to cast the net wider and to make the procedures rather more rigorous. The proposal would ensure that no statutory instrument containing an order could or would be enforced until certain procedures had been undertaken by Fisheries Ministers. A draft order would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval and could not be approved until Fisheries Ministers had carried out certain tasks, the first of which would be to consult the industry properly about the proposals.
      I repeat that it is remarkable that we should have to seek to write that into legislation. I do not know whether fisheries Ministers are aware of the bitterness that they have engendered by proceeding with primary legislation during a consultation period. We have had much

      1016
      experience in recent years of so-called consultation. I know that the Under-Secretary will understand an analogy with the hospital opt-out legislation for Scotland, in respect of which many of us felt the consultation process was no more than a matter of form—a process to be undergone before the Government took the decision that they had always intended to take. But I cannot recall another occasion on which primary legislation has been proceeded with before the formal consultation period has ended.
      For the fishing community, that adds insult to injury. So devoid of sensitivity have Fisheries Ministers been that we have reached the stage at which the provision of proper, effective and thorough consultation throughout the industry should be written into the legislation before greater powers are conferred on Ministers.
      The second duty that Ministers would have to take on board under the terms of new clause 6 before being seeking to exercise draconian powers would be the obligation to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of their proposals on the fishing community. There is a major divergence of view between the Government, who believe that the impact of the enabling legislation will be marginal—I have even heard official sources argue that, because fishermen are so boxed in by quotas anyway, it does matter about the days-at-sea restrictions—and fishermen, who believe that the Bill will constitute another serious imposition on them and will have a serious impact on their ability to make a living from the sea.
      Let us contrast the fishing and farming, to which the Under-Secretary referred. We lack the net income statistics for the fishing industry which are available for agriculture which would enable us to judge the impact of any measure or series of measures on fishermen's livelihood. We know what the overall net catches are and we know their value, but we do not have net income figures, which are important in judging whether a measure such as this can be borne by the fishing communities.
      I hope that those who support new clause I will not be fobbed off by vague assurances that Ministers will occasionally turn up in the House and make statements on the fishing industry—no doubt late at night, at a time inconvenient to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Tynemouth should ensure that we bind and gag those Ministers by placing a statutory duty on them rather than relying on assurances which may not, in the end, amount to much.
      Amendment No. 22 is similar to amendment No. 18, which stands in the name of Labour Members. That amendment goes to the very heart of people's concern about the Bill. I cannot think of any other United Kingdom industry that the Government seem so determined by their actions to place at a disadvantage in relation to its European counterparts.
      I have already said that the lack of consultation, and the decision to go ahead during the consultation process, has provoked great anger in the fishing community. What outrage, then, was provoked by the decision to impose on the United Kingdom a draconian and potentially punitive measure that was not to be imposed on other EC fleets? That goes to the heart of the questions that hon. Members representing fishing communities have to ask about the Bill.
      I hope that I will not do the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), an injustice or embarrass him when I say that, if we had been discussing the Bill a year ago, I have no doubt

      1017
      that the fishing communities would have been able to rely on his vote in the Lobby this evening. In the past, they could have relied on the support of Alick Buchanan-Smith, the late right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. I somehow doubt whether the current hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) will carry out his responsibilities towards the fishing communities with the dedication shown by his late predecessor.
      We have seen the transformation of the hon. Member for Dumfries from a Back-Bench Member from Scotland, concerned about the fishing community and prepared to match that concern with his vote in the Lobby on many occasions, to a Minister who, I am certain, has grave private doubts about the scope of the Bill and the manner in which it is being introduced. He must also have real concerns about the anger and frustration that the legislation has provoked in fishing communities. I hope that Conservative Members who represent fishing communities will hear the trials of the Minister in mind when they vote on these criticial amendments.
      It is essential that hon. Members do not simply respond to pressure in the fishing communities by turning up in the Chamber and making a speech. The issue will come to the crunch shortly in the Lobbies. I hope that all hon. Members who are genuinely concerned about the future of the fishing industry will match that concern with their behaviour in the Lobbies.
      Mr. David Harris: My opposition to the Bill is pretty well known. I believe that I have been joined by an increasing number of my colleagues who, perhaps rather late ill the day, have woken up to the significance of the measure. Three Conservative Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In this debate, sufficient hon. Members have spoken to voice their own deep unease and the passionate anger felt by the fishermen against the Bill. That anger was demonstrated in last week's mass lobby to which reference has already been made.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has done the industry, the House and the Government a great service by tabling his new clause. The other amendments in the group have been similarly beneficial. I believe that the House will be in difficulty later this evening. Clearly, the Government have listened to many of the representations that many of us have made with some vigour over the past few weeks and days and, literally, over the past few hours.
      I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will approach the group of amendments in a helpful and constructive mood. That will present difficulties, because we will have to take a decision bearing in mind what he says. We must decide whether we accept his undertakings or whether we will support the new clause. I will say only that I will listen with the utmost care to what my hon. Friend says, in the same way that I have listened to what right hon. and hon. Members have said during the debate.
      I am absolutely convinced that the Government have got the message from the Conservative Back Benches, from the Opposition Benches and from the industry, that the Bill in its present form is absolutely and utterly unacceptable. The reasons why it is unacceptable were rehearsed by myself and others on Second Reading, but they are to a large extent encapsulated in this group of amendments.
      1018
      The Bill is unacceptable because of the unilateral nature of the action that the Government propose to take. There is also what I regard as an affront to parliamentary practice and scrutiny. If the Bill is not amended, the Government will have a blank cheque. Elsewhere, I have used the analogy that the proposal in the Bill is rather like the Chancellor of the Exchequer desiring to take powers in a mere enabling Bill to raise tax to any level that he saw fit without further recourse to Parliament.
      When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will address some of those criticisms. At this stage, I will say only that I will listen to him with the greatest care and interest.
      Mr. Nick Ainger: I support new clause 1, but I want to address my remarks to amendment No. 18. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the problem of Irish fishermen competing with their southern Irish colleagues. Welsh fishermen also compete with their southern Irish colleagues. On the day of the mass lobby, I spoke to shell fishermen from Milford Haven and the west coast of Wales. They share their fishing grounds with their Irish colleagues. They lay their pots virtually alongside those of their Irish equivalents. They wanted to know how the Government could justify their being prevented from carrying out their lawful business when their Irish colleagues were allowed to fish on the same grounds. They believed that that was nonsense.
      Undoubtedly, the Bill is discriminatory between the Welsh and Irish and, as other hon. Members have said, between the British, French and Spanish. It was very interesting that, the day after the mass lobby, the skipper of a French trawler was arrested in the western approaches off Milford Haven and his vessel brought into a Pembroke dock. He was fined £2,000 for fishing with undersized nets. That was his second offence; he was cautioned the first time. Although that skipper was prosecuted in a British court, he was prosecuted under EC regulations. The level playing field or nice mill pond applied, and it was accepted that there was no discriminatory element in that case.
      We must ask whether the Bill is fair, whether it is reasonable and whether it will be effective. The answer to those questions is no in every case. It is not fair to the Welsh shell fishermen who compete unfairly with their Irish colleagues. It is certainly not reasonable to expect British fishermen to try to earn a living when their continental colleagues regularly catch what is basically the British fishermen's livelihood. It certainly will not be effective because, as we heard today and in Standing Committee, there will be an intensification of effort.
      My shell fishermen have told me that they currently work eight or 12 hours a day before returning home. However, if they are to be restricted, they will work 24 hours a day or for 48 hours on the trot before returning to port. The reduction in effort will not be effective.
      I remind the Minister that, although I am sure that the Government received correct legal advice at the time of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in which, with the general support of the House, they tried to outlaw the quota hoppers, the legal advice was that the legislation was not discriminatory and that the Government would be able to get it through the European Court. However, that was proved to be wrong. The European Court found the legislation to be discriminatory because it stated that the Spanish, French or Belgians could not own British fishing boats without those companies having a majority of

      1019
      British directors. It was therefore discriminatory. I have not sought legal advice, but I try to be logical about such matters. Surely the Bill is discriminatory because it says to British fishermen, "You can't do that, but your Irish, French and Spanish colleagues can." That is why it is a bad Bill, and this is why we shall support amendment No. 18.
      Mr. Anthony Steen: I have in my constituency 88 miles of Devon coastline, probably one of the most beautiful areas in the country. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was good enough to come down to Brixham port and say some helpful words. I am grateful to him for that. That coastline supports not only Brixham fishermen who are beam trawlermen but fishermen from Dartmouth and Salcombe who are involved in the crab and lobster industries. I speak as a Member who has been following the deliberations very closely.
      I pay great tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have been extremely courteous and have considered every possible way to help me and the fishermen of south Devon. I should like publicly to record how grateful I am to them for their help and assistance in respect of a difficult Bill.
      On Friday, I tabled two amendments, which have not been selected but which would have slotted in between amendments Nos. 26 to 28. They would have had an effect similar to that of new clause 1 and would have delayed the operation of the legislation for two months rather than one month. My amendments insisted that the House had an opportunity to delay an affirmative order by a further month, which would have given enough time for the other countries concerned to get their house in order.
      My concern is twofold. First, I do not believe that action on our Government's part should in any way damage any fishermen's livelihood unless we are satisfied that the French, Spanish and Dutch have done something not identical but similar, which fits into the package that the Bill proposes. Secondly, no fishermen should have his boat tied up and be told that he cannot fish on certain days unless something similar happens in France, Holland and Spain. Unless the Minister of State can say something on those two points, Conservative Members will be placed in serious difficulties.
      My hon. Friends have given me every opportunity to explain my problem to them, and I again pay tribute to their courtesy and the time that they have spent trying to explain their problem to me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will satisfy the House on both points. If he does so, we shall be delighted, because he will have achieved a tremendous victory. If he cannot do that, he will place many Conservative Members in some personal difficulties. I hope that the message is loud and clear to my hon. Friend.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I sense a carefully stage-managed situation arising. Conservative Members have been so shocked by the pressure of their fishermen's hostility to the Bill that they are now having to stage an elaborate scene by putting demands to the Minister, some of which he
      1020
      might or might not grant, so that they can then go away and say, "We have won a great victory; great concessions were made."
      That will not be enough, because the principle of the Bill is bad. The Bill will not work. It will not be accepted by the industry. Indeed, it is a dictatorial imposition on the industry. It is not good enough for Conservative Members to manufacture a synthetic crisis to put pressure on the Minister and then say that they are satisfied with small crumbs that they might get from his table.
      New clause 1 is a sensible measure, but it does not go far enough, because the principle of annual renewal allows us to bring pressure on the Minister between annual renewals to do what he should have done in the first place and take other measures which would more effectively reduce pressure on fish stocks. It is only if that is the basis of operations on new clause 1 that it is acceptable.
      The heart of the matter is quite simple. The Minister is imposing that dictatorial measure on the fishing industry because of his failure to introduce a decommissioning scheme. He has denied that, but the July-August 1992 issue of "France-Eco-Pece" states that Commissioner Marin himself says:
      "the British face the problem that their fishing grounds are badly depleted and Britain is the one country in the Community that has the worst problem with too large a fishing fleet. Had they only reduced their fleet, say five years ago, as did many other countries, the situation would not be so critical today."
      Had the Government introduced a decommissioning scheme when we were asking them to introduce one, they would not have had to impose the measure on the industry. The new clause might be useful if it allows us to press for an improvement in the decommissioning scheme—a bigger and better decommissioning scheme—which will act urgently on the problem. The one that the Minister has produced as the quid pro quo for the measure is not good enough and will not have a substantial enough effect on the size of the fleet.
      The next point that the measure allows us to argue for is more technical conservation measures. It is important to know that they are the best way of approaching the conservation problem. They are far more effective in conserving stocks, which is what the Bill is supposed to be about—it will not have that effect, but it is supposed to.
      It is important to note that the industry has been pressing more energetically for technical measures and proper conservation than the Department itself. The list supplied by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations includes the increased selectivity of nets, the one-net rule, bans on the twin-rig trawl, bans on the French dredge, restrictions on the shape of nets to ensure the escape of juvenile fish, bans on industrial fishing, and a licensing scheme for shellfish. The industry even wanted a higher mesh size in the Irish sea—namely, 80 mm—than the 75 mm that the Government imposed.
      The industry has been at the forefront of pressing for those technical conservation measures, which are far better. Let us have an advance down that path, because it will apply far more directly to the cause of the problem than the overfishing that is decimating stocks by catching fish that are too small. Let us therefore have the power to press for that every year through new clause 1. It allows us to advance those two causes, which are far more important than the Minister's Bill. The measure is not enough; therefore, we need to go to the extent set out in amendment No. 18.

      1021
      It is a bad Bill. It will be acceptable only if it is felt to apply fairly to all competing fishing industries. It is no use stopping British fishermen going to sea if stocks are to be pillaged by effectively controlling efforts by competitor countries in the EC. What answer is that to the conservation problem if it just leaves the ground open to fishing fleets which have not applied the same effective technical measures as our industries? They have been backward in that respect.
      I hope that if the Minister makes a minor concession Conservative Members will not go away feeling that they have done something for the industry. The only concession that will be acceptable—the only concession that their fishermen will accept—is an assurance that there is to be a level playing field, or a level fishing ground. Amendment No. 18 would provide for this measure to come into effect only at the same time as similar measures to restrain fishing fleets competing for the same stocks and, in the process, over fishing. That is the only thing that will satisfy the fishing industry, which demonstrated in force in London last week to impress on Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, the concern from fishing constituencies.
      Our legislation must come into force at the same time as similar measures introduced by our European competitors. The Minister himself has said that there can be proper conservation only with the consent and support of the fishing industry. Well, this Bill does not have that consent and support; it has the total hostility of the fishing industry. It will secure the consent of the fishing industry only if that industry feels that it is fair, if similar provisions apply to other people who are doing far more damage because of the lack of effective control in their home ports.
      What about the clashes between French fishermen and British fishermen in the south-west? What about the clashes between Grimsby fishermen and Dutch beam trawlers in the North sea? Are we to say that our only answer is to prevent our vessels from putting to sea, so that they will not he attacked by French and Dutch vessels? Is it the Government's case that, if there is no competition, the problem will go away? That is no answer. It is not even a proper means of securing conservation.
      If the Minister is to make the case that the Bill will help conservation, let him see that that is done in the only effective way—by ensuring that such measures apply to all. That is why amendment No. 18 should be supported. If Conservative Members who have uttered such professions of attachment to and support for the fishing industry have any guts or principles, they will support it. That is the only way to make the Bill acceptable to the industry, which regards a days-at-sea limitation as a dictatorial imposition. No such provision applies to any other industry, and in this case the proposal is to apply without compensation. It is very unfair. Only agreement to what we are proposing will make this Bill acceptable as a last, desperate measure.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Keth Mans: I do not want to rehash the arguments on new clause I and amendment No. 18 that we have heard already, except to say that they relate to the two parts of the Bill that concern me most—the wideness of its powers, and the fact that the other European Community members who are involved in fishing will not necessarily have to abide by the same rules.
      1022
      The latter point relates particularly to the situation in Fleetwood. The majority of vessels fishing in the Irish sea belong to fleets that are not British. Thus, any measures that we might take to control our efforts by way of a time scheme will be much less effective there than in the North sea and elsewhere. That fact alone makes the measure even less acceptable to British fishermen, particularly those from my port of Fleetwood. They know that, even if they put up with the restrictions, the conservation effect will be very much reduced by the fact that many other member states use other methods, which, according to the evidence of the specialist advisers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are less effective. For that reason alone, we need to do more, and amendment No. 18 and new clause 1 go quite a long way down that road.
      We need a statutory procedure by which vessels on which this Bill will have a detrimental effect can appeal against the Minister's decision. In addition, any provisions for restrictions over and above those that the fishing fleet, particularly vessels off the west coast, had to endure during 1991 will have to be introduced by way of amendable affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the only way forward. That is the only way of ensuring that we can see for ourselves the detailed proposals of Ministers to deal with the problem of conservation. I agree with many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the powers in the Bill are far too wide.
      If we go down this road, we shall give our own Ministers a bit more leverage in Brussels. We shall be able to insist on equivalent action by other member states fishing in our waters and nearby. I refer, for example, to the Spaniards, the French and the Dutch. We shall be able to say to the Commission that we are prepared to reduce our effort, but only if we see that others are taking equally effective measures. Without a commitment of that sort, I cannot see how the objective—the conservation of stocks—will be achieved, especially in the Irish sea, where the majority of fish are taken by foreign vessels.
      New clause 1 and amendment No. 18 have a lot going for them, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us along the lines I have suggested. In fishing matters, we and other European member states must be treated on an equal footing. Before the provisions of this Bill are enacted, we must have some idea of the particular proposals that the Government intend to bring forward.
      Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has mentioned the British register of ships. Is he aware that it includes Spanish, French and Dutch ships catching our quota? Does he have a view on that?
      Mr. Mans: I am fully aware of that fact. We shall have to find a way of ensuring effectiveness if those vessels decide to tie up in foreign ports. If our quota is to be effective in the case of vessels from other countries fishing that quota, we shall have to find a means of ensuring that those vessels abide by the same rules.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: The lobbying by fishermen from all over the country demonstrated the depth of real anger and concern in the industry about the provisions of this Bill, and it has met with some success. As the fishermen see the concern being expressed by Conservative Members—much of it not expressed on Second Reading—they can feel that they have achieved something, and to that extent they can congratulate themselves.

      1023
      However, expressions of concern are not the same as delivery of the goods. We shall wait to hear the Minister's reply—what it is that has caused the buzz of excitement on the Government Benches. Or is it a buzz of concern as Conservative Members feel trapped in a dilemma somewhere between career and action?
      I fear that the Minister will simply offer reassurance. Yet we need to have measures included in the Bill to guarantee that the actions for which we have asked will be taken. The fishermen I have met will not be reassured by anything less than measures written into the Bill. We shall see what the Minister has to say.
      Anyone who attended the rally in central hall and saw the black and gold Cornish rugby shirts spread across the audience will appreciate that the concern in Cornwall about the Bill probably generated the greatest show of strength in London on an issue of this nature since the tin mines were threatened and the tin miners marched through the streets of London. The attendance from Cornwall was extraordinary, and I shall explain in a moment why the fishermen, particularly from Cornwall, turned out in such numbers.
      The new clauses and amendments in this group will not achieve changes to the Bill that would lead me to vote for it on Third Reading. They do not tackle the basic inequity of the Bill or its basic faults, but at least they would provide a moment at which the Executive could be made answerable to the House on their detailed proposals. That is better than simply giving Ministers powers to go away and act without ever having to answer to the representatives of fishermen—or, indeed, the fishermen themselves.
      The Bill provides for no effective consultation. Indeed, there was no effective consultation about it. The measures in the Bill were published even before the consultation period was complete, yet the Minister resists having to come back to the House when the detailed measures are introduced.
      The Bill contains no effective conservation measure. It will lead to more intensive fishing. It will certainly lead to other countries stepping up their fishing effort. The Bill will not be effective as a conservation measure. If the Minister believes that it will be effective, he should come back to the House and explain it when the detail is before the House.
      The Bill will bankrupt many in the industry. It will bankrupt many owners of small boats, who have fished for generations. I understand that, in Mevagissey in my constituency, many of the boats are already up for sale. The fishermen do not believe that the boats can be viable or that they can earn an income. That is in an area where there is literally no hope of alternative employment for the great majority of the men who at present go out fishing. Yet the Minister is not prepared to come back to the House to justify the detailed measures which those men believe could put them out of work and make them no longer able to support their families.
      There is a lack of measures comparable to the days-at-sea regulations in other European countries. The fishermen feel that they will simply surrender their livelihood to fishermen in other countries. They feel that they will surrender, not preserve, the fish stock. Yet the Minister is not prepared to come back to the House to debate in detail the provisions that he will seek to make in future.
      1024
      Amendment No. 18 contains the further proviso that none of the conservation measures makes sense unless other European countries do the same, and therefore the Government should not take them. I understand that the Minister will seek comparable action from other European countries. I make it clear that it would not be acceptable to the industry or the House if by comparable action the Minister meant conservation measures such as decommissioning or gear changes. It would not be acceptable if other countries took such measures while we imposed the days-at-sea regulations.That would not be comparable. The impact on individual fishermen would be to bankrupt fishermen in Britain but help those in other countries. I hope that the Minister will be clear about what he means by "comparable" internationally.
      The Bill will never meet the needs of the industry, conservation or equity, but new clause I and amendment No. 18 will at least provide a chance of equity between countries and enable the House to bring the Minister to book on the detailed proposals. New clause 1 and amendment No. 18 are important. If the Minister seriously intends to take a big step towards achieving the aim of the amendments, he should undertake to amend the Bill at a later stage so that hon. Members do not have to rely on reassurances which may not be delivered in practice by the Minister's successors, even if the Minister genuinely intends to deliver them.
      Hon. Members should bear it in mind that, if it was announced that our income was to be cut for every day that the Government decided that we should stay at home for our extended summer recess, no matter what Opposition and Conservative Members said, there might be more disagreement about the length of the recess. Of course Ministers would not expect to get away with that, and they should not expect to get away with treating fishermen in the same way.
      Mr. Moate: The new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) suggests that the Bill should be subject to annual renewal. That shows how extreme the Government's proposal is. It is extraordinary to propose that the British fishing fleet should be tied up in port for much of its time. Many of us can recall the impact of the three-day week in other contexts.
      Mr. Curry indicated dissent.
      Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend the Minister reacts against that, but that is the proposal. I do not suggest that it is an unacceptable proposal—the next interesting fact is that virtually every fisherman to whom I have spoken accepts in principle the need for further conservation and effort control. But the proposal is extraordinary.
      No one should be in any doubt about the far-reaching nature of the days at sea regulations. It is even more extraordinary that we should ask British vessels to be tied up in port while we do not place similar restrictions on our common market partners and other fishing vessels fishing in our waters and therefore often taking from the British quota. That is why I have added my name to amendment No. 18, which has been taken with the new clause 1 for the debate.
      Amendment No. 18 argues for a level playing field. The British fishing industry accepts the need for conservation. There seems to be universal agreement that conservation measures must be taken, but surely it is self-evident that we

      1025
      shall not achieve conservation of British stocks without the full-hearted co-operation of the British fishing industry. It is surely also self-evident that that climate does not prevail as we reach this point in the legislation.
      It would have been much better if we had paused for further consultation with the industry and sought agreement on how to implement conservation measures. We are taking the Report stage today without a great deal of time to consider the amendments that have been tabled or to discuss with the industry how best to implement the Bill.
      I accept that there have been rumours of efforts to meet some of the genuine concerns of the House, but unless we can translate that concern into positive legislative intent, it is extremely difficult to respond other than by saying that we must have it in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 18 is sensible. It might not be legally perfect—I am aware that Governments are in the habit of saying that the drafting of an amendment lacks something so they cannot accept it—but the Bill has a long way to go. My hon. Friend could accept the amendment, or he could accept the principle behind it and incorporate it in legislation in another place. I know that he wants to be helpful, so can he assure us that he accepts the principle of the amendment? Otherwise—[Interruption] If my on. Friend says that he accepts the principle of the amendment—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: He has not said that he accepts the principle of the amendment.
      Mr. Moate: If he cannot accept the principle, those of us who signed the amendment in good faith will have no choice but to support it.
      Understanding what is at stake, I hope that my hon. Friend will do his utmost to help the House and the fishing industry. There is a genuine desire to make further conservation measures work, but he is asking too much of British fishermen if he thinks that he can apply days-at-sea regulations so that British vessles are tied up while French, Dutch, Spanish and other nations' vessels are free to fish in our fishing grounds. If he does not accept the truth of what I and many of my hon. Friends are saying, he will undermine the principle of co-operation.
      7 pm
      I share much of the scepticism about whether the measure will work. There has been no proper explanation of how days at sea will be allocated, and whether they will apply to pressure stocks only or also to non-pressure stocks. My hon. Friend is asking too much of the industry by demanding its wholehearted co-operation, until we have had such an explanation.
      I want my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tell us from the Dispatch Box that he fully accepts the principle of the amendment and, if he cannot say so, the House should say it by voting.
      Mr. Curry: I did not wish to speak when there was such a sense of anticipation in the Chamber. Rarely has the main picture been preceded by so many trailers, but I had better be careful about what I say.
      Effectively. we have had a Second Reading debate, and I shall not rehearse the arguments aired on Second Reading and in Committee; this is not the place to do so.
      1026
      Hon. Members were insistent about some matters and I shall try to reply briefly, so that hon. Members and my hon. Friends are satisfied.
      People are concerned about how the scheme will work in practice. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that his fishermen do not want to work on Sunday. I hope that I gave him a satisfactory answer when he asked about that. Nothing in the Bill will force them to fish on Sunday. The idea is that fishermen will be able to choose which days they fish. There will be no Government prescription and no blocks of allocations for one coast, one port or one stock. All fishermen will have the choice of when they fish, within the framework that has been set. I have said so before, and I wish to make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman.
      I have heard what my hon. Friends have had to say about their great concerns, and many fishermen have visited me in my office. Shortly before the debate started, some fishermen from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) visited me to express their concerns about the proposed measure.
      I recognise that some of my hon. Friends have special problems—when I think back to their remarks, I find it difficult to think of one of them who does not have a special problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) mentioned Fleetwood. That port has problems, because it has many old vessels. Fishermen from Fleetwood fish in the Irish sea, which also has problems. We have a 74 per cent. stake in herring in the Irish sea, a 33·5 per cent. stake in cod, a 38 per cent. stake in whiting, a 48 per cent. stake in plaice and approximately a 58 per cent. stake in sole. Although those stocks are not phenomenal, they are none the less important, and I recognise my hon. Friend's problems.
      I want to dispel the idea that there will be a gigantic tie-up and that fishermen face a 30 per cent. cut in days at sea this year, followed by another 30 per cent. and then another. It will not work like that.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Curry: No, I want to conclude this part of the debate.
      I understand the problems that my hon. Friends have explained. I know that they appreciate that I have to negotiate with the Community. I have to come up with a target, and we have to deliver it, as has every other member country. I have listened to what has been said.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) argued with great force, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) put the east coast view with particular cogency. My hon. Friends the Members for Shorham (Mr. Stephen) and for South Hams represent the south-west. I recognise that that area has a mixed fishery, which does not have a preponderance of certain stocks, as is the case with the North sea and the west of Scotland.
      From the outset, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has taken an honourable position over the Bill. I do not agree with him, but we have had a friendly and constructive disagreement on the issue, and I hope that we may at least build a few piers towards each other before the day is out.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) represents-another entirely different fishery, which shows the problems involved in trying to produce

      1027
      regulations which will not merely achieve a level playing field throughout the Community but will be seen to be fair among the various British fishing communities, which are often in competition. We all face that problem.
      I recognise that the concerns that have been expressed have a twin source: first, the effort control regime and its impact on the fishing industry; and, secondly the use of ministerial power, which is a constitutional concern.
      The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth seeks to tackle those concerns. I shall therefore make a proposal that I hope will satisfy my hon. Friends that I am trying to respond to those concerns. The Government have spelt out clearly their intentions in relation to 1993—a freeze, based on 1991 track records. No one can say that that was not fully debated on Second Reading and in Committee. I have amended the Bill as promised, to introduce statutory tribunals to deal with disputes.
      I propose that Ministers should use the powers in the Bill, as envisaged, to freeze fishing effort in 1993. I also propose that Ministers should be obliged to seek an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament before they use their powers to reduce effort below the level set for 1993. That meets the widespread concern expressed in the House.
      We should not introduce such a resolution unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets. I therefore undertake that, subject to my hon. Friend's agreement to withdraw his new clause, the Government will table an amendment in another place to insert those provisions in the Bill. I hope that the House will feel that I have sought to heed its concerns in that regard.
      Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for making that statement and welcome it, although I and many other hon. Members will regret that it was not made earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. He has taken on board the fears expressed throughout the country about the future of the industry under the proposals before the House.
      My hon. Friend must bear in mind that he and his colleagues will have to work with the industry, and it is essential that there should be a relationship which makes effective——
      Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have been following the proceedings with care. I am not sure whether the Minister has sat down and the hon. Member for Tynemouth is exercising his right of reply, or whether it is an intervention.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understood that the Minister had sat down.
      Mr. Curry indicated assent.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: He is nodding his head in agreement.
      Mr. Trotter: The Minister will have to work with the industry and there must be seen to be a regime which is effective and fair. That is not the way in which the Bill, as originally presented to the House, was viewed.
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Trotter: I shall not give way.
      There has now been a clear undertaking that it is the intention to freeze fishing effort for next year at the 1991 level. My hon. Friend said that that had been made clear from the beginning, but I do not believe that to be the case.
      I welcome the fact that he now accepts the need, in principle, for the House to be consulted before he comes forward with any further developments.
      Mr. Home Robertson rose——
      Mr. Trotter: No.
      No further reductions should be made unless other countries take steps to ensure that there is fair play.
      It is fortunate that we have the presidency of the Council of Ministers, because it will take some time before this Bill is enacted. It must go through the Upper House, where it will be amended on the basis of what my hon. Friend has agreed to tonight. I hope that this country will take the opportunity presented by our presidency to ensure that similar action is taken by other countries and we have an equivalent footing against which our industry and the Government's measures can be judged.
      On the basis of the undertaking to amend the Bill during its passage through the Upper House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 275. Noes 312.

      Division No. 67]

      [7.13 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ainger, Nick

      Cann, Jamie

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Allen, Graham

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Alton, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clelland, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Austin-Walker, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Battle, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beggs, Roy

      Cousins, Jim

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Cox, Tom

      Bell, Stuart

      Cryer, Bob

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bermingham, Gerald

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

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Dafis, Cynog

      Betts, Clive

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blair, Tony

      Darling, Alistair

      Blunkett, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Denham, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dewar, Donald

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Dixon, Don

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dobson, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Byers, Stephen

      Dowd, Jim

      Callaghan, Jim

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Eastham, Ken

      1029

      Enright, Derek

      McFall, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fatchett, Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Flynn, Paul

      McMaster, Gordon

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      McWilliam, John

      Foster, Donald (Bath)

      Madden, Max

      Foulkes, George

      Maginnis, Ken

      Fraser, John

      Mahon, Alice

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mallon, Seamus

      Galbraith, Sam

      Marek, Dr John

      Galloway, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gapes, Mike

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Garrett, John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      George, Bruce

      Martlew, Eric

      Gerrard, Neil

      Maxton, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Meacher, Michael

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michael, Alun

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Milburn, Alan

      Gould, Bryan

      Miller, Andrew

      Graham, Thomas

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hain, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Hall, Mike

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hanson, David

      Mudie, George

      Hardy, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Murphy, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, William

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Home Robertson. John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hutton, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Adam

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Radice, Giles

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Redmond, Martin

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Roche, Ms Barbara

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rogers, Allan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, Jeff

      Keen, Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Salmond, Alex

      Lewis, Terry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Loyden, Eddie

      Short, Clare

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Simpson, Alan

      McAllion, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      1030

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Snape, Peter

      Walley, Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Watson, Mike

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wilson, Brian

      Straw, Jack

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wise, Audrey

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wright, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Trimble, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyler, Paul

      Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Vaz, Keith

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Colvin, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Congdon, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amess, David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Ancram, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Arbuthnot, James

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Atkins, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dicks, Terry

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bates, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dover, Den

      Bellingham, Henry

      Duncan, Alan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dunn, Bob

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Booth, Hartley

      Elletson, Harold

      Boswell, Tim

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bowis, John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Evennett, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Faber, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forman, Nigel

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Butler, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Butterfill, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      French, Douglas

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fry, Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Cash, William

      Gallie, Phil

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gamier, Edward

      Churchill, Mr

      Gill, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Gillan, Ms Cheryl

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      1031

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gorst, John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mills, Iain

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Needham, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawkins, Nicholas

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hendry, Charles

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Page, Richard

      Horam, John

      Paice, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Redwood, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Richards, Rod

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Key, Robert

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sackville, Tom

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

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knox, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Legg, Barry

      Shersby, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Sims, Roger

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lidington, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spink, Dr Robert

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sproat, Iain

      Maclean, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stern, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stewart, Allan

      Mans, Keith

      Streeter, Gary

      Marland, Paul

      Sumberg, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      1032

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Thomason, Roy

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wells, Bowen

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whittingdale, John

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

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Trend, Michael

      Willetts. David

      Trotter, Neville

      Wilshire, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wood, Timothy

      Viggers, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walden, George

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Ward, John

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      LICENSING OF FISHING BOATS
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 7, at end insert:
      '(1A) (a) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after the word "boats", there shall be inserted the words "of more than 17 metres overall"; and
      (b) in paragraph (b), after the word "boats", there shall be inserted the words "of more than 17 metres overall.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 10, at beginning insert
      'in respect of boats of over 17 metres overall,'.
      Government amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Channon: The amendment deals with the inshore fleet and, in particular, with a group of fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). This is the first occasion on which I have intervened in a fishing debate—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber, including those congregating at the back of the Chair, please do so quietly? That will enable the rest of us to hear the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
      Mr. Channon: The fishermen in my constituency who are particularly concerned about the Bill and would be helped by the amendment catch Dover sole, mainly in the Thames estuary, and they are already under considerable threat. They work on small boats, which usually have skipper-owners, and they do not travel enormous distances. The amount of pressure stocks that they can fish is already controlled. They are limited to about 40 stone of sole per month.
      The size of the boats is limited under the rules of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee. That is why I propose that boats of less than 17 in should be exempt from the requirements of the Bill, or at least from its days-at-sea provisions. The livelihoods of these small, traditional fishermen are under threat and their conditions will be made much worse by the Bill.
      To make a living, those fishermen must catch other fish than sole, which is their main catch. In particular, they go fishing for white weed, to which I referred in an

      1033
      intervention on an earlier amendment. White weed is a type of white coral, which is an extremely popular decoration, particularly in Holland. There is a considerable market for white weed, which they catch because their sole quotas are insufficient to enable them to make a living.
      As the Bill and the proposed regulations stand, the number of days at sea which fishermen will he entitled to fish will be based on their fishing effort in 1991. But in 1991, all the fishing for white weed, eels and shellfish required no landing declaration. How, then, will they be able to prove that they were fishing on those days? Their allowable days will be based on an entirely false premise. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance on that point when we were debating new clause 1. Perhaps he will now spell out the precise situation, having had more time to consider the matter. Incidentally, I am grateful to him for the fact that there is to be a tribunal if no agreement can be reached with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      7.30 pm
      The Government should exempt those small boats altogether or, as a minimum, excuse them from the days-at-sea restriction. One of my constituents fished for sole for 61 days and for white weed for about 120 days in 1991. In future, his days at sea will be based on the 61 days and he will get no credit for the days that he spent fishing for white weed. That is most unfair and the system should not be adopted. If it has to be adopted, as an absolute minimum it should be based on an average of five years rather than simply on 1991, and days at sea spent fishing for non-notifiable species should be included.
      As experts on fishing will know, 1991 was a particularly bad year for fishermen in my part of the country. They were extremely short of cod, but they will be penalised for the fact that they did much less cod fishing than usual in 1991. In general, my fishermen fish for only part of the day and rarely go out to sea for 24 hours; in many other parts of the country. enormous fishing boats go out to sea around the clock. Small fishermen will be particularly hit by the measures.
      I have seen what the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee says about the Bill, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has seen it, too. It says that the package of new measures which the Government are introducing appears to represent a significant threat to the inshore fishing industry in the committee's district, for reasons that I outlined. The committee says that if the Government's proposal to control effort and days at sea is accepted in its original form, it could effectively put out of business a large portion of the 10 m plus boats working from our district. It will certainly extremely curtail their current efforts and, in the long run, have an adverse effect on the value of those vessels.
      The matter is serious, not to an enormous number of fishermen but to people from traditional families of fishermen who have been engaged in the fishing business for many years. Will my hon. Friend look at the matter again and see whether he can exempt the 10 m to 17 m boats? If he cannot go that far—I understand his difficulties, because those boats represent some 36 per cent. of the fishing fleet—I hope that he will meet some of my points.
      All sorts of anomalies will arise under the Bill For example, boats that use nets will leave their nets out and
      1034
      go to sea less frequently and more and more fish will die. Those fishermen will not be particularly inconvenienced, but the measure will be bad for conservation. The measure is bad for small fishermen in my constituency and the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends in Kent and Essex. I hope that the Government can do something to meet the genuine fears of fishermen who live in my constituency.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will be able to make a concession, because he can concede very little in the Bill.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) so ably said, our constituents in Southend are extremely worried about the Bill, because there seems to be little that we can do about it. We have just discussed the possibility of a level playing field. We said that if our boats have to restrict the number of days, why could not the same rules apply to French boats? The Minister explained that, sadly, absolutely nothing can be done about it because of European law. Although I appreciate that that is a problem for politicians, the fact that we can do nothing about anything is a problem for all concerned. We can do nothing about matters such as unemployment and interest rates and the difficulty for those engaged in the fishing business is even greater. They see the possibility of a whole new bureaucracy and restrictions, and no good coming out of them.
      Will the Minister answer a simple question: what would he lose if he accepted the excellent amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West? It has been suggested that he make a concession on the number of boats. We are told that about a third of the boats are 17 m and below, but surely, as a part of the total fishing catch in any year, that is an insignificant number. We are not discussing the large boats that catch vast numbers of fish but a very small industry. If, by any chance, those small boats were to overfish, they would suffer the consequences.
      The Minister should try to imagine the nonsensical bureaucracy through which the fishermen of Southend will have to go. It is obvious that we cannot base the number of their days at sea on the 1991 catch, because the fact that they engage in all kinds of fishing means that the information does not exist. They will probably have to start filling in forms, signing sworn statements, go to a tribunal and then appeal against the tribunal. If the tribunal appeal does not work, they may then be able to appeal to the Minister. The Minister may even find that some brave fishermen in Southend—there are plenty of those—will want to go to the High Court for a judicial review. What is the point of all that? How does anyone gain?
      We know that there is a serious problem of overfishing by certain large boats, but the small fishermen gain nothing by going through that absurd nonsense. It will mean getting people to estimate valid days on the basis of what they think the situation is. While they are going before tribunals, filling in forms and discussing the matter with their colleagues, the French boats will be fishing in the same waters with no restrictions. How does that make sense? How is it fair? When people who do not study all the laws and procedures of Parliament see a measure passed which seems to be silly, costly and unfair, they will become extremely angry.

      1035
      Will the Minister consider making a concession on this matter? What would be lost? The small 17 m boats could not rush round, kill vast numbers of fish and ruin the fishing industry. They simply do not have the capacity to do so; they make only a small contribution, to judge by their logbooks. It would be sensible to have an exemption for them. I have heard no argument against one. If, instead of allowing fishermen to go about their business, we make them fill in forms, go before tribunals and through all that costly, silly nonsense, that will he pointless.
      Because of their enthusiasm for the EC, Labour Members will be well aware that we can do nothing about most of the measures in the Bill, because the EC has taken over and the power no longer rests here. However, the Minister could make a decision on this measure; the concession would do no damage, but would simply relieve fishermen in Southend and other places of much unnecessary hassle, stress and paperwork.
      I hope, therefore, that, in that small area where the Minister still has some power and influence, he will use that influence in the best interests of the fishing industry and the fishermen so ably represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I assure my right hon. Friend that, come what may, the fishermen of Southend appreciate what he has argued for and hope that the Minister will listen.
      Mr. Moate: I believe that Government amendment No. 10 is grouped with amendment No. 7. May I respond to that, but begin by expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister? I may sometimes appear to be unreasonable in response to some of his points and I apologise for that. On this occasion, he has been most helpful and I am grateful to him for the steps that he has taken to help us with regard to the vessels measuring under 10 m. We discussed the matter at length in Committee and put forward clear arguments that, to apply days-at-sea regulations to small vessels, particularly those measuring under 10 m, would be extraordinarily difficult and unproductive. In effect, my hon. Friend had already conceded that by saying that it was not his desire to apply the regulations to the under 10 m vessels. None the less, the powers are there.
      In response to our arguments in Committee the Minister helpfully said:
      "We are not about to extend the restrictions. I will have a full process of consultation with the industry and I will give the House an opportunity to comment on the course of action that we then propose to take."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 July 1992; c. 183.]
      I hope that I am not quoting out of context. Clearly, if the Ministry feels that there is a need to extend the days-at-sea regulations to the under 10 m vessels, there will be another consultation process with the industry.
      The Minister has gone further in Government amendment No. 10, for which I thank him. In effect, it says that there will be a further commencement order before any such rules are applied to the under 10m craft. He has been immensely helpful in saying that those resolutions will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. That guarantees the industry further opportunities for consultation and Parliament further opportunities for debate.
      I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those assurances. I hope and believe that they will be welcome to
      1036
      the industry and will reassure many smaller fishermen who are genuinely worried about their livelihood. They had some reason to be worried, and here I come briefly to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) about the 17 m boats.
      I do not know whether we can be described as riparian Members of Parliament, having constituencies on an estuary, but on a fine day I can see my right hon. Friend's constituency and he can see mine. He has 17 m boats but most of mine are under 10 m. None the less, in a couple of weeks' time they will be competing in a trawler race. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that support from the Front Bench. But that poses the question whether a day at sea in a trawler race would count against the number of days at sea permitted under the regulations. One hopes not, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would say certainly not.
      Mr. Curry: I think the answer is that it depends what they do with their nets. If they keep their nets on board, the answer is positively no—if they are not fishing.
      Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He did not make such a helpful statement in Committee. He did not say that time spent at sea not fishing would not count against the days at sea permitted. That would mean that collecting white weed would presumably not count as fishing.
      Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is seeking to lead me much further down the path. His question was whether if there was a trawler race it would count against days at sea. My response was that if it were a trawler race, it would not.
      Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I and some fishermen had understood that a vessel not tied up in port would be subject to inspection and perhaps challenged as being at sea. This is a particular problem with the 17 m vessels and vessels fishing in our estuarial areas. Very little of their time is spent fishing precious stocks. Much of their time is taken up with a range of other activities such as going for oysters, non-notifiable stocks or white weed, they may be on pleasure trips, carrying angler parties or engaging in trawler races. Because it is so difficult to find quota stocks in the estuary, much time is often spent looking for alternative sources of income. That is why I hope that we shall never have to apply these tough regulations to the 17 m vessels.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend mentioned the Dutch days-at-sea regulations. I was informed that they applied only when their fishermen were fishing for quota stocks. When they were not, they were free to pursue other activities at sea. If my hon. Friend can confirm that our regulations will be applied with equal flexibility and common sense, many of the fears of the smaller fishermen will disappear, because they will know that they can carry out a range of other activities freely as long as they are not endangering quota stocks.
      I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said about 17 m vessels. I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful and constructive response on smaller vessels. I hope that he can meet the point about 17 m vessels, exempt them altogether or at least demonstrate a great deal of flexibility and help in response to the valid points made by my right hon. Friend.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Curry: I hope that I shall be able to help my right hon. and hon. Friends, to some extent at least. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has introduced me to a new flora, white weed, which I did not expect to encounter in this debate and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One discovers things all the time. The answer to his question is that we are not interested in how much time is spent chasing white weed. That does not fall within the restrictions.
      We are interested in the time that is spent fishing for fish. Fishermen engaged in activities other than fishing—for example, trips round the bay in a clearly definable period, fishing for white weed or ferrying people to an oil rig, an example that I have given before—could have their licence suspended for that period so that they would not then find themselves caught by the regulations. It is not our intention to deprive a fisherman of his due fishing entitlement.
      My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the relative unimportance of vessels under 17 m in the fleet. However, they are a significant part of the fleet, comprising 61 per cent. of licensed vessels in England and Wales, catching 30 per cent. of the landings by licensed vessels. They are not a negligible part. If we were to exempt those vessels, an enormous part of the burden would fall upon the larger vessels, which the industry would see to be unfair.
      However, I think that I can help my right hon. and hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that I gave a clear undertaking in Committee that I would reflect upon the question of the 10 m and under 10 m vessels. He will recall that at that point I said that I would invite the House to take a further view on the extension of the system, but that I could not in Committee commit myself to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. This amendment provides for an affirmative resolution of both Houses. We shall invite the smaller boats to provide information which enables us to find out what they are doing. That is the important thing. We shall then go to a more detailed sample and collect information on what the smaller vessels are doing and the pressure that they represent on the stocks.
      Everyone will accept that some vessels under 10 m are powerful machines. If we exempted vessels under 17 m, a new generation of boats at 16·99 m would be designed. We have experience of the so-called rule beaters, or metre beaters as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham describes them. That would cause some difficulty. However, we shall investigate which vessels have an important effect upon stocks. If we were to bring them within the system, it would only be after the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
      I emphasise that I cannot think of a circumstance in which we would try to bring in the whole of that class of vessels. We would seek to identify those that clearly had an appreciable impact upon the stocks. That said, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which represents the industry, has pointed to the beginnings of pressure on shellfish stock, and there is some pressure from the industry for conservation measures. I do not want to rule that out, but it would be a separate measure not related to this. It would be in response to a particular demand from the industry as a result of pressures upon those stocks.
      Mr. David Shaw: I have two interests in the matter, in that I represent a constituency which has a small number of inshore fishermen, and I am also concerned about small businesses. I trust that neither will be subjected to a lot of bureaucracy. Is it the intention that small boats and small fishing operations will be exempted from any regulations, and will there be an opportunity for extensive consultation before any regulations affecting smaller vessels are introduced?
      Mr. Curry: We will of course consult widely before introducing any such regulations. We shall have to judge which vessels we eventually suggest to the House ought to be included, in the light of their impact on stocks. However, those that my hon. Friend described make only a small impact—and that would be true of such vessels no matter where they were. I do not imagine that cost-benefit analysis would indicate that it would make sense to bring them within the system. We are trying to include vessels that make an appreciable impact on stocks. I am confident that we shall be able to work out the track records, and I will write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham about how we intend to do that, if that will be acceptable.
      Mr. Channon: Our great worry is how one can prove that a vessel has been fishing when no landing declaration was required in 1991. I have many examples of daily returns to MAFF numbering fewer than one half the days fished because the balance was made up by effort on shellfish, eels and other species for which no landing declaration was required. How can that be overcome, to ensure a reasonable allocation in 1993?
      Mr. Curry: The days-at-sea allocation will be made on the basis of 1991 track records, but they are not available for some vessels that landed TAC species only on some of their trips. All vessels over 17 m in length landing TAC species are required to submit logbook returns and landing declarations. Vessels over 10 m but not exceeding 17 m catching TAC species are not required to submit logbook returns for trips of less than 24 hours, but for such trips they are required to submit landing declarations or equivalent data. The declaration states the date of departure and of return, and therefore the days at sea can be calculated.
      The appeals procedure will deal with those fishermen who feel that they are entitled to a larger allocation of days at sea, and it will make use of independent and specialist advice. I hope that we shall be able to settle disputes by discussion in the first instance. We intend to be sensible and flexible. Only if we are unable to reach agreement—and our fisheries inspectors are very experienced—will there be recourse to the statutory tribunal.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: While there will be information on pressure stock catches and landings, and on the number of days at sea, it appears that there will be no equivalent information about catches of other species, where there is no requirement to register them. How will that information be taken into account in formulating the permitted catch for such vessels?
      Mr. Curry: We should be able to make some of the allocation involving non-TAC species by reference to voluntary returns. We may also find it possible to determine the days-at-sea allocation using a formula based

      1039
      on days per tonne of fish landed calculated from voluntary returns. We looked hard at that aspect and accept that it is not straightforward. We know that none of this is straightforward, but we believe that, with common sense, we can work it out.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: When my hon. Friend the Minister says that the authorities will be "sensible and flexible", does he envisage that a fisheries inspector will negotiate vessel by vessel, or that there be an overall allocation? Will individual vessel owners have to make their case to the inspector—and if they are not happy, will reference be made to a tribunal, might an appeal be lodged, and so on? Or will the Minister make an overall decision in respect of vessels fishing out of, for example, Scotland?
      Mr. Curry: I made it clear that we intend to make individual allocations. We will not apply a blunt, blanket formula. I gave that pledge at the earliest stages of the Bill, and I am pleased to repeat it. In the light of my remarks, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and that the House will accept the measure that I have suggested—which fulfils the obligation into which I entered in Committee.
      Mr. Morley: I welcome the Minister's remarks in respect of boats under 10 m, which are an improvement on those made in Committee, when the issue was discussed in terms of an affirmative order. His proposal introduces some accountability in terms of any change that might apply to boats under 10 m. Some of them, however, will be caught by the restriction. Although the Minister has tried to be reasonable and helpful, there will be some hard cases to deal with in terms of track records, fishing activities, and which vessels should be covered by the rule. There will be some difficult borderline cases. Also, all the bureaucracy involved in administering the regulations will be imposed on small business people who are already subject to a lot of stress—not least in making their living.
      We welcome the improvement to the original Bill, but we remain concerned about the provision's effects on vessels of under 10 m, and on the many thousands of small business people around our coasts.
      Mr. Channon: Although we are against people having to go to tribunals, thank goodness they exist. If there is a manifest case of injustice, it can be dealt with. Let us hope that is a step forward. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he would write to me, but perhaps I may press him further. If I, or those more expert than I, find that small fishermen are still worried about the situation, will my hon. Friend receive a deputation of Southend fishermen, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and myself, so that we may explain to him in detail the points of remaining concern?
      Mr. Curry: If we can find a date, I will come to Southend.
      Mr. Channon: I might even make my hon. Friend travel on the misery line. He can then kill two birds with one stone, and report on it to the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend the Minister has not fully met my points, but we have made some progress this evening. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      ', provided that it shall be a condition of any licence granted under this section which contains a condition under paragraph (c) above pursuant to those regulations that any days on which such a restriction applies should be spent at a port nominated in advance by the owner or charterer of the vessel.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 11 at end insert
      'provided that it shall be a condition of any licence granted under this section which contains a condition under paragraph (c) above that a proportion of days spent in port pursuant to these regulations may, at the direction of the Minister, be taken in any United Kingdom port.'.
      No. 17, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      'provided that, in respect of any British-registered vessel regardless of nationality of ownership, any day which is not to be spent at sea as a result of a condition under this paragraph shall be spent in a British port.'.
      No. 19, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      'provided that the period of restriction shall not exceed 4 days in any month, or 48 days in any period of twelve months.'.
      No. 20, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
      '; but time spent in fishing for shellfish shall not count as time spent at sea'.
      No. 21, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
      '(6C) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6B) above, any day or part of a day during which a fishing vessel sails to its home port or to a port in which it is to undergo repair shall not count towards the number of days spent at sea as long as no fishing is undertaken during the voyage.'.
      Mr. Morley: The House now has an opportunity to deal positively with the problem of foreign vessels that register as British and are therefore legally entitled to fish on the United Kingdom quota. The Government tried to tackle that problem, which has existed for some years, by amending the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to try to restrict the vessels that went on the United Kingdom register according to the nationality of their ownership. That was doomed to failure, because of the Government's commitment to a single market within the European Community. It was never likely to stand up in court.
      Although quota hoppers were stopped from fishing—the fishing was suspended—the owners of the vessels concerned brought a case against the British Government in the European Court on the ground of discrimination on the basis of nationality. They argued that, if the Community was moving towards an open market, it was wrong for a member state to discriminate in licence conditions on the ground of nationality rather than the business that was being pursued. They won that case.
      What worries me, apart from the current position, is the fact that such people are entitled to claim damages from the Government for the fishing time that they have lost. What is even more serious is the possibility that they will try to claim a track record as well. When we were discussing days-at-sea restrictions, the Minister said that he would have to try to calculate a national track record to be spread among the various vessels, on the basis of the targets laid down for us by the multi-annual guidance programme of the European Community.
      The problem of having quota hoppers on our register is twofold. First, they will inflate the fleet, because every vessel that appears on the United Kingdom register is

      1041
      counted as a British fishing vessel, thus adding to our problem of over-capacity. Secondly, any problem involving retrospective track records may have to be included in the target figures that the Minister will have to meet. I shall be interested to hear his comments on that.
      8 pm
      Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 16 provide the Minister with a helpful opportunity to try to deal with the problem of quota hoppers. They offer him three different ways of doing that. They present the principle of using licence conditions in a way that blatantly favours British vessels. I am not suggesting that any individual should be discriminated against on grounds of nationality; I am saying that, if people are registering their fishing boats as British, sailing under the red ensign and applying for British fishing licences, they must expect to obey the conditions of those licences, whatever they may be. If those conditions are laid down for all licence holders in the country, and if they are applied fairly and equally, it is clearly not a case of discrimination.
      Some of the amendments suggest that, if days must be spent in port, they should be spent in a British port. It is stretching a point to allow vessels that are registered as British to be based in Spain, to operate in Spain, to land in Spain and to enter United Kingdom ports rarely if at all. There is no reason why such vessels should not adhere to the licence conditions that apply to our British ships.
      There is also a practical implication—the question of enforcement. If vessels are operating from foreign ports, who is to make sure that the enforcement is carried out? Who will make sure that the vessels spend their days tied up in port as a condition of their British licences? How will the Ministry do that? We discussed the issue in Committee, but the Minister has not yet given us a satisfactory answer about how it could be done and what the cost would be. Will MAFF fishery inspectors be based in Spain, Holland and France to ensure that vessels abide by the regulations?
      It should be said that, for various reasons, genuine British vessels operate from foreign ports. Equally, genuine British vessels may want to fulfil some of their days-at-sea restrictions in a foreign port: they may have entered into a contract for refitting, they may have been landing there or it may suit their operational arrangements. That is why one of the amendments gives the Minister the option of making it a licence condition for those who are to spend that time in port to nominate the port in advance to the Minister, so that he will know where they are. Even if it is a foreign port, it will be a nominated foreign port, which will make the measure much easier to enforce.
      Mr. Curry: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that boat owners should notify Ministers of the port where they intend to spend the entire period for which they will be tied up, or does he mean that they may have to name the port in which they will spend each specific day?
      Mr. Morley: In typically generous fashion, I am deliberately giving the Minister an opportunity to make such decisions for himself, thus allowing him the maximum flexibility. That not only helps the Minister, but deals with a serious problem. A number of vessels are still coming on to the register, and the Minister should spare a thought for what that will do to our capacity targets. The
      1042
      implication is that, for every foreign vessel that comes on to our register and flies the British flag, there will be another over-capacity problem for the Minister to handle.
      If the Minister is determined to apply the measures in the Bill, he may as well take the opportunity to use the amendments to try to end an anomaly in British law and solve the problem of quota hoppers. I accept that this is a tricky legal area; some of the amendments may need some technical knocking into shape, and I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that he is prepared to examine them further. I shall not be impressed, however, if the Minister says that his legal advisers have told him that the amendments will not work. I strongly suspect that they are the same people who advised on amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which did not work at all, and I think that we should exercise some common sense.
      Mr. Moate: The position is not merely anomalous, as suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley); I find quota hopping offensive and outrageous, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister—or other Ministers—will tell us at some stage of the Bill's progress what the Government will do, or try to do, to deal with it.
      No doubt my hon. Friend will describe the immense legal difficulties involved and will enlarge on the legal dilemma—touched on by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe—that now confronts us. Although the position may be legally complex, there must be a political solution. It is outrageous that the European Community should allocate national quotas to us and then allow those quotas to be undermined by another Community rule. "Outrageous" is a strong word, but I suspect that my sense of outrage is widely shared. Why should British quotas be taken up by Spanish vessels? If Spanish vessels register in British ports, we accept that they have found their way through a legal loophole; none the less, the position is unacceptable.
      We make much of the fact that, for the next six months, Britain will have the European Commission presidency. I gather that we are renegotiating protocols to the Maastricht treaty, among other things. Why can we not renegotiate another protocol to deal with the quota anomaly? I am sure that the European lawyers could come up with some amendment to the Maastricht treaty to deal with the provision and to make it acceptable in European law. Presumably our European partners intended the quotas to work for British fishermen; let us translate that intention into practice. If the amendments are unacceptable, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what the Government plan. Are they going to try to do something, or do they intend to sit back and accept the present untenable position?
      If we cannot control or prevent quota hopping, a number of alternatives are on offer, by which we could try to control quota hoppers who, presumably, will operate under the British days-at-sea regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us how he intends to ensure that the British days-at-sea regulations apply to Common Market vessels fishing in British waters. If he cannot do so, there will be an even greater sense of outrage among British fishermen when they are tied up and see Dutch, Belgian or French fishermen fishing in our waters. My hon. Friend knows that that is unacceptable. We have to find ways to overcome the problem.

      1043
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe put forward some practical ideas. They may not be perfect, but they are certainly worthy of examination. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond today or, if necessary, at some other time and tell us how he intends to apply the days-at-sea regulations to foreign vessels and, more importantly, what the British Government's plan of campaign will be to eliminate the problem of quota hoppers, in conjunction with our European partners. My hon. Friend the Minister sighs. I know that it is a difficult problem to solve, but there has to be a political solution, in conjunction with our European partners. If partnership means anything, let us put it on the agenda and deal with the issue during our presidency of the European Commission.
      Mr. Curry: What my hon. Friend thought was a sigh was the tail end of sinusitis.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I support the submissions by the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate). It is important for the House of Commons to understand the extent of the outrage felt by the industry, to which they so eloquently referred. The Government must be left in absolutely no doubt about the sense of unfairness that the Government have created among the fishing communities, because of the legal bind into which they have got themselves.
      I am concerned about the effects of the whole measure on small communities and, in particular, on small-scale businesses in the smaller ports. I underscore the need for an answer to the question about how quota hopping will affect capacity targets. The vital question was raised, fairly, by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. However, the issue is much wider than that. If the quota-hopping trend continues in this worrying way in relation to Spanish vessels and, in particular, to Dutch beamers, we run the risk of driving a coach and horses through the whole concept of relative stability and the share of total allowable catches.
      That, in its own way, will have an important potential impact on the review of the common fisheries policy. This is not a temporary problem. We shall have to deal with it over a long period. It may have a fundamental impact on the way in which the common fisheries policy operates in this country in the years to come.
      It is right not to make light of the fact that these are legal questions. They were all caused by the European Court of Justice when it exposed our industry to the predations of other European Community fishing fleets. That, combined with the unilateral imposition of days tied up that this measure unilaterally brings about, creates very great difficulties for our fishing fleets.
      It is not just a matter of finding a way through the legal problems. The Minister cannot just sit back and listen to his legal advisers and then sigh, or say that he has sinusitis. The House and the industry deserve at least an update on the Department's current thinking on this important subject.
      Apart from the legal difficulties, there are enforcement difficulties. The amendments go to the heart of the questions that are in the minds of small fishing communities throughout the length and breadth of the
      1044
      United Kingdom. They concern the way in which the Minister intends to police the provisions. Cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantees have to be built into the enforcement procedures.
      Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who so eloquently moved amendment No. 1, I do not know whether it is technically in order. However, the amendment, and those grouped with it, go to the heart of the question that ordinary people on quaysides throughout the United Kingdom are asking: how can the provisions be enforced unless there is a move in the direction outlined in these important amendments?
      If a fair scheme of implementation is not written into the Bill, fishing communities will be justifiably outraged. The Bill discriminates against the way in which the industry operates in this country. The question of enforcement must be dealt with.
      8.15 pm
      There is a great deal of confusion about the tie-up regulations. This issue was raised in Committee. Unfortunately, I was not one of those who was chosen to serve on the Committee, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) represented my interests assiduously and played an important part in its work. There is great uncertainty about the regulations. They must be clarified, either here or later in the Bill's passage through Parliament, or by means of a statutory instrument or whatever other device the Minister decides to use.
      The best way to deal with the issue is put forward in the amendments. That would entail the inclusion of restrictions in the licences. I can think of no better way of resolving the problem. The spirit and intention of the amendments are clear. They have a defined purpose. They are necessary. I have great pleasure in supporting them wholeheartedly.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: The objective of amendment No. 19, which stands in my name, is to limit the Minister's power. I make no apology for that. As has already been pointed out, the powers being vested in the Minister under the terms of the original Bill—I appreciate that he has made certain commitments—are wholly unacceptable. Under its original terms, it would be possible for the Minister to ban fishing on every day of the year except Christmas day. Just to give the Minister such enormous power, even assuming that no sensible Minister would come anywhere close to using it, would undermine the livelihood of many thousands of fishermen throughout the country—in particular, the livelihood of the fishermen in my constituency. More than a dozen boats and their crews operate from the Torbay constituency, although the boats are moored mainly in Brixham.
      The objective of the amendment is to limit the Minister's powers. My constituents and, I believe, everyone in the industry accept the need to conserve fish stocks. They represent their future, but the question is how fish stocks are to he conserved. Quotas do not work. If they did, the Bill would be unnecessary and we should not be debating it this evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, the concept of quotas is deeply flawed, especially as foreign vessels—the so-called quota hoppers—take advantage of our quotas. That leads

      1045
      to consideration of the technical means to limit catches. Clearly, there would not be a need for an effort control exercise if the technical means worked.
      What has gone wrong with quotas? I believe that we are the only country in the European Community to take any notice of them. I do not believe for one moment that the French exercise any control over their fishing fleets. It became perfectly clear a few weeks ago that there were no enforcement oflicers or inspectors in French ports to exercise control or to police French fleets. Quotas have come to an end, and that is the heart of the problem. There can be nothing more galling for a British fisherman than to accept the principle of conserving fish stocks and to tie up his vessel, only to watch a foreign boat come to exactly the area that he would like to fish, for that boat to fish to its heart's content and then to claim off the British quota.
      That is the position of the British skipper. We should bear in mind the fact that skippers and their crews are not rich men. I have seen their landing documents, and I know the size of their catches. They are barely making a living and rely on the good will of their bank managers: it is as simple as that. One of the great problems with the Bill is that it undermines the relationship between the skippers and their bank managers.
      Skippers have been able to get loans and operate on large overdrafts on the understanding that they carry on with their livelihood, catch fish and pay their debts. As soon as the bank managers read in the newspapers that their customers' livelihood is subject to the will and whim of a Minister, it dramatically undermines their confidence in the skippers' ability to pay the interest on their loans.
      The amendment would limit the Minister's powers. As I understand it, the Minister has agreed that the limit that he proposes to put on the days at sea is to be directly linked to the days at sea of each individual vessel in 1991. I welcome that, and I also welcome the introduction of an independent appeals tribunal. Clearly, the moment the Minister says he is going to reduce his powers and accepts a finite limit, there is bound to be argument about what the 1991 level was for each vessel. I thank the Minister for the commitment to the 1991 limit and for the introduction of the independent appeals tribunal. However, some confusion remains, and I hope that the Minister will deal with one issue in particular.
      Some of my hon. Friends believe that the Minister's commitment to a 1991 limit is directly linked to the French and to our European partners introducing similar limits. From his remarks, I understand that the 1991 level will be introduced immediately and that any future step to reduce the figures will first have to come before the House but, in any event, will not be brought before the House or the other place unless our European partners agree to similar limits.
      There could be nothing more galling for British fishermen than to be the first victims of Maastricht. If we are honest, we must concede that Maastricht is the reason that the Bill has been introduced in this way. As the fishermen have said, the Bill was introduced before the end of the consultation period. Surely it is because the Maastricht Bill has effectively come to a dead end—and not a day too soon—that there was a gap in Government legislation.
      It was a mismanagement of the House's affairs to produce a Bill with such wide powers, but to do so before the end of a consultation period seems to show a certain arrogance or incompetence, or both. I am profoundly
      1046
      disappointed, because the Bill has created an enormous feeling of ill will among fishermen who accept that conservation is necessary.
      Amendment No. 20 covers shellfish fishermen. I am attempting to exclude them from the legislation in every regard except that of decommissioning payments. I understand that there is a lot more to the issue than meets the eye. It is a European matter, and the Commissioner will have a say, so the Minister is not his own master. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about shellfish fishermen.
      The shell fishermen themselves recognise the need for good conservation measures. When I spoke to them, they mentioned two particular proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to listen to the proposals and will discuss them with the fishermen. First, the fishermen are willing to increase the size of the lobsters they catch, which will, of course, reduce the total catch but will mean that there will be more stock available and more breeding stock.
      Secondly, at present the so-called cripples—the crabs which have lost one claw—are caught. I understand that the shellfish fishermen would be willing to throw back the cripples. Such crabs are not as valuable as others. They are being caught at present but could be thrown back and could become part of an important stock.
      I am grateful for many of the Minister's remarks and for the concessions that he has made. There will be a broad welcome for the fact that he has recognised the fact that the blank cheque which he had proposed to write himself would be unacceptable to the House.
      There must be a long-term measure to protect shellfish stocks around our coasts. There is no alternative to a licensing system, which I believe the shellfish fishermen would welcome. I am disappointed that such a system is not proposed in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a firm undertaking to consider the needs of shellfish fishermen, the need to preserve stock and the need to introduce at some stage a sensible method of licensing.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Salmond: Let me take the opportunity afforded by amendment No. 21 to revisit a subject with which the Minister is familiar. May we have an exact definition of what constitutes a day at sea and, in particular, clarification of whether a day spent sailing to or from a home port or going into another port for repairs will constitute a day's fishing for the purposes of the Bill? I read what the Minister had to say about that in Committee, although I confess I was none the wiser:
      "The model is more of an a la carte, 135-day tie-up, than a dirigiste, inflexible eight-day tie-up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee; 23 June 1992, c. 44.]
      I regard the Bill as more of a dog's breakfast than an a la carte meal, but we are certainly due some explanaiton of whether a vessel going to or from a home port, or to a port elsewhere for repairs, counts as a day's fishing.
      The Bill says:
      "A licence containing a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea may make provision as to the circumstances in which time is, or is not, to count as time spent at sea."
      The amendment specifies that time spent by a vessel sailing to or from a home port or going in for repairs would not constitute time spent at sea.
      Those who follow the affairs of the fishing industry will recall that a similar argument occurred during the debate

      1047
      on the eight-day continuous tie-up. I pointed out then that a vessel sailing the short distance from Whitehills to MacDuff, a major port, for repairs, would be counted as breaching the tie-up regulations. Would a vessel making the same journey be counted under the Bill as taking another day at sea, or does the Minister intend to discount time spent in that way?
      In Committee, the Minister's response to those questions, which it is legitimate to ask of a Minister who is seeking such extensive powers, was that everything would be flexible. He said that everything would depend on individual circumstances and that he intended to consult the industry and see what came out of that consultation. We need to know more about what progress he has made since then, and whether he is clear in his own mind whether a vessel undergoing such trips will or will not be counted as taking a day at sea.
      The Minister will recall that much concern was expressed about this question in respect of the continuous eight-day tie-up in Scotland. Implicit in what I am saying is the fear of discrimination between ports. Clearly, if fishing boats land in a port away from their home port, and if a trip to the home port for repairs is to be counted against fishing time, they will tend to stay at that port.
      On 7 March last year, I presented a petition from the Fraserburgh harbour traders expressing precisely that concern. Yesterday I received a charming note from the Clerk of Public Petitions, telling me, pursuant to Standing Order No. 135, that, having had the petition for 16 months, the Scottish Office had no observations to make on its contents. Even by Scottish Office standards, 16 months is a long time to take to say nothing. I repeat that we are due some explanation from the Minister on this important matter.
      The Minister cannot have drafted the Bill without having a clear view on whether time spent at sea that is not spent fishing will or will not be counted as a day spent at sea. In Committee, he argued that the present provisions were quite different from the prescriptive "dirigiste" continuous tie-up proposal. If he is to honour that, he must give us some idea of how the flexibility that he promised will be implemented. The fishing industry would greatly appreciate a straight answer to a straight question: is time spent going to and from a home port or for repairs in another port to be counted as a day at sea?
      Mr. Harris: I shall direct my remarks to the amendments intended to ensure that some control is exercised over the so-called quota hoppers or flag-of-convenience vessels, to which I might apply even stronger terms. I have been trying to fight these wretched vessels for a dozen years or more, both in this place and, before that, in the European Parliament, because I believe that they have posed and continue to pose a tremendous threat to our own fishing industry, particularly in Cornwall.
      One of the worst aspects of the Bill so far—again, I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to table amendments or give reassurance—is that it is clear that the tie-up measures cannot be applied to quota hoppers under the existing arrangements. Technically, the boats are British boats and appear on our register, although in reality they are nothing of the sort. Many of them are Spanish boats. If the Minister gets a holiday this summer, perhaps he should spend part of it in northern Spain—in Coruna, for
      1048
      example. Much to my wife's annoyance, I went there one Sunday morning last summer while I was on holiday. Numerous boats had British registration numbers painted on them. There were boats from Penzance, Plymouth, the east coast of England and Scotland.
      Mr. Moate: What a farce!
      Mr. Harris: Yes, it is a farce. They are no more British boats than are Spanish or French boats that carry the registration of their true home port in Spain or France. In reality, because they operate mainly from Spanish ports, there is no way that we shall be able to exercise effective control over them under the tie-up arrangements.
      In a letter to The Western Morning News last week, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill applied to such vessels. Of course it applies, but, at present, its application is only theoretical because the Minister and his officials cannot enforce it. They do not know how many days a particular boat spends tied up in a Spanish port, and they have no power to go there and demand to know.
      I hope that the Minister will go some way towards meeting our objections. I have had some discussions with him and I believe that he has some proposals that may help. I look forward to hearing what they are. If my hon. Friend feels that I have been hard on him today—and perhaps I have—let me pay tribute to him and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No two Ministers could have worked harder to try to rid us of the plague of quota hoppers. They have both worked extremely hard.
      Late in the day, urged by the industry and several hon. Members, including me, the Government introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, monitor these matters carefully from your constituency. No doubt you will recall that section 2 of that Act set up a fishing register, giving us a chance to start again and get rid of those wretched boats, which should never have been on our original all-vessel register in the first place. We all knew what would happen then: part of that Act was challenged in our own courts and, perhaps more important, in the European court.
      I read the vitriolic comments of a certain columnist in The Sunday Telegraph, who tried to imply that, in recent years, my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department have been lax in allowing the boats on to our register, and almost that they welcomed them on to our register. That is completely untrue. The ships were able to get back on to the register because of the diabolical decision of the European Court of Justice, and that is why the Bill has been introduced. I am convinced that the Government were hoping for a reduction in the size of our fleet by removing the quota hoppers from our register under the 1988 Act. That would have gone a long way towards meeting the target that the Commission will eventually set for a reduction in catch capacity.
      We face difficult problems tonight because of the decision of the European Court and the return of some of those quota hoppers to our register. If the Government want to enforce tying up on our boats, it is incumbent on them to make serious and effective efforts to ensure that the Dutch and Spanish boats, which are technically ours, but which really have nothing to do with us, are subjected to the same tying-up regulations. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend how he intends to bring that about.
      Mr. Ainger: I want to refer to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 17, which do not address the issue of the controls that should be placed on quota hoppers. I will refer to amendment No. 20 later in relation to shellfish fishing.
      As the hon. Member who represents Milford Haven, which has the largest number of quota hoppers in Britain, I am aware that the quota hoppers from Milford Haven, Penzance and Plymouth may well be able to form their own fish producers organisation. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that the people in the south-west and on the west coast of Wales face an extremely serious problem.
      The hon. Member for St_ Ives (Mr. Harris) said that he saw fish being landed in north Spanish ports such as Coruna and Vigo. We could perhaps stick a label on that fish stating, "This is British fish, but untouched by British hands." Even when quota hoppers land fish in ports like Milford Haven, that fish is not touched by British workers. It provides no benefits to the local economy. The fish literally passes from a Spanish vessel—for that is what they are—into the back of a Spanish lorry. The fish is then driven on to a ferry and off to markets in Spain.
      That is the main reason why we should insist on every possible legal restriction on quota hoppers. It is not just a matter of jobs being lost at sea and unfair competition. More importantly, what should he a British product loses its value because it is not being landed or processed in our ports.
      Current legislation requires the quota hoppers to make only four visits in every six months which last a minimum of 12 hours. That is the only time that they have to be in a British port by law. Amendments Nos. 2 and 17 provide that, when days-at-sea restrictions are imposed on those so-called British vessels, they should be applied and monitored in a British port. That is the only possible way that those cowboys or pirates will abide by the law.
      As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, the issue has caused an awful amount of friction in my part of the country and in his. Having tried the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and been knocked back by the European Court, we can use the amendments to offer one of the few opportunities to impose restrictions and control on those pirates. However, the Minister refuses to take the opportunity. Perhaps he will respond differently, particularly after his apparent concession earlier.
      8.45 pm
      In many of the small ports, and in some that we certainly would not call ports, the shellfish fishermen who work crabs and lobsters off the west coast of Wales are absolutely staggered that the Government are proposing to impose days-at-sea limits on them. They cannot see the logic in that. The South Wales Shellfish Fishermen's Association, together with other shellfish fishermen's associations, has offered proposals to the Government to increase the minimum landing size of crabs and lobsters. They have pointed out to the Minister that the new EC regulations on measurements of lobsters will mean that smaller lobsters will be landed. Those organisations have told the Minister that he should get hold of Mr. Marin and sort the problem out. I am glad to learn from a parliamentary reply that the Minister appears to be doing just that.
      The fishermen's associations claim, quite sensibly, that there are far easier ways to limit effort and thereby increase conservation. For example, the number of pots that a boat
      1050
      is allowed to work could be limited. The size of pots could also be limited. In relation to shellfish fishermen, the gear option, not days at sea, is the right way to increase conservation.
      As I said earlier, the number of days that shellfish fishermen can spend at sea may be limited if the Minister has his way. However, they will maximise the time that they spend at sea by working the pots for 24 hours a day in two runs, instead of for 12 hours a day in one run. However, in that respect, they will still comply with the days-at-sea regulation.
      The shellfish fishermen's organisations constantly provide the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local officers and local committees with suggestions for ways in which more conservation can be built into the way in which they operate. It would be a significant concession if the Minister were prepared to sit down with the relevant organisations that want to talk seriously about conservation of shellfish.
      I remind the Minister that, in the latest EC document about the multi-annual guidance programmes for the period 1993–96 for fishing fleets, the suggested base for fishing methods should, for static gear fisheries including shellfish, mean no reduction of effort. However, the Minister insists on imposing reduction in effort and restrictions on days at sea on the shellfishery.
      I urge the Minister to think again, particularly about quota hoppers. The Minister would receive unanimous support in the House if he were to impose restrictions on the quota hoppers. I am sure that the House would welcome any movement that would improve conservation in our shellfishery without imposing restrictions on days at sea.
      Mr. John Townend: Although the Bridlington fishermen welcome some of the proposals in the Bill, particularly in respect of licensing for smaller boats and the one-net rule, they have great reservations about the effect that the days-at-sea proposal will have on their livelihoods.
      While, by and large, they are not affected by quota hoppers, I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) about what I believe is an abuse of the common fisheries policy. That is not the Government's fault. They legislated, but unfortunately we were overruled in the European Court.
      It is strange that we proposed legislation on restricting days at sea when we had a quota system. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that quotas are not working. That is absolutely true. If quotas had been working, we would have been able to increase them rather than reduce them every year. If we had quotas, it would be nonsense to bring in regulations that prevented our fishermen from fishing their quota while fishermen from other EC countries were free to fish their quotas. I took up that matter with my hon. Friend the Minister and he assured me that that was not the intention, and that, if it became clear that our fishermen would not be able to catch enough fish to cover quotas, he would take action and extend their days at sea. I thought that that was a reasonable reply, and naturally I conveyed it to Bridlington fishermen. I regret to say that it did not pacify them. They said:
      "It is therefore our view that the answers being given by the Minister cannot be given and will never come to fruition. Firstly, the EEC has a condition for compliance with its multi

      1051
      annual guidance programme is currently suggesting fleet reduction in capacity and net terms of 40 per cent. for our time of vessel"—
      that is, commercial trawlers. They go on:
      "The Ministry in its wisdom, as an alternative to a decommissioning scheme has argued that the prime element of the policy be directed at effort limitation, namely, by means of day-at-sea restrictions. As the MAGP will be cast in stone"—
      That is what my fishermen fear—
      "and will not relate directly to quota uptake, you will see that there will be very little room for quota manoeuvrability. While a counter assurance may be given to that effect which also from past experience with the north sea tie-up provisions for quota industries, I would suggest that the previous conditions were implicit on the quota regulations and as such could be relaxed."
      If my fishermen have got it wrong, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to repeat, so that it is on the record, that, if the regulations that are being brought in by the Bill prevent our fishermen from catching their quota, he will take action to see that that quota may be fished. If he can give that undertaking, it would certainly help to reduce my reservations about the Bill.
      Our fishermen are very worried about weather and what effect it will have on days at sea. We suffer from much bad weather in the North sea around the coast of Bridlington and Scarborough. We are particularly vulnerable to winds from the east to the south-west, which make predictions of tie-up days almost impossible at times.
      This year, many Bridlington vessels which are caught by the EC's tie-up restrictions have found that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been singularly inflexible in relation to sudden changes in weather conditions, preferring to accept a morass of paper work from our fishermen for nine hours in advance of the tie-up date. The system is, in short, a bureaucratic nightmare and singularly inflexible to our fishermen, and does not take account of sudden changes in the weather.
      Those are relevant points. Again, I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that will satisfy me and the Bridlington fishermen whom I represent that adequate note will be taken of the weather and that he will investigate the bureaucratic snarl-ups that have occurred in his Ministry in the past. Those points should be dealt with, because there is a great danger of misunderstanding. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the fishermen's concern and of the financial pressures that they are under. I should like to add my thanks to those of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives for the concessions that the Minister has already made in respect of the Bill. I trust that the undertakings that I ask the Minister to give will produce a Bill that we will be able to support.
      Mr. Curry: Again, we have had a wide-ranging debate, and I shall seek to answer the main points that have been made.
      I understand concern about quota hoppers. I am sure that the House will equally understand that I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and declare that there is some war plan specifically designed to sink quota hoppers, because I would be supplying ammunition to their lawyers in their next case against the United Kingdom. I put it bluntly to the House that that is the situation.
      The House will know that measures were taken to tackle the problem of people seeking to register and fish
      1052
      against the British quota. Hon. Members know that that led to a series of court proceedings. The Attorney-General, who was on the Treasury Bench a short while ago, will know how hard the United Kingdom fought those cases. The House will know also that matters following those cases have not finished and that there are still outstanding matters. Therefore, I entirely understand why hon. Members are concerned, and I wholly support their concern, but we are very attentive in our policies to try to make sure that boats fishing against the United Kingdom quotas have the links with the United Kingdom which we have been able to write into the regulations, such as visiting conditions.
      I am sure that the House will equally understand that I cannot declare that I can take a course of action that I know would be illegal and which I am strongly advised would be illegal. I have to take advice from my lawyers, and I seek advice from very authoritative sources. I cannot say that the lawyers have got it wrong and that I am going ahead. I cannot knowingly invite the House to legislate something which I am told would be illegal. It might be easy for me to do that as a political cop-out, but I cannot responsibly invite the House to do it.
      I have to make that clear. It is a frustrating position for all hon. Members, but I must have the principles of the maintenance of the rule of law foremost in my concern, whether it be fishery legislation or anything else. I understand the problems, and hon. Members also understand the problems.
      Mr. Harris: We are not asking my hon. Friend to take discriminatory action against quota hoppers, because we realise the difficulties in doing that, although I should like to take discriminatory action against them. However if there is to be a tie-up which affects our boats, it should apply equally to quota hoppers. That is not discrimination; it is equality of treatment.
      Mr. Curry: I shall refer to the measures outlined in the amendments, but I wish to deal with one or two matters, that, strictly speaking, are not covered by the amendments, but hon. Members are concerned about them so I shall try to respond.
      My hon. Friendthe Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that we were guilty of arrogance and incompetence. That would be a double whammy for anybody, I suppose. I think that, in three years in the job, I have not displayed arrogance; as to whether I have been guilty of incompetence, I have to submit to the judgment of my peers and contemporaries.
      9 pm
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Let me take this opportunity to withdraw those remarks, on condition that my hon. Friend explain the point that I was making when I made them. It appeared that the Bill had been introduced before the end of the consultation period. That move was certainly open to misinterpretation, and I should be delighted to hear the Minister's explanation.
      Mr. Curry: During the Second Reading debate and in Committee, I explained that the Bill is enabling legislation which makes provision for the broad principles of a certain course of action. There will be very detailed consultation about how it should apply specifically. I have made it absolutely clear that we hope that the industry will come to us with its views on how we should apply particular

      1053
      measures. We are still open to that course of action. Several hon. Members have asked me whether I will consult on this, that and the other. The answer is that, if the industry is in a consulting mood, I shall consult, but I cannot compel it to consult. It is known that my door is always open to people who want to see me, and that will remain the case. I have never taken up any contrary position.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) mentioned shellfish. Let me make the situation clear. We agree with the industry that the new minimum landing sizes for lobsters which have emerged from the interpretation of Community regulations are silly. The sizes are too small, and we have gone to Brussels to try to have the matter put right. I put that on record as a matter on which there is nothing between us.
      On the question of action generally in relation to shellfish, the Sea Fish Industry Authority has produced a report indicating that there may be a case for limitation, some sort of discipline in respect of shellfish activity. We shall be discussing the implications of that report and what measures ought to be taken as a consequence of it. We accept that there is a problem in a particular fishery, and we shall seek to deal with it.
      Let me now deal specifically with the amendments. With regard to amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that owners or charterers of fishing vessels should be required to advise fisheries departments in advance of which port they intended to tie up in. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the amendment does not specify whether the notification should take place before each tie-up or whether it should be a blanket arrangement. He kindly left the choice to me.
      Blanket notification would reduce flexibility enormously, whereas one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide maximum flexibility. If it is a question of notification in respect of individual voyages, the amendment is flawed. However, it is not necessary to amend the Bill to require advance notification of tie-up, as this can be achieved by licence conditions. While I cannot accept the amendment, I can say that I shall examine the practical and administrative implications of introducing advance notification of the port of tie-up for individual voyages, and I shall consult the industry about whether it favours a notification system of this sort.
      The hon. Gentleman then introduced a series of provisions dealing specifically with the quota-hopper problem. I am sorry to have to tell him that, while we sympathise with the intention behind the amendment and while we would welcome the opportunity to secure improved enforcement, I have been advised that it would discriminate against British-registered fishing boats operating out of foreign ports, because the European Court has established that, although the quota system entitles us to have a condition, such as a visiting condition—and I assume that the amendment is based on the visiting condition—that establishes a real economic link between quota and the population dependent on fishing, such a condition must not amount to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port or hinder normal fishing operations. The amendment would be contrary to those principles and would give rise to legal proceedings, possibly involving a claim for damages.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Does that mean that the Government concede that there is no effective way of enforcing these provisions?
      Mr. Curry: The Government are saying that measures incorporated in the Bill that could he interpreted as being targeted specifically against a certain category of vessel—the flag of convenience or flagship vessels—would he illegal and could be challenged. That is the problem. My lawyers advise me that, although the European Court has established that the quota system entitles us to have a condition, such as a visiting condition, that establishes a real economic link between the quota and the population dependent on fishing, such a condition must not amount to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port or not to hinder normal fishing operation. Tying up in a United Kingdom port amounts to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister turn his mind to what positive steps he plans to take? The economic link appears on the face of it to offer scope for a positive measure to restrict the activity of quota hoppers. I cannot believe that since the judgment the Minister has been merely sitting wringing his hands and doing nothing. He must have considered measures that he could take, drawing on the economic link criteria. The House would like to know what they are.
      Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that we introduced the visiting conditions, which were designed to address the problem. It was clear that we had to be careful how we framed the conditions so that we did not have the same legal problems again. I am sorry to sound boringly repetitive, but I am conscious of the possibility of further actions. I do not want to concede any more ground. I do not want to be driven to take actions that open the way to challenge. I am deliberately careful in phrasing my replies, for that purpose.
      The hon. Gentleman knows that I am investigating the use of electronic tracking equipment to improve enforcement of limits on the activities of vessels which tie up overseas. We are working hard on developing that technology for enforcement purposes. I have made it clear throughout the debate that I recognise the problem of quota hopping. I do not pretend that the problem does not exist. I am describing candidly to the House the constraints on me and how I address them.
      Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend referred to electronic tracking devices and the like. Will he endorse his determination to ensure that the days-at-sea regulations will be applied in practice and in an enforceable way equally to quota hoppers as to British vessels?
      Mr. Curry: Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties we face. I ask him to accept my assurance of our determination.
      Amendment No. 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, would place a limit on days at sea because that is how the legislation is framed. I appreciate that that was not his intention. I am aware that, in tabling his other amendment, No. 20, he had in mind the particular problems of the shellfish sector. The reassurances that I have given about the vessels of 10 m and under, which must be the predominant type of vessel in that fishery, will go some way to reassure my hon. Friend. If I

      1055
      add that we are looking hard at concerns about the future of the shellfish sector as a whole, and considering measures such as he mentioned, I hope that he will feel that we have the fate of that sector in our focus.
      The purpose of amendment No. 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is to allow vessels to sail from the port where their catch is landed to their home port. I recognise the problem that the amendment seeks to address, because it has been brought to my attention in the context of the eight-day and 135-day rules. We cannot adopt the solution envisaged by the amendment, because it would not provide a clear guarantee that fishing was not undertaken during the voyage. A better solution is to ensure that the days-at-sea entitlement includes an allowance for such voyages. That is what we propose to do. The appeals system could be used by those who feel that the system is unfair to them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked me some specific questions. The multi-annual guidance programme targets are not yet agreed. The Commission has discussed the 30 per cent. cut, but it has not been agreed. I accept that fishermen do not like the Bill, but I hope that they will address what may happen, rather than some myth of what may happen. There has been some misinformation and exaggeration about the practical effects.
      The one problem that we have never faced in our fisheries is not catching our quota. Indeed, as I have said many times, periodically we have to close fisheries down to eke the stocks out to the end of the year. I am sure that the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington referred will not arise. If the problem occurred in exceptional circumstances—they would have to be extraordinary circumstances—I repeat that I would immediately seek ways of ensuring that the quota was taken. We are not in the business of stopping people from catching their legitimate quota.
      We mentioned that there was a difficulty with the 1991 data.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: I asked the Minister earlier whether there had been any consultation with the Dublin Government, because of the implications of southern Irish and British boats operating under different guidelines in the Irish sea. The Minister did not answer. He is ending his comments on amendment No. 21. What would be the implication if fishing boats in Kilkeel registered in the Republic of Ireland, 15 miles to the south, but used Kilkeel as their port for landings? If their home port were in the Republic of Ireland, would they be excluded from the implications of the Bill? That is the way that some people are beginning to talk.
      Mr. Curry: If I have received the message right, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting a new form of quota hopping. I have often been asked whether we could encourage our people to quota-hop. I shall not comment on that as a recommended course of action, but I have consulted the Irish Minister about enforcement and management in the Irish sea, which is much more important as stocks are in such a parlous state there. When we increased the minimum landing size for whiting, a simultaneous announcement was made for the first time from Dublin and from London that we had taken an act
      1056
      of conservation together to preserve joint stocks. I am willing to pursue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman outside this debate.
      We shall make administration as flexible as we possibly can. If fishermen in Bridlington have had a problem because of the weather, they should use the consultation process to tell us.
      I shall discuss the further amendments on the gear option when we come to that point, if my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay allows.
      If tides cause a problem, it should be reflected in track records and thus fishermen would automatically receive time to allow for that under the system that we shall pursue.
      I have tried to answer the debate fully, and I advise the House to vote against the amendments.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 11 at end insert
      'provided that if the master, owner or charterer of a fishing boat gives an undertaking to use only such fishing gear as may be specified, whether by reference to mesh size, mesh shape, or otherwise, paragraph (c) above shall not apply.'.
      The amendment provides a choice of being tied up in port, or using conservation gear with a wider mesh size. That is an important option and fishermen are keen that it should be provided in the Bill. When the Government introduced the eight-day consecutive tie up, they conceded the option for fishermen to continue to fish by using a mesh size specified by the Minister. That facility is required in this Bill.
      The gear option can work. There is no argument between us about the need for conservation. The gear option is more conservation orientated than simply tying boats up in port, which does not necessarily meet the conservation objective.
      Also, if fishermen believe in, and can see the logic of, a measure they will do a great deal to support it, which has been borne out by the fact that fishermen pioneered square mesh panels and various forms of conservation gear. The 100 mm mesh size came into effect only on 1 June this year. The Minister has said that such options have not been effective, but many conservation options are very new and have hardly been given time to operate. We should give them more time so that we can evaluate their effectiveness, rather than deciding on the days-in-port option.
      Fishermen advocated an 80 mm maximum mesh size in the Irish sea when the Government introduced a 75 mm size. Fishermen have also suggested a licence scheme for shell fishing and proposals for banning the French dredge, for conservation boxes and for a ban on industrial fishing in certain areas of our coast. The gear option should be included in the Bill.
      Conservative Members who are concerned about the fishermen in their constituencies have been given a concession by the Minister, but it does not amount to much. I accept that limited accountability will be introduced which will allow us to consider the proposals that the Minister will bring forward. The Minister also said that the changes would not be brought in until 1994, but that was no concession, as that commitment was always part of the Bill. All the Minister has done is to put off until 1994 the time when the axe will fall. That still means that British fishing boats will be tied up in port while those of other member states will be allowed to fish.

      1057
      The amendment is important because, although it will allow the Minister to argue, if necessary, for a days-at-sea restriction, it will also give fishermen the option of using conservation gear. Such an option would be more effective and meaningful than a days-in-port restriction.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I support the amendment. During the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community, one of our main objectives will be to try to achieve a level playing field—in this context a flat pond. We strongly believe that the inclusion of this option in the Bill will enable such a flat pond to be enforced more effectively.
      We have a clear choice between the compulsory tie-up and the gear option. The tie-up is subject to the sort of objections that have been voiced from every part of the House and every part of the country. It presents major difficulties for all sorts of fishermen who undertake all types of fishing. That restriction is transitional and short-term and lacks the authority of a permanent, credible option. It also presents all sorts of difficulties in terms of its stated objective of conservation; it is a backward step, because it pressurises the industry into depleting the juvenile stock.
      Gear restrictions have major advantages. We already have good precedents to demonstrate its effectiveness. Such a restriction represents conservation in practice and it demonstrably achieves what it sets out to do. That is recognised even by those in other industries who might otherwise question the objectives for the fishing industry. Its precise objectives are an advantage in an imprecise area of the law. It has great advantages in terms of stock generally and major ones in terms of the survival of juvenile, immature fish in particular.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has already said that there is a precedent for the use of such restrictions, so we are not creating a pig in a poke, or whatever the fishing metaphor is. It offers great advantages for handliners, who are important in the south-west and for the shell fishermen.
      The biggest advantage of that option is that it offers the very thing that the Minister wants to include in the Bill—maximum flexibility. That flexibility dictates that the gear option must be included in the Bill.
      The NFFO is strongly in favour of the gear option and is prepared to do all that it can, within the industry, in support of it. It has set out in three concise phrases why it considers that the option should be included. First, it claims that it has considerable conservation advantages in terms of selectivity. Secondly, it provides an element of financial protection and could avoid the need to pay compensation to those who adopt that option. Thirdly, it is easier to administer than a days-at-sea restriction and it will minimise the enforcement and administrative costs. That final point must be of considerable importance to the Minister who will otherwise face a difficult time not just with the United Kingdom industry, but with that of the whole Community during our presidency.
      The gear option offers the guarantee of effective Community conservation action. We strongly support it.
      Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was right to say that during our presidency, enforcement must come at the top of the agenda, so I could not accept a measure that would be unenforceable.
      1058
      Whereas a gear option was possible with 350 or 450 boats coming under the previous types in the Community, a gear option involving 3,800 vessels over 10 m would be impossible to police. They fish for a wide variety of stocks using a wide variety of gear.
      I do not minimise the need for technical conservation and I pay tribute to the way in which the industry has co-operated in developing such means, which is an essential part of any fisheries package. But in the context of the Bill, I must be able to demonstrate that what we do is enforceable and not open to evasion. With some regret, I must reject the amendment because it could not be made to stick, and the whole Community would see that. I advise the House to vote against it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 313.

      Division No. 68]

      [9.20 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cox, Tom

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cryer, Bob

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Alton, David

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

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Davidson, Ian

      Ashton, Joe

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barnes, Harry

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

      Barron, Kevin

      Denham, John

      Battle, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dixon, Don

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dobson, Frank

      Beggs, Roy

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dowd, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Benton, Joe

      Eastham, Ken

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Enright, Derek

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Betts, Clive

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Blair, Tony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Flynn, Paul

      Boyes, Roland

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bradley, Keith

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Donald (Bath)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Fraser, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burden, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Garrett, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Canavan, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Cann, Jamie

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hall, Mike

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hardy, Peter

      Coffey, Ann

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Cohen, Harry

      Harvey, Nick

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Doug

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heppell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Kate

      1059

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Home Robertson, John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hutton, John

      Prescott, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Radice, Giles

      Janner, Greville

      Randall, Stuart

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Redmond, Martin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Roche, Ms Barbara

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rooker, Jeff

      Keen, Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Salmond, Alex

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leighton, Ron

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lewis, Terry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Clare

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Simpson, Alan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McFall, John

      Snape, Peter

      McKelvey, William

      Soley, Clive

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spellar, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Stevenson, George

      Madden, Max

      Stott, Roger

      Maginnis, Ken

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Mahon, Alice

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marek, Dr John

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Martlew, Eric

      Trimble, David

      Maxton, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Meacher, Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Michael, Alun

      Vaz, Keith

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Milburn, Alan

      Walley, Joan

      Miller, Andrew

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Watson, Mike

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Welsh, Andrew

      Morley, Elliot

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wilson, Brian

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Winnick, David

      Mudie, George

      Wise, Audrey

      Mullin, Chris

      Worthington, Tony

      Murphy, Paul

      Wray, Jimmy

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wright, Tony

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Olner, William

      Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

      O'Neill, Martin

      1060

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Dunn, Bob

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Alexander, Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Eggar, Tim

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Elletson, Harold

      Amess, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ancram, Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Atkins, Robert

      Evennett, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bates, Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forth, Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Booth, Hartley

      Freeman, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      French, Douglas

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fry, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gale, Roger

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gallie, Phil

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Garnier, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Gillan, Ms Cheryl

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gorst, John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Butler, Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hague, William

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cash, William

      Hannam, Sir John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Harris, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Nicholas

      Clappison, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hendry, Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Congdon, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Horam, John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Couchman, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cran, James

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jack, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Dicks, Terry

      Jessel, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

      Duncan, Alan

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      1061

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robathan, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knox, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Legg, Barry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sims, Roger

      Lidington, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Luff, Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Maclean, David

      Sproat, Iain

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stephen, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stewart, Allan

      Mans, Keith

      Streeter, Gary

      Marland, Paul

      Sumberg, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mills, Iain

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Norris, Steve

      Waller, Gary

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Ward, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Ray

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whittingdale, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pickles, Eric

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wood, Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Richards, Rod

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Riddick, Graham

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      '(4A) After subsection (7A) there shall be inserted—
      "(7B) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

      (a) entry in any logbook kept, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;

      (b) declaration made, under such an obligation—

      (i) by the master of a vessel or by an agent, as to fish landed; or

      (ii) by the master of a vessel, as to trans-shipment;

      (c) information required to be provided under—

      (i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above, by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, or by an agent;

      (ii) subsection (7) above, by the master, owner, or charterer (if any) of a vessel,
      shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'—[Mr. Curry]

    Clause 2

      LICENSING OF VESSELS RECEIVING TRANS-SHIPPED FISH
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 1, line 29, at end insert—
      '(2A) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
      "(8A) In any proceedings in Scotland commenced on or after the coming into force of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 for an offence under this section, any—

      (a) declaration made, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel;

      (b) information required to be provided under—

      (i) any condition imposed under subsection (6) above;

      (ii) subsection (7) above,
      by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel, shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein.".'—[Mr. Curry.]

    Clause 4

      COMMENCEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 2, line 13, leave out from beginning to the first 'the' and insert
      'sections 1, 2 and 3 above shall not come into force until'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'it' and insert 'this Act'.
      No. 10, in page 2, line 14 at end insert—
      '(2) Subsection (2) of section 1 above shall not apply in relation to vessels of an overall length of 10 metres or less until such day as may be appointed by order made by the Ministers (within the meaning given by section 22(2)(a) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967).
      (3) An order under subsection (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
      No. 12, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'comes into force' and insert 'is passed'.—[Mr. Curry.]

    Clause 5

      EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 20, leave out from 'by' to end and insert 'this Act'.—[Mr. Curry.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.34 pm
      Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I commend the Bill to the House. It is, above all, a Bill about the conservation of fish for British fishermen. At the heart of it is our concern for the industry's long-term future. At the moment, no one can pretend that the industry can look to the future with confidence. The reason is the great crisis with fish stocks. Wherever we look, we find difficulties.
      It is a worldwide problem. We see it off New England, where fish stocks have collapsed. We see it off Iceland, where it is recommended that cod quotas be cut by 40 per cent. The Canadians have suspended cod catches for two years. Although our stocks are not at the point of collapse, they are one iota away from it.
      We have the option of doing nothing. That would be politically easy for a little while, but it would end up being an impossible option. We have chosen the option of admittedly difficult action now, for the industry's benefit and long-term future.
      We have a comprehensive package of measures. They include licensing down to zero and decommissioning, which the industry wants, measures to enable quotas to be more freely traded, which the industry will find advantageous and which is wanted in some areas—particularly Scotland—and provision for capacity aggregation and effort limitation.
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Curry: I listened carefully throughout the debate, as I did in Committee, and now I will have my say, albeit briefly.
      The Bill contains a series of measures which will benefit the industry and which it will eventually discover have served to save stocks and to ensure the industry's survival. I shall make it clear what will happen, because sometimes people tilt at windmills and are influenced by myths, not by reality. We must agree our multi-annual guidance programme. We cannot escape from that; nor can anyone else. We will reduce capacity by decommissioning, measures taken within producer organisations and capacity aggregation. Only then will we have to apply effort control. The more we pursue those other measures, the less dependent we will be on effort control—which will almost certainly be differentiated according to species and the state of the stocks.
      We will apply the Bill with great flexibility. We will not prevent fishermen from catching their quota. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but I must make it clear that we have never had to face the problem of not catching our quota. I am confident that we will never have to do so. If in the most exceptional circumstances we were to confront it, I would seek measures to guarantee that we would catch our quota.
      I understand the fears about the activities of foreigners, but overwhelmingly the stocks that are important to us are subject to TACs and quotas, which means that quotas are
      1064
      ring-fenced for British fishermen. We are not in the business of removing the legitimate entitlement of British fishermen; we are in the business of producing a measure that will give the industry a long-term future.
      I have said repeatedly that if there are no fish, there is no future. More and more effort is pursuing fewer and fewer fish. Smaller and smaller fish are being landed. Everyone goes to the quayside and says, "Look how small the fish are." If we carry on like that, we shall end up with nothing worth catching.
      That is not the obligation that I have as a Minister. That is not something that I would commend to the House. I commend to the House a series of measures that will benefit the industry in the long term. I have no doubt at all that, at the moment, the industry would like to chuck me off the pier. I hope that in a few years' time it will put a statue to me on it. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.38 pm
      Mr. Morley: In a few years' time, the fishermen might attach a statue to the Minister and then chuck him off the pier, for giving them this legislation. If the Bill passes in its present form—even with the slight concessions made by the Minister to buy off those of his Back Benchers who are threatening to revolt because of pressure from their constituents—it will be a serious blow to fishermen. It is not just a question of no fish, no future. Of course that is important, but there will be no future for fishermen if the Bill becomes law.
      The Government are introducing a unilateral measure. In an interview, Mr. Marin, the EC Fisheries Commissioner, was asked whether he thought it sensible to force fishermen to have their boats tied up alongside a port for a large part of a season. He replied:
      "I didn't take that decision. It was the member state itself. In my view, when it comes to choosing between economic anomalies and the destruction of part of the fleet, the choice must be demolition."
      That is a reference to a decommissioning scheme. Mr. Marin concluded:
      "This at any rate is the case for Britain."
      There is an alternative, although it does not include a proper decommissioning scheme. This week's issue of Fishing News contains a letter of support for the fishermen's rally that took place on 7 June. The Danish Sea Fishery Association wrote:
      "Denmark has had government and EC funded decommissioning schemes in operation since 1987, resulting in an overall reduction in Danish fishing capacity of 20 per cent.
      Although we do not like decommissioning we see it as necessary because only properly funded decommissioning schemes can reduce fishing effort with some form of economic compensation to fishermen.
      The Danish Seafishery Association, representing the Danish North Sea fishermen, therefore fully supports UK fishermen in their demonstrations against days at sea restrictions as a means of structural policy to reduce fishing capacity."
      The message behind that letter is that alternatives exist to tying up in port.
      What some hon. Members have said today has reflected the concerns of fishermen in their constituencies genuinely and honestly, but we have not secured the changes in the Bill for which we have argued in a reasonable and constructive manner. Our only option now is to oppose the Bill's Third Reading. If Conservative Members—indeed, all hon. Members—genuinely represent their constituents' interests, they must recognise that, in its present form, the

      1065
      Bill does not deliver real conservation; that it discriminates against British fishermen, as opposed to their EC counterparts; and that it will ruin the British fishing industry and the many fishermen who will face bankruptcy rather than decommissioning.
      9.41 pm
      Mr. Harris: I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and between then and now I have done all that I can to persuade the Government to see sense. I must acknowledge that the Government listened, especially today, but how I wish that they had listened much earlier. Indeed, I wish that today's proceedings had been postponed until the autumn, thus allowing genuine consultation with the industry.
      Having had several meetings today with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am convinced that he has made a genuine attempt to meet the deep-seated anxieties felt by many of my hon. Friends—and, more particularly, the deep-seated anger felt by our constituents. Nevertheless, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister bluntly that I cannot vote for the Bill's Third Reading. As I said earlier in an intervention, it is unacceptable in its present form.
      Because I recognise the genuine attempts that Ministers are making, however, I am prepared to give them at least the benefit of a half-doubt. I wait—and want—to see the details of the amendments that will be tabled in another place, and the commitments that will be given there. In the hope that those amendments will be constructive and will go much further than the proposals that we have discussed tonight, and in the hope—I have assurances on this—that Ministers are prepared to consult the industry before the Bill goes to another place, I shall abstain tonight. I warn the Government, however, that I retain deep-seated anxieties about the Bill, and I beg them to think again before its Committee stage in the House of Lords.
      9.43 pm
      Mr. Salmond: 'The Minister can claim one achievement, which may be regarded as substantial: he has united the entire fishing industry. The fact that he has united it against him rather than for him is both his and the industry's misfortune.
      The Bill is deeply misguided. Indeed, it was misguided to proceed with primary legislation during a consultation period: that sowed a seed of bitterness that it will take a long time to dispel. The Minister was wrong about the timing of the legislation. It was foolish to go ahead with legislation before he had received an assurance that the other member states of the European Community would introduce similar measures.
      Earlier in our proceedings, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), said that the Bill is complex because all European Community legislation relating to fisheries is complex, but the irony is that this is not European Community legislation. The Government are charging ahead with a unilateral measure without thought, without consultation and without bearing in mind the arguments put forward by the fishing communities.
      Most of all, the Government's attitude to the industry is wrong. They argue that the industry can have the sweetie of decommissioning only if it is prepared to accept the poisoned pill of this and other legislation. That attitude is
      1066
      entirely wrong, if the Government are looking for a fundamental transformation of the way in which the industry regards itself and its relations with the Government.
      For all these reasons, this is a bad Bill, and the House should vote against it. The rebels on the Conservative side have been bought quite cheaply. I have not heard an assurance that there will even be a debate on the affirmative resolution on the Floor of the House, as opposed to upstairs in Committee, but the Minister may tell us about that later. The Conservative rebels have been bought off very cheaply. The legislation is unacceptable. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) rightly said, the proper way to deal with unacceptable legislation is to vote against it and to square our actions with our conscience.
      9.45 pm
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I suspect that I shall increase my unpopularity with the fishermen in Hastings and Rye. Unlike those hon. Members who have already spoken on Third Reading, I intend to continue to support the Government.
      I have been on a very steep learning curve during the past few weeks. I appreciated being a member of the Committee, though I cannot say that I enjoyed the experience. However, during the past few weeks we managed to tease out of the Government, both collectively and separately, some useful concessions. Other hon. Members may not agree with me, but I am conscious of the fact that a number of the questions that the fishermen in Hastings and Rye asked have been answered. My fishermen may not be happy with the answers, but the fact is that their questions have been answered. We now know what is to happen in the case of the under 10 m fleet. We also know that the question of what is to happen in the case of the 10 to 17 m fleet is being taken on board. Many of the questions have been clarified.
      However, two difficult problems that we cannot possibly solve tonight, or by means of the Bill, were considered during the past few weeks. They relate to a constitutional issue. The first problem concerns the unilateral nature of the Bill. The other member states of the European Community will be unaffected by it. I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's statement that he will try to ensure that the other European Community countries implement a similar policy.
      The second and even broader problem concerns enforcement. The question of enforcement arises not only in the fishing industry but elsewhere. I was told last week by the chemical industry—that most European of industries—that it, too, has problems over enforcement. The Government and the nation ought to consider this issue vis-a-vis the European Community. Enforcement is the cause of the problems that we have with the other members of the European Community and with the Maastricht treaty. I should like effective and speedy efforts to be made to ensure enforcement in the fishing industry.
      The common fisheries policy is the core of the problem. Until it is sorted out, we shall have to go on dealing with these difficult issues. The common fisheries policy has forced upon us an illogical and totally unfair system. I hope that, when the Minister attends the next meeting of the Fisheries Council, he will bear that point in mind.
      9.49 pm
      Dr. Godman: We need to conserve fish stocks, but, in considering the Bill, we are confronted with a savage irony. Not so long ago, the British Isles were surrounded by some of the richest seas in the world by way of commercially viable fishing stocks. Now, an over-large and over-powerful European Community fishing fleet is depleting the scanty stocks of United Kingdom waters. The solution should be Europewide legislation covering the policing of fishing activities not only in United Kingdom waters but throughout the common European Community territorial waters. The Bill is not the fair and decent legislation which we require.
      I stick by what I said: I genuinely believe that the majority of our fishermen would accept tough policing regulations on two conditions. First, there must be a sensible decommissioning scheme. Such a scheme should have been introduced five years ago, but the Government did not have the guts to introduce it because the present Minister had his knuckles rapped over the way in which certain Hull trawler owners took him and the scheme to the cleaners in an incident involving a dozen big stern freezer trawlers. The other condition under which I believe our fishermen would accept tough policing measures would be if such measures applied equally and uniformly throughout the European Community.
      I am not a lawyer, but I genuinely believe that, if the Bill is passed, it will eventually be challenged by the European Court of Justice, because it discriminates against United Kingdom fishermen in favour of fishermen from other European Community fleets. It is not a bad Bill—it is a lousy one, raddled with inconsistencies, although I appreciate the Minister's intention.
      As I said in Committee, we must conserve fish stocks. There is no doubt about that, but we must do so fairly by imposing Communitywide policing regulations. We shall not achieve that aim by discriminating against our fishermen. I shall vote against the Bill, but I am sorry that so many Conservative Members have gladly and eagerly found reasons, oddly and curiously, to vote for such a mess of a Bill.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall not detain the House, because I detect a certain restlessness and anxiety to move on to the next business. However, I seek clarification from the Minister on one issue which has troubled me greatly.
      The Minister will be aware from a recent Adjournment debate that I represent an inshore shellfishery where the main catches are shrimps, cockles, whelks, mussels and crustaceans in the same category. I should like a categorical assurance that the Bill will not impact too greatly on such fisheries. The idea behind the Bill is to ensure that the stocks which are currently at risk and about which we have heard so much are not wiped out.
      The Minister wrote to me the other day and made it clear that the Bill would have only a minimal effect. It is an enabling measure and he will have the power to ensure that inshore fisheries are not affected too adversely. However. his letter was too vague for me to give my local fishermen an assurance that they will not be adversely affected and that their livelihood will not be stifled. I urge the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon.
      1068
      Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is to respond to the debate, to reassure me. I should be extremely grateful.
      A fact that has arisen from our deliberations is the complete inadequacy of the common fisheries policy. We entered into it with all the best intentions and with a view to co-operation, to conserving stock and to progressing on a workman-like and constructive basis. All that has started to look very frayed around the edges, and I wonder whether, if we had never had a common fisheries policy but instead had stuck to the 200-mile limit, the fears that fishermen are now voicing would have had any foundation.
      We could have had co-operation on the high seas in the areas between the different zones. But the fisheries in the Celtic sea, the south-western approaches and the area around Norfolk and the east coast would have been entirely the purlieu of British fishermen—in the case of the celtic sea, Irish and British fishermen—and a lot of the aggro and trouble that we now face might have been avoided. Surely the time has come to look again at the whole common fisheries policy.
      9.55 pm
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: Our proceedings on the Bill have been marked by some changes, but it seems to me somewhat strange that Parliament should have had to fight to wring a concession from the Minister allowing us to debate the details of the restrictions that the enabling Bill will allow him to introduce. It seems strange that it took an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, to persuade the Government to introduce a tribunal system to ensure a degree of justice for fishermen. It seems strange, too, that it took so long to persuade the Minister even to acknowledge that there might be some point in establishing a basis of equity as between this country's measures and those in the rest of Europe.
      The fundamental point at this stage is that the principle on which the Bill rests—the restriction of days spent at sea—remains. That is the principle which led Conservative Members to rebel, or threaten to rebel, against the Bill. When push came to shove, however, those hon. Members said that they were not prepared to vote against the Bill. It seems to me that one either agrees or disagrees with what the Minister proposes: either one votes for it or one votes against it. I do not see the value of abstaining in this case. There is no third way before the House, and I deeply regret the fact that, even now that the Government have a greatly reduced majority and are vulnerable to pressure from their Back Benchers, those Back Benchers are not prepared to stand up and be counted.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. David Porter: Like many hon. Members and many fishermen, I was hoping that this vessel, the Bill, would not be still afloat tonight. I have been a vociferous critic on behalf of my constituents, who still feel that it is an ill-fitted craft which will bring ill and which will have to be sunk in the Lords, as it is beyond a refit.
      I am aware that many hon. Members wish to get on with the business that is to follow this debate. I understand that, but I hope that they will recognise the depth of feeling

      1069
      in the fishing communities around the coast of Britain. If those fishermen's fears are realised and hundreds of fishing jobs are lost, it will be of small consequence to inland constituencies where, if people eat fish, they do not really care or know whether it was caught by a Dutch, French or Spanish boat. Why should they?
      One of the lessons of the great mass lobby of Parliament last Tuesday was anticipated by me and others on Second Reading: the Government and their advisers want the Bill but the men who go out in the North sea day after day, who mortgage their homes and the lives of their families to earn a living, do not. Until tonight, it was clear that the Government were not listening to the fishermen except in relation to tribunals. That was a disappointment, because, when my hon. Friend the Minister visited Lowestoft, he won deserved respect for his straight-from-the-shoulder approach, which he put in jeopardy by persisting with the Bill in the face of informed opposition.
      A second lesson of that huge protest last week and the consequential media coverage is that no one is against fish conservation. That has been said many times but needs repeating. My hon. Friends are not against it. Several of them have said to me, "If it is a Bill about conservation, it must be all right. Why on earth are you rocking the boat?" Fishermen are not against conservation, either. I have yet to meet a fisherman who does not recognise the reality of declining fish stocks. Merchants see the evidence of small catches every morning on the markets. No one is against fish conservation. To suggest otherwise is to distort the truth. However, it is not enough for my hon. Friends to say that the Bill is the only medicine that the fishermen must take, even if it kills them. It is not the only medicine.
      We cannot now consider other technical measures such as more net selectivity, net shape, closing sea areas and banning industrial fishing. We cannot discuss a compensation scheme which goes to the heart of the problem in a European rather than a British final solution style. We can argue only that medicine that cures the illness, but kills the patient, is too draconian. It was the draconian nature of the Bill, designed without reference back to the House, which stuck in my throat and the throat of an industry struggling in the recession like most businesses, struggling against the elements, against fewer fish and against bureaucracy gone mad.
      After all, fishermen are usually paid by a share system: no catch, no pay. That, plus the other points—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords], the Protection of Badgers Bill [Lords] and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Porter: The other point that stuck in the fishermen's throats was that they would watch from ports, their boats tied up, while our competitors laughed all the way to Dogger bank and beyond.
    My hon. Friends have listened to the deep-seated objections that I and others have, and I am pleased that I feel justified for sticking out against the Bill on Second
    1070
    Reading. Inevitably, the fight must now move to the other place because the Bill will clearly receive the Third Reading tonight. In the other place, the strength of the undertakings given here by my hon. Friend the Minister will be tested. Should they prove inadequate, the Bill must return to this place for consideration of Lords amendments.
    We have said often enough that the decommissioning part of the package is not enough as it has come three years too late. It does not cover the whole industry and it will not succeed in reducing the fleet. If the Bill achieves that through bankruptcy, we will see the truly unacceptable face of the common fisheries policy.
    We have had no real debate about the CFP tonight. On Second Reading, I called the CFP a raft of measures, restrictions, curbs, quotas and red tape which fail each year. So what do we do? We come back and pile more such restrictions and curbs on the raft in a desperate attempt to make it work. The Bill is just the latest pile on the raft.
    Eventually, the weight of restrictions will sink the raft. In the meantime, the recognisably British activity of sea fishing for a living may be all but wiped out. What a shame that we do not have the guts to scupper it now in lieu of the CFP mid-term review and start again, but this time from the starting point that we have—just: a viable British fishing industry. Let us work together to see how we can make it stay that way, given the realities of the fish stocks.
    The Bill has united the industry against it. That is an unprecedented advantage and a baseline for future discussion. Although I do not like it, I recognise the reality of the situation that we, the industry, the country and my hon. Friend the Minister are in. We have wrung some concessions to make the Bill at least a little less unpalatable. That is a gain, given that this is not the end of the voyage. If the Bill had to be introduced at all, I wish that we could have done this much weeks ago.
    10.3 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall be brief, but I must express the opposition of a united Grimsby fishing industry, while it is still England's premier fishing port, to the Bill. It is a bad Bill. The Minister's rant at the beginning of this Third Reading debate was typical of his approach to the Bill. It has been pushed through without consultation, without answering any of the questions and in a dictatorial fashion. It has been imposed on Back Benchers who should have stood up for the industry.
    The Bill has all the hallmarks of bad government. The speed with which it has been enacted, the lack of consultation and the lack of co-operation that it is going to get from the fishermen of this country mean that the Bill is not a workable measure. It is a disastrous measure.
    The Bill is bureaucratic, because the Government think that it is simple to count vessels in ports, especially when they are not at sea. The Bill will be enormously complicated to administer and it will not even do anything about the main problem with which it is supposed to deal—conservation. It imposes a direct incentive on the industry to go to sea in the time allowed to catch as much fish, of whatever kind and size, to make up for the tie-up period. The Bill does not even impose proper conservation on the European fishing industry with which we are competing—it will still be allowed to fish untrammelled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) said, it will have no effect on the quota hoppers.

    1071
    British fishermen are justified in feeling that they are being discriminated against. Quota hoppers registered in this country are now allowed to spend their days, when they should be tied up, in foreign ports where they will be unsupervised. How do we know that there will not be fishing? There will be fishing. That is discrimination against the British fishing industry.
    The Minister has bought off Back Benchers who should have known better and who should have represented their fishing industry, with all its complaints and agonies and the loss of work and earnings that has been imposed on it and the blow that has been dealt to the most vulnerable people in the country. Conservative Members have just allowed a measure to go through with a concession that is no concession at all. If they let the Bill go through now, what possible chance have they of holding up its implementation later? The pass is now sold, and they have sold it for nothing—for no gains and no concessions from the Government. There is no chance now of stopping the measure. Conservative Members have even thrown away the chance to impose the better option, which is a gear option—bigger mesh sizes and better gear to give us proper conservation and deal with the problem. This is an appalling exercise in misjudgment, bad government and dictatorial behaviour.
    A great responsibility is now imposed on the Minister, and I hope that, for once, he will listen to something that is being said to him. He has his measure. He has been able to impose it on Back Benchers who have been weak-willed and who have no guts to represent their fishermen. He has imposed the measure without consultation with the industry. That imposes an enormous responsibility on the Minister. He has been shown, by the ease with which he has got his measure through, that he can get away with anything. It is up to him now to deal justly and fairly with an industry that, until now, has been trampled on and to deal with it honourably, because he is an honourable man. It is up to him not to brutalise the industry in the way that the measure allows him to do but to cherish it, support it, help it and give it compensation and what it has not had in the Bill—a fair deal.
    10.6 pm
    Mr. Trotter: All too often, the Government's approach to the problems of the industry seem to be piecemeal. I still await the day when we shall see a plan that seeks to fit together the various courses of action that can be helpful in an inevitably difficult scenario. We seem to be seeking a unilateral solution to an international problem. One of the anxieties that the industry shares with me is that, through the Bill, we are seeking a system that is easily enforced—perhaps hard to administer bureaucratically, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, but easy in principle to enforce—while our competitors will be free to continue to adopt measures that do not lend themselves to enforcement. That is clearly unfair.
    The Government have listened to what my hon. Friends and I have said—even if they have listened very late in the day—and they have made major concessions. My hon. Friend the Minister has made pledges that are of great value. I should like to consider what will happen in the next few months. We shall see further proceedings in another place. I am sure that the pledges that have been
    1072
    given today will be translated into Government amendments in the Upper House. I also expect very determined action by the Government on the international scene while we chair the European Commission. I very much hope that when we next debate this subject we will see perhaps not a level playing field but a smooth sea, so that the same conditions affect our industry as are seen to affect our competitors.
    With the concessions made today, the Government have justified our support, but they are on trial, especially when they are in a position in Brussels to act to correct something that has been wrong for far too long.
    10.8 pm
    Mr. John D. Taylor: I must begin by congratulating the Minister on the way in which he has managed to destroy opposition on Government Benches. On 7 July, hon. Members attended Westminster central hall to listen to 3,500 fishermen from all parts of the United Kingdom. From the beginning to the end of the meeting, I sat at the back of the hall, and I was very impressed with speeches by Conservative Members who represented fishing constituencies and who promised fishermen that they would fight the Bill. They sat on the platform to be photographed, to be televised and to receive publicity.
    The Minister destroyed that opposition tonight by the way in which he delivered his speech. He has certainly melted all opposition. The Conservative Members who, only a week ago, promised that they would support the fishermen of this kingdom, have tonight let them down.
    The Bill is not welcomed by the fishing industry. There are many reasons for the opposition to it. It is criminal to recommend the imposition of a fine of £50,000 when a small boat just over 10m in length happens to breach the regulations. But the main reason for our opposition to the Bill is that it discriminates against British fishermen. The European Community has a common fisheries policy, but if the policy is indeed to be common it should be applied to all fishing boats, not just those from the United Kingdom. While we introduce legislation that disadvantages our fishing industry but enables other boats to come into our waters and take our fish, we shall damage our own industry.
    The Minister made a brilliant Third Reading speech. It was what one expected from him. It was fluent and well-informed, and once again the hon. Gentleman demonstrated that he was on top of the subject. But anyone reading the speech in Hansard will see that he said at least four times that the fishing industry wants the Bill. I can tell him that the fishing industry of the United Kingdom does not want it. The industry sees it simply as a Government mechanism to introduce a decommissioning scheme on the cheap. If farmers can be properly compensated when they have to cut their production, we ought to have a proper decommissioning scheme to support our fishing industry, as other parts of the European Community have.
    We in the parliamentary Ulster Unionist party will unite as a team and vote against the Bill.
    10.12 pm
    Mr. Steen: The problem at Third Reading has been caused largely by a lack of clarity as to what my hon. Friend the Minister actually said. I wonder whether, before we complete the Third Reading, my hon. Friend

    1073
    will spell out, in words that everybody, even my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), can understand, exactly what the concessions are. My understanding is that the legislation will be brought back to the House only when the Government are satisfied that the other European Governments are putting in place legislation that will have the same effect in this country as in their own. There is some confusion on both sides of the House as to whether it is only then that the Bill will be brought back for affirmative action. Before we vote on Third Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister should spell out, for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House, exactly what the concessions are. The whole House ought to know on what it is voting.
    That is the only contribution that I want to make to the Third Reading debate.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
    10.13 pm
    Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister wants to maintain the confusion. In Committee, he undertook to consider the possibility of Government and EC assistance for exploratory voyages in the fishing grounds west of the Hebrides in connection with French and other boats. Has he been able to come to any conclusions? If he cannot give me a reply tonight, perhaps he would write to me.
    10.14 pm
    Mr. Wilson: There has not been much humour during the passage of the Bill. In particular, there has not been much humour for fishermen. On the memorable day last week on which the fishermen came to London, the opinions of the British fishing industry were summed up by a banner outside the House of Commons, which said, "Skinner in, squirt out". I believe that that is an old piece of fishing terminology.
    This is a bad, bureaucratic Bill based on a deeply flawed approach to conservation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the Bill will go to the European Court and will be challenged legally. When it is challenged, that will surely be the first recorded case of a national Government being taken to court for discriminating against not the peoples of other countries but their own people.
    Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been appalled by the carelessness with which Conservative Members deal with other people's livelihoods. In what other industry would Members of Parliament vote for legislation which deliberately and systematically reduces to a pitiful level the number of days in the year on which people are allowed to go out and earn their livelihood? If Conservative Members were treated in that way in their part-time employment, never mind their full-time employment, and if their ability to earn was interfered with, they would rightly be aggrieved.
    Once again, the Tories are setting up an enormous bureaucracy. They have set up a bureaucracy of tribunals and appeals. Every little boat in the country will have a number of days fishing set aside. If a Government of any other hue set up such a huge bureaucracy, Conservative Members would complain and talk about Stalinism,
    1074
    centralism and the rest. But willy-nilly in legislation such as this, they set up huge bureaucracies under which other people have to live.
    Nothing in the Bill guarantees even the conservation ends to which the Bill pays lip service. In fishing ports throughout the country, fishing vessels and fishermen who do no harm to the cause of conservation will have the regulations and legislation imposed on them. Many of them will go out of business and many will be forced to yield up quotas. The people who are most protected from the legislation are those who do most damage to conservation. The fishermen who will be wiped out do no damage to the conservation of stocks. It is cruelty and it is against natural justice that the fishermen of the small, poor, less capital-intensive ports of the United Kingdom will have their traditional industry destroyed by the legislation.
    In the interests of time, I shall be brief, but I shall not lightly forget and the constituents of Tory Members will not forget, Conservative Members who went to the rally across the road a week ago and trembled at the sight of 3,000 fishermen but came back and trembled even more when they went to see their Whips. In future, let us not give those Members the dignity of the name "Tory rebels". Let us call them what they are—Tory kippers, two faces and no guts.
    The message to Conservative Members from the electorates of fishing constituencies will be that they can run but they cannot hide. No one will be interested in who abstained. Those constituents will look at who voted for the Bill and will consider that anyone who did so voted against them. The Members from fishing constituencies will either be true to what they said last week when the fishermen were here or they will spinelessly fail to vote against the legislation when the fishermen are not here.
    10.17 pm
    Sir Hector Monro: In Committee and today on Report and Third Reading, we have had a good-natured debate on an important subject, but we have understood the anger of the fishermen and their organisations and of some Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) spoke of a slight concession. We made an important change to the Bill tonight as a result of consultations. We shall continue those consultations until the Bill returns from another place. That is some months away. Those consultations will be valuable and we shall use what news we have from the fishing industry to good effect. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe underestimated the importance of the appeal tribunals, which we were glad to include in the Bill.
    Conservative Members were disappointed that throughout the debate we heard so little about the Opposition's policies. They have never said how much they would put into decommissioning. As a result of the Bill, we shall put in £25 million, and that is part of our conservation package. We have no idea whether the Opposition would have matched that or would have put a higher figure on it. We do not know their views on mesh sizes, technical gear or effort elimination.
    There was much talk of conservation from the Opposition Benches. They criticised every Government proposal but kept their own powder dry. We believe

    1075
    strongly in conservation, and the Bill is an important step forward. In a few years, our scientific advice will prove to be right, when fish stocks begin to increase.
    My hon. Friend the minister of State and I want a profitable fishing industry, unfettered by controls. We want the burden of conservation to be shared equally throughout the Community. We shall achieve that, but it will take time, combined with effort by everyone, to reach the levels of conservation that we feel are essential.
    The Bill is a usefull and valuable start and I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 282.

    Division No. 69]

    [10.20 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Colvin, Michael

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Congdon, David

    Alexander, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Amess, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ancram, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Arbuthnot, James

    Couchman, James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cran, James

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

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

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Atkins, Robert

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Day, Stephen

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Baldry, Tony

    Devlin, Tim

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Dicks, Terry

    Bates, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Batiste, Spencer

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dover, Den

    Bendall, Vivian

    Duncan, Alan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dunn, Bob

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Booth, Hartley

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Eggar, Tim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowden, Andrew

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bowis, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bright, Graham

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Burns, Simon

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Burt, Alistair

    Forman, Nigel

    Butcher, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Butler, Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Butterfill, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Freeman, Roger

    Carttiss, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Cash, William

    Fry, Peter

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Chaplin, Mrs Judith

    Gallie, Phil

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Churchill, Mr

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Clappison, James

    Gamier, Edward

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Gill, Christopher

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Gillan, Ms Cheryl

    1076

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorst, John

    Mates, Michael

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Milligan, Stephen

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mills, Iain

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Needham, Richard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawkins, Nicholas

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hendry, Charles

    Norris, Steve

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Horam, John

    Page, Richard

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Paice, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Redwood, John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Richards, Rod

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Key, Robert

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knapman, Roger

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Sackville, Tom

    Knox, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Legg, Barry

    Shersby, Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Sims, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lidington, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lightbown, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Luff, Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spring, Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sproat, Iain

    MacKay, Andrew

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Maclean, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    Madel, David

    Stern, Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stewart, Allan

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Streeter, Gary

    Malone, Gerald

    Sumberg, David

    Mans, Keith

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marland, Paul

    Sykes, John

    Marlow, Tony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    1077

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ward, John

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Watts, John

    Thomason, Roy

    Wells, Bowen

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Whitney, Ray

    Thurnham, Peter

    Whittingdale, John

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Widdecombe, Ann

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

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Tracey, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Tredinnick, David

    Wilshire, David

    Trend, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Trotter, Neville

    Wood, Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Yeo, Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Viggers, Peter

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. Timothy Boswell and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Waller, Gary

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainger, Nick

    Cox, Tom

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cryer, Bob

    Allen, Graham

    Cummings, John

    Alton, David

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

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

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dafis, Cynog

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Ashton, Joe

    Darling, Alistair

    Austin-Walker, John

    Davidson, Ian

    Barnes, Harry

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Barron, Kevin

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Battle, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bayley, Hugh

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

    Beckett, Margaret

    Denham, John

    Beggs, Roy

    Dewar, Donald

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Dixon, Don

    Bell, Stuart

    Dobson, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Dowd, Jim

    Benton, Joe

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Betts, Clive

    Eastham, Ken

    Blair, Tony

    Enright, Derek

    Blunkett, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Boateng, Paul

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Fatchett, Derek

    Boyes, Roland

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bradley, Keith

    Fisher, Mark

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Flynn, Paul

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Donald (Bath)

    Byers, Stephen

    Foulkes, George

    Caborn, Richard

    Fraser, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fyfe, Maria

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

    Galloway, George

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Gapes, Mike

    Canavan, Dennis

    Garrett, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Gerrard, Neil

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Clapham, Michael

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Graham, Thomas

    Clelland, David

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coffey, Ann

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cohen, Harry

    Grocott, Bruce

    Connarty, Michael

    Gunnell, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hain, Peter

    Corbett, Robin

    Hall, Mike

    1078

    Hanson, David

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mudie, George

    Harvey, Nick

    Mullin, Chris

    Henderson, Doug

    Murphy, Paul

    Heppell, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hinchliffe, David

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Olner, William

    Home Robertson, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Patchett, Terry

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hutton, John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ingram, Adam

    Prescott, John

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jamieson, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Janner, Greville

    Radice, Giles

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Redmond, Martin

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Roche, Ms Barbara

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rogers, Allan

    Keen, Alan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ruddock, Joan

    Leighton, Ron

    Salmond, Alex

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lewis, Terry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Livingstone, Ken

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Short, Clare

    Loyden, Eddie

    Simpson, Alan

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Skinner, Dennis

    McAllion, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McCartney, Ian

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McFall, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    McKelvey, William

    Snape, Peter

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    McLeish, Henry

    Spearing, Nigel

    McMaster, Gordon

    Spellar, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    McWilliam, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Madden, Max

    Stevenson, George

    Maginnis, Ken

    Stott, Roger

    Mahon, Alice

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mallon, Seamus

    Straw, Jack

    Marek, Dr John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Martlew, Eric

    Tipping, Paddy

    Maxton, John

    Trimble, David

    Meacher, Michael

    Turner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Tyler, Paul

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Vaz, Keith

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Milburn, Alan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Miller, Andrew

    Wai ley, Joan

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wareing, Robert N

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Watson, Mike

    Morley, Elliot

    Welsh, Andrew

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    1079

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Wright, Tony

    Wilson, Brian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Winnick, David

    Wise, Audrey

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 ( Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    PROTECTION OF BADGERS BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 ( Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    Statutory Instruments, &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( 1 ) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    Statutory Instruments, &c
      That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
      FORTH PORTS PLC
      That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
      OIL PLANTS (SCOTLAND)
      That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

      HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
      That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
      Question agreed to.

  European Community Documents
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) ( European Standing Committees.)

  European Community Documents
    WILD BIRDS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5185/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 9th March 1992, relating to the conservation of wild birds; and calls upon the Government to take the necessary steps to safeguard practicable arrangements for the control of pest bird species in the United Kingdom.
    MINES AND QUARRIES
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6831/92, relating to health and safety of workers in mines and quarries; approves the Government's support for the aims of the Directive; and endorses the Government's view that, in principle, it will be in the United Kingdom's interest to agree to its adoption.

    REGISTRATION OF ANIMALS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6414/92, relating to the identification and registration of animals; and supports the Government in its intention of securing measures which are practicable, not harmful to animals, and which facilitate veterinary controls together with market support arrangements, but which do not place unfjustifiable burdens on the livestock industry.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

  Office Costs Allowance
  Madam Speaker: It might be helpful if I tell hon. Members the procedure to be followed on the motion on office costs allowance. This is important to hon. Members. There will be a joint debate on the motion and the selected amendments which will last for one and a half hours. The amendments selected are amendment (a), to which amendments (c) and (d) are consequential, and amendment (b). At the conclusion of the debate, there will be an opportunity for the amendments to be moved formally and decided, and I shall then put the Question on the main motion.
  10.34 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That in the opinion of this House—

  (1) The limit on the office costs allowance (subject to what follows) should be—

  (a) for the year beginning in 1992, £33,190;

  (b) for any quarter in the year beginning in 1993, the sum of £8,298 (that is, a quarter to the nearest pound. of £33,190) but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in that year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year; and

  (c) for any quarter in any subsequent year, the limit for a quarter in the preceding year but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in the subsequent year has increased compared with the standard secreterial salary applicable in the preceding year.

  (2) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) above.

  (3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

  (4) In this Resolution—

  (a) "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April;

  (b) "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.

  (c) "the standard secretarial salary" means an amount consisting of the Standard Pay Point for a Senior Personal Secretary in the Home Civil Service in London and the Inner London Weighting.

  (5) For the purposes of this Resolution the amount of the standard secretarial salary applicable in any year should be the amount specified by the Treasury as applicable in that year.

  The motion represents the Government's recommendation to the House on the way in which we should proceed following the Top Salaries Review Body's report, which I laid before the House last Thursday, and which right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt have studied.
  As the House is aware, the report was commissioned a year ago. The report was received in February, but it was felt at that time, as my predecessor indicated in a written answer on 16 March, that it could more properly be considered by the new Parliament. It is a substantial report, which would entail major changes both in the structure and the amount of the allowance, and whatever view may be taken of particular recommendations, I think that the House would wish to express its thanks to the TSRB for the significant effort that the report represents.
  It may be that the main issue on which the House will wish to focus is the amount of the allowance, but it is important that I should first say something about what might be called the structural changes proposed, all of
  1082
  which raise issues separate from the question of the actual sums of money, and which the House also needs to consider on their own merits.
  The first of these is the proposal to compartmentalise the allowance, which is at present, of course, a single all-purpose sum, into four separate allowances: one for staff costs, one for general office expenses, one for constituency office expenses where a Member of Parliament occupies only what is described as
  "basic minimum accommodation at Westminster"—
  a description that many hon. Members may think applies to a great deal of accommodation—and an initial acquisition grant for capital equipment, seen as an interim measure pending the central provision of such equipment.
  While understanding the perception of improved accountability that underlines the recommendation, the Government doubt whether there would in fact be a significant gain in that respect, given that almost all the expenditure of Members of Parliament on such costs is now disbursed directly by the Fees Office or reimbursed against invoices, and the obvious scope for regarding some items of expenditure as falling under more than one head. Against a gain that would be at best doubtful, what would certainly be lost is the flexibility, which many Members value, to make the most effective use of the allowance—for example, by varying expenditure between staff and other costs—according to what is quite legitimately a wide variety of individual preferences and patterns of working.
  Mr. Barry Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on a matter of which I have given him notice. Will he not overlook the mileage allowance which I find has been paid to me incorrectly by the Fees Office, a point which I have drawn to its attention and which I have now arranged to reimburse?
  Mr. Newton: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's reasons for raising that point, and I shall duly take note of it. But he will realise that the mileage allowance is not under discussion at the moment.
  We see particular problems about the proposal to introduce a specific constituency office allowance, which the report itself acknowledges would entail further work and take time to introduce. In our view, the difficulties would verge on the insuperable, both in agreeing a definition of
  "basic minimum accommodation at Westminster"
  and in devising arrangements that would be seen as fairly reflecting the variations between those who do all or most of their work at Westminster, those who do all or most of their work in the constituency, and what I think is probably a growing number who divide it between the two.
  Mr. John Garrett: An important part of the right hon. Gentleman's job is to safeguard the rights and privileges of the House and of right hon. and hon. Members. Does he think that he and, in effect, the Treasury should seek to decide the resources that are given to Parliament to scrutinise the Government? Would not that responsibility be better placed in the hands of a Committee of the House—particularly the Commission, now that it has responsibility for the staff of the House, accommodation, and equipment?
  Mr. Newton: The appropriate course—and perhaps you, Madam Speaker, might agree, as Chairman of the Commission—is for the House as a whole to decide. The House is being given that opportunity tonight.

  1083
  The Government are firmly of the view that the most sensible course is to retain a single, undivided allowance—and the resolution provides for that. I shall mention one smaller change of merit that flows from the report that could be seen as being of a structural kind, and which the resolution also covers.
  We propose that eligibility to the office costs allowance should be calculated on a quarterly basis from 1 April 1993. That will rectify a long-standing anomaly, whereby a Member of Parliament leaving or joining the House part way through the year is entitled to claim against a full year's allowance. I know that that matter is of concern to one or two hon. Members who have mentioned it to me in the Corridors.
  I should stress that that change does not mean that right hon. and hon. Members must claim the OCA on a quarterly basis or lose entitlement. Claims can still be submitted as and when Members of Parliament wish. The only change is in the total maximum amount to which a right hon. or hon. Member who enters or leaves the House during the year is entitled. I hope that clarifies that point.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from the separate provision for office costs, and while I accept his general point, telephones in the House are free to right hon. and hon. Members, but that is not the case in their constituencies. I run my office from my constituency, where the phone bill approaches £1,000 a year. I cannot understand why a provision similar to that available in the House should not be made available at a Member of Parliament's constituency office, where his secretary works.
  Mr. Newton: My understanding—I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made appropriate inquiries-is that costs properly incurred by a Member of Parliament in performing his duties, and whether the telephone used is in his constituency office or at Westminster, could be properly claimed and reimbursed.
  Mr. Taylor: I was making the point that office telephone expenses incurred by our secretaries at Westminster do not count against the OCA, but they do in the constituency.
  Mr. Newton: I am sorry—I mistook the hon. Gentleman's point. In practice, it is virtually impossible for the allowances to take full account, especially if we retain a single, undivided allowance—I sense some support around the House for that proposition—of every possible variation. The point could be made, for example, that right hon. and hon. Members who undertake most of their work in their constituencies may incur lower costs—although that too will vary from one part of the country to another—than Members of Parliament whose work is done at London rates. That illustrates the kind of difficulty that can arise if we attempt to over-refine the allowance.
  Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman represents the Executive, and he is discussing the provisions for the legislature. Can he give even one example of a civil servant controlled by the Government who has a single sum for his secretary, telephone, equipment, or office space? Not one civil servant must operate under the same conditions that he is trying to impose on right hon. and hon. Members.
  Mr. Newton: Again, I understand the point that is being made, not least in the context of a number of decisions that have been made over the years. The House has chosen to link some aspects of its remuneration to civil service rates, but I do not believe that there is a complete and sustainable parallel between the way in which civil servants are provided with the facilities to do their jobs and the way in which Members of Parliament are provided with the facilities to do a different job.
  The second structural issue is the report's proposal to move as rapidly as possible to the central procurement of information technology equipment, and meanwhile to introduce an initial equipment allowance, partly offset by a reduction in the general office expenses allowance in the year in which that equipment allowance is taken.
  The Government believe that the case for central provision of IT equipment needs a good deal of further consideration. We think that many Members of Parliament are likely to welcome continued flexibility to lease or purchase the equipment that is most suited to their individual needs. Savings equivalent to those achievable through central procurement might well be obtained by call-off contracts, without the need for bulk purchase by a central authority. Such an authority would inevitably base its specification on generalised requirements, rather than on individual needs.
  The House is currently undertaking a networking study, in the light of which further recommendations on compatible IT equipment may be drawn up. Although the Government have considerable reservations about a centralised system of procurement for office equipment, we think it sensible to allow the Select Committee on Information to examine the TSRB's proposals on the provision of equipment in the light of the networking study before a final decision is reached. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that approach is sensible. We do not, however, recommend the implementation of a separate one-off initial acquisition grant as an interim measure.
  The third structural issue raised by the report is the proposal to create a Personnel Office, separate from the Fees Office, to
  "provide advice and guidance on personnel matters to MPs and their staff, in particular on rates of pay, and to review the pension provisions for MPs' staff".
  While recognising the reasons for such a proposal, we are also conscious of the concern expressed by many Members that such an office could be seen as moving unacceptably towards intervening in, and centralising, the many individual arrangements that currently exist. Subject to the views of the House—I emphasise that—we do not recommend proceeding with this proposal, and accordingly the motion that I have moved this evening does not provide for it.
  I shall, of course, listen carefully to all that is said about those issues in the debate, and I shall also listen to what is said by hon. Members who make their views known in the many other ways open to them. I am, however, somewhat encouraged—although, I hope, not unduly so—by the absence from the Order Paper of amendments on what might be described as structural points, apart from amendment (b), which you have selected, Madam Speaker. Although I suspect that that amendment is aimed at the level of allowance, it would also delay until 1994 the

  1085
  coming into effect of the switch to a quarterly basis for hon. Members joining or leaving the House, to which I referred earlier.
  The same absence of amendments does not, however, apply to the issue of the amount of an increased but non-compartmentalised allowance.
  Dr. Gavin Strang: Surely the reason for the absence of amendments from the Order Paper is the fact that, in the limited time of an hour and a half, it clearly would not have been possible for the House to do justice to all the important recommendations in the report. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, once the main decision has been made on the increase or otherwise in the money, we can return to the other issues after the summer recess?
  Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, although I had not realised that that was the reason for the absence of what might be called structural amendments. As I have said, I—indeed, everyone—will
  listen carefully to what is said in the House tonight, and that includes anything that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say about these or any other points.
  I was about to deal with the amount of an undivided allowance—if I may use that shorthand. Let me first set out clearly the scale of the increase to which the report's proposals as a whole would give rise.
  At the very least, the maximum allowance for every Member would rise from £28,986 in 1991–92 to £37,360 in 1992–93. For those taking the full constituency allowance and the initial equipment allowance—the latter partly offset by a reduced general office expenses allowance—the 1992–93 maximum would be £42,360. Thus, in percentage terms, the maximum increase would range from 23·6 per cent. to 40·2 per cent., in addition to the 4·25 per cent. increase due from April, in line with the existing uprating formula, giving overall increases in the maximum of between 28·9 per cent. and 46·1 per cent. on the 1991–92 figure.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Leader of the House not recognise that percentages are meaningless and that those figures should be compared with the £75,000 or thereabouts that is available for Members of the European Parliament, who have a much smaller burden of case work than Members of this House?
  Mr. Newton: I am aware that comparisons are sometimes drawn with Members of the European Parliament, both in this and in other ways. I have two points to make about that. First, their working patterns and methods are entirely different from ours. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the House would not be so restive. It is only right that the Leader of the House should be given a proper and a fair hearing. He is having very great difficulty at the present time.
  Mr. Newton: I do not think that the existence of higher allowances in any other country to which reference might be made can necessarily be taken as providing a good guide to what this House should do at this time in the situation in which Members of Parliament find themselves.
  I have underlined the scale of the percentage increases that would be entailed if the report were to be implemented
  1086
  in full. The second point is that the background is not one of prolonged erosion of value but of significant real improvement by comparison with the position not so many years ago. As the survey at the back of the report itself observes:
  "any MP who was a Member of the House before the late '60s will testify that since then the position of the British MP has been transformed."
  While the context of that comment goes wider than help with office costs, it is in fact the case that, between 1979 and 1991, the office costs allowance increased by 530 per cent., in cash terms, representing an increase of one and a half times in real terms.
  I make these points not because they can or should in themselves be conclusive, but because I think that they need to be taken into account by the House in making its judgment—and it is its judgment—bearing in mind also the considerable and inevitable uncertainty about the exact scale of the problem that the report seeks to address.
  There will certainly be few in the House who would quarrel with the view that our work load as constituency MPs has continued to rise in recent years, but there are, I think, many who question whether the increase has really been on such a scale since the last big uplift in the mid-1980s, followed by annual upratings, as to justify a further increase now of the size that full implementation would entail.
  There is another factor that the House cannot—I repeat, cannot—escape taking into account in making its judgment, any more than the Government can escape taking it into account in considering what recommendation they should make and, indeed, in making their decision on another Top Salaries Review Body report which has recently commanded attention. That is the wider context in which these proposals come forward—at a time when it is necessary to constrain public expenditure and when so many other individuals and groups are being asked to accept restraint, or are finding it necessary to impose it on themselves. I have to say, quite simply, that the Government do not believe that the evidence would justify the House in going as far as the report suggests, or as far as some of the amendments to the resolution seek.
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Leader of the House is not taking the House with him with this part of his argument, and I am not surprised. It is clearly weak, because he is now making comparisons with personal income. The allowance is to enable parliamentarians to do their job properly. Will he deal with that aspect and say why he thinks the TSRB is wrong to state that we need the money to do the job properly in Parliament?
  Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that my remarks just now were not related solely to salary issues. I said specifically that many other individuals and groups were being asked to accept restraint or finding it necessary to impose it on themselves. That affects not only people's salaries but many other things that they would wish to do if there were no difficulty.
  Mr. George Walden: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's rational and persuasive presentation of the issue, and I am glad that he is about to deal with public perceptions. Let us not fool ourselves: whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, it is being observed by the public out there, and the public are about

  1087
  to undergo an economic phase in which they will have not inflation-plus rises but perhaps inflation-minus rises. They will ask themselves why we are behaving like a 1970s trade union and awarding ourselves increases for reasons that they will never understand.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a point which obviously struck a chord with a number of hon. Members.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the advocacy of restraint has come from the Treasury, which, in a reply to me today, states that, on policy and advice alone, it spends more than £28 million a year, on outside consultancies £2·8 million and on hospitality £115,000 a year?
  Mr. Newton: The suggestion that the House needs to act with reasonable restraint comes not from the Treasury but from many Conservative Members and, most recently, from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) a moment or two ago.
  The resolution therefore rests on the proposition that, while it is right that a significant increase should be made in the office costs allowance, over and above inflation, it should be based not on the additional half-member of staff proposed in the report, but on an additional one quarter, together with the full £4,000 proposed for general office expenses. That gives an increase from £28,986 to £33,190, representing a real increase of 9·8 per cent. And—with the normal uprating increase of 4·25 per cent.—an overall cash increase of 14·5 per cent.
  We believe that this proposal, while clearly less than the TSRB recommended, strikes a fair balance between the interests of our constituents as taxpayers and the undoubted need of hon. Members for sufficient support to carry out their duties. It would bring a real improvement in the funding for Members' secretarial and research costs, and I commend it to the House.
  11.4 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I have sat through many similar debates in my 22 years in the House, and this one is typical of most of them.
  The Government commission an independent report. They establish a committee of people who are distinguished in their fields, under the chairmanship of Sir David Nickson. The secretariat is provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. Hay Management undertakes the research. The committee takes many months to do its work. It takes evidence from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government receive the report, suppress it, leak it selectively to the newspapers so that it is grossly misrepresented, then come to the House and tell us that they propose to ignore all the main conclusions of the work.
  That is a recipe for confusing the public, and it does the case of the Leader of the House and the Government no good at all to confuse—whether by accident or design—allowances granted to Members of this House to enable them to employ staff with their personal incomes. That is remiss of the right hon. Gentleman and those few people in the press who seek to convince the public that the debate
  1088
  is about the incomes of Members of Parliament. I know that that annoys many hon. Members, but, even more, it annoys our staff—those for whom we must fight in such debates, who have families, homes and mortgages to maintain and who are entitled to much better treatment and conditions than we are able to provide for them whether here at Westminster or in our constituencies.
  There is a rumour going round the House—I do not know whether it is true or not; perhaps we may be advised—that the Government Chief Whip has been effortlessly gliding around the Corridors and Rooms of the House trying, for once, to ensure that the Government do not win in the Lobby tonight.
  I may say that, in this context, the present Government are no better and no worse than Labour Governments, who also have a pretty undistinguished record on these matters. But if they want to absolve themselves of responsibility for the decision that I hope the House will take in a little while, as they apparently do, it would be better if they accepted the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), whose point of view I share, and handed responsibility for this matter to the House of Commons Commission, which already has responsibility for every other aspect of the budget of the House. That would ensure that the House, on the recommendation of the Commission, no doubt following some similar work, could make its own decision, quite detached from the Executive of the day.
  In my experience, the only Prime Minister who has dealt with this matter properly and expeditiously is the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who received the report, published it quickly and implemented it in full. On that occasion, all the fuss quickly went away. The Government have dragged the process out, with all the consequences that we face this evening—not just for ourselves, I emphasise, but for the people to whom we have a responsibility as employers.
  Let me refer briefly to what the report says in its conclusions. Paragraph 51 states:
  "These recommendations arise from our general conclusion from all the available evidence that the pressures and demands on MPs have altered since our last report, and that their workload has increased substantially. Accordingly, we believe that further resources are necessary to enable MPsproperly to perform their jobs."
  Paragraph 53 says:
  "Together our recommendations are consistent with the objective referred to at paragraph 11 that MPs should receive allowances which are sufficient to enable them to fulfil their duties, but that the way in which the allowances are used should meet high standards of public accountability and employment practice."
  No one, surely, could disagree with any of that-except, apparently, the Government, for reasons that are not altogether clear following the speech made by the Leader of the House.
  Mr. John Gorst: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that the reasons are clear. The money to which we are referring is to enable Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members to examine what the Executive are doing. The Government have an interest, I suspect, in ensuring that it is as little as possible.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He anticipated the remarks that I was about to make, and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. After elections, Ministers go to their offices and get a nice new Rover or Daimler. Everything is provided for

  1089
  them and they like what they have. I do not blame them for that. However, the last thing that they want to face day in, day out, is a better-informed, better-resourced House of Commons. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was absolutely right.
  As the taxpayer's interest has been mentioned, I make no apology for saying that it is in the taxpayer's interest to have a better-informed, better-resourced House of Commons with hon. Members who are more easily able to take on and challenge the decisions of the Executive. Nothing can be more in the taxpayer's interests than that.
  I am very sorry about the way in which the Government have handled the matter and the recommendations that they have put before the House in the motion which I hope that the House will reject. I understand that at least some of the spouses of right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench are also pretty sorry about that. I guess that those who quite legitimately and properly employ their spouses as secretaries to aid them will get a bit of an ear-bashing when they get home tonight if the Government get their way. That is all well and good.
  I must say to our friends, the ladies and gentlemen of the press who may want to record our deliberations, that I should be very happy for them all to write whatever they want to write about our decisions, accurate or otherwise, so long as they all publish under their columns their expenses for the past three months.
  I hope that the House will listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who will shortly move amendment (a), which I endorse, and which I invite all right hon. and hon. Members who are not the subject of the authoritarian activities of the Patronage Secretary, to endorse also.
  Amendment (a) is computed on the basis of what the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body report would mean to us, given that we accept, at least for the moment—I stress, for the moment—the Government's intention to continue to pay the allowance as a lump sum in the way that it has been paid in the past. I know that many hon. Members want to examine that aspect of that decision in more detail later, but tonight is not the occasion to do that.
  Amendment (a) takes the Government's recommendation of one allowance and adds to it the consequences of the recommendations of the TSRB. It is accurately and
  1090
  fairly calculated and I believe that it is right that at least that aspect of the recommendations of the people who did all that work over so many months, and who reached such emphatic conclusions and clear recommendations, should be implemented.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who said that there are millions of people outside this place, in the public sector as well as the private sector, who are experiencing very difficult financial circumstances. They will misunderstand the hon. Gentleman—I speak as someone who is to visit his dentist in the next few days.
  Dr. Cunningham: There are indeed millions of people outside this place in very difficult circumstances. However, it is rather peculiar that it is only on occasions like this that the hon. Gentleman seems to remember that they are there.
  In the time that I have enjoyed the privilege of being a Member of the House, very few of my constituents have ever seriously complained about the provision for hon. Members to do an effective job on their behalf. Indeed, I have had far more remarks and observations from people in business and in industry and commerce who are astonished at the mediaeval nature of this place and the provisions not simply for us but for the people who work long hours on our behalf in conditions which, if we were acting like the trade union to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred, would not be tolerated for a moment, not least because they do not meet the basic requirements of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, and this place would be closed down if the law applied to it.
  Let us have no hypocrisy about what the public think and about taxpayer's interests, thank you very much. The public want, especially in these circumstances, more effective checks and balances to be placed upon the Government. I urge the House to take this opportunity, which is the only opportunity that new hon. Members will have in this Parliament, to strike a blow in the interests of greater and more effective scrutiny of the Executive, in the interests of our constituents and ourselves, and not least the people whom we employ, and vote for amendment (a).
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I have put my name to amendment (a). I am grateful for the opportunity to say that the Government were absolutely right to commission the report. The fact that they commissioned it recognises the substantial change that has taken place in the duties of Back-Bench Members, not just in their weekly mail but in their wider responsibilities, in the extra costs of employing highly skilled secretaries who now have a substantial job to do beyond just typing letters, and, of course, in the increased costs of office equipment. Any hon. Member who has recently sought to sell a second-hand typewriter or early computer will recognise that there are no great capital gains to be made in buying office equipment.
  We have a unique job, which is scarcely ever recognised outside this place. It is unique because it is carried out in two separate places, it is carried out for ourselves, yet we have a sort of employer, it is different and it has to be seen as different.
  I congratulate the review body on the immense trouble tht it has taken and on its appreciation of many of the special difficulties that assail us. There will never be a perfect arrangement for us. Our London living allowance, for example, is a crazy calculation, but we are not debating that; we are debating the office costs, which gradually, over the years, have become more sensible. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made, that this matter is not about our salaries or our income. I am delighted with the way that it has been reviewed, but perhaps there are those who think that, because the review has been headed "Top Salaries Review Body", there is some misapprehension. As every hon. Member does, I have to justify every penny of expenditure that I claim, and it has to be justified as an expense in association with my parliamentary duties. In no way could that be regarded as salary or pay.
  It has been a long struggle to realism in getting our allowances put right. Since I have been in the House, 13 such reports have been referred to review bodies. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was right to say that only one was adopted by the Government. It caused no difficulty, it went through quickly, and that was a way to handle it. I am very sorry that, yet again, by this attempt at cheeseparing, the Government have produced controversy, misunderstanding and a dispute which need never have existed had they published the report and adopted it.
  The Government, if they propose to deal with these matters by referring them to review bodies, must decide in advance to accept the review bodies' reports. Otherwise they should not bother in the first place. They could just as easily make an arbitrary decision without all this work, without all the effort to arrive at a proper assessment. I make this plea to the Minister; whatever the result of tonight's votes, let the Government, before repeating this exercise, as they will surely have to do in respect of other aspects of our salary and expenses, take into account the point that I have just made. If they do not do so, they will not get responsible people to sit on these boards, and an undesirable disallowance factor will be built in. I urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment in full and without question. If he were to do so, we should have no controversy at all.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: This is, and should be, a House of Commons matter. It is not a matter for determination by the Executive, and when the Executive make a recommendation, it should be reviewed with a healthy scepticism.
  At heart, this debate is about how we can make sure that we can do a proper job for our constituents. The pressure on Members of Parliament has increased dramatically in recent years, and it continues to increase. There is legislation to scrutinise; there are Select and Standing Committees to take part in; there is now a flood of European Community directives to take note of and to follow through. At the last count, about two years ago, I found that I dealt with about 6,000 individual constituency cases in a year. I hold five surgeries a month, each lasting five or six hours. The flow of correspondence from constituents get greater and greater every year.
  The Leader of the House says that there has been no dramatic increase in the work load of MPs since we last debated this matter. I do not know whether that is true of his constituency, but it is certainly not true of mine. Surely, if we are to do our job properly, we need to be able, as a bare minimum, to employ two full-time staff, to pay them properly, and give them decent conditions of work, and properly to establish and equip an office in the constituency.
  As other hon. Members have said. this debate is not about MPs' salaries or perks, although some people much more well heeled than we are have sought to convince the public that that is the case. This debate is about our having the back-up to do our job. I should very much like to see changes in the system of the block allowance. I certainly favour central arrangements for the purchase of equipment. That would be much more cost-effective. There should be much more open disclosure of what happens to our allowances, and there should be proper conditions and contracts for the people we employ.
  These are the things we could do to improve the system that has been put before us, but I am afraid that they are not open for discussion tonight. In the meantime, we have the report of the Top Salaries Review Body and the Government's motion. The review body suggests that the allowance should be disaggregated, that it should be split up into blocks for staff, office equipment, a constituency office and a setting-up allowance. For a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, the Government have said that they do not wish to go along with that proposal. For the purposes of the debate, I am happy to accept that position.
  The amounts proposed by the review body are as follows: £33,360 to employ two staff; £4,000 for office equipment; £2,000 for a constituency—I observe that £2,000 would probably be sufficient to rent a broom cupboard in my constituency—and, in effect, because of the discounting that takes place if we claim, a setting-up allowance of £3,000.
  What I have done in my amendment is simple. I have taken the amounts for staff, office equipment and a constituency office and divided the setting-up allowance of £3,000 by five, because it is supposed to last five years. I have added up all those figures. The result is the figure of £39,960 in my amendment. The Government propose a substantially lower figure than the amount recommended by the review body. The Government's proposal is £33,190.

  1093
  Even tonight, the Leader of the House has not given us any justification of the figure and how it was arrived at. He has told us that is a percentage, but he has not told us why it is that percentage. It is as if the Government have simply decided on that figure. They have plucked it out of the air. That is the figure on the Order Paper. The alternative in my amendment is to take the total amount that the review body proposed and substitute it for the Government's figure.
  Parliament is not the Executive. We are here to do two specific jobs which no one else can do: first, to act as advocates for our constituents; secondly, to scrutinise and hold to account the workings of the Government. To do both those jobs properly we need the necessary resources. I urge colleagues from all parties—it is a House of Commons matter, not an Executive matter-to support my amendment.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I shall formally move my amendment when called upon to do so, Madam Speaker but I shall speak to it now.
  My amendment takes into consideration the Government's position. We accept that there is a recession. We accept what the Leader of the House said about the wider context and why it was necessary to constrain public expenditure. Opposition and Conservative Members and, indeed, the country are prepared to wait for the recession to turn. We are waiting for the green shoots of springtime to become flowers, buds or shrubs. We shall be ready when that happens.
  We must also accept that our work load has increased, but we do not accept the definition of the work load given by the Leader of the House. I refer again to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that, according to the report, our work load has increased substantially. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) also referred to our substantial and increasing workload. The retreads—those who have come into the House since the election and were previously Members of Parliament—say that the greatest thing that has struck them is the increase in their mail and work load and the difficulty that they have in coping with it. That is an additional reason for accepting the amendment rather than the Government's motion.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who may catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, was the first to draw attention to the fact that the House of Commons is essentially a legislature which exists to control the Executive. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Islington, South and Finsbury reiterated that.
  We are here to hold the Government—the Executive—to account and it is the absolute duty of the legislature so to do.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman confirm that the report of the Top Salaries Review Body says that, since it last reported, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of letters with which we have to deal? It simply recommends an increase of one third in our staff levels, from one and a half to two. Clearly, the level of work coming into this place will be
  1094
  measured and, in addition to increases for inflation, we should have an increase for our staff because of the volume of work with which they have to deal.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member makes my point for me. In an aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to one of the issues with which we have to deal from time to time—whales. All of us find it difficult to cope with the mail in our post bags. Each letter received by a Member of Parliament generates four more letters. When an issue arises, it becomes impossible to cope with the burden. That is why we need appropriate secretarial and research assistance and appropriate allowances, so that assistants can "do their jobs properly"—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said in an intervention.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to another significant factor. This is the last occasion for us to debate this issue in the present Parliament; it may be about seven or eight years before we debate it again. This Parliament will eventually end and there will be another review. Perhaps we shall take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that the matter should be debated by a House of Commons Commission and that we should await its conclusions. The vote tonight will be the last vote for several years.
  I do not propose to delay the House at length, but I repeat the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield: it is the duty of the House to hold the Government accountable.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: If some hon. Members have misgivings about the proposed increase in the limit for one reason or another—collective or individual reasons of restraint—they do not have to claim the maximum; they can claim much less.
  Mr. Bell: It is optional; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
  Amendment (b) tries to take into account the Government's desire not to enhance secretarial allowances too much at this time, but to accept that the full amount to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred, should be given next year, as this may well be the last review for five or six years. Our constituents, the taxpayer and the legislature will benefit, and the Executive will be held to greater account.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The Leader of the House sought to justify the payment of a lower figure than that recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body by reference to salaries paid to certain public servants. I suggest that that is a misleading analogy, because we are not talking about salaries. I suspect that the Leader of the House has been reading too many newspapers, as the implication in some of them has been that the allowances would be a means of feathering our nests. The only way in which a Member can feather his or her nest through the allowances is by fraud.
  Some newspapers have suggested that some Members might commit the shocking act of paying their spouse to work for them. Someone ought to say in this debate that if any spouse does a genuine job of work for any Member of Parliament, they are entitled to be paid a proper rate for the job, and many are not.

  1095
  Earlier, I talked to one of my hon. Friends whose wife has worked for many years in a remote place as his full-time secretary. Such is the feathering of their nest that she is now paid about £8,000 a year for that full-time job. He cannot afford to pay her more, because his allowance is committed in other ways. I hope that I shall not provoke a major row in the domesticity of Scotland if I say that I think that my hon. Friend is underpaying his wife disgracefully. That should not happen.
  The Leader of the House told us that the Government had decided, because of general economic conditions, that the figure should be reduced from the recommendation to £33,190. One is tempted to say that the Government are very willing to rely on consultants' reports when they suit them, but it is another matter when they do not. What on earth was the point of the arm's-length TSRB report on this important issue if the conclusions of those independent people are to be ignored?
  What evidence does the Leader of the House have to support the figure of £33,190? I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us that we did not need to employ two whole-time people or an office in our constituency—incidentally, one certainly could not obtain an office even in rural Wales for £2,000. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would produce evidence to support his claim that we did not need research assistants. Where is the evidence that Government briefings in notes on clauses on the Bills that we consider in Committee are an adequate basis for discussing or even opposing parts of those Bills? We did not hear a word of evidence from the right hon. Gentleman about those issues.
  I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members share my disappointment at the fact that the Government, relying on no evidence, have simply decided that hon. Members should have underfunded offices. It is time for us to tell the Government that hon. Members are not prepared to service their constituents poorly because their offices are underfunded. I believe in the principle of compartmentalising the allowances, because they could then be scrutinised more effectively.
  A constituency allowance would be extremely useful, but while we have the present lump sum system, we have certain purposes to serve. Our first purpose is to serve our constituents. Even nine years ago, when I came into the House, we were not subject to organised mailing—sometimes it is nationally organised. Then, there were not as many word processors, which has led to so many personalised letters being sent to us. We must reply to those letters if we are to be competent, effective Members of Parliament.
  I have added my name to amendment (a). I hope that new Conservative Members in particular will realise that, if they are to do efficiently the job to which they have had the privilege of being elected, they too should vote for that amendment. Otherwise, in three or four years, they will find that they are struggling—running hard to stand still. I do not believe that that is right for Members of this honourable House.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I support the amendment and I realise that certain elements of the press may expect me to feel guilty about that. I do
  1096
  not. To be blunt, I wonder how some London journalists dare to write about us when they receive up to twice the salary of Members, as well as a large expense account. I think that they do rather well. Of course they work rather long hours, I am told—I think that we do as well. We are not here tonight to talk about Members' salaries, and that does not bother me greatly. As an ex-village schoolmaster, traditionally underpaid, I can make do on my present salary. While it is inadequate compared with what legislators receive in other countries, I can live on it.
  However, I am angry over the totally inadequate back-up resources that I have at my disposal and the fact that the interests of my wife and children have to be sacrificed to make up the shortfall between what I receive and what I spend to service my constituency. Members must already work too hard for too long, away from their families, without having that added pressure.
  In the last financial year, I overspent my office allowance by £5,044. In the previous year I overspent by about £2,000. I have to find that from my personal resources—in other words, from my current salary—as I have no private means. I have a mortgage and two children at university. It is not a painless exercise for my wife and myself. I pity new Members, with young families, who came here in April.
  My staff, who are excellent, must be paid, but they are not paid what they are worth. Nor do they have a properly equipped office in which to work. For example, the photocopier that I bought nine years ago, when I was first elected, now manages about three reproductions before it has to be switched off, allowed to cool down and switched on again. I cannot afford to replace it.
  The further one's constituency from London, the more acute the problem becomes. The most disadvantaged are Northern Ireland Members, although the problem applies in varying degrees to Members from Scotland, the north-east and all constituencies that are distant from Westminster.
  Because of the remoteness of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, for example—the issue is further complicated by the direct rule system—I find myself with a constant conflict of duties. How do I divide my time between Westminster, where I want to play a full part as a United Kingdom Member, and Northern Ireland, where the interests of my constituents are dealt with almost exclusively from within the Northern Ireland Office at Stormont? Partly to resolve the issue at constituency level, I am obliged to employ two full-time and two part-time staff. As Northern Ireland does not have a meaningful local government stratum, virtually no problems can be resolved at town hall level. They all arrive on my desk.
  Let me compare myself with a parliamentary colleague in, say, the south of England. I do not denigrate his or her work, but their parochial duties are often dealt with at local government level, and one secretary or personal assistant and a researcher can work here in the House, where they have access to free telephones and a library service.
  My telephone bill in Fermanagh and South Tyrone for the last year was about £3,750. My main constituency office in Dungannon costs me, including rent and rates, about £3,000 per annum. My Enniskillen office, which is over 40 miles away from the Dungannon office, costs a further £2,000. In addition to lighting and heating bills, I

  1097
  am obliged to maintain three separate sets of word processors, one in Dungannon, one in Enniskillen and a laptop machine that I carry for my own use.
  The TSRB consultants who interviewed me came and saw the situation in my office and constituency. I suggested that there should be a scale of allowances, related to distance from the House, ranging from £40,000 to £55,000 per Member. At present, my absolute minimum requirement to maintain my present position is £35,000 and I would need a further £10,000 to £15,000 if I were ever to hope to employ a secretary-cum-research assistant in this place. I do not have one at present.
  At a time when the Prime Minister is promoting his people's charter, should not we start in the House by ensuring that those who are elacted can pay their staff a reasonable wage so that the constituents who sent us here can expect a response to their problems? It must be remembered that Members are not handed the money as a lump sum but must reclaim it, having provided the necessary receipts. If some Members do not require the full amount, they do not have to spend it, but those of us with difficult constituencies, for whatever reason, should not be penalised.
  I suppose that it is not wise to reveal the details of one's business as I have done. I do not make out that I am a martyr; like most hon. Members, I enjoy my job and want to do it properly. None the less, I feel that the public should know how wrong it is for the Government to propose to underfund the work and business of this House because it diminishes the House and those who work here.
  11.47 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In the 1970s when Clive Jenkins was the leader of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs union, I remember calculating that a skilled white collar worker needed to invest some £31,000 a year to be effective in his job. To extrapolate from that and bring it up to date, it must be double that sum today. People running a business and providing the information services that we provide would have to find such sums out of their profits on top of their salaries, which I admit may be less than a Member of Parliament receives.
  In my first year in this place I got away with a reasonable electric typewriter and a secretary, but since I have been here the work load has grown and I have gone from a typewriter with a screen, to an Amstrad, to a £4,500 machine with a laser printer. That is not because I am fond of equipment, but because it was essential to match the growing work load.
  It is improper for us to be too censorious about the increase when we consider the number of hours and quality of work that we get from our secretarial back-up, most of which is carried out by women who are usually considered worthy of being paid slightly less than if a man were doing that job. If men provided the back-up secretarial assistance, we would be asking for much more. The women who back us up with clerical efforts and skills are worthy of a reasonable salary because they must cope with London prices. Many people outside who will scrutinise the sums that we talk about may deal with considerably lower salary scales, but they do not have to face up to the costs of living in the city—essentially for travel and rents.
  1098
  For all those reasons, we should adopt the figure that the review body recommended. Unless we do so, we cannot match the service that our constituents require. I find that a day's surgery generates some two days of work for my secretary. That is a fairly modest work load because my constituency is, fortunately, quite prosperous and does not generate as many case histories as some colleagues must cope with weekly.
  I need a research assistant because of the many problems thrown up by the legislation that we in the House are constantly passing. The ordinary citizen needs an encyclopaedia, a citizens advice bureau and sometimes a solicitor in order to understand the way in which it impinges on their ordinary lives. We generate the problem. We must, therefore, at least provide the assistance and the back-up to help people cope with it.
  I and a number of my colleagues now pay the Fees Office to be here—my contribution has gone from nil in the first year when I did not spend all my allowance, to barely breaking even in the second year, to £3,000 in my third year, to £5,000 in the last year but one, to more than £7,000 in the last year out of my salary in order to meet my work load, which colleagues may well think is partly self-generated, but I make no apology for that. That is my own choice, but for many colleagues that is a difficult matter with which to cope.
  We should stop pussyfooting around, remember the people who do our wonderful back-up work—there are as many women working in this place as there are men, toiling away in the background, at salaries substantially less than ours, but deserving much better—bite this little bullet and make it clear to the public that we do this so that we can provide a reasonable service. Until we can cut down the legislative tendency of the Front Benches of both parties when in office, we should provide the service that the public need.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has made a powerful case on behalf of those who work for Members of Parliament and it is one that the House will disregard at its peril.
  We are discussing not a financial but a democratic question. The Leader of the House is here to represent Members. He is the bridge between the Government and the House. I notice six civil servants in the Box who have advised him on his speech and no doubt will check carefully what he said. Not one of the civil servants whom he employs will be working under the conditions that he thinks it right we should work under with the staff that we employ.
  As I said in an intervention, not a single civil servant has to choose between a computer, his secretary, a telephone call and his office rent—not one. We are discussing the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. Therefore, this is not an occasion for the usual sort of argument that we have in the House; it is one of those rare but important occasions when the House as a House looks at what the Government are prepared to do.
  It is no good telling us what the percentage improvements are. Before 1910, Members of Parliament were not paid at all, and I am sure that if, instead of holding elections, we put out parliamentary seats to private tender the House could be filled with people who would be happy to pay to have the privilege of the

  1099
  influence that we have. When I was elected, I received £30 a week, no secretarial allowance, no franked postage, no office and, no telephone allowance and I was even prevented from bringing in a tape recorder to dictate here by someone from the Serjeant at Arms' office because some people did not approve of them. It is no good telling me that we are better off than we were then. The question is whether we are properly equipped to do the job that we now have to do.
  Every time I go to my constituency—this is true of every hon. Member—everyone I meet is my employer. A number of people have written to me saying, "We haven't had a reply to the letter that we wrote to you, Mr. Benn," or, "We sent you a message and when shall we get an answer?" But no one has ever told me that my office is stuffed with unnecessary staff, because that is not the case. The truth is that we have to work with local authorities, district and county councils and Government Departments and, now that the agencies have been hived off, we have to chase them up as well. Every time the Government privatise anything, they set up a regulatory body. We are a regulatory body, but the Government say that we cannot do the job that we have to do.
  Every hon. Member has his own personal experience. I shall not recite mine, but without the work of one Member of Parliament the Birmingham Six might still be in prison. That work took him years and years of effort. The same applies to other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Billericay has been active in promoting legislation. That is over and above the call of duty, as military citations used to say, but it is an important role for a Member of Parliament. We have to deal with our constituents and our localities, and weekly surgeries lasting five or six hours—as the my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned. Some of the cases are tragic and involve all sorts of matters. People come to us because they feel that there is nowhere else that they can go.
  As to the number of letters, during the Gulf war I received 12,000 letters—including one from almost every hostage in Baghdad. They wrote saying who they were and describing their medical condition, because they knew that I was going there. Was it not part of my duty to reply to them all? If I had not had the assistance of four or five volunteers in my office, that job could not possibly have been done.
  We deal also with parliamentary questions; speeches, early-day motions, Bills, Committee work and campaigns of one kind and another. All that requires proper staffing.
  There has been an enormous growth in Executive power over the years. I once worked out—I have not updated my figures—that Government expenditure in the first 50 years of my life, from 1925 to 1974, rose 1,000 per cent. in real terms. The number of Members of Parliament is virtually the same as it was in 1925, but we cover a wider range of activity.
  Mention has been made of the enormous growth also in the number of pressure groups. I cannot say that I care for some of them, but I agree with others. They bombard us with information. They are well-resourced—they have staff, computers and fax machines. We have to judge whether we agree with them. There is also the growth in the media. One has only to go to 4 Millbank to know that
  1100
  —it will not be long before they are bigger than we are. We will be at 4 Millbank, and the media will be over here, because they need more space.
  All staff should be employed and properly paid by the Government. We could select them, but they would be paid from the public account. All equipment should be provided and, when a Member of Parliament is defeated or retires, he would hand it back—in the same way that the Leader of the House will return his seal of office when he ceases to be a Secretary of State or a Minister. There should be an absolute minimum of three staff for every Member of Parliament—one or two full-time in his constituency, and one in London. There is no other way.
  Why did the Government establish an independent commission that had no motive for exaggerating our needs and then say that they could not manage to accept its recommendations? What was the point? I fear that it was to delay matters until after the general election.
  This decision is one for the House to take. I hope that the Whips have not used their influence and that no Member will find that he or she has been left off a Select Committee because he or she voted the wrong way tonight. I invite the House to support the amendments. They were recommended by an independent commission of inquiry that received evidence from many right hon. and hon. Members, myself included, and reached a very measured view.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly to support the amendments. I do so as one who gave evidence to the Top Salaries Review Body, which studied at length the representations that it received. We referred these matters to the TSBR to take them out of the hands of Members of Parliament and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I find it extraordinary that the Government, have torn up its recommendations. That is not the way to deal with the issue.
  We asked that body to investigate matters affecting Members of Parliament because that was in the interests of the House as a whole, and it would take the issue out of controversy. I remind Conservative Members that this is not a political issue. I have sat in Parliaments under Labour and Conservative Governments, when they have been pressurised not to implement increased facilities for right hon. and hon. Members because that might upset the norm or Government policy.
  If we do not take the right decision this evening, we can forget any improvements for the remainder of this Parliament. That is the key issue. I believe that the amendments, especially amendment (a), will give us no more than what the report entitles us to—a "global" sum that would enable us to do the work that we must and want to do. I urge the House to support the amendments.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: Some hon. Members may feel that, as someone who has been in the House for a mere 15 months, I am being rather precocious in speaking tonight. I am comforted only by the fact that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and I—who were on opposite sides of the Grunwick picket line in 1977—are agreed on the issue: that must make us right.

  1101
  I am very conscious that those who have been in the House much longer than I have become accustomed to arrangements that appal a new Member. Those arrangements are primitive—not least in regard to the resources and conditions that we expect our staff to endure. The issue is not, as the Government would have us believe, about Members' pay. An article published in The Sunday Times on 5 July, headed
  "MPs strike it rich at palace of perks",
  said that we were alleged to have an annual income of £102,671. As we all know, that is a fantasy figure of which Del Boy would be proud: I hope that he will apply for the post of editor of The Sunday Times when a vacancy occurs.
  The issue is not about pay restraint—restraint imposed on us, as Members of Parliament. If it were, the Leader of the House would not have presented us with a proposed increase of 14·5 per cent—nearly four times the rate of inflation; he would have presented us with an increase of about 4 per cent. But he did not do that: he plucked a figure out of the air, illogically and pragmatically, in the hope of buying a few votes against the amendments.
  I urge the House to reject the hyprocrisy of editors who claim to be on the side of the people, and then deny us the rights and resources to check and challenge the Executive on behalf of the people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) so eloquently put it, this is a constitutional issue which affects our right as legislators and our right to represent our constituents.
  The Government want Members of Parliament to chase their tails, with very little time to consider the complexity of issues, the nature of political questions and the strategies and policies that we must pursue. Their proposals are almost designed to keep us under so much pressure that we cannot seriously do our jobs as parliamentary representatives, seeking to challenge the Executive and hold it accountable. Nor can we hold our constituents in the high regard in which we ought to hold them: we cannot give them the service that they deserve.
  Let me briefly describe the experience of an hon. Member with a constituency office. That office, which had not been set up before I became a Member of Parliament for Neath, is now deluged with daily telephone calls from people with housing and social security problems—people without jobs who sometimes break down in tears. They are able to receive service on their doorsteps from their Member of Parliament or his staff; they could not do that under the old resourcing arrangements. We need extra resources, to ensure that every Member of Parliament can provide such a local service.
  I believe that the Executive have launched a deliberate strategy to deny us the resources to do our jobs; to centralise power; to ensure that Members of Parliament are buried under an enormous case load; to ensure that they cannot scrutinise the Government; and to ensure that they are dog-tired and half-witted—that applies to me, at any rate. I ask hon. Members to imagine that they were able to act as normal people for once; to listen to others for once; to think properly for once; to go home and share their spare time with their spouses and talk to their children for once. They should imagine themselves having the time and the resources to be human beings for once. This issue goes beyond the question of Members of Parliament having the resources to do their job and to support their staff.
  I urge the House to ensure that we get for our staff proper resources, pay and conditions so that we are able to
  1102
  raise a great number of issues covered by the report but disregarded by the Executive, including the disaggregation of allowances to ensure that the staff of Members of Parliament are not compared with computers but are given proper pay and resources. I urge the House to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
  12.4 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: As we get very close to making a decision on behalf of our staff, I ought to point out that the Leader of the House has won neither the argument nor the support of his hon. Friends. Having listened to the comments made by his hon. Friends and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), as well as to those of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who spoke so well on behalf of the staff, it is clear that the House does not believe the case made by the Leader of the House. That is because he did not have the courage to bring the report before the House early enough in this Parliament to enable hon. Members to have a full debate on its contents.
  There is much in the Top Salaries Review Body's report that hon. Members, on behalf of their staff, would like to debate. All that we have been able to do tonight is to ensure that at least one of its recommendations is carried out—that Members of Parliament are given more financial support for their staff so that they can do their job. I hope that all hon. Members will support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  A number of the recommendations in the report still need to be discussed. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and that he will allow the House to discuss the contents of the Top Salaries Review Body's report. Hon. Members want to take account of many of its recommendations, in particular the need to provide support for those Members of Parliament who have constituency offices and who require more finance to run them.
  The Leader of the House has clearly misread the mood of the House. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join us in the Lobby and support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  12.7 am
  Mr. Clive Soley: I intend to make two points that have not yet been made. First, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said what he did, for I believe that he is a constituent of mine. I may remind him of that fact when he next writes to me, but, as my secretary is away on holiday, he may not get a quick reply. All I would say to him is that there is no reason why any hon. Member should not say to his or her constituents, or to any member of the press, that we need this money to do our job as parliamentarians. That is what the argument is about.
  Mr. Walden: I have been asked by my constituents about this. I have told them that there is a limit to what I can do for them, with one secretary, but that I do not believe, in the wider interests of the country, that I should vote myself more money.
  Mr. Soley: The answer is simple—the hon. Gentleman does not have to take the money. This is a matter not for the Government—I agree with everything that has been said about taking it out of the hands of the Government—but for Parliament.
  Secondly, the Government tabled 1,000 amendments to their last Housing Bill, several hundred of which were tabled three days before the Bill returned to the Floor of the House. Every Back Bencher on the Standing Committee had to address those amendments and work out what they were to do. We took the advice of outside agencies. Therefore, we delegated our authority and power to outside agencies. We did so because there was no other way of getting through that spate of amendments. That applies to other issues, too. I shall end on that point.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order [9 July].
  Amendment proposed to the motion: (a) in sub-paragraph (a), leave out '£33,190' and insert '£39,960'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 197.

  Division No. 70]

  [12.09 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coffey, Ann

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin-Walker, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bates, Michael

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cran, James

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, Bob

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

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

  Betts, Clive

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

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blair, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Day, Stephen

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Denham, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Dewar, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dixon, Don

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Butler, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  1104

  Eastham, Ken

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jowell, Tessa

  Enright, Derek

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Alan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Leighton, Ron

  Flynn, Paul

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lewis, Terry

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Foulkes, George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fraser, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Luff, Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Galloway, George

  McAllion, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McCartney, Ian

  Garrett, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Bruce

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKelvey, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  McLeish, Henry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gorst, John

  McWilliam, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Madden, Max

  Graham, Thomas

  Maginnis, Ken

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mahon, Alice

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marek, Dr John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gunnell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Harvey, Nick

  Milburn, Alan

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Miller, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Henderson, Doug

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Home Robertson, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Olner, Bill

  Hunter, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Illsley, Eric

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Ingram, Adam

  Patchett, Terry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Purchase, Ken

  1105

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stephen, Michael

  Radice, Giles

  Stern, Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  Stevenson, George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Straw, Jack

  Redmond, Martin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Trimble, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Turner, Dennis

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tyler, Paul

  Rogers, Allan

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Rooney, Terry

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Salmond, Alex

  Watson, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wright, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mr. Joseph Ashton and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Steen, Anthony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkins, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  1106

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Madel, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Malone, Gerald

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marlow, Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Trend, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Merchant, Piers

  Walden, George

  Milligan, Stephen

  Waller, Gary

  Mills, Iain

  Ward, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moate, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Whitney, Ray

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Needham, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wilshire, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Norris, Steve

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Paice, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made to the motion: (c), in sub-paragraph (b), leave out '£8,298' and insert '£9,990'.
  (d), in sub-paragraph (b), leave out '£33,190' and insert '£39,960'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That the main Question, as amended, be agreed to:—
  The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 186.

  Division No. 71]

  [12.24 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Alton, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Allen, Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  1107

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Battle, John

  Enright, Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Etherington, Bill

  Beckett, Margaret

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bell, Stuart

  Fabricant, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Betts, Clive

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Blair, Tony

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Blunkett, David

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boyes, Roland

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Garrett, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Butler, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gorst, John

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Graham, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Churchill, Mr

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hain, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hardy, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Connarty, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cryer, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ingram, Adam

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

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Denham, John

  Jamieson, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Dixon, Don

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  1108

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prescott, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leighton, Ron

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Richards, Rod

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rogers, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooney, Terry

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McCartney, Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Salmond, Alex

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Short, Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Madden, Max

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soley, Clive

  Mallon, Seamus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Miller, Andrew

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Trimble, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Walley, Joan

  Mudie, George

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Murphy, Paul

  Watson, Mike

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Welsh, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wiggin, Jerry

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Olner, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Audrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pope, Greg

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Joseph Ashton.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  1109

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkins, Robert

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Baldry, Tony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bellingham, Henry

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bowis, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Bright, Graham

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lidington, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lightbown, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lord, Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Maclean, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Madel, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  Malone, Gerald

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Mans, Keith

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Marlow, Tony

  Devlin, Tim

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Eggar, Tim

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evennett, David

  Milligan, Stephen

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Moate, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Forth, Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Needham, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Norris, Steve

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hague, William

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Harris, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Redwood, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Horam, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jack, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  1110

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walden, George

  Sproat, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House—

  (1) The limit on the office costs allowance (subject to what follows) should be—

  (a)for the year beginning in 1992, £39,960;

  (b) for any quarter in the year beginning in 1993, the sum of £9,990 (that is, a quarter, to the nearest pound, of £39,960) but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in that year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year; and

  (c) for any quarter in any subsequent year, the limit for a quarter in the preceding year but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in the subsequent year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year.

  (2) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) above.

  (3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

  (4) In this Resolution—

  (a) "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April;

  (b) "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.

  (c) "the standard secretarial salary" means an amount consisting of the Standard Pay Point for a Senior Personal Secretary in the Home Civil Service in London and the Inner London Weighting.

  (5) For the purposes of this Resolution the amount of the standard secretarial salary applicable in any year should be the amount specified by the Treasury as applicable in that year.

  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the result of the first Division was announced, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated with his fingers that the Division was for money only. For the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a senior Cabinet Minister, to indicate in that way is wrong. The Government would be the first people to criticise Opposition Members doing the same. I know that you, Madam Speaker, deprecate such behaviour, whether verbal or otherwise. I believe that it is wrong.
  Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for the Chair. Unbecoming gestures are sometimes made in the House. I deprecate them. My old eyes must have been a little sleepy tonight, because I did not notice the gesture.

  Office Costs Allowance
    PETITIONS

      Hedgehog Protection
      12.37 am
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and the Hedgehog Protection Campaign. [Interruption.] This is an important issue. It arises from an unfortunate incident in Pocklington in North Humberside of deliberate cruelty to hedgehogs.
      The campaign has been organised because hedgehogs and other wild mammals are not covered by any cruelty legislation. The petition was organised by Mrs. Bell of 363 Messingham road, Bottesford. It calls for a change in the law to protect such wild animals, as the worthy Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would have done if it had been successful.
      With permission, I should like to read the petition. It says:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of residents in Glanford and Scunthorpe sheweth
      That wild animals such as Hedgehogs are being subjected to deliberate acts of cruelty.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will bring forward a Bill that will make cruelty towards wild animals such as Hedgehogs illegal.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Poll Tax (Lambeth)
      12.39 am
      Ms. Kate Hoey: I have pleasure in presenting a petition from the residents of Carey gardens and Patmore estate, which are in the unfortunate situation of crossing the border between the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Lambeth. The petitioners are concerned about a fundamental injustice. They have to pay high rents and high poll tax because they pay poll tax to Lambeth and rent to Wandsworth. That does not seem to make sense, there is no apparent geographical reason for it, and they have the worst of both worlds.
      I therefore present
      to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
      The Humble Petition of the residents of Carey Gardens and Patmore Estate on the Border of the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth …
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House take note of the anomalous situation of those who live in Carey Gardens and Patmore Estate, who have to pay high rent to Wandsworth and high poll tax to Lambeth, and resolves to take urgent action to relieve us of this unfair financial burden.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Hedgehog Protection
      12.40 am
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: My constituents are also outraged at the treatment of hedgehogs and by the same incident which provoked my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to present a petition.
      I want to present a petition from Mrs. Pat Murgatroyd, who runs a hedgehog haven in 43 Foxwood lane, York. Her petition is supported by 888 signatures from the York area. The petition protests
      That four fifteen and sixteen year old boys, accused of causing unnecessary suffering to a hedgehog by dropping rocks on it, kicking it and beating it with a fence post and thereby breaking almost every bone in its body, walked free from a juvenile court in Pocklington, Humberside in April 1992 because the Protection of Animals Act 1911 covers only cruelty to captive creatures and it was judged that this hedgehog had not been captured.
      Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House bring about an Act of Parliament which will give hedgehogs legal protection against deliberate acts of cruelty.
      To lie upon the Table.

  RN Stores Depot, Eaglescliffe
  12.42 am
  Mr. Frank Cook: I seek leave to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents, namely, A. Dudman of Priory gardens, Norton, C. Davies of Northpark, Billingham, B. Naughton of Hillside road, Norton and others.
  It is a parallel, formalised edition of a less orderly petition which was presented at 12.30 pm yesterday to No. 10 Downing street for the attention of the Prime Minister. It refers to proposals to relocate 180 key jobs, covering core management and control procedures at the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe in Stockton-on-Tees. Those proposals make no sense, in terms of efficiency, efficacy, organisation or economics. The proposals run directly counter to commitments said to have been given by the Prime Minister in promising departmental jobs to the north-east. It would seem that the trawl that he promised has succeeded in doing no more than bringing a cake factory and the suggestion that those 180 jobs should be removed to the south-west, to Bath.
  In the north-east we have the proper equipment and qualified staff to cover the jobs. However one views the proposals it makes no sense to move the jobs, the staff or the equipment to the south-west.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Defence to abandon the proposal to transfer the 180 jobs from Eaglescliffe.
  And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.
  12.45 am
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I, too, should like to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents about the loss of 180 jobs as a result of job movements from Eaglescliffe to the south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, that decision is contrary to current Government policy, which states that they are interested in bringing jobs to the north-east—the exact opposite is happening. On behalf of my petitioners I pray that

  1113
  your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Defence to abandon the proposal to transfer the 180 jobs from Eaglescliffe.
  To lie upon the Table.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I rise on behalf my constituent and petitioner, Michael Bateman of 7 Ustead road, Middlesbrough, who also makes a humble petition on behalf of the work force of the Royal Naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe.
  The petition opposes the closure of those particular works and the proposition of Her Majesty's Government to create a centralised naval support command in Bath. That would necessitate the loss of 180 jobs in the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe near Stockton-on-Tees in the county of Cleveland.
  I have presented the petition to draw attention to the fact that we are in a recession that is deep and deepening, which is causing great dismay to the people of Cleveland. Their great fear is that the loss of those 180 jobs will add to that dismay.
  To lie upon the Table.
  12.46 am
  Mr. Alan Milburn: In common with my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I too present a petition on behalf of my constituents who work at the Eaglescliffe royal navy stores depot.
  As my hon. Friends have said, 180 jobs are under threat as a result of the decision to transfer those jobs from Eaglescliffe to Bath. That decision reverses the normal mechanism of regional policy which moves jobs from the south to the north.
  Five of my constituents have signed the petition, Brian Hildon, Ruth Cooke, Barry Clarke, Jean Davies and Christine Kane. Yesterday. a petition with 6,000 names was presented to 10 Downing street. The decision has excited a great deal of concern in my constituency and in the general area. It is a matter of great import. I beg to present that petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Local Government Pensioners (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  12.47 am
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House, and I shall seek to be as brief as possible. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for being here to answer the debate.
  The purpose of the debate is to ask the Government to ensure that local government pensioners in Scotland receive outstanding sums due to them for the period from April 1987 to March 1989. The underpayment was due to a computer error in calculating the retail prices index, which was reported as 0·1 per cent. too low for most of the period from February 1986 to December 1987. As a result, local government and other public service pensioners received cost of living increases to their pensions which were less than they should have been for the period from April 1987 to March 1989.
  The cost of living increase agreed to operate from April 1989 included a factor to adjust for the computer error from that date onwards, but still left outstanding the underpayment for the period from April 1987 to March 1989. The sum involved was more than £7 million.
  In England and Wales, local authorities were able to make retrospective compensatory payments at an average rate calculated by the Department of Environment to he £2 per £1,000 of pension. The Secretary of State for the Environment has authority under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to sanction certain payments by local authorities that they would otherwise be unable legally to make. He said that he would be prepared to do so in this case.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has no similar statutory powers. As a result, while local government pensioners in England and Wales have received some compensation, those in Scotland have not. In the case of some services for which the Government are themselves the paymaster, a lump sum has been given to one or more charities. It is understood that it will be used to assist needy pensioners or their dependants, but not necessarily the people who were deprived of the money due to the computer error. That solution was not acceptable to the employers or the relevant trade unions representing the pensioners in Scotland.
  The local government officers' union, NALGO, raised the matter at an early stage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and I should make it clear that at no time have COSLA or individual local authorities in Scotland shown any reluctance to pay the pensioners what is morally due to them. Their problem is that they have no legal authority to pay.
  In September 1990, COSLA formally raised the matter with the Scottish Office superannuation division. The reply on 2 December 1991 held out no prospect of legislation and suggested that local authorities might find some other type of solution, such as donations to charities. It said:
  "The Convention's finance committee may wish to consider whether they could recommend to Scottish local authorities that they should adopt a solution on these lines."
  It is not surprising that COSLA did not feel able to recommend that local authorities should give to charity moneys that morally belonged to other people.

  1115
  What I now say is embarrassing, and I apologise to the Minister, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). On 27 July 1991 he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Scotland and received a reply from his right hon. Friend on 31 August 1991. But the Secretary of State was no more helpful to his hon. Friend than the Scottish Office had been to COSLA. He acknowledged that
  "in Scotland … the local authorities would also have preferred to make individual payments",
  but saw no prospect of legislation to enable them to do so.
  On 31 October 1991, I tabled an early-day motion, supported by a number of other hon. Members, calling on the Government to find a way of compensating those involved for their error, albeit an unintentional one. That request met with no response, which is why I initiated this debate.
  This is a matter of equity. Due to a Government error—nobody suggests that there has been any ill intent—local government pensioners in Scotland have been deprived of sums due to them. Due to a quirk of legislation, pensioners in England and Wales—but not those in Scotland—have been paid. Now, surely, the Government having made an error, it is for the Government to find a way to correct it.
  In his letter to the hon. Member for Dumfries to which I referred, the then Secretary of State made what seems an extraordinary statement when he wrote:
  "the matter is one to which the local authorities themselves must seek a solution."
  Why the local authorities? It was not their computer that made the error in the first place.
  We are used to the Government stopping local authorities doing what they should be allowed to do, such as spending the income from council house sales to provide more housing. Here, we seem to be getting encouragement from the Government for local authorities to do what they really have no right to do. If they pay the pensioners, they will, as things stand, be acting outside their powers and therefore laying themselves open to audit penalties.
  If, on the other hand, they follow the suggestion of making a donation to charity, they will be disposing of someone else's money without their authority. What right have they to do that, and how would it help the pensioners? No doubt the Minister will inform the House that the payments of which the pensioners have been deprived are very small, and in many cases that is true, because the average former local government officer pensioner in Scotland receives only £2,014 per annum. But I hope the Minister will agree that the amount is not the point. If we do not take £5 or £10 seriously today, we shall be asked to disregard £20 on some other issue tomorrow, and £30 next year if inflation does not come down as promised. In any case, what may seem a small sum to those of us in employment has far greater significance to pensioners on small incomes.
  There can be no excuse for depriving people of money that is due to them. It is a strange inversion of justice, logic and even blatant common sense to place the burden of remedying the error on the injured party or on a completely innocent third party instead of the perpetrator. Moreover, there can be no case for treating Scottish local government pensioners differently and less well than those in England and Wales.
  I hope that I have made the point clearly to the Minister, and I look forward to his response.
  12.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for raising this question. It may seem somewhat dated, but it has been a source of grievance to local government pensioners and to NALGO for some time. The issues involved are very technical, but none the less real to the pensioners affected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the opportunity to have them debated, even at this very late stage. I anticipated that he would recall my correspondence of a year ago with the Secretary of State. He was kind enough to read out the gist of the reply that I received. In a way, I am a poacher turned gamekeeper, but he will appreciate that I wanted to see the issue resolved, as he does now.
  The grievance felt by the pensioners involved goes back a long way—some five years, in fact. As the hon. Gentleman explained, it derives from an error in the calculation of the retail prices index. Local government pensioners, like other public service pensioners, have their pensions increased annually in line with the RPI. That is a very worthwhile and much valued benefit. It means that those pensioners, unlike many others, have a guarantee that the value of their pensions will be maintained.
  The consequence of the RPI error, however, was that those pensioners lost by a small amount. The same applied to state pensioners and other public service pensioners who receive index-linked pensions. For two years—from April 1987 to March 1989—the inflation-proofing element in their pensions was less than it should have been. The shortfall was quite small, but no doubt significant to those affected. It amounted to roughly 0·1 per cent. of the full amount that would have been payable but for the error, and, as I have said, it lasted for two years.
  From April 1989, the pensions were restored to their full inflation-proofed values, so in one sense, the matter has been put right. That is a most important point, because it means that the effects of the error are long overtaken and, in many cases, long forgotten.
  The amounts involved were therefore not very large and do not recur, and I doubt whether anyone would claim that hardship is involved. But those pensioners who have received nothing by way of compensation nevertheless feel a real sense of grievance. The reason they have not received any compensation cannot, however, be said to be the fault of the Government.
  When the error was discovered, the Government felt that whatever practical and reasonable steps were necessary to right the situation should be taken. It did not seem right that the windfall should be to the Exchequer, and thus the public generally. Individual payments were made in respect of the state pensions involved. That was administratively fairly simple to do because the amounts involved were standard, but occupational pensions were a different matter, and in many cases they are additional to state pensions.
  In the occupational pension sector, the size of the pension varies from person to person and each pension would have had to have been individually recalculated. The cost to the taxpayer in doing so would have far ourweighed the value to the pensioners involved.
  Of course I accept that the pensions of many of the people involved were quite small. Where that was the case, the shortfall during the two years from April 1987 to

  1117
  March 1989 would also have been small, but would have assumed greater significance. The local government scheme in particular pays many small pensions, partly because it places few restrictions on which employees can join the scheme. It covers a wide range of professions and occupations, from the chief executive down to the lowest paid manual worker. Many move from job to job and typically do not have long periods of pensionable service. That in turn means that the average pension is low in comparison with schemes that cater for a particular profession or career.
  The average amount lost by local government pensioners because of the error was of the order of £4 over two years—less than 10p a week.
  In other occupational pension schemes, including those for which the Government are directly responsible, such as those covering the civil service and the national health service, there are also many retired members on quite small pensions. Many occupational pension schemes outside the public service do not guarantee inflation proofing at all. Most of the pensioners concerned would also be in receipt of state pensions, where the shortfall has been made good by the Government.
  In many cases the state pension would comprise the greater part of people's income. Nevertheless, the Government felt that occupational pensioners for whom they were responsible should not lose out. But they also felt that a better and more cost-effective way of applying the money for their benefit than making individual payments should be found. As the hon. Gentleman said, their solution was to pay the money to charitable organisations supporting retired and needy public servants.
  That was the approach taken in respect of retired civil servants, retired teachers, former employees of the health service and others. It was also the approach taken in the case of police pensioners, whose pensions are paid by local authorities,. I have no reason to believe that those pensioners found that approach unacceptable. It may well have channelled the relatively small amounts of money involved to the most needy.
  Like police pensions, pensions payable to former local government officials and manual employees under the local government scheme are the responsibility of the local authorities, not the Government. I understand that local authorities in England, and at least one in Scotland, which, coincidentally, happens to be my own in Dumfries and Galloway region, have chosen to make individual payments to all pensioners affected. The hon. Gentleman pointed that out. The Government have not objected to that. It is a matter for the local authorities. In England, the Department of the Environment can formally sanction such payments, but the Scottish Office has no such powers.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a small, one-clause, three-line Bill would be adequate, and perhaps
  1118
  it would. If he can convince the business managers that that is so, so be it, but he knows as well as I do that it is difficult to find a slot for legislation, even for something brief and non-controversial.
  The hon. Gentleman appears to he looking to the Government to require those local authorities in Scotland that have not made individual payments to do so. But, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to do so. It is a matter for the local authorities. In any case, the Government do not believe that that solution best meets the problem. They have taken a different route in the case of pensions for which they are responsible, as have local authorities in the case of police pensioners. The Government have therefore shown the way, and I have no reason to believe that local authorities could not follow a similar route if they chose to do so.
  The Secretary of State's position has been made very clear in correspondence and explained to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I do not know what recent consideration, if any, local authorities have given to the question. They have shown no inclination of which I am aware to follow the Government's example. If they want to work out schemes on the lines of those that apply to other public service pensioners in Scotland, it is for them to consider doing so, but the Secretary of State has no power to dictate to them what course of action they should pursue.
  The local government scheme is a very good pension scheme; it is available to a wide range of people in different professions and occupations; and it is well administered by the local authorities. The Government have, however, ensured through their pension reforms that choice in pension provision is available. Public service employees now have the right to opt out and make their own pension arrangements if they so wish. For employees who choose the local government scheme—perhaps the vast bulk—they can have confidence that the funds are well run, that their benefits are secure, and, of course, that they will not lose their value because of inflation. It is a pity, however, that the source of grievance over the small amounts lost due to the RPI error has not been dealt with. I have great sympathy for the people involved and many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I believe, however, that it is to the local authorities themselves that he should look for a solution.
  There is no legal obligation on local authorities to make payments—they paid the amounts required of them by the pensions increase orders. They may feel a moral obligation, however, not to use for other purposes money which, but for the error, would have gone to pensioners. If they do, they should look for a solution within existing legislation, as the Government did. I certainly hope that they do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months relative to the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance. My Department, however, does not operate any speciffic programmes in this area.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  The Attorney-General
  No such public appointments have been made.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  The Attorney-General
  The current numbers of civil servants and total personnel costs are:

  Number

  Cost

  (£ million)

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  24·0

  0·90

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  464·5

  15·70

  Crown Prosecution Service

  5,978·0

  1122·59

  Serious Fraud Office

  2135·0

  4·10

  1 1991–92.

  2 In addition 59 temporary staff are currently employed. The number varies with operational requirements.

  Details of staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.
  522
  The Attorney-General
  No such advisers have been retained.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Euopean Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993, the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 July 1992 at columns 430–31.

  Crown Courts (Witnesses)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what percentage of Crown court centres an information point for witnesses has been established.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information in the form requested is not available. All Crown court centres have arrangements which enable court users to make inquiries when they attend court. This duty is undertaken by a particular official in some courts and in others, particularly the larger courts, by way of a separate reception desk at the entrance to the building. The design guide for courts includes specifications to ensure that counters at which enquiries can be made are easily visible and accessible to people when they enter a court building. In line with the citizens charter, we will continue to look for means of improving the ways in which necessary information can be supplied to all those who use the courts.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on the background of individual public appointments is not held centrally and could he provided only at disproportionate cost. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor takes all relevant factors into account when considering appointments and he knows of no person appointed by him who has been criticised in published reports of DTI inspectors.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on the background of individual advisers retained by the LCD since 1987 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor knows of no person retained by his Department who has been criticised in published reports of DTI inspectors.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of staff employed in the Lord Chancellor's Department on the 1 July 1992 was 11,670 and the total personnel costs for the current financial year are £216 million. 1970 pre-dates the creation of the Department, but those areas for which the Lord Chancellor was then directly responsible employed 7,416 staff and the personnel costs were at that time £12·6 million.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Recycling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to give a tax advantage to recycled products and a tax penalty upon the landfill of waste which could be recycled.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no current plans to do so.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances physiotherapy is excluded from the scope of tax relief on premiums for health care insurance for the elderly; and what other exclusions are made.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Premiums on private medical insurance contracts for the over-60s may qualify for tax relief provided they offer only some or all of the treatments and medical services specified in Treasury regulations. Physiotherapy is one of the services the cost of which can be indemnified. At present it must be associated either with hospital treatment or with surgical procedures performed by a general practitioner. Regulations laid before the House of Commons on 7 July will allow insurers to include physiotherapy in an eligible contract where it is associated with other forms of general practitioner treatment, including diagnosis.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the Inland Revenue's published standards for replying to taxpayers' letters in 1991–92; and to what extend these standards were met in practice.

  Mr. Dorrell
  1991–92 was a transitional year. The previous system for targeting post for tax and collection offices was expressed in terms of post worked and based on post over 14 days old at the year end. This system was internally focused and provided little useful information on the service being provided to the public. A new system based on turnaround times for correspondence, which is also designed to provide customers with better quality replies to their letters, was trialled in 1991–92. It came fully into operation in 1992–93. The target for tax and collection offices is to respond to all letters within 28 days. In at least 90 per cent. of cases, the aim is to deal with the letter within that time scale. In the remaining cases, the response will tell the customer when the letter will be dealt with.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average loss to the Exchequer in income tax, employee's national insurance contributions and reduced VAT payments and excise duties resulting from a redundant Ministry of Defence worker being unemployed for 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effect on the Exchequer would depend on the income and expenditure of the particular workers concerned. It is not possible to provide a meaningful average.

  Insurance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it remains the Government's policy that Departments and non-departmental public bodies should not normally insure commercially; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have reviewed the question whether Departments and non-departmental public bodies should insure commercially. They have decided to retain the existing general rule that decisions whether to insure with commercial insurance companies should normally be decided on value-for-money grounds. Across the Government as a whole, the cost of paying premiums could be expected to exceed the value of claims met by insurance companies. Use of commercial insurance companies is, therefore, likely to be confined to cases where there are special reasons; for example where insurance in respect of equipment such as boilers is part of an inspection/maintenance services agreement, where large volumes of claims handling work are involved, where evidence of insurance may be needed to obtain prompt medical treatment for employees abroad and, in the case of NDPBs, where there is a legal requirement to insure.

  Inheritance Tax (Exemptions)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the procedure by which his Department informs the public of works of art where inheritance tax exemptions have been agreed for granting of public access; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: Public access to works of art granted exemption from inheritance tax may be provided in a number of ways. The publicity arrangements will differ depending on the way chosen.

  The owner may arrange to exhibit the object in a house or room which is open to the public for an agreed number of days each year; appropriate publicity for the opening of the house would be required. The owner may lend the object to a public collection for display on a long-term basis: publicity would then be the responsibility of the curator of this collection.

  Alternatively, the owner may arrange viewing by appointment provided he is also willing to lend the object on request to a public collection. All objects which can be viewed by appointment are publicised by means of an entry in the register of conditionally exempt property held by the National Art Library in the Victoria and Albert museum in London. Copies of this register are also available for consultation in the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh, the National museum of Wales in

  525
  Cardiff and the Ulster museum in Belfast. The Inland Revenue is currently carrying out a review, with the Department of National Heritage, of ways in which improvements can be made to the publicity given to this register as well as improvements to the quality of the entries and accessibility to the register. The conclusions of this review will be announced before the end of this year.

  Customs Searches
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics are kept on the(a) numbers, (b) sex arid (c) racial origin of persons stripped by customs officers at Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: Statistics on personal searches carried out each year by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are published in the annual report of the commissioners. Information is collated on the type of search—rub-down, strip or intimate—goods found at the time, appeals against search, and complaints but not on the sex or racial origin of persons searched.

  Trust Law
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has received from the Securities and Investments Board about conflicts between the Financial Services Act 1986 and trust law.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have looked into the recent allegations that the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation warned the Government that it could not do its job properly because of problems over the relationship between the Financial Services Act regime and trust law. Neither the Securities and Investments Board nor I have found any evidence to substantiate these allegations. IMRO and the SIB made representations to the DTI over a number of years about the legal uncertainty they believed was created by the interaction of the Financial Services Act and trust law. However. there was no suggestion that this uncertainty posed a threat to investor protection. The SIB's conclusion is that neither legal uncertainties created by the relationship between the Financial Services Act and trust law nor the existence of IM RO's special occupational pensions scheme regime made any material difference to IM RO's regulation of the Maxwell pension fund companies.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. Nelson
  The average staff in post in 1991–92, the latest full year for which figures are available, was 3,192. Total pay cost were £63·1 million. In 1970 HM Treasury employed 720 full-time staff. The figure for pay costs are not available as they were not recorded separately at that time. The staff figures for 1970 and 1991–92 are not comparable due to machinery of government and other changes.

  DTI Inspections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors;

  (2) if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Bankers (Code of Practice)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation of the British Bankers Association—BBA—code of practice.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is for the review committee that was established under the independent chairmanship of Sir George Blunden to monitor the implementation of the banks and building societies code of banking practice. The committee reported to the BBA in May that all major retail United Kingdom banks had agreed to adhere to the code but it was concerned that a number of smaller, mainly overseas, banks which may be conducting retail business had not adopted the code. My officials are kept informed on these and other matters through regular informal contacts with the British Bankers Association.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 July, how much money has so far been paid to ex-depositors of BCCI under the deposit protection scheme.

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that up to close of business on 10 July 1992 payments have been made by the Deposit Protection Board to some 4,000 depositors of BCCI, involving total protection payments of some £22 million.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Over the next and subsequent years as green Minister for the Office of Public Service and Science, OPSS, I will have responsibility for seeing that environmental concerns are taken into account where appropriate in the policies and work of the Department. I will also be responsible for publicising environmental initiatives. The OPSS is committed to reducing its direct and indirect consumption of non-renewable resources by, for example, improving energy efficiency wherever practicable; considering the purchase of environmentally friendly products where available; minimising pollution; and adopting environmental performance as an integral part of internal audits.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months relative to the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance. My Department is responsible for ensuring that the principles of the citizens charter and other public service reform initiatives are implemented. These are designed to improve the standards of service that Government Departments and other public sector organisations provide to their customers, including the owners of small businesses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of staff currently in my Department, excluding the agencies, is 542. The annual estimated total staff costs are £14·5 million. As my Department did not exist in its present form in 1970, it is not possible to provide any comparative staffing levels and staff costs.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list any advisers retained by his Department or its predecessor offices since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list any public appointments by his Department or its predecessor offices since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Asteroid Survey
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the work of the Anglo-Australian near-Earth survey on asteroids.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I am replying as the AngloAustralian near-Earth survey on asteroids is a civil, rather than a defence, research project.

  The aim of the survey, which is being carried out at the Anglo-Australian observatory at Siding Spring, Australia,
  528
  is to identify any asteroids which could possibly strike the Earth. The survey is supported by Australian Research Council funds and uses photographs from the United Kingdom Schmidt telescope there.

  In the two years that the project has been under way. no asteroids posing any significant threat have been discovered.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993 the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 July at column 430.

  Carl Bridgewater Murder Convictions
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to pursue regarding the completed Merseyside police report into the Carl Bridgewater murder convictions.

  Mr. Jack
  The report from the Merseyside police is still awaited. Once it has been received my right hon. and learned Friend will decide as soon as possible whether any action on his part is appropriate in this case.

  Contracting-out Procedures
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent and nature of proposed openness in relation to contracting-out procedures in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It has been and will continue to be the Home Office's practice to ensure fair and open competition in public procurement. My Department follows the advice given in administrative circulars issued by the central unit on purchasing in Her Majesty's Treasury. These incorporate best practice drawn from existing EC directives which in turn replicate United Kingdom best practice.

  Procurement practice is however necessarily constrained by issues of commercial and contractual confidentiality.

  Firearms
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory or other definitions of blank ammunition are used by him in discharging his responsibilities for the regulation of firearms.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Blank cartridges of more than one inch in diameter are subject to certificate control under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. Blank ammunition is not defined in the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1992. but is generally understood to he ammunition which contains no projectile.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces are currently co-operating with speed cameras.
  529
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A recent survey by the Association of Chief Police Officers' traffic committee indicated that 18 forces in England and Wales were actively considering acquiring speed cameras or traffic light cameras or both and that in addition three police forces expected to be equipped with speed cameras from 1 July.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of installation for a speed-detecting camera and related computing equipment

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The costs vary with the type of equipment chosen. The cost for a radar speed camera is about £24,600. The related computing equipment for processing the information from the cameras costs about £5,000 to £7,000.

  Prisons
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the prisons in England, giving the number of prisoners they were designed to hold and how many prisoners they currently hold.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the certified normal accommodation—CNA—and the number of prisoners for each establishment in England on 3 July 1992.

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Acklington

  676

  600

  Albany

  309

  291

  Aldington

  127

  123

  Ashwell

  404

  394

  Askham Grange

  129

  107

  Aylesbury

  241

  236

  Bedford

  170

  249

  Belmarsh

  841

  782

  Birmingham

  567

  963

  Blantyre House

  95

  94

  Blundeston

  410

  338

  Brinsford

  336

  346

  Bristol

  374

  395

  Brixton

  621

  779

  Brockhill

  160

  155

  Bullingdon

  635

  456

  Bullwood Hall

  126

  102

  Camp Hill

  481

  429

  Canterbury

  207

  161

  Castington

  300

  273

  Channings Wood

  594

  589

  Chelmsford

  244

  365

  Coldingley

  222

  215

  Cookham Wood

  120

  118

  Dartmoor

  599

  527

  Deerbolt

  422

  406

  Dorchester

  139

  218

  Dover

  312

  232

  Downview

  286

  280

  Drake Hall

  261

  174

  Durham

  542

  662

  East Sutton Park

  90

  79

  Eastwood Park

  134

  101

  Elmley

  635

  388

  Erlestoke

  218

  212

  Everthorpe

  228

  219

  Exeter

  317

  452

  Featherstone

  599

  547

  Feltham

  874

  719

  Finnamore Wood

  112

  94

  Ford

  536

  510

  Frankland

  332

  316

  Full Sutton

  624

  437

  Garth

  512

  459

  Gartree

  245

  237

  530

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Glen Parva

  854

  711

  Gloucester

  107

  195

  Grendon

  226

  194

  Guys Marsh

  240

  160

  Haslar

  110

  110

  Hatfield

  180

  168

  Haverigg

  315

  313

  Hewell Grange

  136

  137

  Highpoint

  747

  719

  Hindley

  323

  400

  Hollesley Bay

  569

  304

  Holloway

  517

  450

  Holme House

  649

  331

  Hull

  269

  372

  Huntercombe

  225

  220

  Kingston

  96

  94

  Kirkham

  632

  505

  Lancaster

  186

  258

  Latchmere House

  131

  78

  Leeds

  591

  890

  Leicester

  200

  345

  Lewes

  301

  403

  Leyhill

  410

  404

  Lincoln

  392

  636

  Lindholme

  800

  744

  Littlehey

  543

  536

  Liverpool

  931

  1,210

  Long Lartin

  362

  353

  Low Newton

  199

  312

  Maidstone

  517

  512

  Manchester

  350

  346

  Moorland

  620

  631

  Morton Hall

  168

  162

  The Mount

  484

  391

  New Hall

  122

  135

  North Sea Camp

  204

  194

  Northallerton

  148

  195

  Northeye

  160

  161

  Norwich

  421

  369

  Nottingham

  218

  211

  Onley

  460

  425

  Oxford

  121

  160

  Parkhurst

  286

  194

  Pentonville

  756

  774

  Portland

  439

  430

  Preston

  331

  422

  Pucklechurch

  56

  56

  Ranby

  347

  340

  Reading

  184

  91

  Risley

  417

  400

  Rochester

  306

  246

  Rudgate

  300

  292

  Send

  113

  108

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  201

  Shrewsbury

  168

  265

  Spring Hill

  210

  215

  Stafford

  657

  718

  Standford Hill

  384

  367

  Stocken

  396

  392

  Stoke Heath

  300

  270

  Styal

  189

  196

  Sudbury

  506

  461

  Swaleside

  504

  487

  Swinfen Hall

  172

  169

  Thorn Cross

  300

  192

  Thorp Arch

  163

  139

  The Verne

  580

  589

  Wakefield

  638!

  620

  Wandsworth

  965

  1,200

  Wayland

  580

  566

  Wellingborough

  314

  265

  Werrington House

  110

  102

  Wetherby

  196

  170

  Whatton

  204

  206

  Whitemoor

  518

  231

  Winchester

  458

  454

  The Wolds

  320

  117

  531

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Wormwood Scrubs

  472

  714

  Wymott

  768

  760

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what latest estimate he has made of the average cost of building a new prison; and if he will give the approximate number of prisoners a prison costing this amount is designed to hold.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of building a new prison varies depending on the type of prisoners it is to hold, its location, the ground conditions, the level of security required and other factors. The current estimated average cost of a new local prison for 600 prisoners is about £75 million, but in any particular case the actual cost will depend on the outcome of a competitive tendering exercise.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the contract struck between Group 4 and the French-owned private medical firm AM I for the provision of health care at Wolds prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. This is a matter for Group 4.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the prison service charges Group 4 to keep inmates from Wolds prison in custody and to provide them with food when they are delivered to Crown court.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service has responsibility for guarding and feeding prisoners at the Crown court. No question of charging arises.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Group 4 will meet the cost of damage caused by inmates as a result of the disturbance at Wolds prison on 27 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to hold an inquiry into the most recent disturbance at Wolds prison; and when he expects the results to be published.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 8 July, at column 199.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Group 4 staff delivered two sick prisoners from Wolds prison to Doncaster crown court on 29 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Only one prisoner from Wolds was taken ill at Doncaster Crown court on 29 June. He had been seen by medical staff at the prison for treatment to a cut arm before leaving for court. He was prescribed antibiotic tablets and pronounced fit to travel. His illness at court was diagnosed as a reaction to the antibiotic tablets, which he was advised to stop taking.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Group 4 employees were 532
  used to deal with the disturbance which took place at the Wolds prison between Saturday 27 June and Sunday 28 June; and how many of these employees were certified prisoner custody officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Twenty-four staff were deployed and all were certified prisoner custody officers.

  Bail
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were released on bail in England in(a) 1991, (b) 1981 and (c)

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not yet available for 1991, and was not published in 1971. The readily available information relates to England and Wales in 1990 and 1981 and is published in table 8.5 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1990".

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will set out the current advice given to magistrates about releasing on bail someone who has been arrested for a further offence while out on bail on a previous offence;

  (2) if he will set out the current advice given to magistrates on releasing persons on bail;

  (3) what advice is given to magistrates as to the number of times persons should be released on bail when they have already been arrested for previous offences and been released on bail for all of those offences.

  Mr. Jack
  Subject to the provisions of the Bail Act 1976, as amended, the decision whether to grant bail in a particular case is a matter for the judicial discretion of the court. Decisions are taken in the light of all the available information about the defendant and the alleged offence. Magistrates have been advised about the provisions of the Act via Home Office circulars sent to clerks to justices; copies of the circulars are available in the Library. In addition, all magistrates receive training under the auspices of the Lord Chancellor's Department and this covers the bail decision-taking process. The 1976 Act specifically provides that bail may be withheld if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, the defendant would commit an offence.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons released on bail by Harwich magistrates court, have been arrested for another offence, released on bail again, arrested for another offence, released on bail again, and been arrested and bailed for four or more offences;

  (2) how many persons released on bail by Harwich magistrates court, have been arrested for another offence, released on bail, and again arrested for a third offence;

  (3) how many persons released on bail by Clacton magistrates court, have been arrested for another offence, released on bail again, and arrested for a third offence;

  (4) how many persons released on bail by Clacton magistrates court were arrested for another offence while still on bail in 1991, 1981 and 1971;

  (5) how many persons released on bail by Harwich magistrates court, were arrested for another offence while still on bail in 1991, 1981 and 1971;

  (6) how many persons released on bail by Clacton magistrates court have been arrested for another offence,

  533
  released on bail again, arrested for another offence, released on bail again, and been arrested and bailed for four or more offences.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of the State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the situation in which persons on bail are arrested for a further offence and are released on bail again; and what reply he has made.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend has noted the publicly expressed concern of the Association of Chief Police Officers about offending on bail. He has received representations on the subject from a Lincolnshire county councillor and from nine hon. Members, five of whom wrote after the councillor's approach to them. In addition, it has been referred to in a number of letters which have been concerned with crime more generally. Replies to these representations have acknowledged the strength of the concerns being expressed and have referred to the various steps that either have been taken or are being taken to reduce the risk of offending on bail.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what current plans he has to review the situation under which persons released on bail are arrested for a further offence while on bail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  As part of a wider programme of work to tackle the problem of offending on bail, my Department has convened a group which is widely representative of the different organisations and agencies involved in the criminal justice system. This group is currently reviewing the bail decision taking process. In a separate forum, concerns about the arrangements for police bail are also being examined.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons were arrested for another offence while on bail(a) two, (b) three and (c) four or more previous offences in (i) a 1991, (ii) 1981 and (iii) 1971, in England;

  (2) how many persons were re-arrested for another offence while on bail in (a) 1991, (b) 1981 and (c) 1971, in England.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not collected centrally. In February this year, the Home Office published a survey of research into offending on bail—research and planning unit paper 65—a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number of reported crimes in(a) Harwich and (b) Clacton for each of the last 20 years;

  (2) if he will list the number of reported crimes in Essex in each year for the last 20 years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the number of recorded offences in the Essex police force area are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". The latest figures for 1991 are published in Home Office statistical bulletin 2/92. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.
  534
  Separate figures for Harwich and Clacton are not collected centrally.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the prison population in(a) England and (b) Wales, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Thursday 9 July the prison population in England was 44,831 and in Wales, 920. These figures do not include the 1,367 prisoners being held in police cells on that day.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners on remand exercised their right to vote in the last general election.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No record was kept by the Prison Service of the number of prisoners who voted in the last general election.

  Prison Mother and Baby Units
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places are currently available in mother and baby units in prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are 38 places currently available in prison mother and baby units.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in police cells in each of the police forces in England and Wales on the last convenient date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The position on 9 July was as follows:

  Police force

  Number of prisoners

  Avon and Somerset

  37

  Bedfordshire

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  Cheshire

  38

  Cleveland

  7

  Cumbria

  15

  Derbyshire

  23

  Devon and Cornwall

  6

  Durham

  3

  Dyfed

  19

  Essex

  42

  Gloucestershire

  9

  Greater Manchester

  263

  Gwent

  17

  Hampshire

  7

  Hertfordshire

  24

  Humberside

  27

  Lancashire

  74

  Leicestershire

  23

  Lincolnshire

  5

  Merseyside

  85

  Metropolitan

  140

  North Wales

  10

  North Yorkshire

  21

  Northamptonshire

  27

  Northumbria

  56

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  South Wales

  68

  South Yorkshire

  34

  Staffordshire

  10

  535

  Police force

  Number of prisoners

  Suffolk

  15

  Surrey

  9

  Sussex

  15

  Thames Valley

  20

  Warwickshire

  8

  West Mercia

  28

  West Midlands

  31

  West Yorkshire

  81

  Wiltshire

  5

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department paid each police force for holding people in police cells in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The amounts paid to each police force holding prisoners in police cells during 1990 and 1991 are shown in the table.

  Police force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £

  £

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  2,992,791

  Bedfordshire

  —

  596,010

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1,673,619

  Cheshire

  1,843,386

  2,658,450

  City of London

  38.818

  225,689

  Cleveland

  421,101

  376,773

  Cumbria

  288,643

  181,300

  Derbyshire

  528,641

  691,645

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  687,452

  Durham

  237,793

  802,560

  Dyfed

  —

  1,437,798

  Essex

  350,560

  1,176,095

  Gloucester

  62,001

  453,446

  Greater Manchester

  15,931,767

  20,522,278

  Gwent

  —

  1,236,786

  Hampshire

  —

  1,252,012

  Hertfordshire

  156,124

  3,562,244

  Humberside

  3,309,716

  3,309,549

  Kent

  160,984

  1,843,171

  Lancashire

  3,785,273

  6,127,386

  Leicestershire

  570,304

  1,997,202

  Lincolnshire

  753,405

  637,272

  Merseyside

  2,936,037

  2,683,711

  Metropolitan

  4,786,233

  11.316,943

  North Wales

  303,878

  496,536

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1,676,589

  Norfolk

  —

  634.553

  Northamptonshire

  237,479

  602,855

  Northumbria

  2,496,433

  2,730,444

  Nottinghamshire

  447,112

  610,263

  South Wales

  624,067

  3,138,284

  South Yorkshire

  2,784,105

  3,110,568

  Suffolk

  —

  542,205

  Surrey

  —

  433,548

  Sussex

  —

  320,430

  Thames Valley

  153,368

  1,620,820

  Warwickshire

  729,730

  596,031

  West Mercia

  386,300

  1,294,179

  West Midlands

  1,812,584

  2,823,517

  West Yorkshire

  6,591,246

  5,425,886

  Wiltshire

  —

  241,072

  Camera Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's estimate of the potential of new camera technology to reduce road accidents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is too early to evaluate from road accident statistics the contribution to any reduction 536
  that may be made by the new camera technology. But inappropriate speed is a factor in about one third of all fatal road traffic accidents and 13 per cent. of injury accidents at junctions in urban areas are associated with jumping red traffic lights. The new camera technology can be expected to have a beneficial effect in both of these areas.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects all police authorities to be co-operating in speed camera technology;

  (2) what steps he is taking to encourage the use of speed cameras on roads.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The decision to equip police forces with speed camera equipment rests with the chief officers and their police authorities. We will be monitoring that position and ensuring that the effectiveness of the equipment is known to chief officers.

  Wratness Mine Depot
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what price the Wratness former Royal Naval mine depot was sold earlier this year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Negotiations are still in progress with a prospective purchaser of this site.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were held under rule 43 (GOAD and own protection) in Armley prison, Leeds during May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 216 prisoners were held under prison rule 43 at Her Majesty's prison Leeds during May. Of these, 209 were held for their own protection and seven were for the maintenance of good order or discipline.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether mentally ill people are held in solitary confinement in Armley prison, Leeds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No prisoners in England or Wales are kept in solitary confinement. This is a type of punishment designed to deprive a prisoner of all human contact and is not available under the prison rules. At HM prison Armley, Leeds all mentally ill inmates are held in the health care centre in single rooms or on an open ward. Those allocated a single room spend the normal daytime hours in association with other inmates.

  Air Guns
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to increase the regulation and control of the ownership or use of air guns.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 22 May 1992, at column 312.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Holloway were pregnant on the last date for which figures are available.
  537
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 9 July there were 25 pregnant women detained in Holloway.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were pregnant on the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A survey on 10 July 1992 indicated that 52 prisoners in establishments in England and Wales were known by health care staff to be pregnant.

  Speeding Offences
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speeding offences there were in 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Provisional figures for 1990 show that, in England and Wales, 633,828 alleged speeding offences were dealt with by the police. These comprise 12,285 written warnings, 448,380 fixed penalty notices and 173,163 court proceedings. Statistics for 1991 are not yet available.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are made to ensure that remand prisoners may exercise their right to vote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Only unconvicted prisoners, including civil prisoners and fine defaulters, who are at least 18 years of age and who are registered as electors can vote, by means of a postal vote. An instruction to prison service establishments includes guidance on prisoners' eligibility to vote, and on handling applications for postal votes from prisoners. Consideration is now being given to supplementing this with a reference in the prisoners' information pack, which is given to prisoners on reception into prison, about the right of unconvicted prisoners to vote.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given to magistrates and judges about the extent to which they should have regard to the number of places in the prison system when considering whether to impose a custodial sentence.

  Mr. Jack
  No such advice has been issued.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications are outstanding from women prisoners who seek a place for their children in mother and baby units.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applications for a place on a mother and baby unit are considered by a multi-disciplinary team at a case conference. There are seven very recent applications which are awaiting consideration.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's role in the Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in relation to animal research.
  538
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods is a new body established by the European Commission, and is concerned with the validation of alternatives to the use of animals in research.

  The United Kingdom remains committed to the search for ways of refining, reducing or replacing the use of living animals in scientific procedures. It stands ready to play a full part in the work of the centre.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors;

  (2) if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  From the information available to us, we have no knowledge of any appointments made by my Department of persons criticised by DTI inspectors.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration has been given to the introduction of identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) on 18 June, at column 1022.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Home Office currently employs 46,303 non-industrial staff and 3,050 industrial staff. This includes those staff working in agencies. The forecast staffing costs for the year 1992–93 are £951,688,000.

  In January 1970 the Home Office employed 16,889 non-industrial staff and 3,975 industrials. These figures are taken from the 1970 publication of "Civil Service Statistics". Figures are not available for staffing costs.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of 30 June,Official Report, column 517, how many and what proportion of his Department's employees were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In 1989, 143 members of staff in the Home Office were registered disabled, representing 0·3 per cent. of all staff. In 1990, the number was 147·5, again approximately 0·3 per cent. No record has been kept of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Mass Trespass
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to deal with the criminal offence of mass trespass.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to his question on 10 July 1992, at column 372.

  Primary Purpose Rules
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make changes in the primary purpose rules following the recent judgment of the European Court.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I see no reason to do so.

  Primates
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the standards set out in the code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures with regard to primates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures is based closely on guidelines drawn up jointly by the Royal Society and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. The code of practice contains a section on the special considerations which should be taken into account in the housing and care of primates. We have no plans to amend the code.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of remand prisoners brought to trial since 30 September 1991(a) in magistrates courts had spent more than 56 days in custody since their first appearance and (b) in the Crown court had spent more than 70 days from first appearance before magistrates to committal in the Crown court.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not readily available centrally. According to the February 1992 time interval survey of magistrates courts, 34 per cent. of custodial remands for indictable offences—that is, no bail—took more than 56 days from first listing to completion at the magistrates courts.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish information pursuant to section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Passenger admissions and persons refused leave to enter and removed, for selected nationalities

  1st quarter 1991

  2nd quarter 1991

  3rd quarter 1991

  4th quarter 1991

  Year 1991

  1st quarter 1992

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions1

  Refused and removed

  Jamaica

  4,700

  102

  6,640

  102

  9,220

  90

  5,470

  98

  26,000

  392

  4,700

  100

  Turkey

  13,800

  80

  18,700

  86

  24,200

  75

  17,400

  85

  74,100

  326

  13,900

  57

  Morocco

  2,720

  36

  3,790

  47

  6,640

  92

  3,890

  59

  17,000

  234

  3,150

  21

  USA

  341,000

  286

  670,000

  270

  778,000

  315

  555,000

  291

  2,340,000

  1,162

  475,000

  228

  Australia

  71,500

  74

  118,000

  59

  136,000

  68

  93,400

  49

  419,000

  250

  64,000

  65

  Malaysia

  11,400

  126

  20,700

  375

  29,200

  157

  21,000

  140

  82,200

  798

  11,300

  70

  540
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 I am required to publish each year information to enable those engaged in the administration of criminal justice to become aware of the financial implications of their decisions, and to assist them in the performance of their duty to avoid discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground.

  To fulfil this requirement, I propose to publish in mid-September information on race and gender. In mid-October I propose to publish a third set of information on finance. In all three cases this material will be widely disseminated among the judiciary, stipendiary and lay benches and lawyers; and to members of the Crown prosecution service and magistrates courts, police and probation services.

  I shall place copies of each of these publications in the Library.

  The publications this year will provide broad brush information in respect of race, gender and finance issues. As required by section 95 of the Act, I will publish further material on these subjects on an annual basis. In the light of comments from the recipients of this year's information, and of improvements in our own monitoring arrangements, future publications will add more detail.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken to process applications for(a) registration and (b) naturalisation; and how long those applying in both of those categories in December 1991 can expect to wait.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: The average time taken in June 1992 to grant applications for registration and naturalisation was 15 and 27 months respectively.

  Those who applied in December 1991 for registration can expect on average to wait nine months for a decision and for naturalisation between 15 and 18 months.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Jamaica, (b) Turkey, (c) Morocco, (d) the USA, (e) Australia, (f) Malaysia, (g) Hong Kong, (h) Guyana, (i) Trinidad, (j) Colombia and (k) Algeria were (i) granted and (ii) refused permission to enter the United Kingdom at ports of entry in each quarter since January 1991 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: The information requested is given in the table.
  541

  1st quarter 1991

  2nd quarter 1991

  3rd quarter 1991

  4th quarter 1991

  Year 1991

  1st quarter 1992

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions1

  Refused and removed

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  14,200

  35

  16,900

  70

  35,200

  60

  13,700

  58

  79,900

  223

  12,500

  34

  Guyana

  990

  13

  1,280

  14

  2,070

  14

  1,280

  16

  5,630

  57

  920

  9

  Trinidad and Tobago

  3,030

  27

  4,050

  16

  5,910

  9

  3,510

  18

  16,500

  70

  2,500

  13

  Colombia

  3,450

  103

  5,010

  148

  5,900

  109

  4,130

  119

  18,500

  479

  3,290

  102

  Algeria

  2,140

  47

  3,620

  51

  5,660

  48

  3,160

  80

  14,600

  226

  2,260

  60

  1 Provisional figures.

  Returning Residents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, by nationality, have requested entry to the United Kingdom as returning residents, in each quarter since May 1990; how many have been(a) readmitted as such, (b) been readmitted for a limited period and (c) been refused entry to the United Kingdom.

  Table 1

  Persons1 admitted as returning residents

  Number of admissions

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1991

  1991

  1991

  1992

  Europe

  26,990

  38,160

  24,420

  26,600

  Austria

  2,360

  2,840

  2,100

  2,370

  Bulgaria

  70

  110

  70

  100

  Cyprus

  1,390

  2,580

  1,190

  1,280

  Czechoslovakia

  150

  190

  120

  190

  Finland

  1,630

  2,400

  1,390

  1,650

  Germany (Democratic Republic)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hungary

  260

  560

  250

  300

  Malta

  1,670

  3,140

  1,610

  1,740

  Norway

  3,020

  3,720

  2,620

  2,930

  Poland

  1,880

  3,340

  1,500

  1,880

  Romania

  80

  120

  70

  90

  Sweden

  6,760

  7,600

  6,110

  6,510

  Switzerland

  4.26

  5,003

  3,840

  3,920

  Turkey

  2,110

  4,610

  2,470

  2,280

  USSR

  170

  310

  260

  260

  Yugoslavia

  1,190

  1,640

  830

  1,110

  Americas

  49,480

  57,140

  43,400

  46,960

  Argentina

  330

  340

  280

  340

  Barbados

  520

  570

  430

  380

  Brazil

  780

  1,000

  700

  890

  Canada

  8,520

  10,620

  7,540

  7,700

  Chile

  450

  620

  390

  530

  Colombia

  640

  750

  410

  620

  Cuba

  —

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Guyana

  290

  400

  250

  270

  Jamaica

  1,730

  2,160

  1,550

  1,940

  Mexico

  310

  370

  270

  330

  Peru

  190

  250

  160

  220

  Trinidad and Tobago

  880

  1,100

  660

  1,000

  USA

  34,550

  38,660

  30,530

  32,420

  Uruguay

  60

  50

  30

  60

  Venezuela

  220

  250

  180

  250

  Africa

  13,280

  19,890

  12,650

  15,820

  Algeria

  440

  720

  370

  330

  Egypt

  930

  1,240

  740

  870

  Ethiopia

  50

  70

  70

  90

  Ghana

  1,650

  2,270

  1,740

  2,060

  Kenya

  1,070

  1,510

  910

  1,000

  Libya

  220

  380

  180

  140

  Mauritius

  1,040

  1,460

  780

  1,040

  Morocco

  790

  2,460

  1,000

  1,010

  Nigeria

  2,600

  4,010

  3,150

  4,400

  Sierra Leone

  220

  280

  220

  320

  Somalia

  40

  30

  20

  40

  South Africa

  2,460

  2,790

  1,840

  2,560

  Sudan

  170

  280

  150

  170

  Tanzania

  390

  701

  360

  380

  542
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The available

  information is given in the tables. Information is not available on persons seeking admission as

  returning residents who were found not to satisfy the relevant requirements of the immigration

  rules but who were admitted for a limited period under another category.
  543

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1991

  1991

  1991

  1992

  Tunisia

  260

  490

  260

  270

  Uganda

  140

  230

  130

  180

  Zambia

  240

  300

  230

  270

  Zimbabwe

  570

  660

  504

  680

  Asia

  41,950

  50,170

  35,450

  46,330

  Bangladesh

  1,880

  2,580

  1,520

  2,200

  China

  190

  200

  160

  230

  Hong Kong BDTC

  1,040

  1,350

  800

  1,220

  India

  13.29

  14,230

  11,170

  16,460

  Indonesia

  180

  200

  120

  140

  Iran

  3,440

  5,220

  3,210

  3,340

  Iraq

  310

  640

  480

  440

  Israel

  1,750

  2,070

  1,510

  1,690

  Japan

  5,710

  6,770

  4,980

  5,550

  Jordan

  420

  560

  360

  390

  Kuwait

  110

  150

  140

  110

  Lebanon

  1,420

  1,720

  1,180

  1,290

  Malaysia

  2,520

  3,200

  2,110

  2,800

  Pakistan

  4,600

  4,960

  3,770

  5,450

  Philippines

  1,630

  1,590

  1,160

  1,620

  Saudi Arabia

  200

  320

  190

  230

  Singapore

  670

  810

  600

  730

  Sri Lanka

  1,600

  2,370

  1,210

  1,350

  Syria

  200

  350

  180

  220

  Thailand

  800

  880

  600

  850

  Australasia

  19,460

  21,490

  16,690

  17,930

  Australia

  12,170

  13,400

  10,210

  11,250

  New Zealand

  7,280

  8,090

  6,480

  6,680

  Others

  6,690

  9,580

  5,660

  6,560

  British Overseas Citizens

  950

  1,300

  840

  1,090

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  2,400

  3.6

  2,200

  2,790

  Stateless

  3,340

  4,680

  2,620

  2,680

  All Nationalities

  157,840

  196,440

  138,270

  160,180

  1 Excluding EC nationals to whom the immigration rules on returning

  residents do not apply.

  2 Ceased to be a separate nationality following the unification of

  Germany.

  3 5 or fewer.

  Table 2

  Persons1 seeking admission as returning residents

  who were refused and removed

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1991

  1991

  1991

  19923

  Europe

  Austria

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Germany (Democratic Republic)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hungary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malta

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Romania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  USSR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Americas

  3

  2

  3

  1

  Argentina

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barbados

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brazil

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cuba

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guyana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  —

  —

  1

  1

  544 545

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1991

  1991

  1991

  19923

  Mexico

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  —

  —

  USA

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Uruguay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Africa

  4

  4

  6

  2

  Algeria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Egypt

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kenya

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Libya

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Morocco

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  1

  3

  2

  2

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Asia

  5

  7

  6

  5

  Bangladesh

  1

  4

  2

  2

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hong Kong BDTC

  —

  1

  1

  —

  India

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iraq

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Japan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  —

  I

  Pakistan

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Saudia Arabia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Singapore

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thailand

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Australasia

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Australia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Zealand

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Others

  1

  1

  —

  —

  British Overseas Citizens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Stateless

  —

  1

  —

  —

  All Nationalities

  13

  16

  16

  9

  1 Excluding EC nationals to whom the immigration rules on returning

  residents do not apply.

  2 Ceased to be a separate nationality following the unification of

  Germany.

  3 Provisional.

  Table 3

  Persons1 admitted as returning residents

  Number of admissions

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  Europe

  27,000

  38,1000

  24,000

  22,600

  Austria

  2,320

  2,700

  1,860

  1,970

  Bulgaria

  40

  150

  50

  40

  Cyprus

  1,380

  2,870

  1,290

  1,020

  Czechoslovakia

  110

  160

  120

  110

  Finland

  1,600

  2,310

  1,400

  1,450

  546 547

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  Germany (Dem. Rep)

  20

  70

  2—

  2—

  Hungary

  160

  420

  180

  220

  Malta

  1,870

  3,300

  1,650

  1,470

  Norway

  3,120

  3,700

  2,560

  2,460

  Poland

  1,550

  2,840

  1.28

  1,420

  Romania

  60

  80

  40

  50

  Sweden

  6,690

  7,330

  6,100

  5,590

  Switzerland

  4,420

  4,920

  3,770

  3,500

  Turkey

  2,060

  4,840

  2,330

  2,040

  USSR

  130

  220

  160

  140

  Yugoslavia

  1,350

  2,220

  1,230

  1,090

  Americas

  51,200

  57,900

  40,300

  41,800

  Argentina

  280

  330

  260

  270

  Barbados

  580

  810

  440

  430

  Brazil

  770

  940

  660

  750

  Canada

  9,060

  10,800

  7,370

  7,000

  Chile

  440

  570

  390

  480

  Colombia

  660

  760

  450

  710

  Cuba

  —

  +

  +

  +

  Guyana

  340

  440

  290

  290

  Jamaica

  2,030

  2,640

  1,840

  2,010

  Mexico

  320

  370

  230

  280

  Peru

  190

  210

  140

  160

  Trinidad and Tobago

  940

  1,180

  690

  1,010

  United States of America

  35,300

  38,500

  27,300

  28,200

  Uruguay

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Venezuela

  230

  260

  160

  200

  Africa

  12,800

  18,300

  11,700

  13,100

  Algeria

  370

  580

  400

  280

  Egypt

  880

  1,220

  730

  740

  Ethiopia

  90

  90

  50

  60

  Ghana

  1,690

  2,110

  1,640

  1,840

  Kenya

  1,200

  1,460

  910

  1,020

  Libya

  170

  210

  130

  120

  Mauritius

  1,120

  1,570

  890

  900

  Morocco

  630

  2,540

  920

  730

  Nigeria

  2.18

  2,990

  2,460

  3,140

  Sierra Leone

  240

  260

  190

  340

  Somalia

  40

  60

  30

  20

  South Africa

  2,320

  2,530

  1,750

  2,230

  Sudan

  190

  270

  140

  160

  Tanzania

  360

  580

  350

  350

  Tunisia

  260

  450

  280

  210

  Uganda

  160

  240

  100

  130

  Zambia

  260

  280

  205

  240

  Zimbabwe

  690

  880

  530

  650

  Asia

  44,700

  49,600

  33,500

  39,900

  Bangladesh

  2,480

  3,020

  1,500

  2,000

  China

  130

  160

  160

  150

  Hong Kong BDTC

  950

  1,370

  810

  1,220

  India

  14,600

  14,100

  10,600

  14,700

  Indonesia

  160

  180

  100

  110

  Iran

  3.34

  4,600

  3,060

  2,780

  Iraq

  910

  840

  260

  110

  Israel

  1,620

  1,930

  1,350

  1,170

  Japan

  5,480

  6,180

  4,500

  3,950

  Jordan

  500

  550

  320

  230

  Kuwait

  110

  120

  100

  70

  Lebanon

  1,440

  1,690

  1,230

  1,070

  Malaysia

  2,430

  2,960

  2,090

  2,560

  Pakistan

  5,080

  5,700

  3,650

  5,080

  Philippines

  1,740

  1,530

  1,060

  1,540

  Saudi Arabia

  260

  270

  170

  200

  Singapore

  610

  730

  550

  600

  Sri Lanka

  1,950

  2,660

  1,260

  1,480

  Syria

  190

  300

  170

  180

  Thailand

  680

  730

  530

  680

  Australasia

  22,100

  22,400

  17,400

  17,000

  Australia

  13,900

  14,100

  10,600

  10,400

  New Zealand

  8,210

  8,350

  6,790

  6,600

  Others

  6,760

  9,080

  5,760

  5,840

  British Overseas Citizens

  910

  1,240

  800

  740

  548 549

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  2,400

  3,210

  2,110

  2,360

  Stateless

  3,450

  4,620

  2,850

  2,740

  All Nationalities

  164,000

  195,000

  133,000

  140,000

  Table 4

  Persons1 seeking admission as returning residents

  who were refused and removed

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  Europe

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Austria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Germany (Democratic Republic)

  —

  —

  2—

  2—

  Hungary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malta

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Norway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  USSR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Americas

  3

  2-

  2

  2

  Argentina

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barbados

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brazil

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cuba

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guyana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Mexico

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  —

  —

  USA

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Uruguay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Venuzuela

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Africa

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Algeria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Kenya

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morocco

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Asia

  6

  9

  10

  8

  Bangladesh

  3

  5

  4

  2

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hong Kong BDTC

  —

  —

  2

  2

  India

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iraq

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  550 551

  Nationality

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  Japan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Pakistan

  1

  3

  1

  —

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Singapore

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Syria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thailand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Australasia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Australia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  4

  —

  —

  —

  British Overseas Citizens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Stateless

  3

  —

  —

  —

  ALL NATIONALITIES

  15

  13

  18

  14

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Select Committees
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when the firm responsible for preparing verbatim reports of minutes of evidence taken before Select Committees was appointed; what opportunities have been given to other firms to provide this service; and on what basis the charges payable to the firm are determined.

  Mr. Beith
  The appointment of a shorthand writer to the Houses of Parliament is made by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons pursuant to Resolutions agreed to by both Houses in 1813. The present incumbent, like her predecessors since that time, is the senior partner in the firm of W. B. Gurney and Sons. The structure of charges for parliamentary work is renegotiated periodically: such a review took place in 1989, and a further one, initiated by the Clerks of both Houses, is currently in progress. These reviews take into account the likely cost and efficiency of alternative suppliers of this service. Interim adjustments to the level of charges are made by reference to the fees negotiated by the Institute of Shortland Writers with Her Majesty's Treasury for Government work.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months relative to the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage was formed in April 1992 and covers the arts, formerly the 552
  responsibility of the Office of Arts and Libraries; broadcasting, formerly the responsibility of the Home Office; film, formerly the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry; tourism, formerly the responsibility of the Department of Employment; heritage, formerly the responsibility of the Department of the Environment; and sport, formerly the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. There are, therefore, no statistics covering the Department of National Heritage for the period in question.

  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses, through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programes of support and assistance. Although the Department of National Heritage has no programmes aimed specifically at small businesses, the Department is fully committed to the Government's deregulation initiative and will seek to ensure that regulatory burdens within its areas of responsibility are kept to the minimum that is necessary.

  Radio 3
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will raise with the chairman of the BBC his proposals for improving the reception quality of Radio 3 in the area of North Wiltshire.

  Mr. Key
  I will draw my hon. Friend's concern to the attention of the chairman of the BBC.

  The BBC has an extensive programme for building new FM radio transmitters to extend the coverage of its national services. It has recently introduced new transmitters for Wiltshire listeners at Caine, Chippenham and Westwood and aims to bring a transmitter at Marlborough on the air early next year. But the rate and order in which the BBC proceeds with this programme is for the BBC to determine in the light of its other engineering priorities and competing demands upon its financial and technical resources.

  Naze Tower
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what aspects of the Naze tower on the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze, a listed building, he is responsible for.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. and learned Friend's responsibilities in relation to listed buildings were outlined in a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 19 May 1992,Official Report, column 110. A circular giving further details will be issued shortly.

  Pitchford Hall
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what discussions he has had with English Heritage with regard to Pitchford hall, Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he has taken to save Pitchford hall, Shrewsbury for the nation;

  (3) what discussions he has had with the National Heritage Memorial Fund with regard to Pitchford hall, Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what representations he has had from the National Trust with regard to Pitchford hall, Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I have had any discussions with either English Heritage or the National Heritage Memorial Fund—NHMF—or representations from the National Trust specifically with regard to Pitchford hall, Shrewsbury. However, I am aware that the National Trust is in discussion with the NHMF about the substantial funds which would be needed to enable them to acquire and endow Pitchford hall, its contents and lands. It is for the trustees of the NHMF to decide on the merits of the proposal and whether they are able to offer assistance from the funds available to them.

  South Yorkshire Arts
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for encouraging the arts in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: This year's allocation of central Government funding, through the Arts Council, to the Yorkshire and Humberside Arts Board is £4·5 million and represents a 13·9 per cent. increase over 1991–92.

  The Government's urban programme has contributed to the cultural industries quarter in Sheffield, which is a model of urban regeneration. This has contributed to a lively arts scene, which includes the refurbished Lyceum theatre, the Crucible theatre and the Ruskin gallery.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Arts is presently working with the local authority in Barnsley on the preparation of a Barnsley arts plan. Opera North's community outreach programme already has strong links with the Barnsley arts group and has undertaken several projects in the town.

EDUCATION

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what formula will be used for the withdrawal of money from the standard spending assessment of local authorities to be allocated to Her Majesty's inspectorate for the inspection of schools under the terms of the Education (Schools) Act 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are considering the expenditure needs of local education authorities next year and are currently taking the views of the local authority associations on the range of factors bearing on local education authorities' spending, including the new arrangements for school inspection. We have estimated the funds to be transferred from local government finance for 1993–94 in respect of school inspections beginning in September 1993 at £19 million—1992–93 prices. Details of the local authority finance settlement for 1993–94, including education's share of total standard spending and individual authorities' standard spending assessments, will be announced in the autumn.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money his Department has provided in its budget to raise awareness and advertise the new system of inspection of schools; and if he will list the actual expenditure items and any proposed expenditure.

  Mr. Forth
  Professor Sutherland will be responsible for the new inspection system from 1 September 1992. Budgeted expenditure in this financial year for which my Department is responsible up to that date is as follows:

  National advertising campaign—£105,000;

  Leaflets and related promotional material—£10,000.

  The new system was announced in the citizens charter, and sample copies of the parents charter were sent to all schools in September 1991 at a cost of just under £2 million.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months relative to the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses through improvements in the business climate, deregulation, and specific programmes of support and assistance. My Department encourages small firms to tender for contracts; each contract also includes a requirement to pay subcontractors promptly. In the first three months of 1992–93 the Department placed contracts with small firms amounting to 39 per cent. of total departmental expenditure on goods and services, a slightly higher percentage than for a comparable period in 1991–92.

  Training Grants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 126, if he will list (a) the local education

  555
  authorities who have confirmed that their claims have been based on the correct criteria and (b) those authorities who have been unable to confirm that their claims have been made on the correct criteria.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities in list A have indicated that their claims for grants for education support and training included only eligible expenditure they themselves incurred. Those in list B have not yet responded, or have indicated that claims may have included other expenditure. The Department is seeking replies or clarification from LEAs in list B. It has issued clear guidance to all LEAs, and has asked auditors to check that claims have been prepared on the correct basis.

  List A

  Havering

  City of London

  Hillingdon

  Camden

  Hounslow

  Greenwich

  Kingston upon Thames

  Hackney

  Merton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Newham

  Islington

  Redbridge

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Richmond upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Sutton

  Wandsworth

  Waltham Forest

  Barking and Dagenham

  Birmingham

  Barnet

  Dudley

  Bromley

  Sandwell

  Croydon

  Walsall

  Ealing

  Wolverhampton

  Enfield

  Liverpool

  Haringey

  St. Helens

  Harrow

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Derbyshire

  Bury

  Devon

  Manchester

  Dorset

  Oldham

  Durham

  Rochdale

  East Sussex

  Salford

  Essex

  Stockport

  Gloucestershire

  Tameside

  Hampshire

  Trafford

  Hereford and Worcester

  Wigan

  Hertfordshire

  Barnsley

  Humberside

  Doncaster

  Isle of Wight

  Rotherham

  Kent

  Sheffield

  Leicestershire

  Bradford

  Lincolnshire

  Leeds

  Norfolk

  Wakefield

  North Yorkshire

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Northamptonshire

  North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  Sunderland

  Nottinghamshire

  Avon

  Oxfordshire

  Bedfordshire

  Shropshire

  Berkshire

  Somerset

  Buckinghamshire

  Staffordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Suffolk

  Cheshire

  Surrey

  Cleveland

  Warwickshire

  Cornwall

  Wiltshire

  Cumbria

  List B

  Knowsley

  Lewisham

  Bolton

  Southwark

  Calderdale

  Tower Hamlets

  Kirklees

  Westminster

  Gateshead

  Bexley

  South Tyneside

  Brent

  Isles of Scilly

  Coventry

  Lancashire

  Solihull

  West Sussex

  School Administration
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had about the administrative burden placed on head teachers(a)under
  556
  current grant-maintained school arrangements and (b) under current local management of schools arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The feedback I have received suggests that head teachers welcome the greater flexibility which the new arrangements bring and the increased responsibilities they now have. Managing budgets should not place an unacceptable burden on head teachers' time.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the current initiatives and reforms being undertaken by grant-maintained schools for raising education standards; and what legal obstacles exist which would prevent non-grantmaintained schools from undertaking similar initiatives and reforms.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Curriculum and assessment provisions together with the new arrangements for school inspections are designed to raise standards in all maintained schools. GM schools enjoy greater flexibility to channel expenditure away from administration and into teaching. The Government believe that this, coupled with an increased sense of independence and ownership, gives GM school heads and governors additional opportunities to raise standards.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures he has for the average pupil-teacher ratio during 1991–92 for schools which had achieved grant-maintained status by 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures requested by my hon. Friend are not yet available. We hope to be able to publish figures in the spring. Recently published figures show that, in January 1991, when 50 secondary schools were GM, there were 36,450 pupils and 2,385 full-time equivalent teachers at GM schools, which gives a pupil-teacher ratio of 15.3.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is(a) the total number of ballots held on grant-maintained status, (b) in how many the proportion of parents voting yes has been more than 50 per cent. of the number of parents eligible to vote, (c) in how many the margin between the percentage voting yes and that voting no has been 60:40 or closer and (d) how many of those in (b) and (c) have been approved for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested by the hon.

  Member is as follows:

  (a) There have been 504 ballots on grant-maintained status.

  (b) In 200 of these the proportion of parents voting yes has been more than 50 per cent. of the number of parents eligible to vote.

  (c) In 56 the margin between those voting yes and those voting no has been 60:40 or closer.

  (d) 132 of the schools detailed at (b) and 44 of the schools detailed at (c) have been approved or are currently minded to approve.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many ballots on grant-maintained status have been conducted over or during a school holiday period; and how many ballots have been held during each school term since September 1988.
  557
  Mr. Forth
  The dates of school holidays vary from institution to institution. The information requested is not therefore held centrally. However, out of a total of 504 ballots on GM status to date, five have closed in the month of August.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list(a) the number of schools in each education authority which have obtained grant-maintained status and (b) the number of such applications which he is still considering.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)

  Number

  Kent

  33

  Essex

  23

  Lincolnshire

  22

  Norfolk

  16

  Surrey

  14

  Gloucestershire

  13

  Bromley

  10

  Berkshire

  9

  Hertfordshire

  8

  Hillingdon

  8

  Cumbria

  7

  Dorset

  7

  Northamptonshire

  7

  Hampshire

  6

  Lancashire

  6

  Warwickshire

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  Ealing

  5

  Sutton

  5

  Birmingham

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  Derbyshire

  4

  Wandsworth

  4

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Calderdale

  3

  Wiltshire

  3

  Avon

  2

  Barnet

  2

  Bexley

  2

  Bolton

  2

  Brent

  2

  Cheshire

  2

  Kirklees

  2

  Somerset

  2

  Walsall

  2

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Bradford

  1

  Croydon

  1

  Devon

  1

  Dudley

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Humberside

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  Lambeth

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Newham

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  Southwark

  1

  Tameside

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Total

  275

  558
  The table includes 217 schools that are operating as GM; 56 that have been approved but are not yet open; and two that are "minded to approve" for GM status.

  (b)
  There are 39 applications still under consideration.

  Music
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give an estimate of the number of school hours devoted to music in state schools and the total number of music teachers for each year since 1981; and if he will make a statement on the future of music teaching in state schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  A primary school staffing survey was undertaken in 1987 and secondary school staffing surveys in 1984 and in 1988. These surveys indicated that there were 15,200 full-time teachers with a post A-level qualification in music in maintained nursery and primary schools in England in 1987. In maintained secondary schools in England, there were 9,300 music teachers in 1984, and 7,100 music teachers in 1988. In maintained primary schools in 1987, 4·8 per cent. of time in junior classes was devoted to music. In maintained secondary schools in England in 1988, the proportion of pupil periods devoted to music varied by year group as follows:

  Year group

  Percentage of pupil periods devoted to music

  7

  5·1

  8

  4·5

  9

  3·4

  10

  0·9

  11

  0·7

  12–13

  0·8

  A further secondary schools staffing survey was undertaken in 1992. It is hoped to publish the findings early in 1993.

  The introduction from autumn 1992 of statutory attainment targets and programmes of study for music will provide a rigorous and challenging framework for the teaching of music in maintained schools, within which aspirations and standards will be raised and the range of skills, knowledge and understanding widened.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993, the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 July 1992, at columns 430–31.

  Primary Schools (Funding)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received over the funding arrangements for primary schools, in connection with developments in the curriculum and teaching methods; and if he will make a statement.
  559
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations commenting on the report, "Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools", and in particular on the issue raised in the report of the current disparity between levels of funding for pupils at the upper end of primary education and pupils at the lower end of secondary education.

  This is a matter for local education authorities, which may themselves suggest amendments to the age-weighted allowances in their formulae for the distribution of resources under local management of schools. I am glad to say that some authorities are examining this question, and I would encourage more to do so.

  Student Rents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the average rents paid by students in Wales, both on and off campus.

  Mr. Forman
  Information about the average cost of student accommodation in university institutions in Wales is set out in the table. This information is taken from the results of a survey carried out by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals based on data provided by individual institutions. Comparable information for other institutions in the higher education sector and institutions in the further education sector is not collected centrally.

  Academic year 1991–92

  Cost per week £ exclusive of all meals

  Undergraduates

  University halls of residence

  27·90

  Other university owned accommodation

  27·65

  Other non-university owned accommodation

  30·45

  Postgraduates

  University halls of residence

  27·40

  Other university owned accommodation

  27·20

  Other non-university owned accommodation

  30·05

  School Buildings
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary and secondary schools in England and Wales were built before(a) 1914, (b) 1939 and (c) 1960; and what estimate his Department has made of renovation costs to modernise such schools.

  Mr. Forth
  "A Study of School Building", a report by an interdepartmental group of the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, assisted by local government officers using information from a school building survey of maintained schools, was published by HMSO in 1977 and gives the latest information on the age of the school building stock. On the basis of a 10 per cent. survey of primary and secondary schools in England and 10 per cent. of primary schools and 20 per cent. of secondary schools in Wales, there were in 1976 8,300 schools built before 1903, 10,200 schools built before 1918 and 12,600 schools built before 1946. A further 10,600 schools were built between 1946 and 1976, in which one third of the places were completed by 1960.

  The survey of school buildings published by the Department in 1987, based upon a survey of one in 30 county and voluntary controlled primary and one in six
  560
  secondary schools in England only, reported estimated national costs, at November 1986 prices, of about £2,000 million to bring buildings up to a defined standard for 1991 projected pupil numbers. Some of these costs will have been met from recurrent expenditure and from capital investment on county, controlled and aided schools of £3,300 million since the survey.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the value of a mandatory student grant for 1992–93; and what was the value in 1972–73 at current prices.

  Mr. Forman
  The basic mandatory grant for students living away from the parental home and studying outside London in the academic year 1992–93 will be £2,265. Students in those circumstances will be able to take out loans from the Student Loans Company of up to £715, making a total of £2,980. In 1972–73 the value of the corresponding mandatory grant was £2,723 at 1991–92 prices.

  School Examination Results
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many responses were received to his Department's letter of 10 January consulting on the further implications of the parents charter; and how many of these responses were in favour of his Department analysing data and publishing performance tables in schools' comparative examination performance;

  (2) to whom the work to analyse and produce comparative tables of school examination results has been contracted out;

  (3) what estimate has been made of the cost of centrally managing the task of analysing and publishing comparative tables of school examination results; and what provision was made for this expenditure in the original estimate of his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  Ninety-five responses were received to the consultation letter on the phased implementation of parents charter proposals. The consultation letter did not propose that the Department should itself undertake the task of producing comparative tables of schools' examination performance; that decision was taken in the light of the consultation responses.

  Information respecting departmental contracts is normally treated as commercial in confidence.

  We estimate that some £650,000 will be required to compile, publish and distribute the comparative tables this year. The money will be found from within the Department's existing allocation.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 have been taken into account in determining the method by which information will be obtained in order to produce comparative tables of school examination results;

  (2) by what legal authority he will be given access to personal machine-readable data being held by examination boards of individual candidates' examination results in order to produce comparative tables of school examination results.

  Mr. Forth
  The terms under which both the Department for Education and the examining bodies are
  561
  registered under the Data Protection Act allow for the examining bodies to pass examination results data to the Department for the purpose of calculating and publishing aggregate examination results, as has been done in recent years. The comparative tables themselves will consist of aggregated data only for each school.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how a late regrading of an individual's examination paper will be taken into account in the publication of comparative tables of school examination results;

  (2) what account the comparative tables he intends to publish on school examination performance will take of the differential performance of boys and girls.

  Mr. Forth
  All examinations data relating to pupils registered at a particular school will be sent to that school in October for checking. Schools will therefore have an opportunity to notify the contractor preparing the tables of any changes to grades on appeal which are known by the time of the deadline for return of the information.

  The comparative tables will not distinguish between the performance of boys and girls. Examinations data in school prospectuses will, however, continue to show results of boys and girls separately, alongside national averages.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Forman
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Assisted places scheme: numbers of pupils in APS schools in A Y 1990–91

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Abbey school, Reading

  920

  53

  5·76

  Abingdon school

  730

  84

  11·51

  Ackworth school, Pontefract

  460

  10

  2·17

  Aldenham school, Elstree

  370

  26

  7·03

  Alice Ottley school, Worcester

  670

  81

  12·09

  Alleyns school, Dulwich

  920

  197

  21·41

  Ardingley college, Haywards Heath

  480

  8

  1·67

  Arnold school, Blackpool

  800

  73

  9·13

  Ashford school, Kent

  700

  42

  6·00

  Ashville college

  670

  3

  0·45

  Austin Friars school

  310

  3

  0·97

  Bancrofts school, Woodford

  710

  78

  10·99

  Barnard Castle school

  610

  3

  0·49

  Bath high school GPDST

  590

  97

  16·44

  Batley grammar school

  630

  240

  38·10

  Bedales school, Petersfield

  410

  9

  2·20

  Bedford group:

  Bedford high school

  1,030

  103

  10·00

  Bedford modern school

  1,200

  151

  12·58

  Bedford school

  1,120

  96

  8·57

  Dame Alice Harpur school

  1,030

  138

  13·40

  Belvedere school GPDST Liverpool

  550

  171

  31·09

  Berkhamsted school

  800

  27

  3·38

  Berkhamsted school for girls

  560

  19

  3·39

  Birkenhead high school GPDST

  950

  261

  27·47

  Birkenhead school

  990

  235

  23·74

  Bishop's Stortford college

  360

  44

  12·22

  Blackheath high school GPDST

  570

  93

  16·32

  Bloxham school, Banbury

  370

  8

  2·16

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people are employed on the management of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 7·7 full-time equivalent staff are directly engaged in the management of the assisted places scheme in the current financial year.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much has been spent on the assisted places scheme and for how many pupils for each year since 1989, in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is shown in the following table and relates to England only:

  Year

  Pupil numbers (Academic Year)

  Cash cost (£ million)

  In real terms1 (£ million—constant 1991–92 prices

  1989–90

  27,008

  56·5

  64·4

  1990–91

  26,740

  63·4

  67·2

  1991–92

  27,641

  78·9

  78·9

  1 The real terms series has been derived on the basis of the GDP deflator assumptions published in the Budget with the most recent year as the price base.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools involved in the assisted places scheme, with(a) the total number of pupils on rolls and (b) the number of assisted pupils, and the percentage which (b) bears to (a) in each school for the latest year which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is as follows. The latest year for which complete details are available is the academic year—AY—1990–91.
  563

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Bolton school (Boys)

  1,000

  246

  24·60

  Bolton school (Girls)

  1,100

  237

  21·55

  Bootham school, York

  320

  10

  3·13

  Bradfield college, Reading

  530

  3

  0·57

  Bradford girls grammar

  900

  53

  5·89

  Bradford grammar school

  1,150

  219

  19·04

  Brentwood school

  1,080

  82

  7·59

  Brighton and Hove high school GPDST

  740

  133

  17·97

  Brighton college

  500

  107

  21·40

  Bristol Cathedral school

  460

  143

  31·09

  Bristol grammar school

  1,200

  254

  21·17

  Bromley high school GPDST

  690

  90

  13·04

  Bromsgrove school, Worcestershire

  560

  9

  1·61

  Bruton school for girls

  580

  115

  19·83

  Burgess Hill school for girls

  580

  6

  1·03

  Bury grammar school (Boys)

  750

  191

  25·47

  Bury grammar school (Girls)

  1,120

  235

  20·98

  Canford school, Wimborne

  530

  28

  5·28

  Carmel college, Wallingford

  290

  84

  28·97

  Casterton school, Cumbria

  380

  38

  10·00

  Caterham school

  720

  107

  14·86

  Central Newcastle high school GPDST

  780

  107

  13·72

  Charterhouse, near Godalming

  700

  10

  1·43

  Cheadle Hulme school

  1,000

  131

  13·10

  Cheltenham ladies college

  840

  6

  0·71

  Chigwell school

  620

  65

  10·48

  Christ's hospital

  830

  10

  1·20

  Churchers college, Petersfield

  460

  115

  25·00

  City of London school

  850

  136

  16·00

  City of London school for girls

  660

  105

  15·91

  City of London Freemans school, Ashtead

  650

  4

  0·62

  Clifton college, Bristol

  700

  64

  9·14

  Clifton high school, Bristol

  750

  37

  4·93

  Colfes school, London SE12

  860

  175

  20·35

  Colston's school, Bristol

  340

  77

  22·65

  Colston's girls school

  660

  162

  24·55

  Coventry school, Bablake

  2,750

  256

  9·31

  Cranleigh school

  570

  37

  6·49

  Croham Hurst school, Croydon

  590

  9

  1·53

  Croydon high school, GPDST

  1,040

  89

  8·56

  Culford school. Bury St. Edmunds

  710

  49

  6·90

  Dame Allans boys school, Newcastle upon Tyne

  440

  118

  26·82

  Dame Allans girls school

  420

  134

  31·90

  Dauntseys school, Devizes

  590

  50

  8·47

  Denstone college, Uttoxeter

  360

  106

  29·44

  Derby high school

  500

  5

  1·00

  Douai school, Reading

  300

  6

  2·00

  Dover college

  310

  10

  3·23

  Downe House school, Newbury

  460

  3

  0·65

  Dulwich college

  1,430

  277

  19·37

  Durham school

  380

  10

  2·63

  Edgbaston C of E college for girls

  470

  9

  1·91

  Edgehill college, Bideford

  500

  138

  27·60

  Ellerslie school, Worcestershire

  250

  10

  4·00

  Ellesmere college

  370

  3

  0·81

  Eltham college, London SE9

  700

  86

  12·29

  Emanuel school, London SW11

  760

  269

  35·39

  Epsom college

  650

  20

  3·08

  Exeter school

  680

  169

  24·85

  Farnborough hill school

  520

  146

  28·08

  Felixstowe college

  320

  10

  3·13

  Felsted school, Dunmow

  500

  40

  8·00

  Forest school, London E17

  450

  130

  28·89

  Framlingham college

  680

  3

  0·44

  Francis Holland school, London NW1

  360

  9

  2·50

  Friends school. Saffron Walden

  270

  77

  28·52

  Giggleswick school, Settle

  300

  3

  1·00

  Godolphin school, Salisbury

  320

  10

  3·13

  Godolphin and Latymer school, London W6

  700

  165

  23·57

  Greshams school, Norfolk

  480

  10

  2·08

  Guildford High school for girls

  580

  7

  1·21

  Haberdashers' Aske's school, Elstree

  1,300

  208

  16·00

  Haberdashers' Aske's schools for girls, Elstree

  1,100

  112

  10·18

  Haileybury and Imperial Service college

  690

  4

  0·58

  Hampton school

  870

  179

  20·57

  Harrogate college

  400

  17

  4·25

  564 565

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Headington school, Oxford

  680

  3

  0·44

  Hereford Cathedral school

  600

  217

  36·17

  Highgate school

  300

  31

  10·33

  Hipperholme grammar school

  370

  3

  0·81

  Holy Child school

  370

  5

  1·35

  Hulme grammar, boys, Oldham

  860

  207

  24·07

  Hulme grammar, girls, Oldham

  590

  183

  31·02

  Hurstpierpoint college, Hassocks

  570

  8

  1·40

  Hymers college, Hull

  870

  144

  16·55

  Ipswich high school GPDST

  600

  106

  17·67

  Ipswich school

  630

  77

  12·22

  James Aliens girls school

  850

  156

  18·35

  John Lyons school, Harrow

  490

  90

  18·37

  Kent college, Canterbury

  650

  82

  12·62

  Kimbolton schools, Cambridge

  690

  10

  1·45

  King Edwards school at Bath

  690

  112

  16·23

  King Edwards school, Birmingham

  780

  213

  27·31

  King Edward VI High school, Birmingham

  560

  118

  21·07

  King Edward VII school, Lytham

  650

  222

  34·15

  King Edward VI school, Norwich

  760

  110

  14·47

  King Edward VI school. Southampton

  940

  225

  23·94

  King Edwards school, Witley

  520

  70

  13·46

  Kings college school, Wimbledon

  650

  79

  12·15

  Kings high school for girls, Warwick

  990

  140

  14·14

  Kingsley school

  550

  5

  0·91

  Kings school, Bruton

  330

  7

  2·12

  Kings school, Chester

  560

  88

  15·71

  Kings school, Macclesfield

  1,040

  145

  13·94

  Kings school, Rochester

  440

  50

  11·36

  Kings school, Tynemouth

  910

  3

  0·33

  Kings, school, Worcester

  860

  167

  19·42

  Kingston grammar school

  570

  157

  27·54

  Kingswood school, Bath

  480

  40

  8·33

  Kirkham grammar school

  510

  78

  15·29

  Lady Eleanor Holles school, Hampton

  810

  50

  6·17

  La Sagesse convent school, Newcastle upon Tyne

  340

  139

  40·88

  Latymer upper school, London W6

  1,030

  319

  30·97

  Laxton school

  150

  2

  1·33

  Leeds girls high school

  950

  86

  9·05

  Leeds grammar school

  1,180

  188

  15·93

  Leicester grammar school

  550

  13

  2·36

  Leighton park school, Reading

  360

  10

  2·78

  Leys school, Cambridge

  380

  34

  8·95

  Liverpool college

  700

  181

  25·86

  Lord Wandsworth college, Basingstoke

  440

  81

  18·41

  Loreto convent grammar school, Altrincham

  820

  50

  6·10

  Loughborough grammar

  880

  124

  14·09

  Loughborough high school

  520

  95

  18·27

  Magdalen college school, Oxford

  500

  113

  22·60

  Malvern college group

  600

  57

  9·50

  Manchester grammar school

  1,460

  261

  17·88

  Manchester high school

  970

  163

  16·80

  Marist convent senior school. Ascot

  500

  3

  0·60

  Maynard school, Exeter

  530

  150

  28·30

  Merchant Taylors, Liverpool

  770

  206

  26·75

  Merchant Taylors girls, Liverpool

  810

  180

  22·22

  Merchant Taylors, Northwood

  700

  59

  8·43

  Mill Hill school

  540

  60

  11·11

  Monkton Combe school, Bath

  340

  38

  11·18

  Mount Carmel school, Cheshire

  590

  10

  1·69

  Mount St. Mary's college, Nr. Sheffield

  280

  53

  18·93

  Mount school, York

  290

  10

  3·45

  Newcastle under Lyme school, Staffordshire

  1,350

  437

  32·37

  Newcastle upon Tyne church high school

  610

  10

  1·64

  Northampton high school

  770

  155

  20·13

  North London collegiate school, Edgware

  850

  88

  10·35

  Norwich high school GPDST

  840

  152

  18·10

  Nottingham girls high school GPDST

  1,050

  182

  17·33

  Nottingham high school

  830

  146

  17·59

  Notting Hill and Ealing high GPDST

  770

  114

  14·81

  Oakham school, Rutland

  986

  10

  1·01

  Old Palace school, Croydon

  760

  183

  24·08

  Oxford high school GPDST

  650

  86

  13·23

  Pangbourne college, Reading

  330

  8

  2·42

  Perse school for boys, Cambridge

  490

  60

  12·24

  Perse school for girls

  710

  58

  8·17

  566 567

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Plymouth college

  700

  186

  26·57

  Pocklington school, near York

  710

  129

  18·17

  Polam hall school. Darlington

  470

  13

  2·77

  Portsmouth grammar school

  1,020

  186

  18·24

  Portsmouth high school GPDST

  670

  130

  19·40

  Prior park college, Bath

  390

  10

  2·56

  Putney high school GPDST

  830

  86

  10·36

  Queen Elizabeth grammar, Blackburn

  1,200

  255

  21·25

  Queen Elizabeth grammar, Wakefield

  980

  144

  14·69

  Queen Elizabeth hospital school, Bristol

  480

  167

  34·79

  Queen Mary school, Lytham

  700

  240

  34·29

  Queens college Taunton

  610

  63

  10·33

  Queens college, London W1

  400

  67

  16·75

  Queens school, Chester

  580

  71

  12·24

  Ratcliffe college, Leicestershire

  420

  68

  16·19

  Redland high school, Bristol

  630

  80

  12·70

  Red Maids school, Bristol

  480

  157

  32·71

  Reed's school, Cobham

  350

  10

  2·86

  Reigate grammar school

  870

  99

  11·38

  Rendcomb college, Cirencester

  280

  10

  3·57

  Repton school, near Derby

  560

  49

  8·75

  Rossall school, Fleetwood

  480

  43

  8·96

  Royal grammar school, Guildford

  800

  105

  13·13

  Royal grammar school, Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,130

  254

  22·48

  Royal grammar school, Worcester

  870

  263

  30·23

  Ryde school

  620

  3

  0·48

  St. Albans school

  670

  110

  16·42

  St. Albans high school for girls

  690

  56

  8·12

  St. Ambrose college, Altrincham

  640

  73

  11·41

  St. Anselms college, Birkenhead

  850

  190

  22·35

  St. Bede's college, Manchester

  870

  220

  25·29

  St. Bees school, Cumbria

  370

  75

  20·27

  St. Benedict's school, Ealing

  590

  74

  12·54

  St. Catherine's school, Bramley

  620

  34

  5·48

  St. Dunstan's college, Catford

  830

  151

  18·19

  St. Edmund's college. Ware

  460

  69

  15·00

  St. Edward's college, Liverpool

  850

  395

  46·47

  St. Felix school, Southwold

  360

  6

  1·67

  St. George's college, Weybridge

  600

  31

  5·17

  St. Helen's school, Northwood

  880

  33

  3·75

  St. John's college, Southsea

  860

  163

  18·95

  St. John's school, Leatherhead

  460

  11

  2·39

  St. Joseph's college, Ipswich

  740

  72

  9·73

  St. Joseph's convent, Reading

  530

  113

  21·32

  St. Joseph's college, Stoke-on-Trent

  480

  5

  1·04

  St. Lawrence college, Ramsgate

  360

  10

  2·78

  St. Margaret's school, Bushey

  460

  8

  1·74

  St. Margaret's school, Exeter

  450

  7

  1·56

  St. Mary's college, Crosby

  800

  239

  29·88

  St. Mary's convent, Cambridge

  550

  101

  18·36

  St. Mary's hall, Brighton

  390

  65

  16·67

  St. Maur's convent, Weybridge

  470

  49

  10·43

  St. Paul's school, Barnes

  640

  82

  12·81

  St. Paul's girls school, Hammersmith

  630

  59

  9·37

  St. Peter's school, York

  480

  126

  26·25

  St. Swithun's school, Winchester

  410

  0

  0·00

  Salesian college, Farnborough

  450

  52

  11·56

  Scarborough college

  390

  10

  2·56

  School of St. Helen and St. Katherine, Abingdon

  520

  80

  15·38

  School of St. Mary and St. Anne

  270

  5

  1·85

  Sedbergh school

  680

  40

  5·88

  Sevenoaks school, Kent

  920

  4

  0·43

  Sheffield high school GPDST

  680

  76

  11·18

  Shrewsbury high school GPDST

  570

  77

  13·51

  Silcoates school

  570

  1

  0·18

  Sir William Perkins school, Chertsey

  490

  83

  16·94

  Solihull school

  980

  12

  1·22

  South Hampstead high school GPDST

  670

  61

  9·10

  Stafford independent grammar school

  290

  5

  1·72

  Stamford school

  950

  75

  7·89

  Stamford high school

  1,010

  80

  7·92

  Stockport grammar school

  1,270

  243

  19·13

  Stoneyhurst college, near Blackburn

  430

  27

  6·28

  Stowe school, near Buckingham

  610

  4

  0·66

  Streatham Hill and Clapham high GPDST

  500

  148

  29·60

  Surbiton high school

  600

  9

  1·50

  568 569

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Sutton high school GPDST

  820

  64

  7·80

  Sutton Valence school, near Maidstone

  410

  65

  15·85

  Sydenham high school GPDST

  650

  115

  17·69

  Talbot Heath school, Bournemouth

  600

  134

  22·33

  Taunton school

  590

  50

  8·47

  Teesside high school

  540

  2

  0·37

  Tonbridge school

  660

  1

  0·15

  Tormead school, Guildford

  550

  6

  1·09

  Trent college, Derbyshire

  610

  122

  20·00

  Trinity school of John Whitgift, Croydon

  800

  140

  17·50

  Truro school

  860

  115

  13·37

  Truro high school

  500

  59

  11·80

  University College school, London NW3

  770

  63

  8·18

  Upton Hall Convent school

  600

  158

  26·33

  Ursuline Convent school, Kent

  330

  10

  3·03

  Ursuline high school, Ilford

  410

  124

  30·24

  Wakefield high school

  760

  135

  17·76

  Walthamstow Hall, Sevenoaks

  530

  67

  12·64

  Warwick school

  990

  129

  13·03

  Wellingborough school

  830

  58

  6·99

  Wellington college, Berkshire

  830

  34

  4·01

  Wellington school, Somerset

  800

  207

  25·88

  Wells Cathedral school

  590

  68

  11·53

  West Buckland school, Barnstaple

  530

  78

  14·72

  Westholme school, Blackburn

  950

  10

  1·05

  Westminster school

  600

  46

  7·67

  Whitgift school, Croydon

  900

  108

  12·00

  William Hulme grammar school, Manchester

  790

  220

  27·85

  Wimbledon high school GPDST

  700

  68

  9·71

  Winchester college

  660

  21

  3·18

  Wisbech grammar school

  600

  297

  49·50

  Withington girls school, Manchester

  560

  71

  12·68

  Wolverhampton grammar school

  640

  260

  40·62

  Woodbridge school, Suffolk

  540

  112

  20·74

  Woodhouse Grove school, Bradford

  410

  135

  32·93

  Worksop college, Nottingham

  390

  10

  2·56

  Wrekin college

  380

  2

  0·53

  Wycliffe college, Stonehouse

  330

  41

  12·42

  Yarm school, Cleveland

  420

  13

  3·10

  Average proportion 1308

  1Numbers of pupils on roll are rounded to the nearest 10 pupils.

  2Numbers of Assisted Pupils at start of school year 1990–91.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each year since 1989, the number of assisted places available, the number taken up and the percentage of those taken up which were free places.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is given in the following table:

  School year

  Places available

  Places taken up

  Percentage of free places

  1989–90

  33,280

  27,008

  31

  1990–91

  33,289

  26,740

  32

  1991–92

  33,296

  27,641

  35

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost per pupil of an assisted place for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  The average cost of an assisted place in the academic year 1989–90 and the two following years was £2,364, £2,691 and £3,100 respectively.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for placing the management of the assisted places scheme in private hands; and if he will make a statement.
  570
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 1 July 1992, at column 570.

  Residential Properties
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by his Department; if he will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accomodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and the intended future use.

  Mr. Forman
  None.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department currently employs 2,723 civil servants. This figure includes 385 Her Majesty's inspectors of whom the majority together with their support staff will transfer to the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector—OHMCI—which is to be constituted as a
  571
  separate non-ministerial department from 1 September. The figure also includes 323 civil servants based in the Teachers Pensions Agency. The total net running costs for the DFE and OHMCI for 1992–93 are expected to be in the region of £103 million.

  On 1 July 1970 the Department employed 3,195 civil servants. The total net running costs for 1969–70 were £6,549,000.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Forman
  None of the advisers retained by this Department has been criticised in reports by DTI inspectors published since 1982.

  Schools Branch 4
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are now employed in schools branch 4, division B; and what was the cost of this branch in 1990–91 and 1991–92 and the budgeted cost for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  As of 13 July, there were 69 civil servants employed in schools branch 4 division B. The running costs of the division for the years in question is as follows:

  £

  1990–91 outturn

  372,000

  1991–92 outturn

  706,000

  1992–93 budget

  1,375,000

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for each year from 1986 what has been the number of surplus school places proposed to be removed as a result of local education authority reorganisation plans(a) submitted to the Secretary of State and (b) (i) approved by the Secretary of State and (ii) rejected by the Secretary of State as a consequence of a parallel proposal for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)1

  (b)(i)1

  1986

  74,691

  62,828

  1987

  54,951

  45,326

  1988

  56,474

  27,170

  1989

  57,297

  41,831

  1990

  157,735

  145,748

  1991

  101,605

  79,814

  1 These figures include proposals determined by LEAs.

  To date, 43 proposals have been rejected where there was an associated grant-maintained application, but it is not possible to say without disproportionate cost how many places would have been removed.

  Admission Limits, Birmingham
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the primary schools in Birmingham where his Department has increased the admission limit 572
  for September; if he will detail how many will have class sizes above 30 pupils as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  From September 1992 all primary schools will be required to admit children up to their "standard number", a minimum admission number designed to reflect the capacity of the school. We are aware that certain primary schools in Birmingham will have higher admission numbers in 1992 than in 1991 as a result of this requirement, by virtue of the fact that proposals by Birmingham LEA to reduce the standard numbers for these schools have been rejected by my right hon. Friend. These schools are listed in the table.

  The proposals to reduce the standard numbers at these schools were rejected in each case either because the school is already accommodating the total number of pupils implied by the existing standard number or because the standard number has been set on the basis of a simple assessment of the school's physical capacity. This assessment assumes that a maximum of 30 pupils can be accommodated in each standard size classroom with an appropriately smaller number in smaller rooms.

  Actual class sizes reflect decisions about staffing levels by individual schools, taken in the light of the resources available to them. The average pupil teacher ratio in Birmingham in 1990–91 was 23·5:1, slightly higher than the national average. The total budget for education set by Birmingham LEA for 1992–93 is £52 million less than the total allowed for by the Government under the standard spending assessment mechanism.

  School

  Admission limit September 1991

  Standard number ( minimum number of admissions for September 1992)

  Adderley JI School

  60

  68

  Anglesey Infant School

  90

  91

  Anglesey Junior School

  90

  96

  Arden JI School

  60

  74

  Aston Tower JI School

  60

  61

  Barford JI School

  60

  62

  Bellfield Junior School

  60

  70

  Billesley Junior School

  90

  92

  Birches Green Infant School

  60

  61

  Birches Green Junior School

  60

  62

  Blakesley Hall JI School

  90

  92

  Broadmeadow Infant School

  90

  98

  Brownmead JI School

  30

  32

  Calshot Infant School

  60

  69

  Calshot Junior School

  60

  65

  Chilcote JI School

  60

  69

  Christchurch CE JI School

  30

  33

  City Road JI School

  60

  64

  Colmers Farm Infant School

  60

  64

  Colmers Farm Junior School

  60

  64

  Colmore Infant School

  90

  91

  Colmore Junior School

  90

  92

  Conway JI School

  60

  63

  Cottesbrooke Junior School

  90

  93

  Elms Farm JI School

  30

  61

  Erdington Hall JI School

  60

  64

  Firs Infant School

  60

  67

  Firs Junior School

  60

  62

  Great Barr JI School

  60

  69

  Green Meadow JI School

  60

  64

  573

  School

  Admission limit September 1991

  Standard number (minimum number of admissions for September 1992)

  Grendon JI School

  60

  61

  Grove Infant School

  90

  105

  Hall Green Infant School

  90

  93

  Harborne Junior School

  90

  91

  Hawthorn JI School

  30

  32

  James Watt Infant School

  60

  61

  James Watt Junior School

  60

  65

  Leigh JI School

  60

  64

  Manor Park JI School

  60

  76

  Mapledene Junior School

  60

  68

  Marlborough Junior School

  90

  110

  Meadows JI School

  60

  65

  Moseley CE JI School

  30

  34

  Nelson JI School

  30

  33

  Nonsuch JI School

  60

  62

  Northfield Manor JI School

  60

  62

  Park Hill JI School

  60

  70

  Percy Shurmer JI School

  60

  64

  Perry Beeches Infant School

  90

  109

  Prince Albert JI School

  90

  99

  Raddlebarn JI School

  60

  61

  Rednal Hill Infant School

  90

  101

  Shaw Hill JI School

  60

  73

  Shirestone JI School

  60

  66

  Springfield Junior School

  90

  110

  Stechford JI School

  30

  32

  Stirchley JI School

  30

  32

  Timberley JI School

  60

  72

  Twickenham JI School

  60

  65

  Wattville Junior School

  90

  109

  West Heath Infant School

  90

  98

  West Heath Junior School

  90

  100

  Westminster Infant School

  60

  86

  Westminster Junior School

  60

  89

  Wheelers Lane Junior School

  90

  93

  Wilkes Green Junior School

  90

  96

  Woodthorpe JI School

  30

  32

  Wychall Farm Infant School

  60

  68

  Table 1

  Local education authority

  Net institutional expenditure1 per secondary pupil2

  Number of schools which have balloted on grant maintained status3

  1989–90 (£)

  Secondary

  Primary

  Inner London

  2,745

  12

  7

  Waltham Forest

  2,490

  1

  0

  Ealing

  2,345

  8

  2

  Newham

  2,310

  1

  0

  Brent

  2,225

  4

  0

  Barking

  2,200

  0

  0

  Coventry

  2,180

  0

  0

  Salford

  2,140

  0

  0

  Kingston Upon Thames

  2,120

  1

  0

  Sandwell

  2,115

  2

  0

  Liverpool

  2,110

  2

  0

  Knowsley

  2,105

  1

  0

  Rochdale

  2,050

  2

  1

  Hillingdon

  2,010

  10

  2

  South Tyneside

  2,010

  0

  0

  Wigan

  2,000

  1

  0

  Walsall

  1,995

  6

  1

  574

  School

  Admission limit September 1991

  Standard number (minimum number of admissions for September 1992)

  Yardley Junior School

  90

  93

  Yew Tree JI School

  60

  62

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of 30 June 1992,Official Report, columns 452–53, how many and what proportion of his Department's employees were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Forman
  The number and percentage of the Department's full-time equivalent staff who were registered disabled on 1 June in 1989 and 1990 were:

  Number of RDPs

  Per cent, of total staff

  1989

  66·0

  2·6

  1990

  65·5

  2·6

  There were other staff in the Department with disabilities who chose not to register and are not therefore included in the figures.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list local education authorities in rank order of expenditure per pupil on secondary education for the last year for which figures are available, giving in each case(a) the number of (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools which have held ballots on grant-maintained status and (b) the number of (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools which have voted to apply for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The tables rank LEAs by school based spending per secondary pupil in 1989–90, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available. Table 1 lists the number of secondary and primary schools per LEA which have held ballots on grant-maintained status and table 2 lists the number which have voted for grant-maintained status.
  575

  Local education authority

  Net institutional expenditure1 per secondary pupil2

  Number of schools which have balloted on grant maintained status3

  1989–90 (£)

  Secondary

  Primary

  Havering

  1,990

  1

  0

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1,980

  0

  0

  Harrow

  1,975

  1

  0

  Wirral

  1,975

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  1,975

  6

  4

  Wolverhampton

  1,975

  2

  1

  St. Helens

  1,970

  0

  0

  Bromley

  1,955

  13

  2

  Dudley

  1,955

  3

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,955

  3

  0

  Barnet

  1,945

  2

  1

  Croydon

  1,935

  2

  0

  Merton

  1,925

  0

  0

  Trafford

  1,920

  1

  0

  Sheffield

  1,920

  2

  5

  Cleveland

  1,915

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,900

  10

  5

  Leicestershire

  1,900

  3

  0

  Gateshead

  1,865

  1

  0

  Stockport

  1,860

  0

  0

  Bury

  1,860

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  1,855

  1

  2

  Rcdbridge

  1,855

  1

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  1,850

  4

  3

  Cumbria

  1,845

  6

  3

  Sunderland

  1,845

  0

  0

  Sutton

  1,840

  5

  0

  Bolton

  1,840

  1

  1

  Solihull

  1,835

  2

  1

  Tameside

  1,835

  2

  0

  Birmingham

  1,835

  5

  0

  Bexley

  1,820

  1

  2

  Lancashire

  1,820

  10

  1

  Suffolk

  1,820

  0

  0

  Enfield

  1,815

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1,815

  3

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1,810

  1

  0

  Rotherham

  1,810

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  1,810

  3

  2

  Norfolk

  1,810

  11

  12

  Doncaster

  1,805

  1

  0

  Essex

  1,800

  33

  9

  Avon

  1,800

  2

  1

  Barnsley

  1,795

  2

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,790

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  1,790

  8

  9

  Staffordshire

  1,790

  2

  0

  Warwickshire

  1,770

  7

  0

  East Sussex

  1,765

  0

  0

  Oldham

  1,765

  1

  0

  North Yorkshire

  1,760

  1

  1

  Humberside

  1,760

  1

  1

  West Sussex

  1,745

  1

  0

  Somerset

  1,745

  1

  2

  Gloucestershire

  1,735

  22

  1

  Berkshire

  1,735

  9

  3

  Durham

  1,735

  1

  0

  Cheshire

  1,725

  5

  3

  Sefton

  1,715

  0

  0

  Leeds

  1,715

  0

  0

  Devon

  1,710

  4

  1

  Cornwall (including Scilly Isles)

  1,700

  0

  1

  Wiltshire

  1,700

  4

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1,685

  13

  4

  Lincolnshire

  1,680

  21

  7

  Surrey

  1,675

  10

  10

  Calderdale

  1,665

  2

  1

  Northumberland

  1,645

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1,640

  7

  8

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,635

  1

  0

  Dorset

  1,635

  11

  1

  Bradford

  1,635

  1

  0

  Isle of Wight

  1,575

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,570

  44

  6

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  0

  0

  576 577

  Local education authority

  Net institutional expenditure1 per secondary pupil2

  Number of schools which have balloted on grant maintained status3

  1989–90 (£)

  Secondary

  Primary

  Hounslow

  n/a

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  n/a

  0

  1

  Manchester

  n/a

  0

  0

  Haringey

  n/a

  0

  0

  Table 2

  Net institutional expenditure1 per secondary pupil2 1989–90

  3Number of schools which voted to apply for grant maintained status

  LEA

  £

  Secondary

  Primary

  Inner London

  2,745

  9

  5

  Waltham Forest

  2,490

  1

  0

  Ealing

  2,345

  6

  2

  Newham

  2,310

  1

  0

  Brent

  2,225

  3

  0

  Barking

  2,200

  0

  0

  Coventry

  2,180

  0

  0

  Salford

  2,140

  0

  0

  Kingston Upon Thames

  2,120

  1

  0

  Sandwell

  2,115

  1

  0

  Liverpool

  2,110

  1

  0

  Knowsley

  2,105

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  2,050

  0

  1

  Hillingdon

  2,010

  10

  2

  South Tyneside

  2,010

  0

  0

  Wigan

  2,000

  1

  0

  Walsall

  1,995

  2

  0

  Havering

  1,990

  0

  0

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1,980

  0

  0

  Harrow

  1,975

  0

  0

  Wirral

  1,975

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  1,975

  3

  2

  Wolverhampton

  1,975

  2

  0

  St. Helens

  1,970

  0

  0

  Bromley

  1,955

  12

  2

  Dudley

  1,955

  2

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,955

  1

  0

  Barnet

  1,945

  2

  0

  Croydon

  1,935

  1

  0

  Merton

  1,925

  0

  0

  Trafford

  1,920

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  1,920

  1

  4

  Cleveland

  1,915

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,900

  7

  4

  Leicestershire

  1,900

  2

  0

  Gateshead

  1,865

  0

  0

  Stockport

  1,860

  0

  0

  Bury

  1,860

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  1,855

  1

  2

  Redbridge

  1,855

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  1,850

  4

  2

  Cumbria

  1,845

  6

  3

  Sunderland

  1,845

  0

  0

  Sutton

  1,840

  5

  0

  Bolton

  1,840

  1

  1

  Solihull

  1,835

  1

  1

  Tameside

  1,835

  1

  0

  578 579

  Net institutional expenditure1 per secondary pupil2 1989–90

  3Number of schools which voted to apply for grant maintained status

  LEA

  £

  Secondary

  Primary

  Birmingham

  1,835

  4

  0

  Bexley

  1,820

  0

  2

  Lancashire

  1,820

  6

  1

  Suffolk

  1,820

  0

  0

  Enfield

  1,815

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1,815

  2

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1,810

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  1,810

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  1,810

  3

  0

  Norfolk

  1,810

  8

  10

  Doncaster

  1,805

  0

  0

  Essex

  1,800

  30

  7

  Avon

  1,800

  2

  0

  Barnsley

  1,795

  0

  1

  Richmond Upon Thames

  1,790

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  1,790

  6

  7

  Staffordshire

  1,790

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  1,770

  6

  0

  East Sussex

  1,765

  0

  0

  Oldham

  1,765

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  1,760

  0

  0

  Humberside

  1,760

  0

  1

  West Sussex

  1,745

  0

  0

  Somerset

  1,745

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1,735

  16

  1

  Berkshire

  1,735

  9

  3

  Durham

  1,735

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  1,725

  1

  3

  Sefton

  1,715

  0

  0

  Leeds

  1,715

  0

  0

  Devon

  1,710

  2

  0

  Cornwall including Scilly

  1,700

  0

  1

  Wiltshire

  1,700

  3

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1,685

  10

  3

  Lincolnshire

  1,680

  21

  5

  Surrey

  1,675

  10

  8

  Calderdale

  1,665

  2

  1

  Northumberland

  1,645

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1,640

  5

  7

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,635

  0

  0

  Dorset

  1,635

  11

  0

  Bradford

  1,635

  1

  0

  Isle of Wight

  1,575

  0

  0

  Kent

  1,570

  40

  5

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  n/a

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  n/a

  0

  1

  Manchester

  n/a

  0

  0

  Haringey

  n/a

  0

  0

  1Net institutional expenditure covers spending on salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books and equipment, and certain other supplies and services. It excludes spending on LEA administration, home to school transport, school meals and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  2Per pupil expenditure figures are derived from LEA's returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and their pupil numbers to the Department for Education. Figures are for 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending information is available.

  3Figures include all ballots on grant-maintained status up to 13 July 1992.

  4n/a indicates that a return was not received from the LEA.

  580

  University Staff (Pay Agreement)
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will ratify the 1992 pay agreement between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The proposal for a pay settlement for university academic staff, made by the parties to committee A of the negotiating machinery, will be considered at a meeting of committee B—which includes officials from my Department—on Thursday 16 July. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on the proposal in advance of that meeting.

  Access Funds
  Mr. John Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources will be available for the access funds in 1992–93.

  Mr. Forman
  A total of £26·2 million will be available for the access funds in Great Britain for the 1992–93 academic year.

  My Department's share will be £23·37 million. This sum is being allocated between the three access funds; allocations for the 1991–92 academic year are shown in parenthesis:
  582

  £ million

  £ million

  Undergraduate Fund

  13·27

  (13·00)

  Postgraduate Fund

  5·90

  (5·84)

  Further Education Fund

  4·20

  (4·17)

  Visits
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education establishments he, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), have visited since 9th April.

  Mr. Patten
  I, my noble Friend the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) have visited the following schools so far during our periods in office:

  17 primary schools, including one middle school;

  22 secondary schools, including three grant-maintained schools;

  Two special schools;

  Three CTCs; and

  One sixth form college.

PRIME MINISTER

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the construction industry from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Trade and Industry.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Department of the Environment is also responsible for housing and planning and for property holding. The interactions between all these responsibilities mean it makes sense to leave sponsorship of the construction industry where it is.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that the "Agenda 21" agreement at the Earth summit is given equal status in legal terms to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  The Prime Minister
  Governments agreed agenda 21 as a dynamic framework for action reflecting political commitment at the highest level. It is not, however, intended to be a legally binding document. My EC and G7 colleagues have endorsed my plan for ensuring that agenda 21 and the other Rio agreements are implemented effectively, including through the preparation of national reports for the UN Sustainable Development Commission.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to establishing the ministerial interdepartmental committee to address the issue of homelessness.

  The Prime Minister
  I am satisfied that the present arrangements provide for appropriate interdepartmental discussions of homelessness as necessary.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Chazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Bradford, West concerning Mr. Chazanfer Ali if he will give an assurance that Mr. Ali will be given every assistance to return to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  584
  The Prime Minister
  Any entry clearance application from Mr. Ali will be considered on its merits and in accordance with the immigration rules.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what information he has received from the British post in Islamabad about Mr. Chazanfer Ali.

  The Prime Minister
  On 29 June the British High Commission in Islamabad made inquiries of the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about Mr. Chazanfer Ali's circumstances. Once a substantive response has been received I will write to the hon. Member.

  Babcock and Wilcox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 593, about the European Council in Lisbon what discussions he had with the Italian Prime Minister on the letter from Babcock and Wilcox.

  The Prime Minister
  I am pursuing the matter with the Italian Prime Minister. The sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Libya consist of a ban on air links and an embargo on trade in arms and in aircraft and aircraft components. There has been no suggestion that Italy is not applying those sanctions. I am aware of the concern expressed in the letter from Babcock that British companies risk losing trading opportunities in Libya. But we cannot allow the promise of commercial favours to deflect us from our determination to ensure that the Libyans comply in full with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Convention for a Democratic South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what are the criteria which determine with which Convention for a Democratic South Africa participants he or his officials have contact;

  (2) if he will list those CODESA participants with which he or his officials have had no contact; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for this;

  (3) with which CODESA participants he or his officials have had contact since the beginning of the process.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are 19 bodies represented at CODESA. We have had contact with many of them informally in the margins of the negotiations. Our policy on formal contacts within South Africa remains unchanged.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993, the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 July, at columns 430–31.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy on the use of challenges before the European Court of Justice on measures taken by the European Commission or the Council of Ministers which in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, following the treaty of Maastricht.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Lisbon European Council conclusions invited the Commission and the Council to undertake urgent work on the procedural and practical steps to implement the principle of subsidiarity. We hope that these steps will help to ensure that measures adopted by the Community in future will fully comply with the principle of subsidiarity. When the Maastricht treaty enters into force it will be open to any member state, or the Commission, to challenge a member state, or the Commission, to challenge a measure on the grounds that it violates article 3b.

  The Government anticipate that the principle will have its intended effect upon the legislative process, but do not rule out challenges before the court if necessary.

  Iraq (Hostages)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made by Her Majesty's Government of the psychological and economic effects upon the British citizens caught up in Kuwait and Iraq in August 1990 and subsequently held hostage by Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following advertisements in the national press in October 1990, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been gathering information on loss, damage, or injury, including mental pain and anguish, suffered by British nationals and companies as a direct result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The first submission of British claims will be made to the United Nations compensation commission in early August. The Maudsley and Middlesex hospitals have provided special counselling facilities.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives on nuclear proliferation in European Political Cooperation are planned for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Preventing nuclear proliferation is high among our foreign policy objectives. During our presidency of EPC—European Political Co-operation—586
  we shall work with partners to extend and reinforce the nuclear non-proliferation regime, in particular by working for further accessions to the non-proliferation treaty—NPT—and an indefinite extension to the treaty at the 1995 extension conference; a strengthened International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime; and stricter supplier controls on nuclear material and technology.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives are planned by (i) Her Majesty's Government and (ii) European political co-operation under the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council, in support of the declaration made at the Munich Group of Seven summit to combat nuclear proliferation and enhance safeguards on nuclear materials.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the prominence given to non-proliferation in the political declaration of the Munich summit. During our presidency of EPC we shall work with other EC member states and with Group of Seven members to extend and reinforce the nuclear non-proliferation regime, in particular by working for further accessions to the NPT and an indefinite extension to the treaty at the 1995 extension conference; a strengthened IAEA safeguards regime; and stricter supplier controls on nuclear material and technology.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states agreed upon the common list of nuclear goods and nuclear-related dual-use goods to be controlled by member states, when exported, referred to in paragraph 15 of the conclusions of the presidency on the European Council in Lisbon; and how long ago European Political Cooperation began its comparison of national policies on arms exports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 12 member states of the European Community agreed the common list of nuclear goods and nuclear-related dual-use goods. European Political Co-operation began its work on comparing national policies on arms exports during the first half of 1991.

  Drapchi Prison, Tibet
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about ill-treatment of women in Drapchi prison, Tibet in March; and what representations he has made.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no independent corroboration of these disturbing reports, though British diplomats attempted to visit Drapchi prison in May. We take every opportunity to express to the Chinese our deep concern about human rights abuses in Tibet and indeed throughout China, most recently to the Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister in London last week.

  Foreign Forces (Training)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to provide training to foreign forces known to be in breach of international human rights.

  Mt. Douglas Hogg
  We see the provision of military training as an opportunity to increase awareness of the
  587
  importance of good government, democracy, self-discipline and respect for human rights. Governments sending students recognise this.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving accession to the non-proliferation treaty and application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to nuclear materials by each of the non-Russian republics and, in particular, Kazakhstan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following extensive lobbying by a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, all of the republics of the former Soviet Union have now undertaken to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus recently made a formal undertaking in signing the protocol to the strategic arms reduction talks. We have emphasised to them that it is important that they act on these commitments as soon as possible.

  Lhasa
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about demonstrations in Lhasa, Tibet, since the beginning of May, including the number of persons detained and injured, respectively, on each occasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Much of the information of this kind comes from the findings of organisations such as Amnesty International and the Tibet Information Network. Two British diplomats visited Tibet in May. They reported that demonstrations had occurred earlier that month but were unable to obtain details.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of 29 June 1992,Official Report, column 409, how many and what proportion of his Department's employees were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.
  588
  Mr. Goodlad
  In 1989, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed 45 registered disabled persons: 25 in the diplomatic wing—0·48 per cent. of its work force—and 20 in the Overseas Development Administration—1·29 per cent. of its work force. The figure for 1990 was 46·5: 23 full-time and one part-time member of staff in the diplomatic wing—0·4 per cent. of its work force—and 23 in the ODA—1·47 per cent. of its work force.

  United Nations HQ
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the annual visit to United Nations headquarters in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following right hon. and hon. Members have participated in the annual all-party visits to the United Nations in New York in the last five years:

  1987:

  Mr. Robert Boscawen (C)

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (C)

  Mr. Tim Smith (C)

  Mr. Michael Jack (C)

  Mr. Barry Jones (La)

  Mr. Frank Haynes (La)

  Mr. Charles Kennedy (SD)

  1988:

  Mr. David Lightbown (C)

  Mr. Greg Knight (C)

  Mr. Jacques Arnold (C)

  Mr. Tim Rathbone (C)

  Mr. Allen Mckay (La)

  Mr. Jim Cousins (La)

  Mr. Alex Carlile (SLD)

  1989:

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad (C)

  Mr. Peter Viggers (C)

  Mr. Alistair Burt (C)

  Mr. Ian Gow (C)

  Mr. John Battle (La)

  Mr. Tony Banks (La)

  Mr. Menzies Campbell (SLD)

  1990:

  Mr. Sydney Chapman (C)

  Mr. Ian Taylor (C)

  Mr. Jeremy Hanley (C)

  Mr. Gwilym Jones (C)

  Mr. Jeff Rooker (La)

  Dr. Norman Godman (La)

  Rev. Martin Smyth (UUP)

  1991:

  Mr. John M. Taylor (C)

  Mr. Michael Irvine (C)

  Mr. Barry Field (C)

  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim

  Mr. Don Dixon (La)

  Mr. Frank Haynes (La)

  Mr. Archie Kirkwood (Lib Dem)

  India
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning human rights in India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: As I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) on 1 July 1992, at column 587 there are a number of areas of concern and we have regularly raised these with the Indian Government.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by his Department concerning democratic elections in Cameroon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: We have consistently made clear to the Government of the Cameroon our support for the introduction of a multi party democracy. As a result of constant pressure, President Biya agreed to multi-party national elections which took place in Cameroon on 1 March 1992, contested by 32 of the 48 registered opposition parties in Cameroon. Presidential elections are to be held in April 1993.

  ODA contributions to United Nation organisations real terms 1979 to 1991 (1991 prices)

  (£ thousands)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  World Food Programme1

  16,788

  4,981

  3,330

  5,665

  1,314

  1,576

  717

  693

  13,725

  5,631

  18,137

  4,325

  14,140

  Food and Agricultural Organisation

  5,938

  6,441

  6,498

  9,339

  9,829

  12,371

  9,727

  10,201

  7,608

  10,560

  9,964

  10,332

  10,096

  United Nations Development Programme

  68,265

  30,033

  31,449

  30,897

  29,352

  28,829

  30,131

  29,115

  30,378

  30,372

  30,085

  29,101

  28,560

  United Nations Childrens Fund2

  17,661

  9,993

  13,219

  9,992

  9,629

  9,142

  12,052

  11,519

  15,849

  15,153

  14,117

  9,966

  9,019

  United Nations Relief and Works Agency

  10,527

  9,010

  8,985

  6,680

  7,933

  9,104

  7,174

  6,932

  6,934

  6,508

  6,525

  6,053

  6,000

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  21,501

  13,963

  10,526

  10,413

  5,903

  10,765

  24,191

  19,438

  19,548

  24,137

  22,351

  20,924

  23,475

  International Fund for Agricultural Development

  —

  —

  1,583

  3,524

  5,636

  6,438

  7,820

  4,865

  4,332

  3,179

  3,718

  2,817

  2,381

  United Nations Fund for Population Activities

  9,271

  4,004

  4,043

  4,426

  4,284

  4,552

  6,457

  6,239

  6,604

  6,508

  3,364

  3,220

  10,500

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,306

  2,533

  2,597

  2,402

  2,704

  2,469

  World Health Organisation Research Programmes

  5,340

  3,574

  1,731

  2,338

  3,165

  3,710

  4,061

  4,997

  4,794

  14,141

  6,988

  12,813

  10,965

  Other United Nations development agencies3

  4,316

  3,059

  2,104

  2,455

  2,494

  1,848

  2,302

  2,663

  3,198

  2,797

  1,699

  3,130

  1,007

  1 Contributions to the World Food Programme include subscription payments, commodity purchase and, from 1987, food aid. Prior to 1987 the food aid channelled through WFP could not be distinguished from other food aid, and therefore is not included in this table.

  2 The UNICEF figures do not include payments to UNICEF for emergency relief (e.g. £4·608 million in 1991–92).

  3 Other United Nations development agencies include:

  United Nations University Endowment Fund

  United Nations Development Fund for Women

  United Nations Drug Control Pakistan

  United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

  United Nations Fund for Volunteers

  United Nations Border Relief Operation

  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

  United Nations Education and Training Programme (South Africa)

  Source: British Aid Statistics.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) of 24 June,Official Report, column 237, if he will make a statement on how (a) the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation that its financial structure be changed and (b) the other recommendations, will affect his Department's quinquennial review of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be considered as part of the quinquennial review.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid and Human Rights
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the relationship between the provision of United Kingdom aid and the recipient country's human rights record.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Respect for human rights is a part of good government and therefore among the important factors which we take into account in providing aid.

  UN Agencies
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list Overseas Development Administration contributions to United Nations agencies for the years 1979 to 1991 in real terms.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Contributions at 1991 prices were as follows:

  Iraq
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he intends to respond to the representations he has received from Save the Children concerning the situation in Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has written to Save the Children on this matter. We deplore threats to the safety of United Nations personnel and other relief workers in Iraq, and my right hon. and noble Friend raised our concerns with the United Nations in New York last week. We will continue to monitor events in Baghdad and New York very closely. We support the United Nations in its efforts to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding.

  Population Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 578, what steps he has taken to ensure that grants given to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund do not result in the encouragement of forced abortion or sterilisation in (a) China and (b) Tibet.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: Neither the UNFPA nor the IPPF nor the British Government support population activities in which there is any element of coercion of individuals to practise family planning, or to accept any particular type of contraception. The UNFPA and IPPF provide no support for forced abortion or sterilisation in China or Tibet. It is the established policy of both agencies that their programmes fully accord with the human rights principles set out in the world population plan of action, that
  "population policies should be consistent with internationally and nationally recognised human rights, and that all couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so".

  The ODA is an active member of UNFPA's governing council and participates fully in the IPPF's annual donors meeting. These fora enable donors to examine closely the policies and activities of both organisations. Through such bodies and regular contacts with UNFPA and IPPF officials, the ODA and other donors satisfy themselves that the UNFPA and IPPF continue to maintain the principles of the world population plan of action.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Investment Companies
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what representation has been made to the Government of the Irish Republic to protect future investors from Northern Ireland who invest in companies in the Irish Republic which have links with investment companies in jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic;

  (2) what discussions have taken place with the authorities of the Irish Republic about International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar);

  (3) whether he will request the Government of the Irish Republic to investigate the International Investment Ltd. fraud.

  Mr. Mates
  No discussions have taken place with, or representations made to, the Government of the Irish Republic in respect of International Investments Limited. As I understand the position, this company was registered in Gibraltar and not in the United Kingdom and is now in liquidation. The liquidation is, therefore, a matter for the Gibraltar authorities and the responsibility for making representations to other Governments regarding International Investments Ltd. does not lie with Her Majesty's Government.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the prison population in Northern Ireland at the latest available date.
  592
  Mr. Mates
  The total prison population in Northern Ireland on 8 July 1992 was 1,834. This figure was compiled as follows:

  HM prison, Belfast—511 prisoners

  HM prison, Maghaberry—351 prisoners, including 42 females

  HM prison, Magilligan—311 prisoners

  HM prison, Maze—483 prisoners

  HM young offenders centre—178 inmates including 28 on remand

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Mates
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Mates
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

WALES

  Special Needs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for placements have been made by people with special needs to each training and enterprise council in Wales in each year since the establishment of the councils; and how many have successfully received placements in each instance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local education authorities requiring them to issue specific statements for children with special educational needs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Welsh Office circular 54/89 and its addendum issued in March 1992 give detailed guidance to local education authorities on the form and content of statements of special educational needs. These advise that, if an authority considers a statement to be warranted, it should specify in detail each of a child's needs and the appropriate provision to meet those needs.

  The Government have announced their proposal to issue further guidance on the criteria to which authorities should have regard in considering whether to start assessment procedures which may, in the light of the information received, lead to a statement.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines requiring all training and enterprise councils in Wales to establish special needs advisory groups.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Training and enterprise councils in Wales have established a variety of mechanisms for
  593
  consulting their local communities about special training needs. Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their corporate and business plans how they will cater for people with special needs.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what improvements he will initiate to enhance access to schools by children who suffer disabilities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local education authorities are responsible for educational buildings, and for questions of access to them by disabled persons. Advice and guidance is available to authorities in Design No. 18 "Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings" and in Building Bulletin 61 "Designing for Children with Special Educational Needs" issued by the Department for Education.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to cater for special educational needs in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be making an announcement very shortly.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to introduce proposals for shortening the procedure in Wales for assessing special educational needs; what is the average cost of producing a statement of special educational needs in Wales; and what is the average length of time it takes to produce a statement of special educational needs in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for carrying out assessments and preparing statements of special education needs rests with individual local education authorities. Information on the time taken on these processes and the associated costs is not available centrally; practice varies between authorities. The Government have announced proposals to ensure that these procedures are conducted within specific timescales. which will extend to Wales as well as England.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many salaried dentists there are in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest figures available, as at 30 September 1990, show that there were 292 salaried dentists employed by district health authorities in the hospital and community service.

  There are no salaried dentists employed by family health service authorities in Wales at present.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advisory criteria his Department issues to family health service authorities in Wales by which cross-infection rates in dental surgeries are measured in both absolute and selective terms.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. The Department issues guidance on cross-infection control from time to time and I refer to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 10 July 1991,Official Report, column 388.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning NHS dental patients in Wales.
  594
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are committed to maintaining a comprehensive NHS dental service. It is for family health services authorities, in consultation with district health authorities, to manage general dental services in their areas. Should a family health services authority experience difficulty in securing adequate NHS provision from independent contractors to meet the needs of local residents, it can apply to my Department for approval to employ salaried dentists.

  Any unregistered patient seeking NHS dental treatment can contact the local family health services authority for advice and assistance. Community dental services also provide a safety net for those patients who are unable to obtain treatment under the general dental services.

  Trainees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of trainees currently on(a) youth training schemes and (b) employment training schemes in Wales; and, of these trainees, how many are in receipt of (i) communication services for deaf or blind people, (ii) essential taxi fare payments, (iii) adaptations to premises and equipment and (iv) loans of special equipment as part of their traineeships.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of trainees at 24 May 1992 on youth training schemes and employment training schemes in Wales was:

  Training scheme

  Number

  Youth

  15,906

  Employment

  9,585

  Support for people with disabilities is provided as an integral part of the Government's training programmes. Separate figures are therefore not available on the numbers of people with disabilities in receipt of special assistance.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheltered training places are offered to trainees with special needs by each training and enterprise council in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Support for people with disabilities is provided as an integral part of the Government's training programmes.

  The detailed information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines requiring all training and enterprise councils in Wales to offer further assessment programmes and pre-vocational training facilities to trainees with special needs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Training and enterprise councils are under a contractual obligation to ensure that individual needs are assessed prior to entry to training programmes and that people receive training that is tailored to those needs. They are also under a specific obligation to ensure that suitable high-quality training shall be available for all trainees who are shown by assessment to have special training needs. Guidance has been issued to training and enterprise councils highlighting best practice in assessment and pre-vocational training. There are no plans to issue further guidelines at this stage.
  595
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total cost of providing(a) communication services for deaf or blind trainees, (b) essential taxi fare assistance, (c) adaptation of premises and equipment and (d) loans of special equipment for trainees on (i) youth training schemes and (ii) employment training schemes for each training and enterprise council in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Support for people with disabilities is provided as an integral part of the Government's training programmes. Separate figures for the cost of such support is not held centrally.

  General Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask general medical practitioners in Wales to seek to place their annual reports in the local public library.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The terms of service for doctors require GPs to provide family health services authorities (FHSAs) an annual report relating to the provision of personnel medical services. This is a confidential report to the FHSA which is not empowered to disclose its contents to any other person.

  I see no merit in seeking an amendment to this arrangement which would, in any case, require to be negotiated with the representative body of the profession.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that grant aid given to councils which have yet to fulfil obligations under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 are not reclaimed by his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No, if the circumstances require recovery, then grant will be reclaimed.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total cost to each district council in Wales of abortive attempts to locate gipsy sites within the council area during each of the last five years;

  (2) what was the total cost incurred by West Glamorgan county council in the abortive attempt to locate a gipsy site at Velindre.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which district councils in Wales have yet to fulfil their obligations under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 places a continuing obligation on county councils to determine the need for gipsy sites and so far as may be necessary to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many district councils have been designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 concerning travellers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  One—Arfon borough council.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to review the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.
  596
  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) on 30 June,Official Report, column 498.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales are considering designation matters in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not held centrally. No applications for designation under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 are before me at this time.

  Housing Development, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from residents concerning a proposed housing development at Drury, Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from one resident regarding a proposed housing development on land at Drury new road, Drury.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the need for green belts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received letters from various organisations about the need for green belts in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the effectiveness or otherwise of green barriers as opposed to green belts as they might apply to Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am not aware of any monitoring or evaluation of the effectiveness or otherwise of green barriers as opposed to green belts. I have invited the Assembly of Welsh Counties, as part of its review of strategic planning guidance in Wales, to consider the potential contribution of green belts to the proper planning and development of Wales. When I receive its advice later this year, I will give it careful consideration.

  Psychotherapy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 68, if he will publish details of the numbers of staff allocated for the provision of psychotherapy in Gwynedd and their location.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no specified psychotherapy service available in Gwynedd. However, a number of experts within the various mental health disciplines are able to provide psychotherapy as part of the NHS's general psychiatric services in Gwynedd.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the projects which have been funded to date through the valleys initiative; how much funding has been provided in each case; and which projects have been brought to an end prematurely.
  597
  Mr. David Hunt
  The detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring procedures are used by his Department to ensure that money allocated to local authorities under the valleys initiative to fund local authority-led initiatives is actually spent on such initiatives; and if he will list the incidents where money has been allocated to local authority-led schemes under the valleys initiative but the local authority have later withdrawn from the scheme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Funding for projects which contribute to the programme for the valleys is channelled to local authorities through various grant schemes, each of which is subject to monitoring arrangements. In some cases, funding has been switched from one project to another. The achievement of objectives is monitored at six-monthly intervals. Reports are published regularly, most recently on 19 February 1992.

  Breast Feeding
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to provide additional ring-fenced allowances to midwives to help them attain set targets on numbers of breast-feeding mothers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No, but it is our policy aim that pay arrangements for all NHS staff groups should become more flexible and more explicitly related to performance as measured in terms of deliverable objectives and quality of service to patients.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current targets set by midwives in Wares for numbers of mothers undertaking breast feeding; and what financial support is currently granted by his Department to assist in the attainment of such targets.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am aware of no targets set by midwives in Wales for numbers of mothers breast feeding. However, one the health gain targets of the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Maternal and Early Child Health", published in August 1991 by the Welsh Office's NHS directorate, was that each district should reduce to 20 per cent. by 1997 the failure rate among women choosing to breast feed and to 5 per cent. by 2002.

  The Government are committed to encouraging mothers to breastfeed. In the current financial year, the Welsh Office is giving a grant of £16,400 to fund a Welsh co-ordinator for the joint breast-feeding initiative. The aims of the initiative are to improve support for breast-feeding mothers and to stimulate a wish to continue breast feeding.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the effects upon health of smoking and tobacco advertising.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am very concerned about the damage that smoking can do. This has been reflected in the protocols for investment in health gain in the areas of cancers, cardiovascular disease and respiratory diseases and in the Health Promotion Authority for Wales' strategy documents which I have endorsed. I am determined that we should reach the targets proposed in these documents.
  598
  The Government have consistently taken the view that the best way to control the promotion and advertising of cigarettes is through a continuation of the successful and recently enhanced system of voluntary agreements between the Government and the tobacco industry. Although complex, the system is comprehensive in its coverage. It is designed to ensure that tobacco advertising is not aimed specifically at the young and, combined as it is with a total ban on television advertising of all tobacco products, the Government believe it is effective.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to set a target for Wales of a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people who smoke by the year 2000.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has recently published targets for reductions in smoking in its document "The Agenda for 1992–94".

  This includes a target reduction of 43 per cent. in adult women smokers—from 30 per cent. in 1985 to 17 per cent. by the year 2000—and a reduction of 43 per cent. in adult men smokers—from 35 per cent. in 1985 to 20 per cent. by the year 2000.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost to date of preparing the application for trust status by(a) Clwyd community and mental health services, (b) Glan Clwyd district general hospital and associated hospitals and (c) Wrexham Maelor hospital; and, in each case, who is meeting the cost of the application.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not held centrally, but the Department has made a financial contribution towards the costs incurred in the application process.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will name his nominee for the posts of chairmen of the Clwyd, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan family health service authorities from 31 August together with the qualifications and experience of each candidate that is relevant to the post;

  (2) if he will name his nominees for the posts of chairman of the East Dyfed, Gwynedd, Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan health authorities from 31 July, together with the qualifications and experience of each candidate that is relevant to the post.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The names of individuals nominated for public appointment are private and confidential: the information requested cannot therefore be given. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to announce shortly the names of those who have accepted invitations to serve as chairmen of the eight authorities to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 328, if he will specify the form of the congratulation that he has bestowed on the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority for the professionalism of presentation of waiting times policy; and if he will place a copy in the Library.
  599
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Secretary of State applauded South Glamorgan's efforts to involve the public in eliminating its two-year waiting list at his meeting with chairmen on 7 July.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1991–92 the average number of staff employed by my Department was 2,399, at a total pay cost of some £40 million. In 1969–70 the average number of staff in post was 766: the total pay cost cannot be disaggregated from departmental running costs for this period.

  The staff numbers are not directly comparable due to machinery of Government changes which have occurred in the intervening period.

  Education White Paper
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to issue a White Paper on education in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Shortly.

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the streamlined package of tests for seven-year-olds in schools in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This year's national tests for seven-year-olds have recently been conducted in all schools in Wales. Results for individual pupils will be made available to parents as part of the pupil's annual school report. National aggregate data for each subject covered by the tests will be published in the autumn. As with the 1991 tests, this year's exercise will be fully evaluated by the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 8, if he will list (a) the 12 recommendations contained in the Sports Council for Wales report on the management and administration of the Welsh team in Auckland in 1990 which have not been implemented in full and (b) the three recommendations which have been implemented in full.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 7 July,Official Report, column 136. This is a matter for the Sports Council for Wales.

  Obesity
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to set a target for Wales to reduce the proportion of overweight people to 6 per cent. of men and 8 per cent. of women by the year 2005.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The English strategy has set targets for the small number of people who are clinically obese.600
  However, in Wales we have concentrated on the larger number of people who are either overweight or obese, and have set targets for reducing the mean body weight of the population as a whole as well as addressing the numbers of those overweight or obese.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the levels of resourcing for education in Wales; and if he will make it his policy to establish guaranteed minimum levels of funding to assist in the establishment of the national curriculum and local management of schools.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The local government finance settlement for 1992–93, approved by the House on 12 February, enables all local authorities in Wales to maintain and develop services for which they are responsible to an acceptable standard. The settlement is supplemented by the grants for education, support and training and Welsh language grant programmes under which specific grants are available to local education authorities for the support of the national curriculum and local management of schools.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools feature religious education for the 14 to 16-year-olds' timetables; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under the Education Reform Act 1988 the curriculum for every maintained school must include provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to obtain the advice of the Audit Commission on the restructuring of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Audit Commission has received copies of the consultation papers I have issued, and has submitted comments.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has asked the Audit Commission to undertake a full assessment of the costs and benefits of all the different options in regard to the reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Independent consultants have made an assessment of the financial implications of a unitary authority structure in Wales. A copy of their report is in the Library of the House. An Audit Commission representative attended meetings between my officials and officials representing the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts at which the methodology for this work was considered.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish all the responses he has received on the subject of the internal management of local authorities in Wales since November 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Copies of these responses were placed in the Library of the House last February.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester West, (Mr. Janner) 30 June,Official Report, columns 498–99, (a) how many of his Department's employees and (b) what proportion of his Department's employees, were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The details, based on staff in post at 1 June, are given in the table:

  Number of registered disabled people

  Percentage of Departmental total

  1989

  26

  12

  1990

  32

  13

  Notes:

  (1) Includes equivalent and professional grades.

  (2) Includes industrial staff

  (3) Part-time staff count as one unit.

  Health Service Data Collection
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 328, if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter DGM(90)123 regarding the commencement of separate data collection on patient episodes, inclusive of separate enumeration of tertiary and cross-specialty referrals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have placed a copy of the letter DGM(90)123 in the Library of the House.

  Health Gain Protocols
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish the protocols for health gain during 1992 as promised in his Department's "Agenda for Action 2".

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The protocols for cancer; cardiovascular diseases; maternal and early child health; physical disability and discomfort: physical and sensory disability; and respiratory diseases have already been published. The remaining protocols are those for injuries; learning disabilities; physical disability and discomfort: discomfort and pain management; physical disability and discomfort: oral health; mental distress and illness; emotional health and relationships; and healthy environments. All but the last two should be published during 1992. The last two will be published in early 1993.

  Departmental Appointments
  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of Statefor Wales (1) if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors;

  (2) If he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Port Talbot Office
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will quantify the savings arising from the transfer of processing staff from his Port Talbot office to Bridgend for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Burt
  The resourcing of offices 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. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why the visit of Sir Michael Partridge to the Port Talbot offices of the DSS was cancelled; and what cost was incurred, directly or indirectly, in the cancellation.

  Mr. Burt
  Sir Michael Partridge had to defer his visit to the Department of Social Security office in Port Talbot because he was required by his other duties to remain in London on that day. No direct costs were incurred. Indirect costs are estimated to be in the region of £10.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for his Department to celebrate the European Year of the Elderly in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 July at column 430–31.

  Benefit Take-up Rates
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what figures are available on the proportion of social security benefits actually claimed by people eligible to receive them; and what are the comparable figures for the previous years for which information is available.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is contained in the estimates of take-up of income-related benefits for 1987; these relate to housing benefit, family income supplement and supplementary benefit. Comparisons with previous years are included. Copies are available in the Library.

  Post Office Payments
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of persons receiving payment of child benefit through the Post Office;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners receiving their pensions through the Post Office.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of child benefit, widows benefits and retirement pensions are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Residential Care Homes
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will indicate the extent to which his Department's budget will be altered to reflect the transfer to local councils of responsibility for people in nursing and residential homes.

  Mr. Burt
  The transfer of responsibility will be matched by a transfer of resources from this Department for distribution to local authorities. The amount of the transfer has not been decided.

  Mortgage Interest Payments Information
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the provisions by which information on benefit recipients affected by the consequences of the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992 is exempted from the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Burt
  Disclosure is required by the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992 which provides for income support for mortgage interest to be paid direct to qualifying lenders. The consequential regulations also specify information about income support recipients' mortgages to be provided by qualifying lenders in order to ensure that the correct amount of benefit is paid direct to them.

  These enactments provide exemption from the non-disclosure provisions through section 34(5) of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  The Department of Social Security registration under the Data Protection Act in respect of its benefits provides for disclosure of information to qualifying mortgage lenders.

  Pensioners (London Weighting)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce proposals to amend the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 to introduce London weighting for pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to introduce London weighting to the state retirement pension. Retirement pensions and other contributory benefits are part of a national scheme of contributions and benefits.

  Benefit Recoupments
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been recovered by his Department in the first year of the recoupment of benefits under section 22 and schedule 4 of the Social Security Act 1989.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the year to 31 August 1991 the compensation recovery unit recovered £11·4 million.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to his Department of recouping benefits under section 22 and schedule 4 of the Social Security Act 1989.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 15 June at col.387.

  Benefits Service Targets
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what national targets for benefits services have been published since July; and what reports have been published by the Benefits Agency on how it performed against these targets.

  Mr. Burt
  The publication of national targets for benefits services and reports on performance against them are matters 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.

  Local Offices (Hours)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of benefits offices have adopted more flexible opening hours since July 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The opening hours of Benefits Agency offices 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.

  Contributions Agency Conference
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Social Security Contributions Agency held its 1991–92 annual conference; how national insurance contributors were informed of this event; and how many national insurance contributors attended it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Questions concerning the Contributions Agency's annual conference are matters for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors;

  (2) if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested. The Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and if he will calculate the staffing level of the Social Security section of the former Department of Health and Social Security and the associated personnel costs, immediately before its separation.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:
  605

  DHSS 1988–89 £ million

  DSS 1991–92 £ million

  Staff in Post

  184,667 (March 1989)

  78,277 (April 1992)

  Personnel Costs

  923·570

  1,117·481

  Notes:

  1. Included in personnel costs are salary costs of both permanent and casual staff, overtime as well as employers National Insurance costs.

  2. The 1991 figures are the latest available as personnel costs for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  3. The staff in post data is based on manual returns.

  4. Separation of the Departments of Health and Social Security took place April 1989.

  1 DSS staff only

  Pension Age
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the outcome of the discussion document, "Options for Equality in State Pension Age."

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 2 July at column 700–1.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will propose legislation under which the administrator of a pension fund would be required to(a) send a summary of the fund's accounts, as soon as they are available, to all beneficiaries and (b) notify all beneficiaries as to how to obtain a copy of the latest year's accounts;

  (2) what plans his Department has to make the Occupational Pensions Board the main supervisory body for the pensions industry;

  (3) if he will draw up proposals under which pension fund investment assets would (a) be held by independent custodian trustees and (b) have their ownership clearly designated upon them;

  (4) what proposals he has to strengthen the role of the Occupational Pensions Board to enable it to carry out the task of running any pensions compensation scheme that may be recommended by the pensions law review committee;

  (5) if he will draw up proposals under which letters of representation obtained in pensions fund audits would be required to leave the directors and trustees of those funds in no doubt as to their responsibilities with regard to the ownership, appropriateness, valuation and custody of investments;

  (6) if he will make it Government policy to ensure that beneficiaries of pension funds have an annual opportunity of questioning the trustees on their administration of those funds;

  (7) if he will propose legislation which would establish a pension compensation fund;

  (8) whether the pensions law review committee under the chairmanship of Professor Goode QC intends to examine the practicalities of the idea that each pensioner should have the annual right of transferring his entire assets from his pension scheme into another recognised financial institution;
  606
  (9) if he will make it his policy to ensure the Occupational Pensions Board monitors (a) the appointment of pension fund trustees, (b) the winding-up of pension funds and the division of their assets and (c) the annual reports and accounts of pension funds lodged with the board;

  (10) if he will issue guidelines codifying (a) the specific obligations of pension fund trustees to maintain proper accounting and (b) the form which auditors' reports to pension fund trustees should follow so that future areas of risk are qualified and explained;

  (11) if he will make a statement as to how the Government consider the Inland Revenue can best fit in the work of the superannuation funds office in monitoring pension funds with the work of the Occupational Pensions Board in policing those funds;

  (12) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to actuaries of pension funds advising them on what is their role in ensuring the nation's pension funds are safe, secure and run in a fit and proper manner;

  (13) if he will instruct the Occupational Pensions Board to begin urgent discussions with the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation to discover how many pension funds entrust assets to managements whose ultimate control lies outside the jurisdiction of Great Britain;

  (14) what steps he intends to take to bring about a co-ordination of (a) pensions industry regulatory bodies and (b) the checks carried out on pension funds by the different professional advisers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In accordance with their manifesto promise the Government set up a Pension Law review committee on 8 June under the chairmanship of Professor Goode QC. The wide terms of reference given to the review committee will enable it to look at the overall framework of occupational pensions. The recommendations will form the basis for the Government to bring forward any detailed changes which are found to be necessary in order to give added protection to occupational pension schemes. The conclusions of the Select Committee report and points raised by the hon. Member and others will be among the issues the review committee will wish to take into account in deciding on its recommendations.

  Working Hours Rule
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claimants have been disallowed income support because the weekly working hours regulation has been reduced from 24 hours to 16 hours;

  (2) if he will review the regulation that disallows claimants income support and therefore mortgage interest payment because their partner works more than 16 hours per week;

  (3) how many claimants have been refused income support and mortgage interest payments from his Department because their partners work between 16 and 24 hours per week; and how many have subsequently re-applied and been allowed benefit because (a) their partners have stopped work or (b) work less than 16 hours per week;

  (4) how many home owners are (a) having their homes repossessed or (b) in arrears of more than two months

  607
  with their mortgage because they are not in receipt of mortgage interest payments from his Department because their partners work more than 16 hours per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available. The change in the income support hours rule from 24 to 16 hours a week was made in April 1992 as part of a package of measures aimed at helping working families with children, and lone parents in particular. By reducing the number of hours it is necessary to work in order to qualify for family credit, many more families are able to claim that benefit and many will be better-off than they would have been on income support, even after paying for their mortgage.

  Those people who were working, or whose partners were working, between 16 and 24 hours a week and receiving income support at the point of change were able to continue to receive income support including any help with their mortgage interest.

  It is too soon to say how the rule is working in practice but we are monitoring its effects.

  Disabled Employers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of 30 June,Official Report, column 503, how many and what proportion of his Department's employees were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Burt
  The information for the Department and its executive agencies is in the tables:

  Grade

  Total

  Registered disabled

  Percentage

  As at 1 June 1989

  1 to 7

  703·0

  1·0

  0·1

  Others

  81,751·0

  1,262·0

  1·5

  Total

  82,454·0

  1,263·0

  1·5

  As at 1 June 1990

  1 to 7

  730·5

  2·0

  0·3

  Others

  79,377·0

  1,374·5

  1·7

  TOTAL

  80,750·5

  1,376·5

  1·7

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not include staff with disabilities who choose not to register or chose not to disclose their registration.

  2. The figures do not include registered disabled people employed under the sheltered placement scheme.

  3. For each grade, all non-industrial staff in equivalent grades are included.

  4. The figures for grades 1 to 7 have been grouped together as the numbers of registered disabled staff in these grades are very small and they risk identifying an individual.

  5. All figures are full-time equivalents.

  Social Fund
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 433, of the 65 applications for discretionary social fund awards which were refused by the Lewisham and Brixton office, how many applicants lived in Lewisham, Deptford.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the members of the disability living allowance advisory board; how often the board has met; whether it has yet given any advice to Ministers; when it expects to issue its first report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The names of the members of the disability living allowance advisory board are in the table. It has met four times in full and nine times in quorum. So far, the board has given Ministers valuable advice on the content of the disability handbook—all of which has been acted upon. The board is due to produce its first report in April 1993.

  Members of the disability living allowance advisory board

  Professor J. Marshall CBE, DSc, MD, FRCP, DPM

  Mrs. J. Allen-King MBE

  Mrs. J. Ashcroft

  Mrs. P. Case CBE, BA

  Dr. A. K. Clarke BSc, MBBS, FRCP

  Miss E. Fanshawe OBE, DipCOT

  Mrs. J. Franklin CQSW

  Mr. S. R. Gallop MA

  Mrs. C. Henry RGN

  Dr. C. F. Herridge MA, MB, BChir, FRCPsych. DPM

  Dr. J. A. Hunter BSc, MBChB, FRCP

  Miss S. Knibbs CQSW

  Mr. P. Large CBE

  Dr. I. McKinlay BSc, MBChB, FRCP

  Dr. T. J. G. Phillips MBBS, FRFPS, MRCP. MFOM

  Mrs. S. A. Philbrook

  Dr. M. Piper MB, BS, FRCP

  Dr. M. Richards BSc, MB, BCh, FRCGP

  Professor H. Simpson MD, FRCP, DCH, DRCOG

  Mr. A. Williamson LLB, MA(Ed), CQSW

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of claims for A8 and A4 prescribed diseases for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to implement the recommendation of the May 1992 report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (Cm. 1936).

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 21 May at column 241.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the average cost to the Exchequer over 12 months of an unemployed former civilian Ministry of Defence employee in unemployment benefit, income support, mortgage interest payments or housing benefits, free dentistry and prescriptions and poll tax rebates.

  Mr. Burt
  A reliable estimate is not possible.

SCOTLAND

  DNA information
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the provision of DNA information about patients to insurance companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information obtained from DNA testing is confidential and should be treated in the same way as other personal health information. It should not be disclosed to insurance companies without the prior consent of the patient.

  Genetics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy conclusions have been drawn in relation to genetic therapy and genetic counselling from the conference "Our Genetic Future" held at BMA house on 30 June.

  Mr. Stewart
  The conference was an important contribution to the debate about the issues surrounding developments in genetic research. The Government recognise the importance of counselling for both sufferers and their families and are currently considering their response to the report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy. Cm 1788.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses are currently trained in the detection and treatment of genetic disorders; and what plans he has to increase the numbers.

  Mr. Stewart
  (a) The information collected centrally records only the main specialty of a doctor. The numbers—whole-time equivalent—of doctors in the specialty of medical genetics at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which information is available, are given in the table.

  Whole time equivalent

  Consultants

  4·2

  Associate specialists

  1·0

  Senior registrars

  3·2

  Registrars

  4·4

  Total

  12·8

  (b) Information on nurses trained in medical genetics is not available centrally.

  The numbers of doctors in the training grades of registrar and senior registrar reflect health boards' plans for staffing the specialty.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to promote the early adoption of new techniques of diagnosis management, and treatment of the effect of genetic disease, including proven gene therapy;

  (2) what strategy he has to use new molecular knowledge in surgery and treatment; and what training is given to those who use manipulative techniques in this field.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government consider that it is important that applications of new molecular biological techniques to the diagnosis, management and treatment of patients should be subjected to stringent evaluation before 610
  they are adopted for use in clinical practice. In Scotland, new techniques are kept under close review by the Scottish Molecular Genetics Consortium, established in 1984, one of whose purposes is the co-ordination of approaches towards the diagnosis of genetic disorders.

  The committee on the ethics of gene therapy was set up in 1989 to provide advice to the United Kingdom Health Ministers on scientific and medical developments which have a bearing on the safety and efficiency of human gene modification. The committee's report was published in January this year and a public consultation on its recommendations ended on 18 May. The Government are currently considering their response to the report.

  Each of the royal colleges and faculties takes the lead on professional training within its own speciality. Training in molecular biological techniques is available for clinicians in training programmes organised by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and other bodies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he is making to provide genetic counselling for(a) individual patients, (b) family groups and (c) relatives of victims of genetic disorders.

  Mr. Stewart
  Specialist genetic counselling is provided by clinical geneticists based in the four genetic advisory centres in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen. In addition, other clinicians, including obstetricians, paediatricians and GPs play an important role in counselling those suffering from genetic disorders, their families and those whose future children may suffer from such disorders.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has made of the practice of payment from one health authority to another in paying for tests relating to genetic disorders.

  Mr. Stewart
  No such study has been undertaken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the need of central laboratories for clinical geneticists.

  Mr. Stewart
  A review last year of the four laboratories which comprise the Scottish Molecular Genetics Consortium identified a need for two additional consultant clinical geneticist posts. Both should be filled in the near future. The need for any further increase is under discussion with the consortium.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the provision of genetic registers, and enabling such registers to play a role in the elimination of potential carriers of disease.

  Mr. Stewart
  The first computerised genetic register in the United Kingdom, RAPID—Register for the Ascertainment and Prevention of Genetic Disease—was developed and established in the department of human genetics at Edinburgh university in 1970. All four of the major medical centres in Scotland now have such registers.

  Thalassaemia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is made for those suffering from thalassaemia.

  Mr. Stewart
  Thalassaemia can be detected by pre-natal tests, and the Scottish Molecular Genetics Consortium
  611
  offers such a service. Individuals suffering from thalassaemia major are treated mainly by blood transfusion coupled with iron-reducing drugs.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discretion local authorities have over the collection of small amounts of outstanding community charge debt where costs of collection are greater than the amount due.

  Mr. Stewart
  Local authorities must consider each case on its merits and be prepared to explain the reasonableness of their approach to their auditors if necessary.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give figures showing, for each local authority, the number of cases of community charge collection where the amount collected was less than the costs of collection;

  (2) if he will give figures showing the costs for each Scottish local authority of enforcement action for the recovery of community charge debt and the amounts so recovered;

  (3) if he will give figures showing the costs for each Scottish local authority of enforcement action for the recovery of community charge debt in cases where the costs of collection are greater than the amount due.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not held centrally.

  Speech Therapy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much of the speech therapy provision announced on 24 February is to be distributed to(a) under-fives, (b) children in mainstream education and (c) children with mental handicaps;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of speech therapy provision for children with records of needs in each of the regional council areas; and how many such children there are in each.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As soon as the information is available I will reply to the hon. Member in writing.

  Sheriff Ewen Stewart
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now considered the findings of the investigation undertaken by the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk of the fitness for office of Sheriff Ewen Stewart; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a decision on the case of Sheriff Ewen Stewart before 16 July.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: As I announced last year, following representations, including representations from Members of this House, and in the light of the observations of Sheriff Principal R. A. Bennet QC in a particular case, I concluded that it would be appropriate for an investigation to be undertaken of the fitness for office of Sheriff Ewen Stewart. I therefore asked the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk to carry out such an investigation under the provisions of section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. I received their report on 10 February 1992.
  612
  In the report, their lordships noted that this was the third occasion that an investigation had been undertaken into the fitness for office of Sheriff Stewart. Their lordships concluded that a general investigation would be appropriate into the sheriff's conduct since the date of the last report. Following preliminary inquiries, their lordships provided Sheriff Stewart with a list of the cases relevant to his conduct which they were to investigate and invited him to answer specific questions relating to these cases as well as to offer any general observations which he cared to make. On receipt of the sheriff's responses, further inquiries were made and their lordships interviewed Sheriff Stewart before completing their report.

  The conclusion of their lordships' very detailed report was that Sheriff Stewart was unfit for office by reason of inability to perform the judicial functions which are expected of a sheriff by virtue of his office and in terms of his judicial oath. On receipt of their lordships' report I arranged for a copy to be sent to Sheriff Stewart and invited him to comment on its findings. I have given very careful consideration to Sheriff Stewart's detailed response which he submitted to me on 4 May 1992, but I have decided, in all the circumstances, to bring forward an order removing him from office.

  I am arranging, to be placed in the Library of both Houses of Parliament, their lordships' letter of 10 February 1992, together with appendix A and appendix C thereto, under deletion from appendix A of two cases which their lordships decided, having considered Sheriff Stewart's response, did not merit further investigation. Appendix B, which contains Sheriff Stewart's responses to their lordships, has not been placed in the Library. As indicated by their lordships in appendix C to their letter, much of what is said by Sheriff Stewart is irrelevant to the cases which were under investigation. In addition, some parts of appendix B appear to be potentially defamatory.

DEFENCE

  Sexual Harassment and Assault
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of complaints by British service women of alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault against British service men for the latest year for which information is available; what action was taken as a result; and what procedures exist for reporting and investigating such instances.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of complaints made by British service women about alleged sexual harassment and assault involving British service men could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All complaints by service personnel of harassment of any nature are dealt with under normal redress of grievance procedures and, if substantiated, appropriate action would be taken against the offender. Normally, a complaint is dealt with by the commanding officer, but if it cannot be resolved at that level or the complainant is dissatisfied, it may be referred up the chain of command and ultimately to the Navy, Army, or Air Force board.

  If a service woman wishes to make a complaint of sexual assault, she should report the incident to her superior officer for action through the chain of command.

  613
  Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the matter would then be dealt with by the military authorities or civil police.

  Port of Dartmouth Royal Regatta
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the guardships which attended the Port of Dartmouth royal regatta in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement as to which ship will be present at the 1992 regatta, to be held between 26 and 30 August.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  1982—HMS Alfriston

  1983—HMS Achilles

  1984—HMS Euryalus

  1985—HMS Diomede

  1986—HMS Hermione

  1987—HMS Plymouth

  1988—HMS Avenger

  1989—HMS Cardiff

  1990—HMS Active

  1991—HMS Battleaxe

  HMS Sirius is currently scheduled to attend the 1992 regatta.

  Mr. Steen
  'To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for(a) HMS Alacrity or (b) HMS Gloucester to attend the 1992 Port of Dartmouth royal regatta as guardship between Wednesday 26 August and Sunday 30 August.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The provision of a guardship for the Dartmouth royal regatta depends on the availability of a suitable vessel after taking account of operational training commitments which must take precedence. Neither HMS Alacrity nor HMS Gloucester will be available; HMS Sirius is currently scheduled to attend the regatta.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will be represented at the session on restoration of militarily contaminated lands of the United Nation's conference on indigenous peoples in Geneva at the end of July.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Korea
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current United Kingdom military commitment in Korea, its present annual cost and the cost for each year since it began, both in actual and current prices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom's military presence in Korea comprises two defence attaches, a first secretary (defence supply) and their supporting staff in the British embassy in Seoul; members of the Commonwealth Liaison Mission to the United Nations Command, headed by the British defence attache; and a platoon of infantry as part of the United Nations honour guard. The full costs of the commitment are not normally separately identified within the Defence budget, but it is estimated that in 1991–92 they amounted to £1·9 million at 1991–92 outturn prices. Figures for previous years could not be made available without disproportionate effort.

  Armaments (Dumping at Sea)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to set a target date for the banning of the practice of dumping armaments at sea around the coast of the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will publish a list of all the sites utilised for dumping surplus armaments in the sea around the coast of the United Kingdom at present;

  (3) what mechanisms are utilised by his Department to monitor sites used for the dumping of armaments at sea, including environmental effects;

  (4) if he will publish a list of the materials contained in surplus armaments dumped around the coast of the United Kingdom over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  Ministry of Defence will terminate all sea dumping of redundant ammunition and explosive stocks by 1 January 1993. This is in line with the Government's general policy that where safe and practicable waste should be disposed of on land, in preference to dumping at sea. Dumping is carried out in a strictly controlled manner to ensure that it does not cause damage to the marine environment, or interfere with fishing, or other legitimate uses of the sea. Preparation of stores for dumping includes the removal of components containing toxic heavy metals which are not permitted to be disposed of in this manner. There has been no sea dumping of redundant ammunition and explosive stocks around the coast of the United Kingdom during the last 10 years. The only dump site in use is some 400 miles off Lands End in the Atlantic at a depth of some 4,500 m. The depth of this site precludes effective monitoring but there is no evidence to suggest that controlled dumping of conventional ammunition and explosives in this manner constitutes a risk to the marine environment.

  Overseas Equipment Sales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role British military attaches play in the sale of British defence equipment overseas.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his earlier question on British military attaches,Official Report column 671.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 July to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill),Official Report, column 656, what additional costs are incurred by his Department from preparing separate forms of statistics on defence expenditures for the annual statement on the defence estimates and the United Nations report on military expenditures.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information on defence expenditure provided to the United Nations and that contained within the annual statement on the Defence estimates are both based on information collected within the MoD for financial management purposes. It is not possible to quantify any additional costs.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table of expenditure on equipment purchased by his Department, cross-referenced to
  615
  standard regions, showing Greater London as a separate region, for each year since 1987–88 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's expenditure on equipment between 1985–86 and 1990–91 broken down by region, together with estimates of the associated direct employment, is published in table 1.11 of the 1992 edition of "Defence Statistics". Separate figures for Greater London could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort. The published figures may be recast to the price base desired by the use of published indices.

  Residential Properties
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by his Department; if he will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and the intended future use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence currently owns 12 residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham, all of which are occupied.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr Aitken
  Following is the information:

  Full time equivalent Civil servants (Number)

  United Kingdom

  Locally employed overseas

  Cost at 1991–92 price £ million

  1 April 1970

  257,906

  68,400

  4,140

  1 April 1992

  139,454

  27,000

  2,853

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors;

  (2) if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering public appointments and the engagement of advisers.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the number of civilian employees who will lose their jobs when fast jet training ceases at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have issued 42 redundancy notices so far, with a further four to follow. In addition, a total of 10 employees are to be transferred either to other Government Departments or within MoD.
  616
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to his Department of redundancy and other linked payments to those civilian employees who will lose their jobs when tactical weapons training ceases at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total cost to the Department is estimated to be in the region of £440,000.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the average cost to the Exchequer for redundancy and related payments including any enhancements and payments in lieu of notice for a civilian Ministry of Defence employee.

  Mr. Aitken
  Civil service redundancy payments are paid under the compulsory early retirement terms of the principal civil service pension scheme and are based on an individual's age, length of service and rate of pay at the time of leaving. It is, therefore, not possible to give a meaningful average figure.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 688, to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), (a) how many of his Department's employees, and (b) what proportion of his Department's employees, were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence employed 1,202 and 1,210 registered disabled persons in 1989 and 1990 respectively. This represented 1 per cent. and 0·9 per cent. of the total civilian work force.

  Departmental Property (Extensions)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on consultations with the appropriate local parliamentary representatives when extensions to his Department's property are proposed which may have detrimental consequences for the area concerned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Except where security considerations are over-riding, it is my Department's policy to consult fully with local planning authorities (or, in Northern Ireland, the planning service) about any development proposals. Only in exceptional circumstances would it be our practice to notify the constituency MP.

  RAF Regiment
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the future organisation of the RAF regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of our programme to create a more efficient structure for the RAF, studies have been made into the future size and shape of the RAF regiment.

  The restructuring of RAF Germany removed the requirement for two of the United Kingdom based RAF regiment light armoured squadrons (LAS), which in time of war would have provided ground defence of forward operating bases in Germany. Following the disbandment

  617
  of 58 squadron LAS at Catterick earlier this year, 51 squadron LAS—also at Catterick—will disband with effect from 31 March 1993. This will leave the RAF regiment with three light armoured squadrons and a field squadron. Further economies will be achieved by replacing the armoured vehicles with soft-skinned wheeled vehicles, scaled with mortars for fire support. The new field role for the squadrons will provide them with greater operational flexibility than hitherto. The Queen's Colour squadron will also assume additional operational duties as a war-roled field squadron.

  These changes, together with the reduction in the number of Rapier squadrons from 10 to eight earlier this year, will reduce the need for the existing level of the RAF regiment's headquarters organisations. With effect from 1 October 1992, therefore, HQ 3 wing at Catterick and HQ 33 wing at Gutersloh will be disbanded.

  Our studies have looked carefully into rationalisation of the RAF regiment bases in the United Kingdom. The results have shown that cost savings and greater efficiency can be achieved through the maximum degree of collocation possible of the regiment's activity in the United Kingdom. In early 1994, HQ 6 wing RAF regiment, No. 66 sqn RAF regiment and the Rapier training unit will move from RAF West Raynham to Honington, involving the relocation of just over 200 service men. This is in line with the rationalisation measures announced in the 1991 Defence White Paper. No final decision has yet been made about the West Raynham base. Apart from a short term requirement for married quarters and domestic accommodation, the RAF has no future requirement for the base. Other possible defence uses for West Raynham are being considered.

  It is further proposed that the RAF regiment depot and No. 2 sqn RAF regiment will move from Catterick to Honington. The move is planned to take place in late 1993/early 1994 and would involve the relocation of about 500 service men.

  Everything possible would be done to avoid redundancies of the civilian work force employed at the bases affected by these changes. Army use of RAF Catterick could provide job opportunities for the existing civilian employees. There may also be opportunities for alternative employment at Catterick garrison. In the absence of a future defence requirement for West Raynham some redundancies are likely to be necessary. Anyone made redundant would be compensated under the terms of the appropriate pension scheme. The MoD would establish close contact with employers in the areas affected, including other Government Departments, and any staff leaving prematurely under voluntary or compulsory redundancy terms would be eligible for the services provided by the MoD counselling and outplacement service. The trade unions will be consulted in the usual way.

  Army Static Workshop Organisation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Army Static Workshop Organisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The changes in the size and shape of the Army following from "Options for Change" will result in a considerable reduction in the volume of repair work undertaken by the Army's base and district workshops. Accordingly, a wide ranging review has been 618
  undertaken to assess the numbers and locations of workshops which will be required to support the Army in the future from the financial, engineering and operational viewpoints.

  The main recommendations of that review are that 39 district workshop, Bridgend, 41 district workshop, York, and 42 district workshop, Liverpool, should close by 31 March 1993; and that 23 base workshop at Wetter in Germany should close by 31 March 1994. These closures will remove surplus capacity from the organisation and they will also lead to a substantial increase in the volume of contract repair undertaken by British industry. Overall, they are expected to achieve savings in operating costs of some £7 million per year.

  The German authorities have been informed of our intention to close 23 base workshop. We will consult with them fully throughout the closure process and we will follow normal procedures with the Works Council. In the United Kingdom we are about to start a full period of consultation with the relevant trade unions over all the proposed closures. A final decision will be taken in the light of any representations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Catches
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the figures showing the landings in tonnes of(a) cod, (b) sole and (c) haddock in each year from 1970 onwards.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested relating to all landings into the United Kingdom is given in the table.

  Landings into the United Kingdom by British and foreign fishing vessels (tonnes landed weight). The figures include landings from fishing grounds in the North Atlantic which have, over the period, been closed to British fishermen

  Year

  Cod

  Sole

  Haddock

  1970

  366,674

  1,624

  179,527

  1971

  326,034

  1,372

  183,642

  1972

  323,545

  1,372

  157,988

  1973

  290,424

  1,473

  154,991

  1974

  290,576

  1,168

  132,690

  1975

  272,344

  1.312

  116,064

  1976

  260,809

  1,588

  130,639

  1977

  175,380

  1,490

  124,229

  1978

  168,970

  1,804

  87,606

  1979

  160,271

  2,133

  82,542

  1980

  148,024

  1,937

  94,664

  1981

  147,988

  1,865

  106,864

  1982

  141,610

  2,271

  134,371

  1983

  135,959

  2,383

  126,989

  1984

  113,816

  2,596

  109,741

  1985

  112,447

  2,980

  135,113

  1986

  94,422

  3,426

  133,628

  1987

  108,866

  3,560

  105,378

  1988

  94,396

  3,372

  100,885

  1989

  84,941

  3,401

  75,184

  19901

  74,526

  3,612

  52,115

  1 The figures for 1990 have not yet been published but have been finalised.

  Source: Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to eliminate the practice of discarding unwanted fish by fishermen.

  Mr. Curry
  The increase in mesh sizes and the use of square mesh panels which formed important parts of the
  619
  EC and United Kingdom conservation measures introduced on 1 June 1992 are designed to lead to a reduction in discards by allowing more juvenile fish to escape from nets. Following discussion in the Community the EC Commission are preparing detailed proposals to tackle aspects of the problem further. In addition most of the gear research work funded by United Kingdom fisheries departments is concerned with gear selectivity.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what figures he has of the number of fisheries inspectors employed, at the latest available date, by each relevant European Community country, apart from the United Kingdom;

  (2) what figures he has of the number of fishing protection vessels deployed at the latest available date in each relevant country in the European Community, other than the United Kingdom; and how many personnel were engaged on such vessels of each such authority.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission's report on the common fisheries policy, dated 6 December 1990—reference SEC(90) 2244 final—includes the following information

  Number of land based inspection staff

  Inspection vessels longer than 15 metres

  Belgium

  3

  6

  Denmark

  200

  7

  Germany

  20

  10

  Spain

  12

  23

  France

  20

  9

  Ireland

  7

  7

  Netherlands

  180

  12

  Portugal

  12

  26

  The report notes that the resources which some member states devote to control and enforcement are inadequate, and the Government will be pressing for improvements as part of the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 25 June,Official Report, column 387, if he will set out the information available to his Ministry on the performance by private contracted vessels of the maritime fishery protection service in Scotland.

  Mr. Curry
  Surface fishery protection duties in Scotland are carried out partly by the Royal Navy and partly by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency using civilian vessels. The SFPA will shortly publish its first annual report. This will analyse performance and the effectiveness of the fisheries protection services provided. A key indicator of fisheries protection performance is the number of boardings achieved. The number of boardings of fishing vessels by civilian-manned vessels of the SFPA has increased from 1,125 in 1985–86 to 2,100 in 1991–92.

  Renderers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of licensed renderers in each year since 1987.
  620
  Mr. Soames
  The statutory requirement for renderers to register their premises with this Department was introduced in 1989 in the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989.

  The number of renderers premises registered under that requirement in each year since then has been:

  Number

  1989

  67

  1990

  63

  1991

  67

  1992

  57

  Bare Fallow Option
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a bare fallow option will be allowed to farmers, under the set-aside rules, so as to cultivate weeds out.

  Mr. Curry
  We will consider the scope for some form of bare summer fallow once the Commission implementing regulations, on which national scheme rules must be based, have been adopted, are, however, likely to require a winter green.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what latest estimate he has made of the percentage of United Kingdom fish quotas which are caught by vessels on the United Kingdom fishing register which are beneficially non-British owned; and if he will list such percentages by fish stock.

  Mr. Curry
  I regret that the information requested cannot be extracted except at disproportionate cost.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the percentage cut in the number of fishing vessels to be required of all relevant European Community countries, other than the United Kingdom, under the same requirement as requires the United Kingdom to cut its number by 30 per cent; and if he will make a statement on what requirements each relevant European Community country, other than the United Kingdom, is placing on its fishing fleet parallel to the measures proposed in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.

  Mr. Curry
  Negotiations between member states and the Commission on the targets to be set in the 1993–96 multiannual guidance programme are not yet complete. The Commission has, however, indicated that targets will be comparable between member states and will involve a combination of capacity and effort reductions. Targets will also be segmented with more severe reductions set for those sections of the fleet prosecuting the more heavily exploited fisheries and the lighter reductions for sectors where the stock position is relatively satisfactory. No figure has been agreed yet for the United Kingdom.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts have been undertaken by his Department to enforce the United Nations ban on the use of large-scale drift nets.
  621
  Mr. Curry
  From 1 June 1992 the United Kingdom, in common with other European Community states, applied Communitywide measures which, with certain exceptions not relevant to the British fishing fleet, prohibit the use by EC vessels of drift nets longer than 2·5km wherever they fish. These measures go further than the United Nations resolution which only dealt with drift nets used on the high seas.

  Sea Mammals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to monitor the number of dolphins and other non-target animals killed in fishing gear, and to control fisheries with a high incidence of kills; and if he will make it his policy to set a target date for the reduction of by-catch non-target species to zero.

  Mr. Curry
  A voluntary reporting scheme was introduced on 1 January 1992. On information available whilst accidental catches occur in our waters these are limited and not of the substantial numbers as have been seen in the east Pacific yellow fin tuna fishery. Our policy is that accidental catches should be avoided as far as possible. Further research to assist this is in hand.

  The Naze
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list what European Community financial aid, under what headings, will be available for the prevention of erosion of the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze.

  Mr. Curry
  Essex is not an area eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund. However, actions to protect soil damaged by coastal erosion may be eligible for support under EC's LIFE programme, the Community's financial instrument for the environment.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters arising from the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development are due to be discussed at the European Agriculture Council on 13 and 14 July.

  Mr. Curry
  None at this Council. However, the integration of environmental considerations into agricultural policy will be a priority for the United Kingdom presidency in line with UNCED conclusions.

  Livestock (Minerals)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the impact of the withdrawal of calcium, magnesium, phosphate and dextrose on the welfare of livestock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A number of medicinal products containing calcium in combination with these other substances are currently being examined by the Veterinary Products Committee as part of a review of pharmaceutical products licensed before 1 January 1984, to ensure that they meet modern day standards of safety, quality and efficacy. It is for the individual pharmaceutical companies 622
  involved to make a commercial decision whether or not to provide the data to support their products through the review process. If such data demonstrates that the necessary scientific criteria have been met, then a licence may be granted.

  Such calcium combination products continue to be available, but the Veterinary Medicines Directorate maintains regular contact with the British Veterinary Association and the National Office of Animal Health, to ensure that it receives an early warning where a loss of products in any group might lead to a problem with animal welfare.

  Badger Culling
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to ordering an immediate moratorium on badger culling as a way of eradicating cattle tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This idea has been closely examined, notably within the Ministry's consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis. There are at present no plans to introduce a moratorium.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. The Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Organic Foods
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to make representations to the European Commission calling for a postponement of any decision relating to the EC directive on organic foods at the Commission's meeting on 23 July.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed at its meeting on 13 and 14 July to postpone the effective starting date of the regulation on organic foods, from 23 July 1992 to 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek amendments to the European directive on organic foods to ensure that permanent safeguards for small shops and operators are built into the directive.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC regulation on organic foods applies to anyone engaged in the growing, processing and importing from countries outside the Community, of food to be labelled as "organic". The regulation will provide safeguards to consumers, as well as to bona fide growers and processors, that food sold as organic has been grown according to a recognised standard. We have no plans to seek special arrangements for any group.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline Government funding of organic farming and conversion schemes for the last two years; and if he will make a statement.
  623
  Mr. Curry
  No specific schemes are currently available for organic farmers although of course they can make full use of support schemes available to farmers generally. The agri-environment part of the CAP reform agreement will provide a framework within which aid could be given to existing organic farmers and those wishing to convert. Proposals for such scheme are currently under consideration.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. The Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. Curry
  The total staff employed by the Department is as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1970

  16,246

  1 July 1992

  10,583

  The total pay provision for 1992–93 is £210·7 million. The comparable figure for 1970 could be determined only at disproportionate cost.

  Cormorants
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 683, if he has yet obtained figures from his Ministry's north-east regional service centre regarding the number of licences for the killing or taking of cormorants in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Soames
  I have now received the required details from the Ministry's north-east regional service centre. No applications have been received and no licences issued for the killing or taking of cormorants in this region in the last five years. The table provided in my previous reply therefore remains unchanged.

  Year

  Applications received

  Licences issued

  1987

  6

  3

  1988

  4

  2

  1989

  3

  2

  1990

  9

  4

  1991

  8

  3

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that all interested buyers of milk and dairy products, including 624
  secondary users, will be fully consulted on proposals to change the current United Kingdom milk marketing arrangements and to supply details of the planned timetable for consultations.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are currently considering the milk marketing boards' proposals for its transformation into non-statutory structures. We intend to introduce legislation to facilitate this change this parliamentary Session. We are committed to full consultation of all interests affected beforehand.

  Lobsters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to European Commissioner Marin to challenge the imposition on British shell fishermen of an EC change in the method of measuring lobsters from carapace length to overall length, resulting in a reduction in minimum landing size; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Our industry was consulted about the change in the EC rule for measuring lobsters, designed to remove ambiguity in the original EC regulation and to help fishermen by generally only requiring one measurement. We have already alerted the Commission to our concerns and have now prepared data to press the case for further and urgent modification of the rule to remove the inadvertent effect of allowing smaller lobsters to be landed than under the original regulation.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 1 July,Official Report, column 643 (a) how many of his Department's employees, and (b) what proportion of his Department's employees, were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Counting part time staff as half units, MAFF and its agencies employed 140·5 registered disabled staff in 1989 and 139·5 in 1990. These figures represent 1·4 per cent. of total staff, but do not take into account staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Apple and Pear Research Council
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his consultation on the future of the Apple and Pear Research Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to announce that, having consulted the council and representative organisations in England and Wales, I have decided that the Apple and Pear Research Council should continue with its present constitution and functions for a further five years.

  Our consultations with the industry have clearly demonstrated that the Apple and Pear Research Council is held in high esteem by it and that it commands a high level of confidence from the levy paying growers. This unequivocal response from the industry ensures that the council will be in the strongest possible position to take forward the research and development role which is so vital to the industry's needs.
  625
  I have decided that when a suitable opportunity occurs one change should be made to the Apple and Pear Research Council Order 1989 which has been endorsed by the council and the industry's representative bodies. The maximum levy the council is empowered to collect will be increased from £25 to £30 per hectare of orchard area. Although the current levy rate is below the permitted maximum, I believe that it is sensible to allow for developments over the new life of the council.

EMPLOYMENT

  Special Needs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for placements have been made by people with special needs to each training and enterprise council in England in each year since the establishment of the councils; and how many have successfully received placements in each instance.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a range of estimates of the economic effects of wages councils on levels of payment, employment, unemployment and economic activity.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A number of studies which estimate the economic effects of wages councils have been published. They are based on differing research methods and have been conducted at different times, so their results may not be directly comparable. For this reason it is not sensible to present a range of estimates.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she proposes to issue a consultation paper on the roles, functions and operations of wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has commissioned a survey of opinion on wages councils among(a) employers and (b) employees in wage council industries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no plans to carry out a further consultation exercise. Full public consultation took place in 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost to her Department of(a) wages councils and (b) enforcement of minimum pay rates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  For the financial year ended 31 March 1992 the cost of administering the wages councils was £197,000 and the cost of enforcement of minimum pay rates was £2,080,000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who has been consulted on the future of wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Full public consultation took place in 1988.
  626
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Government last announced a reassessment of their policy on wages councils; and when it became her policy to abolish all wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the previous Secretary of State, announced on 6 March 1990 that, following the last consultation exercise, the wages councils' system has no permanent place in the labour market and their operation would be kept under close review. This remains the Government's policy.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for her Department to celebrate in 1993, the European Year of the Elderly; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 July 1992 Official Report, columns 430–31.

  Job Vacancies (Wages)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether jobcentres accept vacancies from employers where the wages offered fall below the relevant wages council minimum.

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

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance has been given to training and enterprise councils to enter into short-term contracts, and on what basis, and with what criteria, that guidance is to be applied.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has not issued any guidance to training and enterprise councils about entering into short-term contracts.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what proportion of Employment Service local offices displayed an up-to-date list of all services offered by their office on 1 April;

  (2) what percentage of the population was served by an Employment Service one-stop shop; and what percentage was served by separate employment and benefit offices at 1 April;

  (3) what percentage of local offices offered freephone services for job seekers on 1 April.

  Mr.McLoughlin
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred these questions for reply.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff her Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel cost in 1970.
  627
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total number of staff employed by the Department at 1 July 1992 was 59,684 at a total salary cost provision for 1992–93 of £1,037·2 million. The staffing level in 1970–71 was 27,872 at an annual salary cost of £41·8 million.

  DTI Inspections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will list any public appointments by her Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors;

  (2) if she will list any advisers retained by her Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. The Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Residential Properties
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by her Department; if she will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and the intended future use.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not own any residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 since 1 January 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Prosecutions under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 may be taken against employers, employees or the self-employed. Details of the number of employers prosecuted are not held centrally. However, during the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1991 the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates initiated proceedings which resulted in 55 informations laid or complaints taken in England, Wales and Scotland during this period. This is the latest figure available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many incidents of exposure to or contact with harmful substances occurred in workplaces registered with(a) the factory inspectorate, (b) the quarries inspectorate, (c) the agricultural inspectorate, (d) the nuclear inspectorate and (e) the mines inspectorate in each year since 1989;

  (2) how many incidents of exposure to or contact with harmful substances occurred in workplaces registered with the railway inspectorate in each year since 1989;

  (3) how many people were reported to have been exposed to or in contact with a harmful substance in each year between 1986 and 1991;

  (4) how many fatal accidents have been associated with exposure to or contact with hazardous substances in 1989, 1990 and 1991.
  628
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Fatalities arising from accidents involving contact with or exposure to a harmful substance reported to all Health and Safety Commission enforcing authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are given in the table:

  11989–90

  11990–91

  Employees

  7

  8

  Self-employed

  1

  3

  Members of public2

  3

  1

  TOTAL

  11

  12

  1 Years commencing 1 April.

  2 Members of the public killed as a result of someone else's work activity.

  Occupational injuries arising from exposure to, or contact with a harmful substance reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and to local authorities, for years' between 1986 to 1991 are given in the table.

  Year2

  Fatal

  Major3

  Over 3 day4

  Total

  1986–87

  7

  535

  1,198

  1,740

  1987–88

  11

  421

  1,307

  1,739

  1988–89

  7

  397

  1,167

  1,571

  1989–90

  11

  452

  1,312

  1,775

  1990–915

  12

  499

  1,250

  1,761

  1 Injuries at work to employees, self—employed persons and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  2 Years commencing 1 April.

  3 As defined under RIDDOR.

  4 An injury causing incapacity for work for more than three days and reportable for employed persons only.

  5 Includes reports made to the HSE's Quarries Inspectorate.

  Apart from a small number of specific dangerous occurrences, the RIDDOR require injuries rather than incidents to be reported. Information on the number of incidents involving exposure to or contact with a harmful substance is therefore not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the quality of the suppliers' information on hazardous substances; and what measures the Health and Safety Executive is planning to improve the quality of manufacturers' data sheets.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Manufacturers are required to provide information on hazardous substances under section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Compliance with this requirement is routinely monitored by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive during visits to manufacturers and their customers. A special survey, by HSE's inspectors, on compliance with section 6 was carried out during 1991–92. Information on this will be available by the beginning of 1993.

  I am pleased to be able to say that on 13 July the Health and Safety Commission published proposals for new regulations dealing with the provision of information on hazardous chemicals. Among other requirements the proposed Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations will, for the first time, oblige suppliers of dangerous chemicals to provide the recipient with a safety data sheet. The standard of the safety data sheet is specified in the draft regulations and is based on an EC

  629
  directive. A code of practice will accompany the regulations and give advice on the completion of the safety data sheet.

  I have made arrangements for the hon. Member to be provided with a copy of the consultative document.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what groups are exempt from the requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The duties imposed by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 do not extend to normal shipboard activities carried out by a ship's crew under the direction of the master, nor do they apply to work outside Great Britain: for example, extractive work in the North sea.

  Regulations 6 to 12, which protect persons against risks to their health, do not apply to work underground in a mine.

  The self-employed are exempt from the requirements for monitoring exposure and health surveillance, regulations 10 and 11.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted under regulation 12 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations for not providing adequate employee training in each year since 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Details of the number of employers prosecuted under regulation 12 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 are not held centrally. The only details available are for informations and complaints initiated by the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates. Their records show no informations were laid in England and Wales nor any complaints taken by procurators fiscal in Scotland under regulation 12 during April 1989 to March 1990. During April 1990 to March 1991, nine informations were laid in England and Wales or complaints taken by procurators fiscal in Scotland under this regulation.

  These are the latest figures available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine levied on employers in breach of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 for each year since 1 January 1989, including the latest figure for 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Details of the number of employers prosecuted under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) 1988 during the period April 1989 to March 1991 are not held centrally. However, the average fine levied per information in England and Wales or complaint taken by procurators fiscal in Scotland for breaches of COSHH during April 1989 to March 1990 was £600. During April 1990 to March 1991 the figure was £648. Figures are not available for 1992.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many different substances hazardous to health are estimated by the Health and Safety Executive to be at use in the workplace.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Health and Safety Executive officials estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 pure chemicals and :50,000 to 100,000 proprietary mixtures would be hazardous to 630
  health. An accurate estimate of the number of substances hazardous to health cannot be given except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when regulation 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 came into force; and what action the Health and Safety Executive is taking to ensure employers comply with the regulation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Regulation 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) come into force on 1 October 1989, but compliance with the requirement for employers to make a suitable and sufficient assessment—regulation 6·1—was deferred until 1 January 1990.

  The Health and Safety Executive has committed substantial resources to promoting awareness and understanding of the regulations throughout Great Britain. It has produced a wide range of guidance material, given lectures, held seminars and made site visits to promote COSHH. The HSE surveys show that over 80 per cent. of people in Great Britain work for companies aware of the regulations.

  Where it has been necessary, enforcement action for breaches of the regulation 6 of COSHH has been initiated by the HSE.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 633 to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) (a) how many of her Department's employees, and (b) what proportion of her Department's employees, were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows. 1,464·5–2·7 per cent—at 1 June 1989; and 1,544 at 1 June 1990–3·2 per cent.

  Note

  1. Staff working fewer than 10 hours per week arc not included.

  2. Staff working between 10 and 30 hours per week are counted as half staff units.

  Shell Oil, Merseyside
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the Health and Safety Executive report on the toxic emissions at Shell Oil on Merseyside.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive has not prepared a report for publication on any toxic emissions at Shell Oil, Merseyside.

  Factory Inspections
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises registered with the factory inspectorate have not been inspected in the last 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information about the number of fixed premises registered with the Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate that have not been inspected in the last 10 years is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mining Accidents
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has available about accident and injury rates in the deep mining industry broken down into those directly employed by British Coal and those employed by sub-contractors; if she will arrange to collect information on accident and injury rates which will allow comparison to be made of the relative safety of employees in the industry on an up-to-date basis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following information has been supplied to the Health and Safety Executive by the British Coal Corporation for the year 1991–92.

  Accident rate per 100,000 manshifts

  British Coal "Men on Colliery Books"

  Contractors

  Fatal injuries

  0·07

  0·06

  Major injuries

  2·60

  5·62

  Plus 3 day injuries

  18·52

  23·23

  Contractors normally work in the higher risk areas of the mine. A comparison between underground workers employed by British Coal Corporation and contractors' employees in similar occupations shows a major injury accident rate per 100,000 manshifts of 5·83 for contractors and 5·71 for BCC employees.

  The Health and Safety Executive will continue to collect or receive information which will allow the effective direction of resources to safeguard the health and safety of all workers in the mining industry.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answers of 8 July,Official Report, column 243, whether the information given for

  (a) Derelict land grant expenditure by DOE region since 1987–88 (prices at date of approval)

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  North

  13·520

  10·950

  8·228

  8·425

  8·279

  North West

  21·150

  17·980

  15·582

  11·745

  18·137

  Merseyside Task Force

  8·330

  8·000

  5·989

  7·813

  7·504

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9·750

  13·660

  12·052

  14·499

  19·109

  West Midlands

  16·630

  16·200

  12·753

  14·728

  17·190

  East Midlands

  8·230

  8·280

  8·457

  10·475

  11·417

  South West

  1·400

  1·680

  0·793

  1·638

  2·525

  South East

  0·610

  0·450

  0·138

  0·247

  0·212

  Eastern

  0·100

  0·140

  0·399

  0·524

  0·228

  Greater London

  1·050

  0·770

  1·042

  1·248

  1·633

  Total

  80·770

  78·110

  65·433

  71·342

  86·234

  (b) Derelict land grant expenditure by DOE region since 1987–88 at 1987–88 prices

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  North

  13·520

  10·212

  7·200

  6·814

  6·258

  North West

  21·150

  16·768

  13·634

  9·499

  13·709

  Merseyside Task Force

  8·330

  7·461

  5·240

  6·319

  5·672

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9·750

  12·739

  10·546

  11·726

  14·444

  West Midlands

  16·630

  15·108

  11·159

  11·912

  12·993

  East Midlands

  8·230

  7·722

  7·400

  8·472

  8·630

  South West

  1·400

  1·567

  0·694

  1·325

  1·909

  South East

  0·610

  0·420

  0·121

  0·200

  0·160

  Eastern

  0·100

  0·131

  0·349

  0·424

  0·172

  Greater London

  1·050

  0·718

  0·912

  1·009

  1·234

  Total

  80·770

  72·846

  57·255

  57·699

  65·181

  632
  1992–93 in her answers of 9 June, Official Report, column 139, and of 23 June to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, (Mr. Cousins) Official Report, column 164, is subject to the same degree of commercial confidentiality as the comparable information for each TEC.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Yes. All TECs need the assurance of commercial confidentiality to safeguard their negotiations with their providers.

  Upper Limb Disorder
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if she will list, for the most recent year for which figures are available, and for each of the five years before, the number of working days lost due to work-related upper limb disorder.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The data requested is not available. However, the accident and ill-health trailer to the 1990 labour force survey will provide estimates of the number of cases for different categories of work-related illness, and of work days lost, based on individuals' reports. The results of the survey are currently being analysed and will be published later this year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on derelect land grant, cross-referenced to standard regions, showing Greater London as a separate region, for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Derelict land grant expenditure in the period, by Department of the Environment administrative regions, is shown in the table.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the number of process applications received by local authorities under(a) block one processes, (b) block two processes and (c) block three processes to date, pursuant to the requirements of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and what evaluation he has made of the adequacy of resources available to local authorities to carry out their new pollution control responsibilities under the Act.

  Mr. Maclean
  The provisional total number of block one applications made to local authorities under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 up to 31 March this year is 3,049, according to the statistical returns sent to my Department by local authorities. The total of block two applications received by local authorities up to that date will be available soon and I will write to the hon. Member with that figure as soon as I can.

  The period for applications for block three processes began on 1 April this year; no statistics are yet available for these. The cost recovery charging scheme set up under section 8(2) of the Act is intended to recover the local authorities' relevant expenditure attributable to authorisations.

  In reviewing the level of fees and charges for 1992–93, my Department took into account the written submissions of the local authority associations on the charging scheme, as well as the views of industry. The Department has asked the local authority associations to submit evidence on the charging scheme again for this year's annual review of the scheme.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to update pollution paper No. 23, 1986, on public access to environmental information.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department will be consulting shortly on draft regulations and guidance to implement EC directive 90/313/EC on the freedom of access to information on the environment.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals Her Majesty's Government are putting forward at the current discussions at the United Nations in Geneva to tighten the Montreal protocol on substances damaging to the ozone layer.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to press for a specific target date for the introduction of HCFCs to be included within the Montreal protocol at the forthcoming conference on the revising of the Montreal protocol in Geneva.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom, together with the EC, is proposing that the phase out dates in the Montreal protocol be brought forward to the end of 1995. This is an advance on the current phase out schedules of four years for CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride and nine years for 1,1,1 trichloroethane. We are also proposing that HCFCs should be included in the protocol with strict 634
  controls on their areas of use, a quantitative limit on their total consumption and a final phase out date. The details of the controls will be decided by the parties during the review of the protocol in November.

  New Houses, South-West
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1986 the number of houses built in each of the districts of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall(a) by local authorities and (b) by housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding completions by local authorities and housing associations for each local authority area in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall are shown in the publications "Local Housing Statistics" and "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas". Figures for 1986 to 1988 are in tables 1·7 to 1·9 of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas: 1980 to 1989". Revised 1989 figures are in table 1(b) of the April 1991 edition—issue No. 97—of "Local Housing Statistics" and figures for 1990 and 1991 are in tables 1(a) and 1(b) of the April 1992 edition—issue No. 101. Copies of all these publications are in the Library.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993, the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, [Official Report, columns 430–31].

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he intends to review his policy of uniform business rate with respect to outdoor advertising companies;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the effect of the uniform business rate on outdoor advertising companies.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have received a number of representations on this subject since April 1990. Hoardings and other advertising stations constitute non-domestic property and will continue to be rateable, as they have been since the last century.

  Policy Formulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to increase the transparency in environmental policy formulation in the European Community during his presidency of the Environment Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom welcomes in principle proposals in the fifth environment action programme to improve consultation with environmental groups, business and others during the formulation of draft legislation. We will be asking the Council to endorse the programme during the United Kingdom presidency.

  Draft EC Legislation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made in draft environmental legislation inherited by the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom assumed the presidency on 1 July. Since then the Council's environment working group has had preliminary discussions on various matters. The first meeting of the Environment Council under the United Kingdom presidency will be on 20 October.

  Coalite Plant, Derbyshire
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether HM inspectorate of pollution will publish the results of air sampling in and around the Coalite plant in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. The results of the air sampling being commissioned by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will he published.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will acquire for his Departmental library a copy of the articles on ozone depletion and ultra-violet radiation, details of which had been sent to him.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department of the Environment Library already acquired a copy of the article when it was first published.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the level of essential use attributed to CFCs and HCFCs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and to the answer I gave on 16 June to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg),Official Report column 443, in which I explained that the Department has commissioned a study on CFC use within the United Kingdom refrigeration and air conditioning industry. The study will identify areas of CFC use which need to continue and for which alternative technologies are not yet available. The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned a similar study into the use of CFCs as solvents.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to quantify the use of CFCs in the United Kingdom and the extent to which current demand can be met by recycling rather than from existing production.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 June to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg),Official Report column 442. In that answer I announced that the Department has commissioned a study of the use of CFCs by the United Kingdom refrigeration and air conditioning industry. This will seek to quantify the level of CFCs that the industry will need until the year 2000 and the extent to which this can be met from recycled material. The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned a similar study into the use of CFCs as solvents.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the rough sleepers initiative beyond 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently considering the future of the initiative. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has had a number of useful meetings with voluntary organisations and others.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total level of poll tax arrears outstanding at the end of 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on 7 July to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett),Official Report column 163.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how council tax arrears will be treated within local authority financial arrangements; and whether he has any plans to treat such arrears or interest incurred on them as expenditure for the purpose of calculating capping levels.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It will be the responsibility of each billing authority to collect its arrears of council tax; we intend that any costs of collection and associated interest charges incurred in a year by the authority should fall to be met from its budget for the year, which under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 will be subject to any capping regime.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all measures which a local authority may take to collect poll tax and arrears of poll tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Once it has obtained a liability order from a court an authority may collect unpaid community charges by any of the following methods: an attachment of earnings order; distress; deductions from income support; charging orders (for collective community charges only); bankruptcy and winding up. An authority may not pursue more than one of these remedies at the same time.

  If, having attempted to levy distress, an authority is unable to find any or sufficient goods to distrain, it may seek to have the chargepayer committed to prison.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the measures which a local authority may take to collect council tax and any arreas of council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Once it has obtained a liability order from a court an authority may collect unpaid council taxes by any of the following methods: an attachment of earnings order; distress; deductions from income support; charging orders; attachment of councillors' allowances; and bankruptcy and winding up. An authority may not pursue more than one of these remedies at the same time.

  If, having attempted to levy distress, an authority is unable to find any or sufficient goods to distrain, it may seek to have the chargepayer committed to prison.
  637
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of poll tax arrears which will exist at the end of 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has not made any estimate of the level of community charge arrears at the end of 1992–93.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how poll tax arrears, outstanding at the end of 1992–93 and interest incurred on them, will be treated in future financial years; and whether he has any plans to treat outstanding arrears or interest incurred on them as expenditure for the purposes of calculating capping levels.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is the responsibility of each billing authority to collect its arrears of community charges outstanding at the end of 1992–93; we intend that any costs of collection and associated interest charges incurred by the authority in 1993–94 and subsequent years should fall to be met from its budget for the year, which under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 will be subject to any capping regime.

  Year

  Average weekly rent

  Private and Housing Association

  Unfurnished

  Furnished

  Housing Benefit

  Average weekly Housing Benefit per property

  Number of properties at 31 December (private rented only)

  Great Britain

  England

  £

  £

  £m

  £

  thousands

  1983–84

  —

  —

  483

  4·10

  1,849

  1984–85

  12·30

  21·00

  614

  5·30

  1,778

  1985–86

  13·80

  24·80

  784

  6·90

  1,709

  1986–87

  19·80

  30·40

  875

  7·90

  1,641

  1987–88

  18·80

  35·20

  891

  8·20

  1,580

  1988–89

  22·50

  36·90

  915

  8·60

  1,532

  1989–90

  21·90

  40·80

  1,159

  10·90

  1,507

  1990–91

  30·50

  53·30

  1,360

  12·50

  1,507

  1991–92

  —

  —

  1,886

  117·10

  11,506

  1Provisional.

  The source of the rent information is the "Family Expenditure Survey" (FES). The rents relate to the nearest calender year to each financial year—1983 rents are shown for 1983–84, etc. As the FES is a sample survey the estimates of rent are subject to sampling error.

  Information on housing benefit is available for tenants of private landlords and housing associations together but not separately.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to seek to amend legislation or regulations relating to the transfer of homes from local authority to other forms of ownership and the terms and conditions under which such transfers took place.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 21 May 1992 to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willets),Official Report, column 198. The consultation paper will be published shortly.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for housing association properties for each of the last 10 years(a) the average rent levels, (b) the total housing benefit paid, (c) the average benefit paid per property and (d) the number of properties at the year end.
  638
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria his Department uses to determine a council's standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The method by which standard spending assessments are calculated for all authorities is set out in the "Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England)" as amended by subsequent amendment reports. These are debated and approved by the House annually and copies are available in the Library.

  Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for private rented properties by type of housing for the last 10 years(a) the average rent levels, (b) the level of housing benefit paid, (c) the average benefit paid per property and (d) the number of properties at the year end.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information available is as follows:

  Mr. Baldry
  The information available covering rent levels and stock is set out in the table. Housing benefit statistics do not identify payments to housing association tenants separately.

  Year

  Average housing association rents including service charges (£/week)

  Housing association stock at 31st December (thousands)

  Registered rents2

  Assured tenancies3

  1981

  14

  —

  420

  1982

  16

  —

  428

  1983

  17

  —

  441

  1984

  19

  —

  455

  1985

  20

  —

  472

  1986

  21

  —

  482

  1987

  23

  —

  496

  1988

  25

  —

  515

  1989

  27

  —

  544

  1990

  30

  34

  589

  1991

  33

  39

  1619

  1Provisional.

  2Fair rents registered or re-registered by Rent Officers in the period.

  3Assured tenancy rents for lettings in the period.

  Source: National Federation of Housing Associations.

  BNFL, Sellafield
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent information he has received from the Health and Safety Executive following its
  639
  completion of its report on the Health and Safety Executive investigation into the safety and status of radioactive waste management at British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield plant.

  Mr. Maclean
  No further information has been received from the Health and Safety Executive following the publication of its report and its receipt by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council tenants have transferred their tenancy away from local authority control since July 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  Approximately 7,700 local authority dwellings in England arc known to have been transferred from local authority control to housing associations and other bodies between July 1991 and March 1992, the latest date for which detailed information is available. This represents about one fifth of one per cent. of local authority housing stock in England. In addition a further 14,800 dwellings were transferred in two block transfers in April 1992.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for council housing for each of the last 10 years(a) the average rent levels, (b) the total housing benefit paid, (e) the average benefit paid per property and (d) the number of properties at the year end;

  (2) if he will list for properties transferred by agreement with the tenant to other forms of ownership for all years since transfers began (a) the average rent levels, (b) the total housing benefit paid, (c) the average benefit paid per property and (d) the total number of payments at the year end.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Year

  Average weekly unrebated rent

  Total housing benefit paid

  Average weekly benefit per property

  Number of properties at 31 December

  £

  £ million

  £

  000s

  1983–84

  14·03

  1,659

  6·66

  4,788

  1984–85

  14·79

  1,789

  7·31

  4,705

  1985–86

  15·63

  1,902

  7·91

  4,627

  1986–87

  16·48

  1,980

  8·36

  4,556

  1987–88

  17·40

  2,029

  8·74

  4,465

  1988–89

  19·01

  2,172

  9·66

  4,325

  1989–90

  20·86

  2,351

  10·87

  4,161

  1990–91

  23·94

  2,586

  12·33

  4,034

  1991–92

  27·41

  2,687

  112·91

  14,004

  1 Provisional.

  Corresponding information on properties transferred by agreement to other forms of ownership is not available.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new rights have been introduced for council tenants since July 1991 to simplify and strengthen their ability to get minor repairs affecting health, safety or crime prevention carried out by their landlord.

  Mr. Baldry
  Subject to enactment of the necessary legislation, we propose to introduce a new right to repair scheme. Details will be published later this year. The new scheme will enable council tenants to get small urgent repairs, affecting health, safety and security, done quickly.

  Departmental Properties
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by his Department; and if he will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and the intended future use.

  Mr. Baldry
  No residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are managed by the Department of the Environment. Information in respect of any of residential properties in the borough held and managed by other Departments as part of their departmental estate is for Departments themselves to list.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the network installer area containing the Bridgend constituency have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grants since 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 2,341 homes have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grant since 1 January 1991.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the decisions on city challenge applications before 16 July.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Leeds Task Force
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), 6 July,Official Report, column 79. if he will list the businesses assisted by the task force and show whether the assistance was (a) financial aid, (b) advice, (c) provision of information of (d) other.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A list of the individual businesses assisted by the Government's former Leeds task force is maintained by the bodies providing the assistance and no central record is kept. Businesses in the task force area were assisted on over 417 occasions. Assistance took the form of advice (350 occasions), financial help (241 occasions), use of premises either purchased or refurbished by the task force (172 occasions) and help to attend or exhibit at events such as trade fairs (71 occasions). The figures total more than 417 because, in some instances, the assistance given covered more than one of the categories.

  International Bible Students Association
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received expressing opposition to the proposal by the International Bible Students Association to make further developments to the site on which the Watchtower House, Mill Hill, is located; whether these proposals infringe the Government's green belt policy; and if he will order a
  641
  public inquiry for the purpose of collecting local objections before making any decision on matters relating to any International Bible Students Association appeal.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has received four representations and one petition.

  The applicants have appealed to my right hon. Friend who will appoint an inspector to examine the merits of the case.

  The principle parties to an appeal are normally consulted about whether to hold a public inquiry or to proceed on the basis of written representations. In this case they have opted for written representations but the local residents will have an opportunity to make their views known in writing to the inspector.

  London Forum
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the London Forum.

  Mr. Howard
  In the Conservative Manifesto for the general election the Government undertook to convene a private sector forum to promote London internationally. I can now announce the Government's proposals in more detail.

  The members of the forum will be drawn from the private sector. We intend to convene a first-class chairman and members, totalling about 12 in all, who can bring their entrepreneurial and presentational expertise to the business of promoting London.

  The key functions of the forum will be to promote London internationally with a view to maximising business investment and growth in the capital, and to expanding London's role as a centre for tourism and culture. The forum will also wish to become involved in significant developments to maintain its position as one of the world's leading capital cities.

  To drive this work forward, the forum will need to be supported by a strong chief executive backed by a small but high calibre team of staff. Private enterprise in London will benefit from the activities of the forum, and it will be appropriate for the forum to look to the private sector for its funding.

  The forum will need to establish strong working relationships with business organisations in London, with training and enterprise councils and with existing bodies charged with arts and tourism responsibilities, particularly the London tourist board and the British Tourist Authority. It will also need to co-operate closely with local authorities and other public sector bodies in London. As well as informal links with all these bodies, it will need to establish a formal mechanism for consulting key organisations on a regular basis. A consultative group comprising all the key bodies will be set up for this purpose.

  I will be taking forward these proposals for the forum over the summer, in consultation with key organisations with an interest in promoting London. A further announcement will be made in the autumn.

  Pollution Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those categories of information in regard to pollution that his Department or predecessor 642
  Departments have asked to be withheld from public disclosure under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1967.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: None.

  Second Hand Cars
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to prohibit the use by organisations of the highway outside residential properties for displaying second hand cars for sale.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Part III of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 already enables district councils to take powers to control the selling, exposing or offering for sale, of any article on any road or footway.

  Where the display of cars for sale on the highway takes place in association with off-highway land which is being used for the sale of second-hand cars in breach of planning control, local planning authorities have adequate powers to take enforcement action under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The parking of such vehicles on the highway may also constitute an offence if waiting restrictions apply or if the vehicles are parked dangerously or obstructively; in such circumstances, action would be a matter for the police or traffic wardens, as appropriate.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 9 June,Official Report, columns 146–47, if he will set out the methods by which the Government intend to carry out the option to return radioactive waste from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.'s reprocessing activities for overseas customers; and whether reprocessing contracts signed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority with overseas customers contain parallel return-to-sender options for nuclear waste arising from reprocessing.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1976, all contracts signed by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for reprocessing overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. As envisaged in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 2 May 1986 at columns 500–01, the option of substituting for less radioactive wastes an equivalent quantity, in radiological terms, of higher level wastes is being considered. BNFL has put forward proposals on these lines and the Radioactive Waste Management advisory committee has been asked for its views on the likely radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the main financial and other advantages to the owners of beneficially(a) British owned and (b) non-British owned vessels of registering in the United Kingdom register, as opposed to the registers of the Crown

  643
  dependencies, of registering in Crown dependencies as opposed to the United Kingdom register, of the Crown dependencies registers as opposed to the British dependent territories registers, of the British dependent territories registers as opposed to the Crown dependencies registers, of the United Kingdom register as opposed to British dependent territories registers, and of the British dependent territories register as opposed to the United Kingdom register.

  Mr. Norris
  The advantages which shipowners receive from any particular register will depend to a great extent upon the individual circumstances under which each shipowner is operating.

  The United Kingdom aims to ensure that all British shipping registers are operated under similar rules and conditions and, in particular, that all comply with proper safety standards. The advantage of high-quality operation, plus access to British consular services and protection form the Royal Navy, apply to vessels registered on any British register.

  Within this framework, the dependent territories and Crown dependencies are largely free to make such fiscal arrangements as they consider appropriate in relation either to companies generally or specifically to companies operating vessels on their registers.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what comparative examination he has made of the British tax regime as it affects(a) the Merchant Navy and (b) seafarers relative to the tax regimes of (i) France, (ii) Germany, (iii) Greece, (iv) Norway and (v) Denmark; if he will list the main differences; and what conclusion he has reached as to, respectively, the advantages and disadvantages to the British Merchant Navy of each difference;

  (2) what latest comparative examination he has made of the requirements and the consequences of merchant ships registered in the (a) French, (b) German, (c) Greek, (d) Norwegian and (e) Danish registers as opposed to the United Kingdom register; if he will list the main economic and other differences for merchant ships in both requirements and consequences; and if he will list the main economic and other advantages and disadvantages in each case.

  Mr. Norris
  We monitor the different forms of direct and indirect subsidies granted by other countries and it is our policy in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and EC to press for the removal of any forms of subsidy which have the effect of distorting competition.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the continuing reduction in the number of vessels on the British register; and what further action he has in mind to increase the size of the British Merchant Navy.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: My Department is constantly monitoring the state of the British shipping industry and, in close liaison with the industry itself, is prepared to consider any measure to encourage and facilitate registration in the United Kingdom which falls within its remit.

  The Merchant Shipping (Registrations etc.) Bill which is to come before this House early in 1993 offers opportunities to simplify ship registration law and make provision for the registration of vessels on bareboat
  644
  charter. Subject to the precise provisions of this private Member's Bill, the Government will wholeheartedly support this important measure. My Department is also participating with the industry in a thorough review of the structure of United Kingdom maritime examinations and certificates of competency. In international fora, we continue to press strongly for the removal of subsidies, restrictions on trade, and poorly enforced safety standards, in order that British shipping is given greater opportunity to compete on a fair and equal basis.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many fishing vessels have been registered in, respectively, England, Wales and Harwich for each of the last 20 years;

  (2) how many vessels from Northern Ireland have been registered in the United Kingdom fishing vessel register each year for the last 20 years.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department maintains records of the registration of United Kingdom fishing vessels only since 1989 and not in the form that can readily provide the information requested. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the information has been extracted.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number and the percentage of fishing vessels on the United Kingdom register of fishing vessels which are beneficially non-British owned; and if he will list such vessels by the country of beneficial ownership.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Spain

  56

  Holland

  18

  Denmark

  2

  Belgium

  1

  Total

  177

  1 Less than 1 per cent, of the total registered fleet.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on how many persons have been employed as(a) skippers, (b) second hands and (c) engineers on registered United Kingdom fishing vessels in (i) England and (ii) Harwich, for each year since 1972.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not maintain such statistics.

  Orange Badges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the regulations which apply to the issuing of orange badges with a view to enabling hospital consultants to issue a dated, temporary sticker to patients who in their medical opinion require such a facility.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Under the existing legislation, only local authorities are empowered to issue badges. The possibility of issuing temporary badges was considered during the recent review of the scheme. It was rejected in the light of representations received and difficulties that would have arisen in the successful operation of the scheme.

  M25
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transort, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 664, (1) if he will list the addresses of the 2,300 properties which received brochures about his plans to enlarge the M25 between junctions 12 and 15;

  (2) if he will list the addresses of the 24 residential and eight commercial properties that would need to be demolished if his plans to enlarge the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 go ahead.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state what is the maximum volume of traffic he expects the M25 and the new proposed feeder roads together to take.
  646
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: My Department has produced forecasts of traffic flows on the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 for the year 2015. On the basis of high growth assumptions, the volumes of traffic expected to use this section of the motorway and the proposed new link roads expressed as average annual daily traffic, are as follows:

  Junctions 12–13—210,000

  Junctions 13–14—228,000

  Junctions 14–15—220,000

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the paper outlining the different options for solving the congestion on the M25.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider making catalytic converters compulsory on all new cars.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  To meet the stricter EC emission limits that will come into force on 31 December, virtually all new petrol-engined cars first used from that date will need to make use of three-way catalytic converters, whereas new diesel-engined cars will not. EC directive 91/441, which prescribes the limits, does not specify the technology by which those limits are met.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993, the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Throughout the Year of the Elderly, the Department of Transport will continue to work with the transport industry to plan and provide for the increasing numbers of elderly people, and those with disabilities, and to introduce measures of positive benefit to them.

  Vehicle Fire Resistance
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to improve the fire resistance of car and bus interiors as outlined in the non-statutory regulations issued by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to car manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The European Commission has recently published a proposal for a directive relating to the burning behaviour of materials used in the construction of certain categories of motor vehicles. The proposal has not yet been considered by the Council. Although it does not cover the full range of vehicle interiors, it would be premature to act nationally before discussions have taken place.

  Railway Stations (Accidents)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there were in the last five years involving persons falling down the gap between train and platform on railway stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available as the Health and Safety Executive's annual report on railway safety does not classify accidents in this way.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of transport supplementary grant in(a) Wiltshire and (b) Thamesdown in each of the last 10 years for which figures arc available.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The figures for Wiltshire county council are:

  Year

  Transport Supplementary Grant (£ million)

  1983–84

  1·399

  1984–85

  2·488

  1985–86

  1·391

  648

  Year

  Transport Supplementary Grant (£ million)

  1986–87

  1·448

  1987–88

  1·429

  1988–89

  0·361

  1989–90

  0·109

  1990–91

  2·985

  1991–92

  2·688

  1992–93

  1·493

  Transport supplementary grant has not been paid to Thamesdown. It is paid to local highway authorities. The local highway authority for Thamesdown is Wiltshire county council.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in 1991–92 what proportion of Network SouthEast trains(a) arrived within five minutes of the published time, (b) arrived within five minutes of the published time within the morning and evening peak and (c) were cleaned inside and out each day.

  Mr. Freeman
  The answer is:

  (a) 91 per cent.

  (b) 85 per cent.

  (c) 79 per cent.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in 1991–92 what proportion of Network SouthEast passengers were served by booking offices(a) within three minutes and (b) within five minutes in the peak.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1991–92, British Rail estimates that 97·4 per cent. of passengers were served by booking offices within three minutes and within five minutes during the peak.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in 1991–92 what proportion of telephone inquiries about Network SouthEast trains were answered within 30 seconds.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1991–92, British Rail estimates that 91 per cent. of telephone enquiries about Network SouthEast trains were answered within 30 seconds, an improvement of 3 per cent. on the previous year.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff. Central (Mr. Jones) of 3 July,Official Report, column 729, what is the source of the data his Department provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency on the shipments of nuclear materials in 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  Information supplied by British Nuclear Fuels plc., Nuclear Transport Ltd., Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear and AEA Technology.

  Life Jackets
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to make the wearing of life jackets compulsory for all users of pleasure craft under 10 m, when under way.
  649
  Mr. Norris
  Her Majesty's Coastguard has issued a brochure which states that life jackets for all on hoard are essential and should be worn at all times.

  National Travel Card
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a national travel card allowing pensioners to travel at concessionary rates on different forms of public transport without having to make arrangements with separate local or transport authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements for travel by pensioners on local bus services. Both British Rail and long-distance coach operators have their own commercial travel concessions for elderly people.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached following the publication of the British Ports Association study on extending light dues to pleasure craft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 2 June,Official Report, column 512.

  Greater Crested Newts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his discussions with English Nature about the future of great crested newts at Barnfield pond in the Huntingdon constituency, in relation to land construction.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A meeting was held with English Nature on 23 June to discuss proposals for protecting the newt colony at Barnfield pond. Although the Department's preferred option is translocation of the newts, English Nature asked for an assessment of whether it would be possible to realign the road locally. Our consultants are to make the assessment and further discussions will take place.

  British Rail Performance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British Rail stations display daily figures for their performance on punctuality and reliability of local services.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail does not publish daily figures for punctuality and reliability. However, in keeping with the passengers charter commitment to keep passengers informed of how services perform, "TrackRecord" displays showing details of punctuality and reliability are displayed at major stations. These are updated every four weeks.

  London Underground
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on London Underground(a) what percentage of scheduled mileage was run in April, (b) what percentage of passengers had to wait more than one and a half times the scheduled interval in April, (c) what percentage of
  650
  trains were cleaned internally every day and externally every three days in April and (d) what percentage of passengers had to wait more than three minutes for their tickets in April.

  Mr. Norris
  In the four week period up to 25 April, London Underground operated 98 per cent. of scheduled train mileage, 6 per cent. of passengers waited longer than one and a half times the scheduled interval for an underground train, 97 per cent. of underground trains were cleaned internally every service day and 82 per cent. were cleaned externally every three service days, and 1 per cent. of passengers waited longer than three minutes to purchase a ticket. In May, the Government set the Underground a new series of quality of service objectives for the next two years.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of people taking their driving test in March had waited more than six weeks for their test.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have asked the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicles have been checked for dirty emissions during 1991; how many prosecutions resulted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Annual roadworthiness tests of cars, goods vehicles and buses, of which there are some 19 million a year, include an emissions check. Such checks were introduced for cars and light goods vehicles in November 1991. Vehicles fail tests if emissions exceed the relevant limits. In addition, in 1991–92 the vehicle inspectorate checked smoke emission during inspections of 313,781 heavy goods vehicles and 32,441 public service vehicles, and 4,778 heavy goods vehicles were subject to smoke-only checks. The inspectorate's policy is to prohibit a vehicle which is smoking excessively, although separate figures for prohibitions for this defect arc not available. The police also have the power to inspect vehicle emissions and to prosecute if they see fit.

  Plastic Waste
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory provisions relate to the disposal of plastic waste at sea; and if he has any plans to review current legislation.

  Mr. Norris
  The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988 prohibit the discharge of plastics into the sea; these regulations are amended as necessary to implement any new MARPOL—marine pollution—73/78 convention requirements.

  Accidents at Sea
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have been reported for each of the last five years in British waters, involving professionally qualified crews.
  651
  Mr. Norris
  The statistics maintained do not distinguish between accidents within and outside United Kingdom territorial waters.

  The number of reported accidents worldwide involving United Kingdom registered merchant vessels over 100 gross tonnes or fishing vessels for the period 1987 to 1992 is:

  Year

  Accidents to vessels

  Accidents to crew

  1987

  471

  709

  1988

  641

  680

  1989

  786

  690

  1990

  799

  718

  1991

  577

  729

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pleasure craft are registered to use British waters; and how many accidents have been reported for each of the last five years involving such pleasure craft.

  Mr. Norris
  There are 73,000 pleasure craft currently registered in the United Kingdom.

  The Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1987 define, among other things, the term "pleasure craft" as a vessel primarily used for sport or recreation. The regulations do not require such vessels to report accidents.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the events surrounding the discovery of an empty fishing boat Springbok off the north Devon coast on 8 July, with particular reference to the role of the coastguard.

  Mr. Norris
  The empty fishing dory Springbok was reported to Swansea Coastguard on the morning of 8 July 1992. Swansea Coastguard immediately initiated the standard course of search-and-rescue action based on the initial information.

  By late evening on 8 July, it was established that on 5 July Milford Haven Coastguard had received a report by the owners that the Springbok had gone missing.

  Watch officers at Milford Haven did not however associate this information with the request by the marine rescue co-ordination centre, Swansea on 8 July that record be checked for reports of missing craft.

  HM Coastguard, while satisfied that MRCC Swansea acted correctly in this incident, accepts that a mistake was made, and has carried out an internal inquiry to determine the reasons why the recorded information was not identified and passed on by MRSC Milford Haven on 8 July. Action has been taken in the light of this inquiry to remind officers of the correct procedure.

  Rail Maintenance Grant
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the grant for permanent way maintenance and replacement on British Rail for the last financial year; and how much was actually spent.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail estimates that total permanent way maintenance and replacement costs were some £620 million for the last financial year, including £249·7 million for the public service obligation (PSO) grant supported sectors, Network SouthEast and regional railways. PSO grant is paid as a total to the board by the 652
  Government to compensate BR for maintaining its loss-making passenger services. The latest BR annual report shows that PSO grant for 1991–92 totalled £890.7 million.

  Empty Housing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by his Department; if he will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and the intended future use.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department owns 22 residential properties acquired for a trunk road improvement and all are currently let. In addition, five residential properties were transferred to the Department from the National Bus Company on its dissolution in 1991. These five are currently vacant. Three are to be demolished to enable a housing development to take place. The other two are required for the trunk road improvement scheme and consideration is being given to the possibility of letting them in the meantime. It is not my Department's practice to release publicly the address of vacant properties.

  The Department also owns 14 commercial properties, with integral living accommodation, all acquired for the trunk road scheme. Twelve of these are let on a commercial basis and attempts are being made to find suitable commercial tenants for the other two.

  DTI Inspections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Norris
  Such information is not available centrally but my right hon. Friend takes account of all relevant factors in making appointments.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Norris
  The devolved nature of my Department means that no central record of advisers is maintained. However, full account is taken of all relevant factors when the employment of advisers is being considered.

  Ferry Tariffs
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet other EC representatives to discuss policy on ferry tariffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no such plans.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 June to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner),
  653
  Official Report, column 393 (a) how many of his Department's employees and (b) what proportion of his Department's employees were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers and proportion of registered disabled staff employed in the Department in 1989 and 1990 are:

  Year

  1989

  Number

  188

  Percentage

  1·35

  1990

  Number

  186

  Percentage

  1·28

  Nuclear Fuel Rods
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 343, which Government Department keeps records of the import by air of nuclear fuel rods into the United Kingdom; and whether this information is published.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise keeps records of such imports into the United Kingdom and compiles aggregated trade statistics which are published monthly by the Central Statistical Office—overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom: M MM20 of the business monitor series. The safeguards office of the Department of Trade and Industry receives information on imports of safeguarded nuclear material, including fuel rods, and forwards this to Euratom. Information for safeguards purposes is supplied in confidence. Neither the overseas trade statistics nor the information held by safeguards office identifies separately movements by air.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom, by type, giving the radius of the emergency planning zone in each case.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Nuclear power station

  Type

  Emergency planning zone (Km)

  Chapelcross

  Magnox

  2

  Calder Hall

  Magnox

  2

  Torness

  AGR

  3

  Huntcrston A

  Magnox

  2·4

  Hunterston B

  AGR

  Dounreay

  Prototype fast reactor

  5

  Hartlepool

  AGR

  1

  Heysham 1

  AGR

  1

  Heysham 2

  AGR

  Wylfa

  Magnox

  1·6

  Trawsfynydd

  Magnox

  2·5

  Berkeley

  Magnox

  1

  Oldbury

  Magnox

  1

  Hinkley A

  Magnox1

  3·5

  Hinkley B

  AGR

  654

  Nuclear power station

  Type

  Emergency planning zone (Km)

  Sizewell A

  Magnox

  2·5

  Bradwell

  Magnox

  2·4

  Dungeness A

  Magnox

  2·4

  Dungeness B

  AGR

  The distances quoted are the radii of the detailed emergency planning zones around each nuclear power station in the United Kingdom. The size of these zones, formally approved by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, is based on a "reference" accident for the reactor type in question. The reference accident is the maximum size of an accident that can reasonably be foreseen. On this basis, the size of the detailed emergency planning zone for steel pressure vessel Magnox stations is larger than for concrete pressure vessel Magnox and AGR stations. In the case of steel pressure vessel Magnox stations which have been de-fuelled—for example, Berkeley—the zone has been reduced. Some distances have also been extended where necessary to take into account local circumstances, topography and population distribution. This is particularly the case in Scotland.

  Pottery and Ceramics
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will identify the posts and locations of officers dealing with the pottery and ceramics industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  Depending on the subject matter, officers in various parts of my Department will have dealings with the pottery and ceramics industry. Further details of the restructuring of the Department, including the revised sponsorship responsibilities, will be available soon.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the purchase cost around the Sellafield reprocessing plant owned by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. was met from public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Land acquisition by British Nuclear Fuels plc is a commercial matter for the company. The Government have made no grants to BNFL for this purpose.

  Wearmouth Colliery
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the value of capital investment at Wearmouth colliery for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Power Demand
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimate of the current demand for power set against supply(a) currently, (b) by 2000 and (c) by 2010; and how the future estimates are reached.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest estimates of electricity supply and demand are available in my Department's publication
  655
  "Energy Trends". Provisional 1991 figures for total electricity available for consumption, from both public distribution and other generators, in the United Kingdom amounted to some 315 TWh which, after transmission, distribution and other losses, provided for some 290 TWh of electricity consumption.

  The Department does not produce specific estimates of future energy demand, although some analysis of the energy market is carried out in order to produce scenarios for United Kingdom carbon dioxide emission. Details of the revised scenarios, including their underlying assumptions, are being prepared for publication.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase his Department's export control office to support the agreement made at the G7 summit in Munich to extend co-operation between the G7 member states on sensitive export controls and to tighten existing arrangements on export licensing.

  Mr. Needham
  I am confident that the resources currently allocated to export controls are adequate. However, I would consider increasing them in the future if the United Kingdom's international export control obligations made it necessary to do so.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 761, on safeguarded withdrawals of nuclear materials, if he will set out (a) how many of the 41 withdrawals were permanent, (b) what was the type of nuclear material involved in each case and the purpose of each withdrawal, (c) which nuclear facilities were involved and (d) whether Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency, respectively, were informed in advance about each withdrawal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of withdrawals of material from safeguards under the tripartite safeguards agreement are supplied in advance to the IAEA and Euratom on a confidential basis. It would not be in the public interest to publish this information.

  Blue Arrow plc
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the nature of the representation which caused his predecessor to delay publication of the inspector's report on Blue Arrow plc; and in what circumstances publication will now be appropriate.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 30 June,Official Report, column 527. It would be inappropriate for me to indicate the nature of the representations or to comment further.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has under which public limited companies would be required to file their accounts at Companies house within three months of year end;

  (2) if he will draw up proposals under which all private companies would be required to file their annual accounts at Companies house within six months of year end.
  656
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no immediate plans to reduce the period allowed for laying and delivery of accounts from the present 10 months for private companies and seven months for public limited companies. My priority has been to improve levels of compliance with the existing requirements.

  Prior to the introduction of late filing penalties for accounts on 1 July, over 91 per cent. of active companies. that is, those not in liquidation or in course of dissolution, had provided Companies house with the latest accounts due. I shall, however, be seeking further improvements.

  Market Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose legislation under which all large companies would be required to show market values of their assets in the balance sheet.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for increasing the full-time membership of the Accounting Standards Board.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Membership of the Accounting Standards Board is a matter for the Financial Reporting Council.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the financing arrangements for the Financial Reporting Council currently in place and the arrangements which will apply from 1993–94.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  At present, broadly one third of the funding of the Financial Reporting Council is provided by the Government, one third by the accountancy profession through the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies and the final third by bodies representing City interests. The chairman of the FRC is currently engaged in setting up the arrangements for 1993–94 onwards.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much is his contribution to the Financial Reporting Council's costs(a) in 1991–92 and (b) proposed for 1992–93.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department's contribution to the costs of the Financial Reporting Council and its associated bodies in 1991–92 was £907,793. Its contribution for 1992–93 is expected to be £620,000. The figure for 1991–92 included an element towards the financial reporting review panel's legal costs fund, for which no further contribution is required in 1992–93.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he first became aware that the going concern auditing guideline urged auditors to be passive.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have noted, but do not necessarily accept, the hon. Member's view, from which I assume that he welcomes the exposure draft on this subject issued by the Auditing Practices Board on 12 May.
  657
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which parts of the Companies Acts company auditors owe a duty of care to individual shareholders.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The question whether auditors owe a duty of care in respect of their functions under the Companies Acts, and to whom, is a matter for the common law. I refer the hon. Member to the judgment of the House of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will produce proposals to amend the Partnership Act 1890 to require auditing firms to publish information about their affairs.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint an independent commission to investigate the handling of auditor regulation by the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which parts of the Companies Acts require auditors to inform shareholders on the effectiveness of internal controls.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The expression "internal controls" does not appear in the Companies Acts. So far as company accounts are concerned, however, the duties of auditors set out in section 237 of the Companies Act 1985 include a requirement to report if they are of opinion that proper accounting records have not been kept by the company.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose legislation under which a company's auditors would be prevented from acting as receivers for that company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that his Department will offer no consultancy work to any auditing firm criticised in the inspectors' report for a period of at least five years after that report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. However, in considering the appointment of auditing firms any criticisms which may have been made in this way will be taken into account.

  Recognised Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose legislation under which unelected persons would not be able to sit on the councils of the recognised supervisory bodies under the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  The Bestwood plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to publish his Department's inspectors' report relating to The Bestwood plc.
  658
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will consider whether to publish the inspectors' report when criminal proceedings relating to the conduct of the affairs of The Bestwood plc have been concluded.

  Interests (Capitalisation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which sections and schedules of the Companies Acts refer to or require the capitalisation of interests; and whether he has these matters under review.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Paragraph 26(3)(b) of schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1985 permits interest to he included in the production cost of an asset. I have no plans to review this sub-paragraph which implements a provision in the EC fourth directive.

  Petrol Market
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his response to the Petrol Retailers Association's representations concerning the review of oil company undertakings in the United Kingdom retail petrol market by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading will in due course he advising the President on whether any changes should be considered in the existing undertakings given by the oil companies following earlier MMC reports on the supply of petrol. When such advice is received, the President will consider it very carefully.

  DTI Inspections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade ( 1 ) if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by his Department's inspectors;

  (2) if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by his Department's inspectors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Consumer Organisations
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take, during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC, to establish the right of United Kingdom and other EC consumer organisations to play an active role in EC trade and anti-dumping procedures.

  Mr. Needham
  It is for the European Commission to seek the views of consumer organisations on particular cases being considered under EC trade policy instruments. Commission proposals put to the Council of Ministers should include an assessment of the impact on consumers. During its presidency the United Kingdom will ensure that the views of member states, including any views on consumer aspects, are taken into account when considering Commission proposals. My Department has regular contact with consumer organisations in the United Kingdom on trade policy matters.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of 29 June,Official Report, column 405, how many, and what proportion of his Department's employees, were registered disabled in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for the Department, including the Business Statistics Office, 1989 only, its executive agencies and the former Department of Energy are:

  Date

  Number of registered disabled staff

  Percentage of staff

  1 June 1989

  165

  1·2

  1 June 1990

  153

  1·2

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff his Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and what were the staffing levels and personnel costs in 1970.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 12,214 staff were employed in the Department of Trade and Industry on 1 June 1992. The planned expenditure on pay for 1992–93 is £254·2 million.

  Details of the staffing levels of the Department of Trade and Industry at its creation on 15 October 1970 are not readily available. The manpower provision of the Department's constituent parts six and a half months earlier, at 1 April 1970, totalled 26,483 with a pay provision for 1970–71 of £53·5 million.

  Radio Spectrum Reviews
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the series of radio spectrum reviews is to continue.

  Mr. Leigh
  My colleagues in the Home Office, Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Office and I are pleased to

  Group

  Royal Mail

  Parcelforce

  PO Counters

  1989–90

  Target percentage

  As announced

  2·4

  1·0

  2·5

  6·0

  After interest flexing

  2·4

  1·0

  2·5

  9·4

  Actual percentage

  3·7

  2·2

  0·6

  10·0

  1990–91

  Target percentage

  As announced

  6·3

  6·3

  5·0

  7·0

  After interest flexing

  6·3

  6·8

  4·8

  11·0

  Actual percentage

  1·5

  8·2

  (67·5)

  12·0

  1991–92

  Target percentage

  As announced

  10·6

  11·8

  10·0

  8·0

  After interest flexing

  11·0

  12·2

  10·0

  9·5

  Actual percentage

  11·8

  17·5

  (10·6)

  10·5

  The annual average percentage return for the three-year period—the actual averages being calculated on the same basis as the targets—was:
  660
  announce that an independent committee, chaired by Sir Colin Fielding, will review the radio spectrum in the range 28MHz to 470MHz. This frequency range is one of the most intensively used parts of the radio spectrum and demand for access is increasing. The aim of the review, which will be the third in the current series of reviews, is to examine existing and planned use of the radio spectrum within the review range and make recommendations on that use in the light of national and international developments in radiocommunications. The committee intends to consult widely. The previous two reviews produced reports which have been widely welcomed as making major contributions towards our commitments to make more efficient use of the spectrum and my colleagues and I look forward to the report of the committee on this key frequency range.

  Post Office
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Post Office's performance against the financial and efficiency targets set for the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  On 18 January 1990 the Secretary of State, in agreement with the Treasury announced profit targets for the Post Office.

  The targets were set as an annual average percentage return on mean capital employed—ROCE—for the three-year period to 1991–92. The returns are determined before taxation and interest receivable on accumulated past surpluses.

  The targets are flexed if the actual interest rates differs significantly from that assumed when targets were set.

  The overall targets were an expression of a Government requirement that each of the Post Office businesses and the Post Office Group as a whole should be in 1991–92, work up to a profitability consistent with a real rate of return of 8 per cent. in line with Government policy on the rate of return that public sector industries should achieve on their investment. Yearly group and business targets on this basis were set and announced to the House on 18 January 1990. The Post Office achievement against these annual targets has been:
  661

  Three-year period average to 1991–92

  Target as announced Per cent.

  Target after interest flexing Per cent.

  Actual Per cent.

  Group

  6·4

  6·6

  5·7

  Royal Mail

  6·4

  6·7

  9·3

  Parcelforce

  5·8

  5·8

  (25·8)

  PO Counters

  7·0

  10·0

  10·8

  The three-year group achievement reflects the After change in measurement system consequences of plans formulated in 1990–91 to change significantly the geographical and administrative structures of the Royal Mail and Parcelforce businesses, thereby focusing more sharply on the customer. Future costs of restructuring and development together with accelerated depreciation, in total amounting to £106 million, were provided for in that year. If these exceptional items are ignored, the average performance over a three-year period to 1991–92 at group level was 7·4 per cent. against a 6·6 per cent. target.

  Also in 1990–91 the basis of apportioning stamp and meter income between Royal Mail and Parcelforce was revised. A new methodology using direct measurement of parcel volumes transacted at Post Office Counters resulted in an income transfer from Parcelforce to Royal Mail and revised charging arrangements for costs. While this did not affect group results, Royal Mail and Parcelforce ROCE were affected.

  If the changes had not been made the ROCE results for 1990–91 would have been:

  1990–91

  Target performance (per cent.)

  1Actual performance (per cent.)

  Royal Mail

  6·8

  4·9

  Parcelforce

  4·8

  (35·8)

  1 Before income transfer and revised charging arrangements for costs.

  Because there was a change of methodology in one year, it is not possible to produce data on a comparable basis for 1989–90 and 1991–92.

  The Secretary of State also announced on 18 January 1990, following consultation with the Post Office, real unit cost—RUC'—targets for Royal Mail and Post Office Counters. These businesses were targeted to achieve in 1991–92 a 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. reduction respectively in RUC against a 1988–89 base. Counters target was flexed to a 2·4 per cent. reduction to reflect movement in interest rates. No RUC targets were set for Parcelforce or for the Group.

  Actual achievement against target is:

  1991–92

  Real unit cost achievement per cent.

  Reduction target per cent.

  Royl Mail

  1·0

  1·0

  PO Counters

  2·7

  2·4

  If the improve method for apportioning stamp and meter income between Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce introduced in 1990–91 had not been effected, Royal Mail Letters' RUC performance to 1990–91 would have been different:
  662

  Reduction/ (Increase)1

  Interim Target

  (0·5)

  Result before exceptional items Without change in measurement system

  2·0

  After change in measurement system

  3·5

  Result after exceptional items Without change in measurement system

  0·5

  After change in measurement system

  2·1

  1Against a 1988–89 base

  Because relevant data are not available for 1988–89 and 1991–92, no reliable assessment can be made of the effect of the changes in the measurement system on the achievement reported for RUC for 1991–92.

  Insurance Company Agents
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what complaints he has received alleging insurance companies are refusing to appoint agents in the United Kingdom who are of ethnic minority origin; what inquiries are being conducted into these allegations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1992]: No complaints have been received by the Department.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of duty on the import of cycle components by the British cycle industry; what is the level of duty on the import of finished bicycles from China; and if he will make it his policy to equalise the treatment of British manufacturers and their Chinese competitors.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: The European Community's common external tariff on bicycle components is currently 8 per cent. The tariff on finished bicycles is currently 17 per cent. Following representations earlier this year from the United Kingdom, supported by other member states, duty was reimposed on finished bicycles from China under the generalised system of preferences—GSP—scheme, for the remainder of 1992.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to seek the automatic enforcement of a 17 per cent. tax on the import of Chinese cycles to Britain once their quota is exceeded.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: There are agreed Community procedures for requesting the reimposition of duty on products which would otherwise be entitled to duty-free treatment under the generalised system of preferences scheme. The operation of the GSP scheme is due for review this year and the concerns of the bicycle manufacturers, along with those of other sectors of industry, will be considered during discussions in the Community.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the cycle industry about dumping practices in Britain.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: The Department has received a number of representations

  663
  from the United Kingdom bicycle industry about the alleged dumping of bicycles from China and Taiwan. The European Commission, which is responsible for investigating anti-dumping complaints, is currently investigating one from the European Bicycle Manufacturers' Association which also represents United Kingdom firms. We are currently waiting for the Commission to consult us on the preliminary findings of its investigation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by his Department; which of these are audited by the National Audit Office; which firms of private accountants audits each of the others; by what method of tendering contracts to such firms are awarded; and for what duration.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: Details of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department, including audit information, are set out in "Public Bodies 1991", a copy of which is in the library of the House.

  Audit arrangements for the bodies which are not audited by the National Audit Office are:

  Public Body

  Auditor

  British Hallmarking Council

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  National Consumer Council

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Gas Consumers' Council

  Coopers & Lybrand

  English Industrial Estates Corporation

  Ernst & Young

  Hearing Aid Council

  Grant Thornton

  Policyholders' Protection Board

  Touche Ross & Co.

  Appointments to audit are made after a competitive tender except where the size of the audit and the likely fee is small. Reappointments are usually on an annual basis. Performance of the auditors is regularly reviewed and a new competition would be held if the findings indicate that there would merit in again testing the market.

  Gas and Electricity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the impact of European Community-wide transparency in gas and electricity markets on United Kingdom gas and electricity consumers at(a) domestic tariff levels, (b) medium-sized commercial consumers and (c) heavy industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: The European Community directive on the transparency of gas and electricity prices—Council directive 90/377/EEC—covers only prices charged to industrial end-users. A commentary on the prices charged at 1 July 1991 was included in the May 1992 issue of "Energy Trends", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in real terms in electricity prices paid by industry as a whole between 1986 and 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: Average electricity prices paid by industry fell in real terms by 15·6 per cent. between 1986 and 1991.

  Iraqi Funds
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has received for the release of blocked Iraqi funds for the purposes of funding trade in goods not embargoed under United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712; and what advice his Department has given to United Kingdom firms on such trade.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: I have received several inquiries concerning the release of Iraqi funds from restricted accounts in the United Kingdom to pay for the supply of humanitarian goods to Iraq.

  Responsibility for administering restricted Iraqi accounts is delegated by Her Majesty's Treasury to the Bank of England.

  When my Department considers whether to grant a licence to export humanitarian goods to Iraq, such as foodstuffs and medicines, the question of means of payment is not one of the criteria which is necessary for that decision. How the goods will be paid for is a matter for the exporter and the customer, bearing in mind the restrictions imposed by United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the use of the term "legal pyramid selling scheme", with regard to multi-level marketing companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: This term "legal pyramid selling scheme" is not used in the Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations 1989, and it is not for me to prescribe when it should or should not be used. In common use, the terms "pyramid selling", "multi-level marketing" and "network marketing" appear to be interchangeable. The promoter may choose how to describe his own scheme.

  Deregulatory Unit
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress his deregulatory unit has made during 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: A report on progress under the deregulation initiative for the period up to 30 June 1992 is currently in preparation. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House when it has been completed. A report of the achievements under the initiative over the past 18 months is planned for publication in the autumn.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total discharges of radioactivity, in terms of total activity, from the Sellafield plant in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The data requested by the hon. Member are in British Nuclear Fuel's annual report of "Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Bankers Charter
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to adopt the bankers charter proposed by the EC Competition Commissioner into his own citizens charter proposals.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. As I told the House on 3 June at column 927, while the Government fully support the intention of improving the speed and efficiency of cross-border payments, which lie behind the EC Commission's proposed charter, we believe that the emphasis—as stressed in the Commission's report—should be on the banks introducing their own initiatives in this sector.

HEALTH

  Dentistry
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next proposes to meet the British Dental Association to discuss dentists' contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department is in frequent contact with the British Dental Association on a range of issues. The principles of the dental contract are firmly in place, but we have always been prepared to make changes where necessary.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the current situation regarding dentists' fees and remuneration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government remain firmly committed to dentistry within the national health service and we shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the NHS dental services remain available. For the future, we are looking to the fundamental review to produce a system which will more fairly and more effectively remunerate all NHS dentists for the important work they do.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will pay an official visit to south Cumbria to discuss provision of dental treatment within the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are keeping in touch with all parts of the country about the provision of dental treatment within the national health service.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the consequence for children's dental health of(a) the reduction in orthodontic multiband fees and (b) the lowering of the limit on prior approval.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not believe there will be any consequence for children's dental health. The range of treatments available to children under the national health service remains the same, and the changes to the prior approval requirement will not significantly increase total treatment time.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many additional staff will be employed at the Scottish and English dental practice boards to process prior approval estimates following the introduction of the £200 limit;
  666
  (2) how many days, on average, it will take to process prior approval requests for dental treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 13 July. Information relating to Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of orthodontic courses of treatment, excluding examination, diagnosis and retention will be subject to the new prior approval restriction.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Dental Practice Board has estimated that some 30 per cent. will require prior approval.

  NHS Building Projects
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service building projects have been completed in England since 1979; and how many are under way.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  More than 600 capital schemes, each costing more than £1 million, have been completed in the national health service since 1979. A further 400 such schemes are in various stages of planning. design and construction, of which 105 are currently under construction.

  Learning Disabilities (Trusts)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the appropriateness of granting trust status to hospitals caring for persons with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the appropriateness of granting trust status to hospitals caring for persons with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  All units applying for national health service trust status are carefully assessed by a stringent set of criteria. These include:

  identifying the benefits and improved quality of service;

  ensuring the management has the skills to run the trust:

  ensuring that senior professional staff, including consultants are involved in the management of the trust;

  and assessing the financial viability of the trust.

  Patients Charter
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further improvements in waiting times the Government intend to make under the patients charter.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 12 May 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced our intention to follow up the successful introduction of the two year guarantee with a new and additional guarantee that, from 1 April 1993, no-one should have to wait more than 18 months for a hip or knee joint replacement, or a cataract operation.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average life expectancy in the United Kingdom; and what figures she has for(a) life expectancy in 1979 and (b) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average.
  667
  Mr. Sackville
  In 1990 the average life expectancy at birth in the United Kingdom was 72·8 years for men and 78·5 years for women. This compares with 70·1 and 76·2 years respectively in 1979.

  Due to lack of information for certain countries an average figure for all OECD countries is not available. However, in 1989 the average life expectancy for men across 19 OECD countries was 72·8 years, and for women 79·2 years.

  AIDS
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much specific grants to local authorities for spending on AIDS and mental illness services will increase in 1992–93 and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The specific grant available nationally to local authorities for people with AIDS/HIV increased by £5·1 million, or 43·5 per cent. in real terms, between 1991–92 and 1992–93. The grant for people with mental illness increased by £10·4 million, or 43·1 per cent. in real terms, over the same period.

  Community Care
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss the implementation of the community care reforms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I last met with the Association of Directors of Social Services on 8 June.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from home owners, residents and local authorities about the funding to be made available for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Many representations about community care funding have been received from individuals, home owners, local authorities and representative organisations. Announcements about funding for the personal social services in 1993–94, including resources for community care and their distribution, will be made in the context of this year's local authority expenditure settlement.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of social services clients had an individual care plan on 1 April.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to ensure that the provision of care for the highly dependent client remains the statutory responsibility of district health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The role of health authorities in providing services for highly dependent people was reaffirmed in "Caring for People". As purchasers of health care, health authorities have a duty to secure the best possible services for all their residents, including highly dependent people, taking into account local circumstances, priorities and available resources.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average hours worked in any week by a junior hospital doctor in 1979 and the most recent year available; and what plans she has to reduce the figure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1979 junior hospital doctors in England and Wales were contracted to be on duty for an average of 89 hours per week. At 30 September 1990, the latest date for which information is available, this average had fallen to 79 hours per week.

  Following the launch of the new deal for junior doctors in June 1991 we have an agreed timetable for reducing the hours of duty of doctors and dentists in training. Our target is to reduce maximum average contracted hours of duty to 83 per week for those working on-call rotas, 72 per week for those working partial shifts and 60 per week for those working full shifts by 1 April 1993. They are to be reduced further by 31 December 1994, to 72 per week for those working on-call rotas in hard-pressed posts, 64 hours per week for those working partial shifts and 56 hours per week for those working on full shifts. Subject to review, our aim is to reduce the maximum average contracted hours of junior doctors working on-call rotas in posts which are not considered to be hard-pressed to 72 per week by 31 December 1996. However in certain circumstances higher specialist trainees may continue to contract for up to 83 hours after this date. These measures will further reduce the average weekly contracted hours of junior doctors.

  Regardless of the contracted hours of duty for individual posts we intend that from 31 December 1994 junior doctors should not normally be expected to work for more than an average of 56 hours per week.

  Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the national health service complaints procedure.

  Mr. Sackville
  We keep the hospital and family health service complaints procedure under review, and are encouraging management and staff to respond more positively to oral and written complaints. The procedure was last updated by the patients charter, which introduced the right to have any complaint about NHS services investigated and to receive a full and prompt written reply from the chief executive or general manager. Authorities will also have to record the number of complaints received and the response time. We are looking at ways to make complaints procedures more friendly and responsive to the needs of individual patients.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives she intends to introduce to reduce illnesses and deaths caused by smoking.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The "Health of the Nation" White Paper commits us to ambitious targets to reduce smoking further. It sets out a comprehensive strategy to achieve these targets, including action on price, health education, ensuring effective controls on advertising and a greater national health service role in reducing smoking.

  Health Service, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress on the Tomlinson inquiry into London's health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team are making excellent progress and are due to report to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education in the autumn.

  Metabolic Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy to maintain the symbiosis of research and service provision in the detection of inherited metabolic disease;

  (2) if she will make it her policy to establish mandatory quality assessment schemes to ensure adequate standards of service for the detection of inherited metabolic disease;

  (3) what representations she has received from the British Inherited Disease Group concerning the SAS system; and if she will make a statement on the operation of the SAS system and its relevance to regional services for the detection of inherited metabolic disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no such representations. The supra regional assay service (SAS) contracts with purchasing authorities to provide rare or infrequently requested laboratory tests. It is for purchasing authorities to ensure that they specify in contracts, and monitor, the quality elements which they require.

  The national health service management executive is currently reviewing issues arising from contracting for specialised services, including genetic services.

  Infant Medication
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether enough information is now available to the public to justify the introduction of the 5ml dilution of infants' medication.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 5ml dilution convention ended on 1 July. Where a dose of less than 5ml is prescribed the patient will be supplied with an oral syringe. We are satisfied that sufficient information is available to the public to explain the change.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that there is adequate monitoring of general practitioner fund holders by family health service authorities where they provide services other than general medical services including(a) ophthalmology and (b) physiotherapy services; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will impose on family health service authorities an obligation to monitor the standards of all services provided by general practitioner fund holders, including services other than primary care; and if she will arrange for the results of such monitoring to be publicly available locally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 gave family health service authorities a duty to monitor the expenditure of general 670
  practitioner fund holders (for whatever purpose) and to institute audit and review where appropriate. Publication of the outcome is for local decision. Additionally, regional health authorities must ensure compliance with the terms of recognition of a general practitioner as a fund holder, including fund holders' obligation to satisfy themselves that the provider of any service they purchase is competent and has appropriate qualifications, training and experience.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reassess the method chosen to allocate funds to regions and districts in England so as to implement a different method of allocation which reflects more closely the differing health needs of each of those regions and districts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The principle of funding health authorities in proportion to the number of people for whom they are responsible is well-established. The Department keeps under review the details of the method by which population figures are weighted to allow for differences between populations of the same size. This method rests on a statistical analysis of census and national health service data. The 1991 census will provide the opportunity for reassessment when the results are available in a suitable form in 1993.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will increase levels of staffing and resources for community health councils to meet the increased demands on its service resulting from the citizens and patients charters.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities are responsible for allocating resources to community health councils (CHCs), and for determining the appropriate staffing levels. The deputy chief executive of the national health service management executive wrote to regional general managers on 6 March about the role of CHCs and reminded them to ensure that CHCs were properly resourced.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to review cases where a community health council considers that its observers are being unreasonably excluded from(a) trust, (b) district health authority and (c) regional health authority meetings; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Community health councils (CHCs) have the right to attend any national health service authority or trust meetings which are open to the public. It is matter for decision by authorities and trusts whether CHCs will be invited to attend meetings which are otherwise closed to the public. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is currently carrying out to increase the public's awareness of community health councils; and if she will make it her policy to fund a campaign for this.

  Mr. Sackville
  Community health councils (CHCs) are independent statutory bodies and are responsible for their own publicity.
  671
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reconsider extending the current terms of office of community health councils to three four-year terms; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Members of community health councils (CHCs) are ineligible for reappointment after the completion of two consecutive four-year terms of office. We believe that this encourages a combination of experience and fresh enthusiasm among the membership of CHCs. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to improve the statutory rights of community health councils in their relationship with(a) purchasers, (b) improved access to information, (c) automatic observer status on district and regional health authorities public and closed meetings and (d) membership of appropriate health authority working groups.

  Mr. Sackville
  Legislation is not necessary. My hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and the deputy chief executive of the national health service management executive have both written to regional health authorities to remind them of the importance of ensuring that community health councils play a full part in the reformed NHS.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy for community health councils to have full responsibility for their non-staff budget with full details of budgets being submitted in annual reports of the community health councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities are responsible for allocating resources to community health councils. The detailed arrangements for managing community health council budgets are for local decision.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will amend the Community Health Council Regulations 1985 to provide those councils with the right of inspection of those parts of general practitioners' premises where minor surgery is performed under general practitioners' contracts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Community health councils do not have a statutory right of access to general practitioners' premises, and we have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue immediate guidance to health authorities regarding their relationship with community health councils.

  Mr. Sackville
  Existing guidance was issued in 1990. In addition, my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and the deputy chief executive of the national health service management executive wrote to health authorities in February and March about the role of community health councils in relation to health authorities.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she is taking to ensure that community health councils have sufficient knowledge of the terms of 672
  the relevant contracts covering patients who are placed with national health service funding under trusts or privately-run services; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will issue guidelines to health authorities encouraging them to supply community health councils with the relevant terms of contracts so as to facilitate accurate monitoring by them of the care of patients being treated by a particular service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Contracts between health authorities and providers are public documents available to community health councils. The deputy chief executive of the national health service management executive wrote to health authorities in March emphasising the importance of community health councils having access to district health authority contracts with providers.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation so that community health councils could nominate specific members to monitor the national health service purchaser/provider split in local planning and purchasing functions with different specified members to monitor the providing process; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Existing legislation enables community health councils (CHCs) to monitor all services purchased and provided by the local district. It is for individual CHCs to decide how to deploy their members on different tasks.

  Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will launch an investigation into the circumstances under which a number of height-deficient children were injected with Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease during clinical trials conducted by the national health service.

  Mr. Yeo
  The background to this problem is already well documented in medical journals: the article "Friendly fire in medicine: hormones, homografts and Creuzfeldt Jakob disease" in The Lancet (vol. 340: July 4 1992) includes a history and a full list of references. We are supporting research into the origins and transmission of CJD and keep all relevant developments under review.

  A copy of The Lancet is available in the Library.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her latest estimate of the extent of the contamination of human growth hormone with Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Yeo
  So far six cases of Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) have been confirmed among the 1,908 patients treated with human derived pituitary growth hormone and two more are suspected, one of them a patient who has recently died. I am advised that further cases are possible, but no reliable estimates of the extent of the problem can be made until we know more about the origins of CJD and its transmission.

  Human Growth Hormones
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the indiscriminate removal of pituitary glands by mortuary technicians for human growth hormone processing.
  673
  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the need for guidelines on the safe selection of glands used to make human growth hormone was first identified; when the guidelines were issued; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The need for selectivity in the collection of pituitaries was recognised from the time the treatment was first used. At the start of its trial, in 1958, the Medical Research Committee issued a direction that diseased pituitaries should not be collected. In 1977 it issued more specific criteria which excluded the collection of pituitaries from donors believed to have been suffering from various communicable or degenerative diseases. In 1981 the Department, which by then had taken over arrangements for the supply of the growth hormone, issued a new direction which specifically mentioned Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease among the exclusion criteria.

  Treatment Assessments
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made of the expected demand for hospitals or community-based health service treatment over the next decade in Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Calderdale;

  (2) what assessment has been made of under or over capacity in the provision of hospital-based care over the next decade in Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Calderdale; and what capital developments are proposed.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. Planning for the development of local health and community services is a matter for the health authorities concerned. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Calderdale health authorities for details.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the orders arising from section 30(9) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 will be laid before Parliament before 16 July.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is our intention that these regulations, which are currently in preparation, will be subject to a wide consultation in the autumn before they are laid before Parliament.

  Census
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress of the 1991 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  Counts of the population present on census night were published in the preliminary reports in July 1991. These provisional figures were obtained from summaries prepared by the local field staff.

  Computer processed results from the 1991 census are being processed on a county-by-county (England and Wales) or region-by-region (Scotland) basis, and monitors containing summary statistics on the census topics for which answers were fully processed have been published for 11 counties and one Scottish region.

  "Census Newsletter, No. 22," which is due to be published during July. will contain the planned
  674
  publication dates for the remaining monitors. A copy will be placed in the Library. The newsletter will also include a timetable for the availability and publication of the other main products, such as the small area statistics, county reports and national reports, and reports on specific census topics. There are two small changes from the timetable given in my reply to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 18 June at column 672. The last county monitor is now scheduled to be published in October, and the last small area statistics released in November.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the overall percentage of forms returned under the 1991 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  The census validation survey will report on census coverage later this year. This work will be published in the autumn.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate the extent to which the national health service budget will be altered to reflect the transfer to local councils of responsibility for people in nursing and residential homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Funding for health authorities in 1993–94 and later years will be decided in the public expenditure survey in the normal way.

  Resources
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current and projected levels of hospital and community-based resources within Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Calderdale available to meeet current and expected health needs.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Brian Askew, the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority, for details.

  Rampton Hospital
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died in Rampton hospital during the last 10 years; and from what causes.

  Mr. Yeo
  A total of 46 people have died while patients of Rampton hospital in the past 10 years. The causes of death recorded are:

  Number

  Natural causes

  36

  Suicide

  5

  Open verdict following inquest

  3

  Final inquest not yet held

  2

  HIV
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she is making to enable payments to be made under the special scheme for people infected with HIV as a result of national health service blood transfusion or tissue transfer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Parliamentary approval to this new expenditure, announced on 17 February, will be
  675
  sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England vote (class XIII vote 3). Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £1·2 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implications for Government policy of the recent case in Birmingham of the transmission of HIV infection.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government recognise that HIV/AIDS is perhaps the greatest new public health challenge this century. The Government have consistently identified the threat of HIV/AIDS. This country is a recognised world leader in the action it has taken.

  Between 1985–86 and 1992–93 the Government have allocated nearly £700 million to health and local authorities for the development of HIV-related services as well as over £73 million to developing a national AIDS public education campaign.

  Establishing better sexual health—within which context the spread of HIV can best be minimised—is one of the five key target areas in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper. This reflects the importance the Government attach to combatting the spread of HIV.

  The Birmingham case has highlighted the fact that heterosexuals cannnot ignore the risk of HIV. Past and present experience of sexually transmitted diseases indicates that the public health, and that of individuals, is best served if people at risk of infection and their sexual partners can come forward freely for confidential advice, testing and help.

  The Government will take the issues raised by the Birmingham case, and other recent developments, carefully into account. These issues will be reflected in the current work of the ministerial AIDS action group which is due to report in the autumn.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the fifth annual report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship has submitted its fifth report to the United Kingdom Health Ministers and to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Copies have been placed in the Library. I am very grateful to the committee, and particularly the chairman, Sir John Blelloch, for their valuable work in continuing to monitor the agreements. The report shows that the industry has continued to honour its commitments.

  Geneticists
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the need of central laboratories for clinical geneticists.

  Mr. Sackville
  Most clinical genetics laboratories are based in regional genetics centres. Laboratory services in respect of complex or rare disorders are provided by a national centre, such as the National Haemoglobinopathy 676
  reference laboratory. This laboratory is the national reference centre for carrier diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis of complex haemoglobinopathies, notably the thalassaemias and sickle cell disease. The pattern of provision will depend to a large extent on the pace of developments.

  Genetic Disorders
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals she has for the provision of genetic registers, and enabling such registers to play a role in the elimination of potential carriers of disease;

  (2) what provision she is making to provide genetic counselling for (a) individual patients, (b) family groups and (c) relatives of victims of genetic disorders.

  Mr. Sackville
  Genetic registers and genetic counselling are integral components of the rapidly developing speciality of national health service genetic services. The level of provision of health care services, including genetic services, is a matter for health authorities to decide. As purchasers of services, health authorities are in the best position to make these decisions on the basis of their assessment of local needs.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses are currently trained in the detection and treatment of genetic disorders; and what plans she has to increase the numbers.

  Mr. Sackville
  The care and treatment of patients suffering from genetic disorders is shared between a range of professionals including hospital specialists, GPs and nurses. In 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 76 hospital doctors (47·4 whole time equivalent) specialising in the treatment of genetic disorders in England. Quotas for the number of training posts are set on the basis of advice from the joint planning advisory committee which includes representatives of the Royal colleges, the medical profession and the national health service.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom suffer from genetic disorders.

  Mr. Sackville
  Genetic factors are present in all human disorders to varying degrees, even in conditions as relatively minor as colour blindness. It is therefore not practicable to analyse all disorders in genetic terms. One of the most common and most serious single gene disorder is cystic fibrosis which is estimated to be present in one in 2,000 unborn children.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study she has made of the practice of payment from one health authority to another in paying for tests relating to genetic disorders.

  Mr. Sackville
  The first point of contact for patients requiring genetic advice is usually their GP, who will refer them for tests, if appropriate. The funding arrangements are therefore the same as for any other GP referral. The national health service management executive has agreed with general managers that regions should develop appropriate arrangements to assure the purchase of specialist services, both in NHS trust hospitals and in those managed directly by districts.
  677
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to promote the early adoption of new techniques of diagnosis management, and treatment of the effect of genetic disease, including proven gene therapy;

  (2) what strategy she has to use new molecular knowledge in surgery and treatment; and what training is given to those who use manipulative techniques in this field.

  Mr. Sackville
  An important part of the Department's research and development strategy is to ensure that the best use is made of the high quality of our medical research to improve patient care. The Government consider that it is important that applications of new molecular biological techniques to the diagnosis, management and treatment of patients should be subjected to stringent evaluation before they are adopted for use in clinical practice.

  The Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy was set up in 1989 to provide advice to the United Kingdom Health Ministers on scientific and medical developments which have a bearing on the safety and efficacy of human gene modification. The committee's report was published in January this year when the Government announced that they would be consulting professional, scientific and lay bodies on the committee's recommendations. The consultation process was completed on 18 May and the Government are currently studying the responses.

  Each of the Royal colleges and their faculties takes the lead on professional training within its own specialty. Training in molecular biological techniques is available for clinicians in training programmes organised by the Medical Research Council. the Wellcome Trust and other bodies.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that opted-out hospitals maintain responsibility for training and research for medical and nursing staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Trusts are expected to play a full role in teaching and training, including both undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental education and other

  Percentage of hospital discharges after abortion (not legally induced) to livebirths for 1967. 1968, 1979 and 1985 England and Wales (except 1985, England only)

  Year

  ICD

  Description

  Number of discharges

  Number of livebirths

  Rate per 100 livebirths

  1967

  650·0 + 651·0

  Spontaneous abortion

  67,816

  832,164

  8·15

  650·2 + 651·2

  Abortion induced for other reasons1

  285

  832,164

  ·03

  650·3 + 651·3

  Other abortion

  1,800

  832,164

  ·22

  1968

  642

  Abortion induced for other reasons1

  550

  819,272

  ·07

  643

  Spontaneous abortion

  5,951

  819,272

  ·73

  644

  Abortion not specified as induced or spontaneous

  60,824

  819,272

  7·42

  645

  Other abortion

  2,068

  819,272

  ·25

  1979

  634

  Spontaneous abortion

  26,641

  638,028

  4·18

  636

  Illegally induced abortion

  72

  638,028

  ·01

  637

  Unspecified abortion

  25,501

  638,028

  4·00

  19852

  634

  Spontaneous abortion

  32,716

  619,301

  5·28

  636

  Illegally induced abortion

  93

  619,301

  ·02

  637

  Unspecified abortion

  18,789

  619,301

  3·03

  1 Reasons other than legal or medical indications.

  2 England only.

  Note:

  Data for 1967 are based on the seventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases. Data for 1968 are based on the eighth revision, and data for 1979 and 1985 are based on the ninth revision. The data for the three periods in question are not necessarily comparable.
  678
  professional training and research. Health authorities or purchasers are expected to take account of teaching and research interests in their purchasing decisions.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of beds are sold to the private sector by opted-out hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service hospital trusts have powers to authorise the use of beds for private patients, subject to the statutory requirement that there is no significant interference with the performance by the trust of its obligation under NHS contracts. Beds are not sold to the private sector and remain available to NHS patients.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legal limits there are on the number of pay beds in hospital trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) earlier today.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in addressing the conclusions about the workings of the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967 made by the Select Committee for Health in its tenth report of Session 1989–90.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's response to the Select Committee's report was published in May 1991. The action promised in paragraph 10 of the report was undertaken immediately, and the monitoring referred to in paragraphs 5 and 12 of the response continues.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage of hospital discharges, after abortion not legally induced, to live births for 1967–68, 1979 and the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  679
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage of legal abortions to live births for 1967–68, 1979 and the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The information requested for 1968, 1979 and 1991 is shown in the table.

  Percentage of legal abortions, under the Abortion Act 1967, to livebirths for 1968, 1979 and 1991—England and Wales

  Year

  Number of abortions

  Number of livebirths

  Rate per 100

  19681

  23,641

  539,259

  4·38

  1979

  149,746

  638,028

  23·47

  19912

  177,642

  699,217

  25·41

  1 The number of abortions for 1968 is for the period 27 April 1968 (when the Act came into force) to 31 December 1968. The number of livebirths for 1968 is for 1 May 1968 to 31 December 1968.

  2 The number of abortions for 1991 is a provisional figure.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to distinguish in the annual abortion statistics between abortions conducted solely with RU486 and those conducted with RU486 and in addition prostaglandins or D and C and D and E.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 July 1992]: Published statistics state the method of termination used. From 1992, statistics will include terminations using antiprogesterone (RU486) with prostaglandin.

  Genetic Therapy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy conclusions have been drawn in relation to genetic therapy and genetic counselling from the conference "Our Genetic Future" held at BMA House on 30 June.

  Mr. Sackville
  The conference made a valuable contribution to discussion of the implications of gene therapy and genetic counselling. The Government are currently considering their response to the report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy (Cm 1788) and will take account of the conclusions reached at the conference.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the recent letter from the chief medical officer to public health authorities on genetic therapy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The most recent letter on gene therapy sent to the health authorities was issued on 16 January 1992. It invited comments on the recommendations in the report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy (Cm 1788). A copy of the letter is attached to Department of Health press release H92/20 which is available in the Library.

  DNA Information
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the provision of DNA information about patients to insurance companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any information which is obtained as a result of DNA testing is no less confidential than other personal health information and should not be disclosed to insurance companies without the patient's prior consent.

  Thalassaemia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made for those suffering from thalassaemia.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health care for those suffering from thalassaemia is provided by district health authorities in the light of the health needs of their resident populations.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any plans for hospital closures in the London area; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson is currently carrying out a review of the health and medical education needs of the capital. His report will form the basis for decisions about the future pattern of hospital provision in London.

  Domiciliary Care
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor the provision of domiciliary care to ensure it is of an adequate standard.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local social services authorities are responsible for the provision and management of personal social services including domiciliary care services. It is for each authority to ensure that services they supply or arrange are of adequate standard.

  Care Homes
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide information on the unit costs of residential places provided by each local authority in England and Wales, with the comparable unit costs for private homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  The local authority analysis of gross weekly cost per place filled excluding capital charges in local authority homes for elderly people in 1989–90, the latest date for which information is available, is given in "Key Indicators of Local Authority Social Services 1989–90", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  These unit costs, which relate to England only, are based on data collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

  Information relating to local authorities in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Information about costs in the independent sector was produced in the Price Waterhouse report commissioned by the Department of Social Security, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about how residents and potential residents and their next of kin will be informed of which services and facilities, as laid down in regulation 10 of SI (1984) No. 1345, should be provided and what complaints procedure will operate in a regulated small home.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are considering responses to the consultation document issued earlier this year about the regulations which should apply to small residential care
  681
  homes once the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 is brought into force. Our intention is that the regulations should require that local authority registers should show whether a home is registered as a small home. Those consulting the registers will then be able to see which statutory requirements apply. More detailed information about individual homes will generally be available from the people running those homes and from other, independent sources.

  We intend that the same requirements about complaints procedures should apply to registered small homes as already apply to larger homes.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide statistics on the proportion of elderly people aged over 75 years who die within three months after being moved from one residential home to another.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 regulations and commencement order will be laid before the House.

  Mr. Yeo
  Regulations amending the Residential Care Homes Regulations 1984 for the purpose of their application to small homes will be laid in the next few weeks. We hope to make the commencement order specifying when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 will be brought into force at about the same time.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what precautions she intends to take to safeguard residents from eviction as a result of an owner of a small home being evicted himself for rent or mortgage arrears, by fraudulently obtaining multi-mortgages in order to run a number of small homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for local authorities to ensure that anyone in need of residential care not otherwise available is properly provided for.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps after 1 April 1993, a local authority would have to take to safeguard elderly residents, before refusing or terminating a contract with a home owner.

  Mr. Yeo
  It will he for local authorities to devise their procedures for placing and reviewing contracts. The Government will expect local authorities to behave reasonably and sensitively, and give sufficient notice of their contracting policies and decisions. This could include providing any suitable assistance to minimise inconvenience to existing residents caused by the failure of the home in which they live to gain or retain a contract.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health after 1 April 1993, if the choice of potential residents in nursing and residential homes will be confined to those homes selected by local authorities, unless the residents can afford to pay the full charges.

  Mr. Yeo
  From April 1993 local authorities will place contracts with residential care and nursing homes on behalf of individuals who are assessed as needing such care and need to he publicly supported. We have made it clear that authorities should take into account people's preferences for the home they enter and not unreasonably 682
  restrict people's choice. We have also made it clear that local authorities' arrangements should be sufficiently flexible to allow relatives and friends to contribute, if they so wish, towards the cost of a place in a more expensive home than the authority would normally contract with.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications a person running a registered small home should have other than not having been found guilty of a criminal offence.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Registered Homes Act 1984 provides that registration in respect of a residential care home for four or more people may be refused if a person is not considered fit to be involved in running the home. The same will apply to applications for registration from those planning to run small homes once the Registered Homes (Amendment Act) 1991 is brought into force. It is for registration authorities to interpret and apply this requirement.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of how many of the existing private nursing and residential homes will close by 1994.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information about the number of independent nursing and residential care homes that close is not collected centrally.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of prescriptions was written generically in 1991; what percentage was dispensed generically; what percentage of the total drug bill related to generic items; and whether she can give an estimate of the figures expected to apply in the current year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1991, 41 per cent. of all prescriptions were written generically and 35·2 per cent. were dispensed generically. Information on the percentage of the total drug bill which relates to generic items is not available. However, 26·6 per cent. of the basic cost of drugs (that is, the net ingredient cost, excluding remuneration for dispensing, VAT, container costs and discounts) related to items written generically and 13·9 per cent. of the net ingredient cost related to items dispensed generically.

  In the first quarter of 1992 generic prescribing increased to 43·2 per cent.

  Marriages (Immigration Purposes)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 748, on marriages for immigration purposes, how many of the cases in the London borough of Lewisham which were reported to the Registrar General, were passed on to the Home Office; and how many of those complaints were proven.

  Mr. Sackville
  Of the 21 cases reported to the registrar general, information in respect of 10 was passed to the Home Office. I understand that in two of the 10 cases notified the marriage has yet to take place. In a further six cases, the marriage was followed by an application to the Home Office for leave to remain as a foreign spouse of which two have been granted and four are the subject of ongoing inquiries. Applications to remain on the basis of marriage have yet to be received in respect of the remaining two cases.

  Child Minders
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will(a) list the number of child minders registered in each local authority in 1991 and (b) list the number re-registered under the Children Act 1989 in each local authority to date; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information about the number of child minders registered by each social services department at 31 March 1991 was published in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1991 England"; a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The number of child minders who have re-registered in the period to 30 June 1992 is being collected as part of a national exercise to monitor local authority implementation of the Children Act 1989 which will be reported to Parliament by the end of 1992.

  Dentists Fees
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the mean fee earnings per dentist in the Cumbria family health services authority in each year since 1987 at current prices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table shows the mean gross earnings of general dental practitioners on the dental list of Cumbria family health services authority over the five financial years from 1987–88 to 1991–92, at 1991–92 prices.

  Mean gross fee earnings per DRSG dentist at 1991–92 prices

  Financial year

  Cumbria FHSA (£)

  1987–88

  75,192

  1988–89

  82,893

  1989–90

  76,979

  1990–91

  80,503

  1991–92

  87,554

  These means relate only to earnings through fees and to general dental practitioners in the population used by the dental rates study group. They exclude seniority payments, maternity payments, long-term sickness payments, postgraduate education allowances and other such allowances. They relate only to those general dental practitioners who were in contract for the complete financial year in question.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff her Department currently employs; what are the total personnel costs; and if she will calculate the staffing level of the health section of the former Department of Health and Social Security and the associated personnel costs immediately before its separation.

  Mr. Sackville
  For 1991–92 the Department's estimated outturn pay costs were £100 million for 4,659 staff; for 1987–88 (prior to the split of the former DHSS), outturn paycosts were £60 million for 3,932 staff. The 1987–88 figures have been adjusted to reflect staff numbers and costs as they would have related to the present organisation. All paybill costs include employers' earnings related national insurance contributions.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list any public appointments by her Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors;

  (2) if she will list any advisers retained by her Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested. The Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken by the Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work to ensure that the training of social workers approved under the Mental Health Act 1983, includes a knowledge of mental illness and its treatment;

  (2) what steps are being taken by the Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work to ensure that social workers in training for approval and those already approved are aware of the contents of the letter about inaccuracies in the code of practice under the Mental Health Act 1983 sent to local authorities on 18 February;

  (3) what guidance approved social workers receive about implementing the policy of using resources for early and appropriate intervention to prevent deterioration of a mentally ill person's condition.

  Mr. Yeo
  All local authorities have access to approved training programmes for those social workers they wish to approve to carry out duties under mental health legislation. The Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work has a responsibility to approve these courses of training and has set out full guidelines on course content in their paper 19.19; "Regulations and Guidance for the Training of Social Workers to be considered for Approval in England and Wales under the Mental Health Act 1983" which was published in January 1987. This guidance is currently under review.

  Although their primary purpose is to prepare such social workers for the specific duties they are to carry out under the Mental Health Act 1983 they may also be used to meet more general staff development needs in relation to mental health social work.

  The letter of 18 February was circulated widely. with instructions that it should be drawn to the attention of all staff concerned with the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by the Central Council for the Education and Training in Social Work to prepare social workers and probation officers for work with mentally disordered offenders and similar patients in secure settings.

  Mr. Yeo
  The joint Department of Health and Home Office review of health and social services for mentally disordered offenders has considered relevant aspects of the training of social workers.

  The report of the review's staffing and training advisory group was published for consultation on 2 June. A number

  685
  of its recommendations, if accepted by Ministers, would require action by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Departmental Properties
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by her Department; and if she will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant and the intended future use.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The management of the national health service residential estate is the responsibility of health authorities and NHS trusts.

  NHS Accounting System
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the quality of the accounting system operating within the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has with the approval of Her Majesty's Treasury issued directions under the National Health Service Act 1977 which establish the framework for NHS financial management and the form of the accounts. It is the responsibility of NHS bodies to implement local systems for maintaining sound financial management, which are subject to statutory audit arranged by the Audit Commission.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has given to local authorities in relation to taking account of receipt of a mobility component of disability living allowance in determining either the provision of services or charging for services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance was provided for local authorities in local authority circular (92)4, a copy of which is available in the Library, to the effect that awards of the mobility component of disability living allowance should be disregarded in full in the charging assessment for people receiving residential care.

  Guidance about the treatment of the mobility component of disability living allowance in charging for domiciliary and day services is to be issued later this year.

  Consultants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average age of consultants at the time of appointment, for each specialty and for each category of merit award.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: The table gives the average median age of consultants a t first appointment and the average age at which consultants receive each category of distinction award by broad specialty group for the latest year for which information is available.
  686

  Average median age of consultants on (A) first appointment and (B) obtaining merit award

  A

  B

  Years

  A +

  A

  B

  C

  Accident and Emergency

  37

  —

  —

  52

  48

  Anaesthesia

  36

  54

  50

  49

  46

  Dentistry

  40

  59

  57

  54

  50

  Medicine

  38

  56

  54

  49

  46

  Surgery

  38

  57

  54

  52

  49

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  39

  61

  55

  52

  47

  Pathology

  36

  58

  54

  50

  46

  Psychiatry

  37

  60

  54

  50

  45

  Public Health Medicine

  41

  55

  59

  49

  49

  Radiology

  35

  54

  51

  52

  46

  Radiotherapy

  39

  56

  56

  48

  45

  All specialties

  37

  57

  54

  50

  47

  A Source: Medical and Dental census—28 September 1990.

  B Source: Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards—31 December 1991.

  Distinction Awards, Mersey Region
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will break down the level of award and the distribution across disciplines of distinction awards for the Mersey region into the individual health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: The tables have been placed in the Library.

  Some consultants have contracts with more than one authority and where this occurs they have been counted in each authority. The total number of awards held in the Mersey region by grade is 5A +, 31A, 68B and 152C.

CATERING COMMITTEE

  Press Facilities
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what is the annual cost of providing(a) the Press Bar and (b) dining and refreshment facilities in the press section at the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The management accounts of the Refreshment Department do not provide for the separate allocation of costs between(a) the Press Bar, and (b) the Press Cafeteria and Dining Room.

  In the year ended 31 March 1992, a trading surplus of £25,000 was returned from the Press Gallery refreshment facilities. However many of the overhead costs of the Refreshment Department including most staff costs, are borne on the votes for House of Commons: Administration and House of Commons: Accommodation Services. None of these costs are apportioned directly to the Press Gallery facilities.

  Refreshment Department facilities in the Press Gallery are also open to staff of the Official Report who make significant use of them.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE

  Press Facilities
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the number of rooms in the Palace of Westminster allocated to
  687
  the press lobby; how many telephones, desks and chairs are provided; what is the estimated total capital costs of this provision and the annual cost of maintenance; and what revenue is received from this provision.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  It is not possible to separate from the Press Gallery accommodation that part available to the 688
  Press lobby. There are 17 rooms allocated for use by reporters in the Press Gallery which contain approximately 121 telephones, 90 desks and 90 chairs. The estimated capital and annual costs maintenance of these facilities cannot be identified from the overall totals for the Palace of Westminster without disproportionate cost. No revenue is received from their provision.

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

Lord Archer of Sandwell
The Right Honourable Peter Kingsley Archer, QC, having been created Baron Archer of Sandwell, of Sandwell in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mason of Barnsley and the Lord Judd.

Lord Younger of Prestwick
The Right Honourable George Kenneth Hotson Younger, having been created Baron Younger of Prestwick, of Ayr in the District of Kyle and Carrick, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Sanderson of Bowden and the Lord Colnbrook.
The Duke of Grafton—Took the Oath.

Jubilee Line Extension: Policy
3 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy towards the proposed Jubilee Line extension.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government's policy remains unchanged. Unless and until the private sector contributions are assured we see no prospect of authorising the start of construction. We therefore continue to look to the private sector to make its contribution so that the line can proceed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it appreciated that the failure to conclude a firm agreement with Olympia & York is regarded by many people as deplorable, particularly in view of the fact that a 500-strong project team is already engaged in preliminary work? In the light of recent reports, can the noble Earl say definitely whether or not it is the intention of the Government to obtain leases or purchase property from Olympia & York in Canary Wharf in order to transfer civil servants? If the Government do so intend, is it not ironic that we use public money to help private developers undertake the scheme?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the administrators of Canary Wharf wish to proceed as quickly as possible to finding a potential buyer. With regard to the noble Lord's further point, the Department of the Environment is in touch with various developers in Docklands. Any proposals made will be carefully considered.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, what efforts are the Government making to overcome the planning blight which undoubtedly results from uncertainty over whether the line is to be built?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is why the administrators are working hard to find a purchaser.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that London Underground has decided to start work on the 17th of this month? Does that indicate that London Underground is as much out of touch with the Government as the Property Services Agency?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that London Underground is fully in touch with what is going on. The works have been authorised because, if they were not to be done and the Secretary of State gave approval to start construction, London Underground Limited could not stick to its 53-month construction programme.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does that mean that the work is starting on Monday?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I did not hear the noble Lord's question.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I shall speak a little louder. Does that mean that the work is to start on the 17th, as illustrated on the posters displayed around Parliament Square, and that therefore Parliament Square will be closed to traffic on that day?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is not wrong in saying that works will commence.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the light of the noble Earl's statement, can he say who will meet the cost of that development work?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the work was programmed well in advance and is already accounted for in the budget. If the work does not proceed the ultimate contract will be delayed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston? Will the work start on the 17th?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, that is what I said.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Government are just as confused as they were in stating that there was an agreement with Olympia & York in regard to the Jubilee Line when it did not in fact exist..
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are not confused. I have made myself perfectly clear.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his short answers to relevant questions are confusing the House? We want to know whether or not work will commence on the 17th: what the status of that work will be; how long it will continue; and whether or not it will continue to completion.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat for the third time that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is right in saying that the works will commence. They will take place during the Recess and be completed before the House resumes.

Interest Rates
3.4 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now ensure a substantial reduction in United Kingdom interest rates.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government will continue to set interest rates so as to keep sterling within its ERM bands and to bear down on inflation.
Lord Jay: But, my Lords, as the Government's action two years ago in fixing the sterling exchange rate at an uneconomic level has had the predictable and indeed predicted result of ever-deepening depression, rising unemployment, a balance of payments deficit, penal interest rates and a paralysed construction and housing industry, have the Government yet learned any lessons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion. The fact of the matter is that since we joined the ERM the trade deficit with the European Community has fallen from £11 billion in 1990 to just £2 billion in 1991.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, yes, but is my noble friend aware that while all reasonable people would expect the Government to decide themselves where their influence should be brought to bear on what the rate of interest should be, in the meantime medium and small businesses are finding the present rate almost intolerable? Is he further aware that it could well be that those businesses will be pushed into a position whereby they will not be around to make their vital contribution when the turn round comes and we want to start expanding again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that everybody understands, and particularly every business, that inflation has been a key to many of this country's problems. A resurgence of inflation would be far more damaging to investment than high interest rates.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is it not the fact that having decided to stick to the ERM the Government are being rather timid about cutting interest rates? Therefore, does the Minister agree that the Government have failed once again to seize the opportunity which they had in the three months after the election?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right. I believe that the Answer that I gave at the beginning is the right way to tackle our problems. I shall be enlarging on that in the debate which is to follow.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would my noble friend gently remind his critics that,
98
nice as it would be to believe the contrary, it is not possible to kick-start one's own car with one's own flat battery? Similarly, does my noble friend agree that it is not possible to pull oneself up by one's own boot straps?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right in that the highly international climate in which we trade and do business means that account has to be taken of other countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as regards the Government's present policy, can the noble Earl say for how much longer we have to wait and what more we have to stand before the policy works? Can he say what level of unemployment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to tolerate before he reduces interest rates and gets some demand into the economy? If he does not do that, is the Minister aware and does he agree that we will be in a slump of 1929 proportions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the biggest threat to employment in this country is inflation. That has been the problem in the past. This is instructive for the noble Lord: since France last realigned in 1987, prices have risen there by less than 18 per cent. In Germany the figure is not far off 15 per cent. In the same period in this country prices have risen by nearly 40 per cent. That is the biggest threat to employment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if sterling were to he devalued a higher charge would be demanded in interest by those who are expected to hold it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is a point which those who criticise what we are doing often fail to take into account.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if it is not possible to reduce interest rates substantially in the near future for external reasons, can the Minister say whether the Government will be contemplating other measures by which the economy can be stimulated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall be shortly discussing the remainder of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget proposals which will do a great deal for the economy.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on reducing the rate of inflation to 3.9 per cent., does my noble friend agree that our steadfast membership of the ERM is a necessary external discipline? Does he further agree that the Government are at a stage in the political cycle at which is particularly good to resist the siren voices which urge reductions in interest rates, which might well lead to a short-term recovery, but which would then rekindle the flames of the inflationary psychology which has been the curse of Britain for 25 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is extremely important that we keep the pressure on inflation. It would be totally

99
inappropriate to accept that inflation of 4 per cent. or 3.9 per cent. is adequate in this country when everybody else in Europe and, indeed, in the rest of the world is saying that it is far too high.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an extremely interesting macrocosm of the debate that we are about to have which I shall refrain from taking part in for the moment. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, stays to hear me speak about kick-starting the economy because I shall deal with that point. Will the noble Earl clarify his answer to my noble friend Lord Jay? He said that we keep interest rates where they are in order to keep sterling within the bounds of the exchange rate mechanism. Do we take that to mean that if we were to lower interest rates the Government's view is that sterling would simply collapse?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from what the noble Lord said I was not sure whether he was not going to take part in the debate that follows having listened to it at this stage or whether he was not going to take part in the Question. What I said was that the Government will continue to set interest rates so as to keep sterling within its ERM bands.
Lord Peston: My Lords, just to clarify his answer, does not the noble Earl agree that he must be saying that, were we to cut interests rates according to the so-called siren voices, sterling would collapse? That is the state of the British economy at the present time, is it not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if we were to cut interest rates we would be cutting them below German levels and it would therefore be expected that the pound would have to appreciate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did the noble Earl say,"appreciate" or "depreciate"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords,"appreciate".

Second World War: Commemorative Services
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which British victories over the Germans in the 1939– 45 war they regard as appropriate for a commemorative service in London on their 50th anniversary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Government are planning a commemorative service to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1995. This will be a national event involving the country as a whole. In addition, the services have selected three World War II events for special commemoration on their 50th anniversaries. Arrangements have been made to enhance existing annual commemorations and the costs incurred are being met from within existing budgets. The RAF
100
commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Britain with a service at Westminster Abbey in 1990. The Navy will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic with a service at Liverpool Anglican Cathedral in 1993. The Army has chosen the 50th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein for special commemoration and, as your Lordships are already aware, commemorative services will be held at El Alamein on 25th October. The Eighth Army Association will also be holding a service at Westminster Abbey on 14th October which will be attended by Her Majesty the Queen. The Government and the Ministry of Defence will also be represented.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that those who have been pushing hard for proper commemoration of the Battle of El Alamein will be gladdened by the latter part of his Answer, especially now that we know that the service to be arranged will be graciously attended by Her Majesty the Queen, with all the admirable feeling that that induces?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. If I may say so, this is yet another example of the power and influence of your Lordships' House at its best.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might have been more appropriate and more sensitive if the questioner had referred to victories over the Nazis and their allies rather than to the Germans who are now our allies and fellow members of the European Community?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my short experience of this House tells me that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is more than able to frame his own Question in his own way.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that his Answer will be widely welcomed by all the many widows and families of the service people who participated in that great campaign in the desert but who, obviously, are unable to travel to the desert? The fact that they can attend a service at Westminster Abbey will be much appreciated by a huge number of the public.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. Your Lordships will be well aware of the special interest he naturally has in the matter. I accept what he says. I would however point out that a number of widows will be travelling to the commemoration in the desert.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us—including, I am sure, many who took part in the Second World War—do not really want to celebrate any victory over the Germans; we want to celebrate peace and the foundation of the United Nations? Let us remember, but let us not ostentatiously remember.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with keen attention. The Second World War was one of the most important

101
battles against tyranny in the history of this nation. As a result, the fact that we won that battle is, I think, a matter for celebration as well as for commemoration.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the victory now to be so appropriately commemorated was a victory over the Germans and that the Germans supported the Nazi regime until the last moment when Hitler very appropriately killed himself? Therefore, is he aware that the Question is accurately framed and that it is a pity to cloud it with references to the Nazis when the victory was, in fact, over the Germans?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if he will forgive me, I do not have the great advantage of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter of even having been alive during those years. However, I have taken the opportunity of an extended education to read some appropriate history books and I know that my noble friend is well known for the accuracy of his observations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that in almost all of the battles, especially El Alamein, there was a strong and effective contribution from members of what was then known as the British Empire, now the Commonwealth? Can we have an assurance from the Government that representatives from the Commonwealth will be suitably invited and suitably treated at any commemorative service?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very happy to be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the assurance that he requests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it was very important throughout the war to make a distinction between the Germans and the Nazis and that it is still important in peace to do the same?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is important, of course, to draw a distinction between Nazis and Germans. We are well aware—again, in my case, from the reading of the history books—that there were people in Germany who opposed the Nazis, but there were also very large numbers of people who were not members of the Nazi party but who fought hard on the Nazi side.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that an occasion of commemoration—a national occasion—is also a great occasion for a re-dedication to the causes of both peace and justice in the world and that the larger the congregation on these occasions the more people will take part in that re-dedication?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am happy to be able to confirm—as I know that the right reverend Prelate will agree—that over the past 13 years Her Majesty's Government have made a greater contribu-tion to peace than almost any member of CND.

CAP Reforms and Fraud
3.18 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the proposed revision of the common agricultural policy is likely to lead to a reduction in the levels of fraud against the Community reported in 1991.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, CAP reform will reduce the scope for fraud in a number of sectors. We will also be working to ensure that the detailed implementing measures contain controls to minimise the risk of fraud.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is it the Government's intention during the United Kingdom presidency to make a determined effort to eliminate this fraud? Can my noble friend comment on the phenomenon of moving olive trees which, if reports are correct, would have made even Macbeth dizzy after his experience with Birnam Wood?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government are always concerned to reduce fraud in all sectors. We shall make use of our presidency to push forward our concerns. In particular, we are aiming to have fraud fully considered at the ECOFIN council in September. As for the latter part of my noble friend's question, I have, indeed, heard about transportable olive groves. On the subject of olive oil, a register and specific control agencies have been set up in the producing member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that the Government will give the most careful consideration to the report of the Court of Auditors (Opinion No.2 of 1992 of 15th May) which, contrary to the impression given by the noble Earl in his reply, suggests that the facilities for the continuation of fraud may well be much greater under the new CAP reforms than before? Will he see to it that due attention is given to this matter and that the appropriate representations are made to those members of the Commission in Brussels who do not yet appear to be taking it seriously?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall certainly give the noble Lord an assurance that the opinion he stated will be fully looked at. These criticisms were based on the Commission's original proposals. The measures in the final package were a considerable improvement on those. They will be easier to administer and less open to fraud. For example, regional base areas in the arable sector will be simpler to administer than the individual base areas proposed by the Commission, and will provide a ceiling on spending.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, by and large, the more complicated the regulations the easier it is to carry out fraud? Does he not further agree that one of the problems of the common agricultural policy is that it is so detailed?

103
The more detail one has the greater the scope for fraud. Would it not be better, as has been suggested from these Benches on a number of occasions, for the Government to press for the Commission to confine itself to the broad lines of policy and leave the regulations to internal administration?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, once the Commission has introduced detailed implementing rules, it will be for member states to ensure that the new schemes are properly implemented and controlled. The Commission proposal for a Community-wide integrated administration and control system will, if agreed in a suitable form, help ensure full and effective implementation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would not a few successful prosecutions be of assistance?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, there certainly have been some prosecutions, but I do not have the figures with me today.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers is proposing to consider further the Court of Auditors' special opinion on measures to combat fraud under CAP reform and whether such consideration will take place before the proposed measures begin in the autumn of this year?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the draft text provides for the integrated system to apply from 1st January 1993 in the case of annual statements and aid applications, and from 1st January 1994 for other matters. It is not yet clear whether agreement on the framework regulation—and the more detailed implementing arrangements which have yet to be introduced—can be reached in time to allow introduction by 1st January 1993.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that frauds by olive tree growers are absolute peanuts—if that is the correct expression—compared with the money which is achieved by swindling in the export subsidy market? Secondly, can he tell us how many extra civil servants the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and other government departments will need to apply the new diverse and numerous regulations?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord with a statistic. In 1991 574 irregularities were reported in the EC as a whole. The amount involved was £47 million and the amount recovered was £6.56 million. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I am afraid that I do not have the figures for that either.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl has said quite frankly that he does not have the figures on a number of subjects. As I understand The Companion to the Standing Orders, Question Time has the purpose of eliciting information from the Government. Therefore, in reply to his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,
104
can he find out how many prosecutions have been made, and in regard to all the other questions on which the noble Earl has failed to give information, will he kindly write to noble Lords and place copies of the letters in the Library?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: Yes, my Lords.

Cattewater Reclamation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Not surprisingly, there has been much discussion in recent weeks about the health of the economy, and in particular about whether the encouraging signs that followed the election are being translated into an upturn in activity. It is never easy to form an accurate picture of the current state of the economy from published statistics and surveys, let alone to predict exactly when a turning point in activity has been reached. Even so, recent economic indicators do provide more grounds for optimism than some commentators wish to acknowledge. Figures pu-blished earlier today showed, disappointingly, that manufacturing output fell in May. In the first quarter manufacturing output is now estimated to have been ½ per cent. higher than in the fourth quarter of last year, and despite May's fall was still higher in the latest three months than in the previous three.
There have also been tentative signs of revival on the high street, with retail sales increasing, albeit fairly modestly, in April and May. Estimates by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders suggest that vehicle registrations in June were up on a year earlier for the third month running.
Unemployment continues to rise, as would be expected given its status as a lagging indicator of activity, but the average increase over the three months to May was the smallest since the three months to September 1990.
These more hopeful signs from the real economy have been reflected in survey evidence suggesting substantial increases in both business and consumer confidence. While consumer confidence may have fallen back a little as post-election euphoria has died away, it remains much stronger than was the case prior to the election. Indeed in the past two months the EC/Gallup measure has been at its highest level since the end of 1988. It was very encouraging to note that a survey published only last week by the Institute of Directors showed a further slight increase in confidence about the economy, following the sharp increase recorded in the wake of our election victory. Moreover, only yesterday we saw welcome signs of recovery from the CBI survey of financial services.
Talk of a post-election boom, to which the Government never subscribed, may well have been overdone; but there is every reason to think that

105
recent prophesies of doom are equally exaggerated. The Government are certainly not complacent; the hardships caused by the recession are very well understood as is the desire for tangible evidence of recovery. But the evidence we have supports the Government's belief that recovery will become firmly established during the course of this year.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has twice referred to evidence. He has passed on opinions that people have expressed. What is the evidence that there is an increase of any kind in the general success of industry?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend did not hear me when I was quoting evidence earlier in my speech. But if my noble friend cares to read the Official Report, I am sure he will see what I have said.
If the exact timing of an upturn in activity is still unclear, no such uncertainty surrounds the progress that has been made in bringing down inflation. From a rate of almost 11 per cent. when we joined the ERM in the autumn of 1990, headline RPI inflation has now fallen to below 4 per cent. lower than the headline rate of consumer price inflation in Germany or the EC as a whole. Further, our rate excluding housing costs is now below the latest EC average for the first time since 1986. Earnings growth and underlying producer-price inflation have both been at their lowest for over 20 years in recent months.
That improvement in our inflation performance has allowed the Government to reduce interest rates by 5 percentage points since the autumn of 1990, narrowing our interest rate differential with Germany to its lowest for over 10 years.
We have been able to do that, while, at the same time, satisfying our ERM commitments which, supported by a firm fiscal stance, now lie at the heart of our anti-inflation strategy. Indeed, those who argue that membership of the ERM has worsened the recession are wrong to assume that interest rates could have been reduced further had we not chosen to participate without detrimental consequences elsewhere. In particular, we would have had to have been willing to accept a substantial depreciation in the value of sterling. To do that would have been to abandon the fight against inflation, and the short-term boost to competitiveness would soon have been eroded by rising prices.
The devaluations of the 1960s and 1970s, far from providing any sustained boost to exports, were associated with the continuing decline in our share of world trade in manufactures. Devaluation offers at best a temporary easing of the symptoms of our economic ills, not a cure, and to repeat that recipe would have been nothing short of folly.
A number of commentators have recently suggested a devaluation of sterling within the ERM, arguing that that would allow a cut in interest rates. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in his speech last Friday, that is an option that simply does not exist at all. Now that
106
we are in the ERM, the differential between our rates and those of other participants largely reflects the market's view on the likelihood of depreciation.
To argue that rates could fall after a devaluation, one has to believe that the markets would see one's devaluation as reducing the chances of a further one. It is far more likely that they would take the view that a government willing to take the easy way out once would probably do so again rather than take the more difficult course of following through the commitment to achieving permanently low inflation.
It is the defeat of inflation on a lasting basis that is our objective. All too often in the past we have seen inflation fall only to relax our guard and let inflationary pressures build up again.
The clear lesson of our post-war economic performance is that allowing significant inflationary pressure to develop before throwing on the brakes to squeeze it out of the system has led to more pain and less economic growth than could have been achieved had preventing such pressure developing in the first place been given greater priority.
The Government have learnt that lesson. We believe that the ERM is the best framework in which to tackle those problems. When we joined it we said that it was not a panacea; but through it not only are we determined to break the inflation psychology that has done so much harm in the past, but also make the UK a truly low inflation economy in the future. The transition is a difficult and painful one, but the prize is also great: a real increase in the sustainable growth of our economy over the medium term. Only by making that transition can we fully capitalise on the substantial supply-side reforms that have already helped transform our productivity performance.
That prize is within our grasp. If we lose our nerve and let this opportunity pass us by we shall not quickly get another one. Neither is it likely that our competitors in Europe will make a similar mistake, as they too have learnt the lesson of Germany's success.
Those who argue that we should give up the fight against inflation because the pain is too great should consider where such policies would take us. History shows that devaluation cannot bring us non-inflationary growth. If we were to resort to such a policy again, we would be increasingly isolated in having been unable to face up to the need to defeat inflation.
That is what underlies the Government's determination to remain within the system at the current parity.
Having set the scene of the present economic situation, I turn now to the Bill itself. In a normal year the Finance Bill would generally legislate for most, if not all, of the measures announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement. However, the short Finance Bill which was presented to us in March legislated for the main announcements in the Budget, including the 20 per cent. rate of income tax which applies to the first £2,000 of taxable income for everyone. For nearly 4 million people,20p is now their marginal rate. The cut follows the reductions from

107
June 1979 in the basic rate from 33p to 25p and the measures that we have taken at the higher end to improve incentives.
The Bill that we have before us today completes the legislation founded on the Budget Statement. I hope that it will be helpful if I set out the main measures in it.
Perhaps I may start with the indirect tax measures. There are a number of provisions here which are needed to prepare for the introduction of the single market on 1st January 1993. These include Clauses 1 to 5, 8, 14 and 17 and Schedules 1, 2 and 3—nearly 70 pages of legislation. These are, in general, technical changes to excise duty and VAT and some related changes to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
The Bill also proposes to get rid of a tax. Clause 6 abolishes the excise duty on matches and mechanical lighters as from 1st January 1993.
Clause 7 will exempt members' clubs and similar societies from the liability to bingo duty and also removes the burden requiring them to keep records. That measure will take effect from 3rd August this year.
Clause 10 will clarify Customs powers to search aircraft at small aerodromes and other landing sites. For the avoidance of doubt, an aircraft can be considered "airborne" if it is in flight and no part of it is touching the ground. An aircraft simply jacked up off the ground cannot be considered "airborne".
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is an important point which must he clarified.
Clause 16 will provide an agricultural flat rate scheme for farmers as an alternative to VAT registration. That should be a useful simplification and deregulatory measure for an important industry.
Clause 15 will rectify a problem with the VAT legislation on repayment supplement, which is paid by Customs when they are late in making a repayment to a trader. The new clause was made necessary by a recent decision in the courts. This particular change will not have retrospective effect.
I turn now to the direct tax measures in the Bill and there are a number of proposals in the section which will be of great interest to businesses.
Clause 21 sets the main rate of corporation tax. For this year the rate will remain unchanged at 33 per cent. That level remains the lowest in the European Community and in the G7. As a result of the reductions announced by my right honourable friend in 1991, business will benefit by around £1 billion a year. That allows more profits to be retained and thus more available for investment.
Clause 22 sets the small companies rate of corporation tax. It is not proposed to make any change this year. Small companies have benefited considerably from changes to their tax regime over the past few years. Since 1988, the profits limits have increased by 150 per cent. and the rate of taxation has been reduced from 42 per cent. in 1978 to 25 per cent. now.
108
There are also two changes to inheritance tax. The threshold for inheritance tax was increased on 6th April in line with the statutory indexation provisions to £147,000. But Clause 72 and Schedule 14 will increase the threshold by more than inflation to £150,000. That will be backdated to Budget day.
There is also a measure which will be of significant help to small family businesses. Clause 73 will ensure that most of those businesses can be passed onto the next generation free of inheritance tax thus removing the threat that this tax has posed to such firms in the past.
Clauses 41 to 43 and Clause 69 affect the film industry. They introduce two new reliefs for makers of qualifying films—broadly, films certified by the DTI as being UK or other EC films. The reliefs are designed to ease the cash flow difficulties often faced by producers by reducing the lag between expenditure being incurred and tax relief being available. The clauses in the Bill reflect consultation with industry representatives who have warmly welcomed the new reliefs. We hope they will help stimulate film-making in this country.
My right honourable friend also announced in the Budget Statement that the business expansion scheme would come to an end at the end of 1993. Clause 38 legislates for that.
The Bill contains provisions which implement the three direct tax measures adopted in July 1990 by the EC Council of Ministers.
Clause 59, together with Schedule 10, bring in the rent-a-room scheme promised in our election manifesto. This proposal was not in the Budget. It reflects the Government's commitment to a strong private rented sector which will increase the quantity and variety of low cost rented housing, thus giving more choice to tenants, making it easier for people to move jobs and helping to ease homelessness. The scheme is a simple one which will ensure that gross annual rents, not exceeding £3,250, from letting furnished rooms in one's own house will be exempt from income tax. That incentive to people to rent out spare rooms in their homes should make a significant contribution to the supply of furnished accommoda-tion, and it has been widely welcomed.
Another measure which was announced in the Budget is a provision which builds on the major reforms in 1990 and continues the Government's commitment to independent taxation. Clause 20 and Schedule 5 give married couples a new flexibility to allocate the married couple's allowance in a way which suits their own preferences and financial circumstances. Until now the married couple's allowance has always been allocated to the husband unless he had insufficient income to make use of it. Now a couple may, if they wish, agree to allocate it to the wife instead or to split it equally between them.
Charities too will benefit from this Bill. Clauses 27 and 28 reduce from £600 to £400 the minimum donation to charity qualifying for tax relief under the Gift Aid scheme and relaxes the rules for relief under charitable covenants.
The Bill also confirms in Clause 64 the rates of composite rate tax (the tax formerly charged on

109
building societies, banks and other deposit takers on interest paid to their investors) for the years 1986–87 to 1989– 90; and in Clause 65 the widely held and long-standing interpretation of the law for taxing proprietary life assurance companies.
This is the Bill before us. It completes the legislation based on this year's Budget Statement, a Budget which continues the process of reform and reduction of taxes which has been the hallmark of 13 years of Conservative Governments, reforms which have encouraged enterprise and which have been an essential component of our policies to raise the sustainable rate of economic growth. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
3.42 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Finance Bill. Like him, I shall devote the major part of my speech to the state of the economy, as we normally do in your Lordships' House. I shall have a few things to say about the detail of the Finance Bill but rather less than normal because I am aware that we have other business which interests noble Lords other than the small coterie of people who are interested merely in the economy.
The great problem is where to start. The Government's motto seems to be always to look on the bright side, as a well known song goes. My experience as an economist is that a much better maxim is always to assume things are worse than they seem and then one might obtain one or two pleasant surprises. In a sense, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was asking for when he intervened.
One of our difficulties is that we read in the newspapers that the Treasury has redone its forecasts and has new forecasts about output or inflation but we are not told what they are. The Independent newspaper wrote to the Treasury to ask for the latest Treasury views on those matters. The reply from the head of the Treasury was that they could not be made available because they were market sensitive; but that is to get the argument the wrong way round. They should be made available because they are market sensitive. Markets should not be misled and they should not have to guess what the Treasury believes is going on or is likely to go on. That is not merely the view of what might be called a Keynesian like myself; it is central to the view of the most anti-interventionist economists that the role of government is to ensure that markets operate on a correct, factual foundation.
I was disappointed by the Minister's inability to tell us what Treasury current thinking is, but I accept that he was merely repeating the doctrine that the Treasury itself has put out. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. On the other hand, we are aware that all the other forecasters believe that in 1992 things will turn out to be a great deal worse than many of us expected. As I have said previously in these debates, I do not criticise just the Government for that. I too, as it turned out, have been over-optimistic. I could not believe that in 1992 things would turn out as bad as
110
they have turned out to be. My excuse is always that I am just me; the Treasury has a vast machine, a great deal of equipment and many people brighter than I am. But they seem to have got it even more wrong. What is more, they will not even admit that they have got it wrong.
We shall return to this issue in the Autumn. We will then have the Autumn Statement when we will know about these things, but several months later than the markets need. I ask the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has a duty to let us know what the Treasury thinking is and not to leave us at the mercy of other forecasters.
I shall turn now to what has to be one of the central topics—inflation. We are dealing with inflation caused by the Government's own policy errors. There was nothing built in. The inflation was caused by the Government. Nonetheless, having caused it, the Minister is right: inflation is below the peak to which it was driven. I have to point out that the cost in unemployment has been prodigious; and it has been prodigious for a second time within a decade. The cost is measured in hundreds of millions of working days lost. That is the effect of the kind of unemployment that we have. The Minister's noble friend was only the other day reminding us, as the Government do when they are in a desperate condition, of the working days lost through strikes in the 1970s, but they are measured in terms of an order of magnitude less; namely, in terms of tens of millions of working days lost a year. That is not satisfactory, I agree, but tens of millions a year is a great deal fewer than hundreds of millions a year. But that is the price we pay.
I must also point out, as I do occasionally, that even if the extra unemployment is the price that has to be paid for reducing inflation, there is a moral problem which all governments have to face up to: even if the cost has to be borne, is it right that that cost should be borne by the weakest and poorest sections of our community, the ones least likely to gain from the ending of inflation?
The most fundamental point relates to whether and in what sense the inflation problem has been solved. Earlier government claims that sound monetary policy and the attack on the trade unions would solve the problem have been shown to be unfounded, because the moment the economy got going again inflation got going again. I have argued, and I continue to argue, that essentially what has solved the inflation problem, at least until now, has been the fact that the economy requires unemployment to be at no less than 2 million if we are to keep inflation under control. It requires also that the sustainable growth rate be kept pretty low.
When I first came to your Lordships' House I said that, if the solution to the problem was to create vast amounts of unemployment and hold back the economy, it was not one that I was willing to accept. The solution to the inflation problem lies in the ability to run the economy in a non-inflationary way, with full employment and at maximum growth. There is no evidence that that has occurred.

111
On existing government policy let me say a few supportive things which in due course I shall then undermine. If the sole aim of the policy is to reduce inflation, preferably to zero as the Prime Minister said—of course I disagree with that—then most of the Government's policies make sense. I have to say to noble Lords who criticise the Government that if zero inflation is the objective, then, as the noble Earl said, it is right that we stay in the ERM at the existing rate. It is right that interest rates should be kept high. If the Bundesbank raises them later this week, it is right that our rate should rise as well. The cutting of government expenditure is the correct policy. In those circumstan-ces it would be right also to raise taxes in order to reduce the public sector deficit more rapidly. However, I have heard nothing about that. It would be even more correct to move to the narrow bands of the ERM. If those are the objectives of the policy, then those points follow.
However, the important point to realise—which I do not believe that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister appreciates—is that if the sole aim of the policy is to reduce inflation to zero, then output and unemployment are out of control. They will go where they will. A move towards zero inflation, which is what the Prime Minister said he believed in, will mean that unemployment will rise well into the 3 million range and stay above even the 2 million range with which I said we would be permanently saddled. If we assume that the underlying or sustainable growth rate of the economy is about 21 per cent. per annum, the same as in the denigrated days of the 1960s, we must stay below that rate for some time to get inflation down. More to the point, it would be perilous to risk going above that rate.
The reason is obvious economics—a zero inflation target puts all the risks on the down side. Any untoward expansion of output, whenever it occurs, must immediately be scotched. Any tendency for the economy to move ahead rapidly has inflation dangers. More to the point, because businessmen are not stupid they will expect any rapid growth to be scotched. They will say,"The Government will reverse this on anti-inflation grounds."
Therefore, even though the business community, in its usual way, was misguided enough to support the Government during the election, the effect of a zero inflation policy must be anti-investment and anti-expansion. That does not mean that we should not have an inflation target. But it means that we should have other targets as well—high output targets and low unemployment targets. It means that if we stay within the ERM—unlike one or two of my noble friends and noble Lords on the other side, I wish us to stay within the ERM—that gives fiscal policy a stronger rather than a weaker role.
What then of policy? I was not certain which of the relevant metaphors to use about the Government. Are we observing masterly inactivity or seeing the Chancellor as a rabbit, transfixed by the headlights of an approaching crisis? That is an appalling metaphor, and I wish that I could withdraw it. Does the Chancellor know what he is doing? Or is he doing nothing because he does not know what to do? What
112
could he do? With his views, he cannot raise government expenditure because the deficit is too high. He cannot cut taxes because the deficit is too high. He may be tempted—as the Economist argued the other day that he should be—into vigorously cutting government expenditure in the middle of a recession and raising taxes. The noble Earl said in answer to a Question earlier that because of the pound's weak position in the ERM the Government cannot cut interest rates. For all kinds of reasons—many of which I do not disagree with—we cannot devalue sterling. So we end up writing "no" to every policy instrument we have.
It would be easy for me to adopt the Laurel and Hardy approach and say: "What a fine mess you've got us into, Stan", and leave it at that. But I feel that one has a duty at least to try to suggest one or two possibilities. One question I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is what keeps the economy going at all at the moment. After all, although we are in a fairly deep recession, we have not quite reached the great slump. What is keeping us going?
What prevents a deep depression is public expenditure. That keeps us higher than we would otherwise be. Some public expenditure is on goods and services, an expansion that the Government introduced before the election. That is the one growth factor in the economy. There is also the vast amount of money we spend on so-called transfer payments unemployment benefits and the like—which are spent on consumer goods. If we did not pay that public expenditure, consumption would collapse still further. Those are the so-called built in stabilisers.
It seems to me therefore that the Prime Minister is disingenuous when he says that we cannot use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. It is only fiscal policy that is preventing a major catastrophe. The Government must appreciate that. What measures can we suggest? I believe that there is room on the investment side. We could be more helpful to investment in both the public and private sector.
One aspect of the public sector intrigues me. We dealt with it at Question Time. I do not criticise the Government for taking the view that when Canary Wharf looked a viable project, great profits could he made and asset values could be created. I do not criticise the Government for saying in that case,"We would like a private sector contribution to the construction of the Jubilee Line". It made perfectly good sense to me as a taxpayer that in that scenario the Government would ask for it, even though in the past our Underground lines were not built that way.
However, we do not have that scenario. What we have is the collapse of the project. In those circumstances, as the great Lord Keynes pointed out, the rules change. There are two sensible actions for the Government to take. One is to finance the Jubilee Line, which would be enormously helpful to the construction industry and to development in East London. If necessary, they could make a contingent claim on future expected asset values by saying,"If this works and the private sector makes a killing, we, the Treasury, will take some of it when it happens." I heard the noble Earl manfully try to give an answer on

113
the Jubilee Line earlier. It seems to me that, given the circumstances, the Government have got the economics wrong. That is not because they were wrong originally: they have become wrong because circumstances have changed.
I go much further. Given the state of the construction industry, I suggest a great deal more public sector investment. I do not wish to rehearse the business of schools, hospitals and all that, but it could provide the biggest boost to the economy that I can think of. There is no large import content, so disasters on the foreign balance side are not as great as they might be.
I cannot continue without pulling the Government's leg on one other aspect of their anti-inflation stance—the venture into incomes policy. As an advocate of incomes policy for most of my academic life, I am not criticising the Government for it. I am just taken aback that they have gone into that field, albeit to control the remuneration of the upper echelons rather than those on average or below average pay.
The recommendations of the review panel have been set aside on what I can only describe as classical incomes policy grounds: to set a good example and to lower pay and inflation expectations. I must have written more briefing material for Ministers on that than on any other subject. I often wonder whether some of my work is recycled and then reaches the Prime Minister and reappears. Incidentally, on the subject of pay for the upper echelons, I did not read the other argument that public finances are in such a parlous state that we cannot afford to pay the rises. That might have been a more valid argument.
Perhaps the noble Earl will reply to these questions in due course. In the circumstances, what is the point of the review panel? Is it suggested that the panel got its sums wrong? I find that hard to believe. It has made the relevant comparisons with the private sector and has found out what is happening there. Private sector pay is out of control. Since the rule is that the public sector is supposed to keep in step, it follows that the review panel's recommendations were correct.
I also wish to point out to noble Lords that, as any first year student of economics could have told the Government, the new privatised monopolies would clearly use their monopoly power not simply to reward their shareholders but to reward themselves. What do the Government think happens in those circumstances? The notion that management has an altruistic view and says,"We have to pay the money out to shareholders" is ridiculous. What has occurred was predictable. Our judges—for whom my heart bleeds—our generals a fortiori, and our top civil servants, even more, are being underpaid.
As to privatised monopolies, I do not believe that the Conservatives achieved much of a bargain. I read that one of the water companies gave the Conservatives £50,000 as a political contribution before the election. The executives are paying themselves very much more than £50,000 each. Equally, on the question of advertising tobacco, I do not believe that the hoardings were really worth to the
114
Conservative Government anything like the value to the tobacco companies of the failure to ban tobacco advertising.
On incomes policy, I conclude by declaring an interest. I hope that The Times was mistaken yesterday and that there will be no interference by the Government with academic pay. I was shocked to read that such consideration progressed from judges, generals and civil servants to academics, even though I have little interest myself in such matters.
Noble Lords will agree that I have spoken for far too long. However, I should like to make a few remarks on the details of the Bill. I wish that I had been given notice of the question: when is an aircraft in flight? I congratulate the noble Earl. It is the most interesting philosophical topic that I have heard in your Lordships' House for some time. I shall now consider the matter a great deal. I take the noble Earl's point: an aircraft which is jacked up cannot be in flight. However, the question,"When is an aircraft in flight?" is a difficult one.
There are problems on the charity aspects of the Finance Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, will speak. He will no doubt cover the relevant points. I therefore shall not do so.
I always like to congratulate the Government. I am interested in the rent-a-room scheme. I am certainly interested in whether it will work. If it does, I believe that the Government have made a correct move. Equally, the Government are to he congratulated when they increase the excise duties on tobacco. I hope that that policy continues strongly.
My right honourable and honourable friends in another place raised a question which I hope will not embarrass your Lordships. I understand—the situa-tion does not apply to me—that if one is the owner of land or a work of art one can receive relief from inheritance tax under the so-called conditionally exempt transfer rule. That means that one allows public access to the land or to the art. I am told that people are glad to take the money but not to grant the access. Since the proposal is good, I hope that the Government will intensify their efforts.
I do not care to crow over the Government's problems. The noble Earl always reminds me that my side lost the election and his side won. When I consider the state of the economy, I say,"The best of luck to him". On the other hand, I would not have minded having a go at trying to get the economy right. The Government are doing nothing. I find it hard to believe that they will carry on doing nothing. The noble Earl said that the Government will not be deflected from their inactivity. I shall be interested to hear the Autumn Statement. We shall then have our next economics debate and will know whether we shall have had quite that much inactivity. I conclude by thanking the noble Earl.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, given his most interesting comments on the consequences of zero inflation, does he agree with the former treasurer of the Conservative Party—he is not in his place today—who pointed out in the Sunday Telegraph two days ago that a mild inflation of less

115
than 6 per cent. is more compatible with the classless society to which the present Prime Minister aspires than is zero inflation?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not read the Sunday Telegraph two days ago, but that is my major disadvantage. It has always been my view that large-scale inflation is destructive of society. An economist has stated that it is akin to embezzlement because essentially one is eroding the value of money. That is a rather clever idea. However, it has also been my view that a moderate amount of inflation is conducive to economic growth. That is an original Keynesian view. The same economist pointed out that unemployment and the destruction of industrial capacity is akin to vandalism. One has one's choice of evils. The point that the noble Lord makes is that one has to achieve the right balance. I believe that the average European rate of inflation is the one at which we should aim rather than a zero rate.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I understand that in future we shall consider the estimates for expenditure and the Budget together. In other words, we shall consider simultaneously what we wish to spend our money on and how we shall raise the money. That seems such an eminently sensible idea that I find it difficult to understand why we have not done that for generations. In his private life, no one would plan his expenditure without regard to how he will attain the money, and vice versa. I therefore greatly welcome the Government's conversion to this sensible plan. I hope that the noble Earl will confirm that that will be the practice. Perhaps he will tell us when it will first he introduced.
If that were the position today, we should have a very different Finance Bill from that which is before us. Surely one has to consider the priorities on which we need to spend. What, in order of importance, are the jobs that we simply have to undertake? How shall we make the money in order to tackle them? That is the way sensible persons or businesses run their finances. If those were the questions, surely members on all the Benches of your Lordships' House would say that the matters to which we have to give high priority for spending must be competitiveness and wealth creation. I am quite sure that few Members of your Lordships' House will disagree that those are the important issues because on them depends all the other matters that we wish to undertake.
As well as wealth creation and competitiveness, one has to tackle the related but not identical problems of unemployment and poverty. If those are the jobs to be undertaken, the question then arises: how does one best raise and spend the money in order to meet those needs?
If we had faced the situation in that way I cannot believe that we would have had the Budget and Finance Bill that we have had. In introducing the 20 per cent. band and in their continuing determination to cut taxation the Government have considered that it is best to encourage consumer expenditure. That is what the cutting of taxation presumably is intended to
116
achieve. I suppose it is assumed that if the Government put more money immediately into taxpayers' pockets they would start to spend it; and if they started to spend it that would have some effect on employment and therefore on poverty. But of course it is not working out like that, and nor should anyone have expected that it would. We are a heavily indebted country. It is now quite plain that those small amounts of additional money that have gone into taxpayers' pockets have not been spent. Therefore, the desired effects on employment and poverty are not being achieved. Indeed, to the extent that that additional money is being spent, it is sucking in exports, as everyone who has studied the past and looks with any intelligence to the future knew that it would. Such spending also makes the situation regarding the balance of payments worse. That is a further problem which I did not put at the top of the list, but it is one with which we have to deal.
The policy that has been adopted of releasing some money into taxpayers' pockets and the determination of the Government in reiterating, as they do, that they wish to reduce the tax band to 20 per cent. for everyone seems to be based on the assumption that that is the way in which to run the economy.
In so far as money was available for those cuts, and in so far as the Government might have had the courage even to raise taxes somewhat, that money should surely have gone into investment. Indeed, had the money gone into investment the benefit would have spilled over into improvements in employment and the reduction of poverty, which are the objectives which I am sure your Lordships agree we all share.
What form should those investments take? We have made proposals often before and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to some of them. There should be investment in infrastructure and in the railways. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that at present Canary Wharf is a candidate.
What would be the effect? It would provide a start. I refuse to call it a kick start. Why on earth do we have to give everything a kick as well as a start? That is one of the appalling cliché phrases which is trotted out on every suitable and unsuitable occasion. Investment would provide a start to recovery in the construction industry, which is in a woeful state. Not only are the small building businesses going bankrupt, as they always do in times of recession; one has only to open any newspaper to see that some of the household names in the construction industry are in serious difficulties. That is disastrous from the point of view of the economy. Investment by the Government in the construction industry and encouragement to the industry in other ways to invest and develop should surely be a top priority in government policy at the present time. Not only would that begin to ease the position in relation to unemployment, but it would also have the effect of increasing the competitiveness of the country, faced as we are by strong competition not only from countries within the European Community but also from countries outside the Community. There is growing competition from Asian countries which we shall have increasing difficulty in meeting.

117
The second area of investment, which we on these Benches have advocated repeatedly, is education and training. The Government believe that they are doing a great deal on that front. They have not even begun to face the real problems of the undertrained labour force of this country. Perhaps I may once again throw out a suggestion based on my own experience of training and education.
Many years ago in the company in which I worked we had a system of taking on two school leavers for each job. They spent half of each day on education and training and the other half on production. If we adopted such a system we would solve the problem of unemployment among the 16 to 18 year-olds at a stroke, to use an overworked phrase. Everyone says that the key is the 16 to 18 age group. There is a great deal in that. Very many of them are doing nothing at all and they are not being given any money for doing it. Therefore, not only are they not learning the skills which they need if we are to compete but they are creating the inevitable social problems which are bound to arise when 16 to 18 year-olds have no money and nothing to do.
Will the Government think again about that very simple and obvious proposal—two for each job at the age of 16 to 18? That would have to be accompanied by lower rates of pay for that age group, but if they are receiving decent education and training for half of the time that is not unreasonable. Now that they have had a taste of having no money at all they might even think it a good deal. It is a simple answer to the problem affecting that small group, but one which is well worth pursuing. Administratively that is far simpler than one-day or two-day release schemes which from the employer's point of view are a great nuisance. Two-for-one schemes are not a nuisance and are easy to operate.
That is perhaps a digression but it is another example of the better ways in which the money which is available could be used in preference to a reduction in taxation in order to provide the investment that we need in both the infrastructure and the human infrastructure of this country. Of course it is not only a question of the 16 to 18 age group. There are plenty of other groups, particularly older returning women—but I shall not digress on that point—and there is a great deal of scope for improving the skills of the labour force so that we can meet competition. However, that has not been the Government's way.
In relation to the problems of unemployment and poverty there are other matters which could well have been attended to but which have not been. The Government are great supporters of small businesses. We are all great supporters of small businesses these days. However, what the Government have done for small businesses does not take them very far. There are a number of other steps which could have been taken. I shall not list them all, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to one which has not been mentioned recently.
We have so often said in your Lordships' House that the distinction which is made between national insurance and taxation is totally phoney. There is no
118
insurance left in national insurance. They are two systems of taxation. Why on earth cannot we put those two systems of taxation together? That would simplify life for small businesses—and also for large businesses. However, the administration is more difficult for small businesses which have to handle the time-consuming procedures themselves. I understand that it would also save the Government no less than £1.2 billion a year on the administration of the national insurance scheme. It is a waste of money and it is a waste of small businesses' time and therefore of their money.
If we want to deal with the problem of poverty why do we not undertake that other amalgamation which has been discussed so often and about which nothing is ever done—bringing together taxation and benefits? If taxation and benefits were handled together the many people in the lower income groups and in the poverty sector who do not draw the benefits to which they are entitled would automatically receive them.
Finally, also on the subject of relieving poverty there is the whole question of child care, which has not been dealt with in the Finance Bill. Child care is an issue with many aspects, including the benefit to the youngsters. It is also of the greatest importance to women who for one reason or another need jobs and to hold down those jobs, but who find it extremely difficult to do so because of the non-availability of child care or because of its heavy costs. Real concessions on child care and genuine measures to ensure that child care is regarded as an expense of working would ease the position of many low income families and in particular of one-parent families. That is a measure which we hoped that the Government would be able to produce, but it is sadly lacking in the Finance Bill.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I can agree very much with what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her very interesting speech. She then suggested that it was much more fruitful to discuss public expenditure together with the means of raising the revenue. As I understand it, that is the intention of the new scheme which is to come into operation next year when in December we shall discuss both what would now be regarded as the Budget and Finance Bill on the one hand and the public expenditure White Paper on the other.
I very much agree, because it must be the case with a country as it is with us as individuals that one has always to weigh, on the one hand, the value of the expenditure which one proposes to undertake against, on the other hand, the cost of undertaking it and the means of raising the revenue for that purpose. Therefore, I was very glad that the noble Baroness began with that remark. I think that she will acknowledge that it is one which the Government appear to accept in view of the changes in the system which it has already been announced they propose to introduce from December next year.
Nonetheless, the Finance Bill is an immensely important measure. I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he said that only a small coterie of

119
Members of your Lordships' House would be interested. I do not believe that that is true. The Finance Bill is of major importance to the whole running of our economy. It is of major importance to innumerable public activities and it is a Bill which it is light that your Lordships' House should discuss. My only regret is that we are discussing it now, at virtually the end of the sittings. Although I am sure that we shall have a very good debate on Second Reading, as I understand it we shall not have any debate on the Committee and remaining stages. That is a pity because many of us have ideas which it is right that we should contribute. Certainly in my experience as a former Treasury Minister I have found in detailed discussions of a Finance Bill the most helpful suggestions either from noble Lords or honourable Members who have experience in these matters.
Perhaps I may retail a slightly amusing story in that context. On the occasion of my last speech in the other place, which happened to be 20 years ago on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, I pointed out that the proposals in the Bill as it stood provided that inheritance tax (or death duties as it was then called) should apply at £15,000 in bequests to individuals, including one's wife (because there was no exemption as there is now for a wife); whereas for a charity the limit should he £30,000. I ventured to point out that that meant that if you were leaving money you could safely leave more to a cats' home than you could to your wife. That seemed to me wrong. However, it may amuse your Lordships to know that that observation of mine, which was reported, duly produced a letter from the Clapham branch of the RSPCA, which wrote to me to say that the Government were absolutely light; widows were perfectly well provided for and the poor cats needed the money. Fortunately, the Government of the day were not so persuaded. I am happy to recall that in the Committee stage of that Bill both provisions, for charity and for a kinsman or relative, were put at the same figure of £30,000.
But that is a small and perhaps slightly flippant example of the reality; namely, that it is extremely useful to the Government—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree—to have the contributions which can be made in discussion. I am only sorry that we have only this one debate on the Bill this afternoon in this House.
One is faced with a dilemma. One can give one's views on the general working of the economy and agree that the Government are right to go for zero inflation or, as some noble Lords have suggested, that it might be wiser to go for a little inflation, with the consequent easing of restrictions on employment and so on. One can consider all those general policy issues. At the same time one has to cover the whole field of taxation, with all its frequent bearing on those problems.
With regard to the latter point, I am glad to see that in modest degree the Government are still pursuing their avowed intention to reduce taxation and in particular to reduce direct taxation. There is a comparatively modest adjustment on the first £2,000 after £20,000 a year but that has been supported by government Statements that in future years it is
120
intended to extend it further. Those of us who are interested in these matters will naturally be very anxious to see that that is done.
There is little doubt that at the moment direct taxation is still very high. Forty per cent. is a very substantial rate indeed. It bites on earnings or income of over £20,000 or so a year, which is a very serious discouragement to initiative and an encouragement to those who can earn high incomes to go abroad to earn such money to places where they are not subject to those difficulties.
In that connection, I am sorry to see that there is no action being taken in respect of the so-called—it is so-called—national insurance contribution. The noble Baroness referred very properly to it in her speech. It is a fact that the so-called national insurance contribution on higher earnings is a serious addition to the level of direct taxation. It means that on a considerable body of higher earnings the effective rate of deduction for tax purposes and so-called national insurance is 59 per cent. and not 40 per cent. That is a very serious imposition upon individuals. The provision is also completely misnamed as a national insurance contribution. It does not bite at all on the amount of pension or other benefits received by the person who so contributes. It is simply a tax.
In the days (now a good many years of) when I was responsible for administering national insurance, the national insurance contribution had a direct relation-ship to the benefits: to pension, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or whatever. But it is now the case, certainly in respect of higher earnings, that it has no such relationship at all. It is a misnomer to call it a national insurance contribution. It seems to provide cover for a high rate of personal tax which is extremely difficult to justify. I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply, though obviously nothing can be done this year, he will indicate that the Government are aware of that point and of the difficulties and are seriously trying to tackle them.
My view is that the levy should cease to be treated as a national insurance contribution, that tax should be imposed at whatever is thought to be the appropriate rate and that the national insurance scheme should not be involved in this matter. It is certainly a misnomer to call it a national insurance contribution and may even mislead some people.
With regard to inheritance tax (or death duties as it used to be called) I was very glad to see a provision included in respect of business assets. That will be a great help to certain small businesses. Where the assets of the business are vested in the individual and the individual dies, it is a very serious matter when inheritance tax is applied to the proceeds. But I should like to see further developments on inheritance tax. In particular, the Government say that they wish to encourage people to own their own home. But it is inconsistent to provide that when a man and his wife die (the wife is exempt for the time being of course), inheritance tax is imposed on the property which they had acquired. That means that the proper desire of a man (or woman) to hold a home for himself and his family and to endow a family home to continue is

121
frustrated. With the rates of inheritance tax any property of any particular value would involve a very considerable liability.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Minister that the provision will not necessarily cost the Government a great deal. If ancient family houses and world famous houses throughout the country are exempt from inheritance tax, then one is at least making sure that it is unlikely that there will be a demand for government help to maintain those lovely houses. If they can be inherited without either tax or subsidy, it is surely a much more wholesome provision. In the case of humbler homes it surely meets the Government's professed ideal that we should encourage people to own their own homes. I hope again that this is a matter that may be considered before the next Finance Bill. It is one that certainly I should like to see most vigorously pursued.
I should like to add a word about VAT. I think it is a most inflationary tax, not least because it is imposed not only on sales of articles but on sales of services: it involves a charge in many cases on services. It is also now, thanks to the changes made in order to finance the local taxation system, at 17.5 per cent. a very high rate of tax. Additionally, it is imposed, I think rather oppressively, on various goods and services not only on their own cost but on their own cost as inflated by other taxation, and then the calculation for VAT includes that extra element. Perhaps I may illustrate this in the case of a car. If you buy a car it is sold for a certain price. A car tax is imposed and then VAT is imposed on the cost of the car as inflated by the tax that has already been paid on it. This seems to me a very oppressive provision.
I was responsible years ago for the administration of the old purchase tax and I must say to your Lordships that I remain utterly convinced that that was a much better system than VAT. It fell very little on necessities and not at all on services, but it was imposed at a very high rate on luxuries. If my recollection serves, the rate of tax on jewellery was as high as 66.33 per cent., whereas on necessities—children's clothes, for example—it was not applied at all. It was a flexible, subtle tax, which had little, if any, effect on inflation and was infinitely superior to the clumsy and heavy-handed provisions of VAT. I know that with our European connections it is difficult to free ourselves from VAT but we ought to consider at least lowering the rate.
Then there is the tax on tobacco. That tax has been increased, but I suggest that it ought to be increased even further. I have had some experience of this. During my two stints at the Treasury I was always an advocate of pushing up the rate of tobacco tax. We were always advised by Customs and Excise that the figure which we had in mind was so high that it would discourage sales and that we would lose revenue as a result. We disregarded that advice on the three occasions in which I was involved, and on each of those three occasions for a fortnight Customs and Excise was right but when we got into the third week the craving for tobacco was such that the consumption
122
and revenue went up and one was able to turn to Customs and Excise and say, as I am afraid I sometimes did,"I told you so".
There is a very special case for the taxation of tobacco. The evidence that smoking is dangerous to health is overwhelming and, if people desire, and so passionately desire, to smoke that they are prepared to take the risk and greatly to increase, on the average, their liability to illness and therefore contribute to the cost of the National Health Service, it seems to me only reasonable that they should pay additionally towards the cost of the service which they are inflating by the action they are taking. I hope therefore that the Government will be quite resolute in increasing the tax and will not allow themselves to be discouraged—because I believe that Customs and Excise never changes and it is probably giving the Government the same advice today as it gave to us.
There are many other aspects of this Bill and obviously one is tempted to make an unduly prolonged speech. I would conclude by saying only this: I believe that, despite certain minor aspects which I would like to see amended, this is in our present economic situation a sensible measure. I believe that, combined with the Government's resolute refusal—which I very much welcome—to pay high increases to highly paid officials and also with their determination to fight inflation, it will help to bring this country through what is undoubtedly a difficult phase. I do not envy Treasury Ministers at the moment. I think they are going to have a hard and battering time, but I believe they are right and that when the history of this time comes to be written we and our country will have a great feeling of gratitude to them.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if, as I am not speaking in the next debate, I welcome my noble friend Lord Healey who is to make his maiden speech. This may not be in order, but we have sat together through long days and nights and I feel obliged just to say hallo.
Traditionally in these debates we ignore the Finance Bill and have an economic debate. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I agree with that. I think it is absolutely right at any time, and particularly this year, because no Budget is more irrelevant to the current economic situation than the Budget which underlies this Finance Bill. I was looking at the Budget speech. It is very interesting. In the other place on 9th March 1992 at col.747 the Chancellor told us:
"Most independent forecasters agree that 1992 will see the resumption of economic growth. The recovery is expected to start slowly, but to gather pace. I expect growth in the year to the second half of 1992 to be almost 2 per cent."
The same forecasters certainly would not be saying that today, as my noble friend Lord Peston said. I doubt whether anybody inside the Treasury is saying it either.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said—it must have been written into his speech by somebody else—that he detected signs of recovery. I can only tell him that this very week I have spoken to a number of industrialists with whose companies I am connected.

123
One of them, whose name I shall not mention, told me specifically that there had been a phone call that morning from a major retail company stating,"We are not cancelling the order but we would be obliged if you did not deliver it. If you do, of course we will accept it, but we must warn you that we will not do a lot more business with you in the future". It was as brutal as that. That indicates to me specifically—I have other evidence as well but I shall not bore your Lordships with it—that there are absolutely no signs of recovery in the economy on the ground, whatever may be detected in an odd statistic.
The noble Earl also told us, as indeed the Chancellor did, about small businesses and how they are cutting taxes. I must say to him that many small businesses which have gone bust since would have been delighted to have paid any kind of tax because most of them are not making any profit at all. The Chancellor told us then that small businesses are the life blood of a modern economy. I agree with him: they are. But over the past year, and even since March, they have not been doing particularly well.
Let me make it quite clear, particularly to my noble friend Lord Peston, that I do not blame the forecasters for getting it wrong. In a way it is within what one might call "the margin of error", as the pollsters have said in recent times. It is very easy to get forecasts wrong. So I do not blame the forecasters: I blame the policy. We are bound to ask ourselves whether there is any way in which we could do better. I have said before in your Lordships' House that there are no miracles and there are no easy ways out of the difficulty that we are in; but do we have simply to accept the Government's solution and say,"Well, there is no other way of doing it"?
We must then ask: what is the Government's solution? We have been told that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are aiming at zero inflation or as near to that as possible. We are also told that we shall maintain interest rates as high as is necessary to reduce inflation, and at the same time we shall reduce the borrowing requirement by cutting public expenditure. I shall be interested to see how that is done in 1993– 94 given the situation in 1992– 93.
I had some experience of cutting public expen-diture, some of which was the fault of my noble friend, Lord Healey. We both thought that we should do that. In current circumstances I am bound to say that making major cuts in public expenditure, even if that were right—and it almost certainly is not right—will not achieve a great deal in terms of reducing what is likely to he a huge increase in the borrowing requirement.
If the Chancellor were to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and cut income tax still further, I must ask the noble Earl to give a specific answer to the following question. If the Government are to reduce the borrowing requirement in 1993– 94, even if they can cut the odd billion off public expenditure, will they increase taxation in order to do so? If so, where will they increase taxation? Will they. as I suspect, put VAT on present zero-rated items such as children's clothing, food and so forth and blame the European Community? If that is what
124
the Government have in mind they should be honest with us. I see the Minister smiling so perhaps he will tell us today.
The trouble with the Government's "solution" is that it does nothing for unemployment. Indeed, it will make unemployment worse because the figure will rise to 3 million; probably nearer to 4 million when calculated using the old method. What is worse is that unemployment will stay at that level for some considerable time. The Government's solution will do little or nothing for economic growth. If the Treasury forecasters and outside forecasters are telling the truth, my guess is that we shall have zero or possibly negative growth this year and little growth next year and the year after. Industrial performance and investment will not be improved in such circumstances. In addition, public expenditure in vital infrastructure areas will not be able to be found, as my noble friend Lord Peston said. In other words, we shall be in the vicious circle of lower growth, lower revenue, higher unemployment, cuts in public expenditure and higher taxes.
It may be that that is the only solution to the problem. If it is, I could not live with it. I believe that it is an impossible solution and I do not regard it as a price worth paying. At least it is worth trying alternatives. I fear that I shall now part company with my noble friend Lord Peston. It is fair to ask what the alternatives are. I would cut interest rates but I do not pretend that that would be the easy way out. That is not a total answer; although as the noble Earl said at Question Time the result would not be that the pound would appreciate. The plain fact is that the pound would depreciate, and I accept that.
I have long been in favour of joining the exchange rate mechanism—I said that in my maiden speech in 1983—and I am not in favour of coming out. But being a member of the ERM should not mean total inflexibility and total rigidity to a fixed exchange rate. That is the mistake that is being made in current circumstances and there is no reason for it. The Government are supposed to be in favour of market forces. If that is the case let them apply to the pound and let the pound find its own level. That is particularly so having entered the ERM at too high a rate of 2.95 deutschmarks to the pound and when our industrial performance since has made the situation worse.
I am bound to say that I never expected to find myself in agreement with Professor Walters and his friends. In a letter to The Times today—perhaps that, too, is a paper which my noble friend Lord Peston does not read—they stated:
"The pound is badly overvalued, especially against the dollar, and devaluation talk is inevitable; while the appalling prospects for government borrowing suggest strong future pressures to print money excessively in the long term. The worse and longer the slump the worse these problems will become".
They went on to state:
"The pound would perforce fall, and rightly so: it should never have been pegged to an unrealistic level, as in some ersatz incomes policy, in the service of counter-inflation".
I see my noble friend Lord Peston smiling. He might even agree with some of those comments but I doubt it.

125
I accept that my solution and I do not pretend that it is a total solution would mean a higher rate of inflation. In order to achieve a fair balance in managing an economy I, too, would accept a slightly higher rate of inflation than the objective of zero. That objective is a nonsense and is absolutely silly. Given the depth of the current recession neither lower interest rates nor a lower pound would necessarily mean a massive increase in the rate of inflation to that which we have known in the past.
I may be told that my proposal will create its own vicious circle, that the more the pound falls the more one needs to increase interest rates. I do not believe for one moment that that is true. When it is seen that we shall not increase interest rates others in the ERM will also see that there is no alternative but to realign. They will have to do so provided that we make our position as crystal clear as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are doing today. However, I can understand that from what they have been saying they may have to go. That would not worry me too much. What is more important is that we should have a better economic policy than that which we have now.
I accept that my proposal may be no more of a solution than the Government's. But it is worth at least trying rather than allowing the current situation to continue as it would for some years. More and more people would be left unemployed with no hope. Young people would have no opportunities because expenditure on education and training would not be increased. We are already seeing evidence of the cuts. Given the relatively poor industrial performance of this country in recent years it may be impossible to make major changes. However, I would rather give that a try than continue on the present path.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, in view of the fiscal erudition which has been displayed in the House today, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with her noteless speech, the almost noteless speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the nearly noteless speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—from the rear he reminded me strongly of my old friend Barry Cryer, who would certainly have got more laughs this afternoon—I rise in trepidation to speak on one simple aspect of the Finance Bill. There is considerable perturbation among the parents of people belonging to MENCAP as regards the changes proposed to the disabled passenger scheme under Clause 12 of the Finance Bill. The changes can in no way be described as technical.
About 20,000 people under the age of five or over the age of 65 who are virtually unable to walk and who receive the higher or middle disability living allowance care component will have their right to exemption from vehicle excise duty as a passenger removed. It is already the case that children under five and adults who are over 65 cannot claim mobility allowance. The removal of the right to VED exemption is another burden for that particular group of people.
The Government argue that children with disabilities have no more mobility needs than other
126
children of the same age. However, children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities have needs far greater than any able-bodied children. MENCAP carried out a survey of over 2,000 families with children with that level of disability. Parents were asked about problems with travel, and 88 per cent. said that the nature of their child's disability made travel by bus or train very difficult, if not impossible. Only 5 per cent. said that they could use public transport and 79 per cent. said that they had to use a private car.
Children who cannot stand by themselves by the age of two or three are of course unusual. As all parents who have tried to travel on public transport will know, getting any child on or off a bus is difficult. If your child has no independent mobility it is almost impossible. Behavioural problems are also common, with children having no sense of danger as regards public roads or being so difficult that they cannot be taken on public transport.
Disability incurs great extra cost. Many families with a multiply disabled child rely on vehicle excise duty exemption status in order to manage their finances. Not only do families find that their disabled child under the age of five is not entitled to the mobility component of the disability living allowance; it will now also be the case that the car, which is so necessary to the family, will not attract exemption from VED. I hope that the Government will meet organisations representing the disabled to discuss that matter further and that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will convey our wishes to the proper quarter.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will forgive me if I do not follow his particular contribution in the same field to which he so eloquently contributed. I should like to return to the theme started by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the state of the economy.
I greatly sympathise with the noble Earl. He has a most agreeable way of putting his point of view to the House, apart from an occasional sally into party politics in order to prove where his instinctive allegiances lie. He addressed us in most persuasive terms this afternoon. However, it is not good for the noble Earl to clutch at straws, although one cannot blame him for doing so. For him to suggest from the Government Front Bench anything other than that there are signs of hope within the economy would be a dereliction of duty. But in point of fact, as everybody knows, the country is still in the middle of an abysmal recession.
We must try to contribute to the deep thinking which we must all do in order to find the best way out of the recession. I must say immediately that if there are changing circumstances, as there are from day to day within our own economy, and indeed in the world economy, it is extremely silly to put oneself into a complete straitjacket—that is, to tie one's hands almost completely in any action that the Government may take. As I have said many times before in this House, I regard the entry into the exchange rate

127
mechanism at the parity of 2.95 deutschmarks as a great mistake. I believe that to endeavour to maintain our membership of the exchange rate mechanism under those conditions is a great mistake indeed.
The Government have a point, and as an old believer in the mixed economy, I am bound to agree that market forces are the most efficient way of distributing goods and services throughout the communities in which they are produced and to other parts of the world. However, it is equally clear that, although market forces may be the best way to ensure the most efficient distribution, in practice they produce the wildest distortions in the incomes and fortunes of various classes of people in various professions and in various countries.
Therefore, in order that society as a whole may maintain its cohesion, governments must correct and interfere with free market forces. The normal way in which that is done is for the individual country or nation, within which its rule runs and where it has its own system of laws and integrated systems of administration and taxation, to endeavour to influence the market forces within its own country and to take what redistributive taxation measures are necessary to make transfer payments, and occasionally to subsidise, in order ameliorate the consequences of the driving force of market forces. Therefore, I can understand, within one's own country—and I have been party to it—interfering or helping to mould the way in which market forces operate. That is understandable.
However, at present it passes my comprehension that we should submit to an impersonal external discipline over which we have no control whatever; namely, the exchange rate mechanism. I speak on slightly tender grounds in this regard because I am well aware that prior to October 1990 my party recommended that the then government, under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, should enter the exchange rate mechanism. The Government obliged some three days later by announcing at their party conference that they would do so. My own party leadership of that time must look after itself. I disapproved then of that being done, and I still disapprove. In current world conditions, and current systems of production in force in this country and elsewhere, our currency is grossly overvalued both in terms of dollars and deutschmarks. The world knows it; the Government know it; and it would he difficult to argue otherwise.
What are the consequences of that? Surely they must be that it is more difficult for British manufactures and services to be exported. That must be the case. In certain aspects we may achieve records; but that is a tribute possibly to the excellence of our variety, the distinctiveness of our products and the reputation of our workforce rather than the price at which products are competitively placed. However, it is much more difficult to achieve satisfactory export totals. It certainly means that imports into the United Kingdom are heavily subsidised.
I speak within the experience of many Members of your Lordships' House when I say that over the past two years, when one has tried to purchase British
128
consumer durables in British shops—I have been to many large stores—one has been faced with the response that delivery could take place between 10 weeks and three months. However, if I was prepared to purchase a foreign item, delivery would be straightaway. The subsidised price at which goods have been purchased by importers and stores in this country permits them to hold large stocks.
We have been burdened with a double disability. First, our manufacturing and service industries have to compete against imports which are in effect offered at a subsidised price. Not only must they do that, but also they must face the fact that there is little way out of that situation. The result is that even now if we let exchange rates float and import prices rise, the commodity prices in the shops will rise. British industry has been so decimated by the deflationary programme being carried out that it would be unable to compete even with the increased import prices that would eventuate.
What are we to do? Are we to tolerate a modicum of inflation? By "modicum" I mean between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. Or are we to insist upon a zero rate and the continued deflation that that involves? Past experience gives us some clue to the answer. In 1925 the country was on the gold standard and the rate of the pound against the dollar was 4.86. In 1929 and 1930 this country experienced a considerable depression following the depression in the United States. What did we do? In 1931 we went off the gold standard. Amazingly, production increased Ad unemployment went down. From 1932 until 1952 the Bank rate stood at 2 per cent.—that is,20 years. That was despite the intervention of World War II.
At the end of World War II, the pound against the dollar stood at 4.43. Eventually, in 1949, after a supreme economic effort, we were forced to devalue. We were forced to do so by the inflationary pressures exerted not by vastly increased wages but first by the extent of the damage that we had suffered during the war and which we had to repair; and, secondly, by the massive redeployment in this country of a labour force coming out of the armed forces. In spite of demobilising 2 million people immediately following the war, we achieved an unemployment rate within 18 months of under 3 per cent.
That continued well into the 1950s and into the 1960s. In the meantime, the exchange rate was floated. We brought it down in 1949 to 2.80 dollars, as will be remembered. The result was that once again we had a period of sustained growth. We did not experience any significant inflation—by that I mean the kind of inflation that immediately followed the quadrupling of the oil prices in the late 1970s and the "Barber boom or bust" of 1972 which shoved up the rate of inflation to 26.5 per cent.
Thereafter, inflation continued to go down. Under the Labour administration, until 1979 it had gone down to 10.3 per cent. That was not a bad achievement, bearing; r1 mind the great pressures generated by the quadrupling of oil prices as well as by the "Barber boom". It was accentuated further, following accession into the European Community, by our having to pay artificially high food prices

129
owing to the application of the common agricultural policy. That resulted also in price increases. Indeed, as the noble Earl will be aware, the Treasury announced only a short while ago that even today the average family of four has to pay around £18 a week extra for food as a result of the application of the common agricultural policy.
The next bout of real inflation was when the Tory Government of 1979 came into office. They immediately and deliberately raised inflation by nearly doubling VAT and by imposing price increases on the electricity and other power industries. Under the Tory Government inflation rose to slightly over 20 per cent. In the depression that followed it continued to come down, following the Government's monetarist policies aimed at deliberately deflating the economy at the cost of increased unemployment.
The argument that lowering the exchange rate necessarily becomes inflationary is immediately knocked on the head by the somewhat unnoticed fact that in January 1985 the dollar stood at 1.05 dollars to the pound. Indeed, for half-an-hour in January it went down to 99 cents. Strictly speaking, that should have caused an immediate inflation or an inflation within a reasonable period. It did nothing of the kind. There was a slight blip in the following year and it continued between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. per annum thereafter. Indeed, it would probably have continued if there had not been a repetition under Chancellor Lawson of exactly the same kind of tactics followed by Mr. Barber (as he then was) in 1972, which again increased the rate of inflation.
The purpose of reciting some of that history is to suggest that the following of a flexible exchange rate policy and allowing the pound to find its own level is not necessarily synonymous with inflation going out of control. That is not necessary at all. Indeed, for considerable periods of our history, as I have shown, from 1925 to 1931 onwards the most fruitful period occurred in terms of increased national output at a medium rate per annum. It is the extraordinary circumstances—the Korean war, the quadrupling of the oil prices, the Barber boom and all those things—that contributed to the distortions.
I suggest respectfully to the Government that they should rethink the matter. It does not necessarily follow that the world will suddenly collapse if they withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism or, even more moderately—which I am quite willing to accept—seek a realignment within it. All kinds of catastrophes are forecast, but they are catastrophes which are in the minds of civil servants and some economists who have very little else to think about, bearing in mind that economics is supposed to be the science of rational expectation. But in real life within a comparatively short period of time, the effects would be quite small.
We should not be talking only of abstract ideas, although in the realm of ideas these problems can be solved or attempted to be solved. We should be thinking about the millions of people outside this place who are living in poverty in our country. We should be thinking about the millions of people who
130
are living well below the poverty line and the thousands who are homeless. We should also be thinking of the millions who are unemployed. We should be thinking of people who are enduring those kinds of disabilities. We should ask ourselves whether we should be more actively considering the human aspects of the problem and allow them to condition our minds and our determination rather than to allow ourselves to be sucked in by a great number of abstract theories, most of which with the passage of time have been disproved by events.
5.11 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in this debate on one specific point; namely, in relation to agriculture. I have always felt that is was this Government's policy and desire to try to encourage an expansion of new people entering farming, and by that the creation of more agricultural tenancies rather than landowners tending to wish to keep land in hand for all the various fiscal reasons that are attached to it.
I believe that in Schedule 14 to the present Bill my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely generous and considered giving 100 per cent. relief to owner-occupied land. He has been equally generous in considering giving an increase of between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. relief on tenanted land. It would be churlish of anyone, certainly on this side of the House, to decry the Chancellor's very generous, understandable and laudable provisions. But unfortunately and probably unwittingly, the knock-on effect has been possibly to discourage landowners even considering giving more land to tenants rather than trying to keep more land in hand for themselves. That is regrettable. It is not in accord with what I believe to be government policy. It is not a measure which the Country Landowners' Association, the Tenant Farmers Association or the National Farmers Union welcome.
This matter was raised in another place at Committee stage. It was well reported in the Official Report. Unfortunately, the point was somewhat turned down by my right honourable friend. However, I was very pleased to see that the party to which the noble Lords opposite belong voted in favour of increasing relief for inheritance tax to 100 per cent. for tenanted land. I am very glad to believe that that party is in favour of giving extra relief for inheritance tax.
I understand the reasons my right honourable friend the Minister in another place gave against the proposal which I believe was raised by the honourable Member for North Cornwall; namely, that it might lead to encouragement for landlords, not necessarily of an agricultural nature, to try to claim that their businesses also qualified for 100 per cent. relief, whereas other provisions applied. I recognise that there are difficulties. It is not a very easy matter to dispose of in a very short space of time. I very much support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is regrettable that we do not have sufficient time to make contributions of a fairly important nature on many aspects of this Bill at this time. We could be helpful and constructive to the

131
Government in order to hone the various rough edges which may appear in this Bill. This point is one of them.
All I seek to do is to draw the Minister's attention to this particular problem and to ask whether I can have some assurance that the anxiety which I have briefly tried to express might perhaps be taken on board, and that there will be a positive determination to have a full discussion with the various interested parties to which I have referred, such as the CLO, the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association. Such discussion will be in order to see whether there can be some way in which our fiscal legislation can be geared so that the discrimination against consideration of the letting of land to tenants might be eased and that landowners will not be penalised by inheritance tax if they decide, very laudably, to encourage farmers to become their tenants rather than entering into various schemes such as share-farming. That is the purpose of my intervention. I shall be very grateful if my noble friend can give some assurance that this point will be actively considered in due course.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I reckon that on our second debate—a very important one, in which two notable new noble Lords on both sides of the House will he making their maiden speeches—our Front Bench speakers should be speaking by a quarter-past five. That will give the new debate the opportunity of starting at about six o'clock. I wish to contribute to the attainment of something approximating to that programme. Therefore, I shall try to vie with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and confine my remarks to three minutes. That alone is something of a record.
There is only one matter that I wish to raise, leaving everything else aside. In the next three minutes I wish to speak about the people who are behind this Bill: about 80,000 civil servants. By a long way they deal with the highest proportion of our national revenue. I refer to the Inland Revenue which provides £80 billion; Customs and Excise, which provides £67 billion; and national insurance contributions, which are now a form of proportionate taxation, provide £34 billion. Those are the factors which lie behind this Bill. Yet the Government are stirring up uncertainty and discontent in the Revenue staffs as well as in the rest of the Civil Service by all this talk about privatisation, testing the value for money in the market and other sloganised approaches to the employment and conditions of working life for the civil servants.
The Government are asking for serious trouble in the way that they are going on at the moment with gossip, secrecy, ill-judged speeches by Ministers, and press comments about what is lying in wait for the Civil Service. Noble Lords should read the article in the Life & Times section of The Times this morning as regards the feeling of staff organisations, both high and low, about what lies in store for the Civil Service. We had this out to some extent when we debated the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill; but that deals with one limited feature of this exercise. It is not certain that what lies ahead needs to come to either
132
House for confirmation. I cannot see that, dealing with the Royal Prerogative, any statute law necessarily has to be passed.
It may be that we have to take every opportunity that we can of alerting the Government to what is the steaming cauldron underneath the Civil Service. I can hardly express my deepest indignation about the way in which the Government are bungling this exercise. They could gain the confidence of the most constructive and moderate leadership of the Civil Service unions today if they would only come clean, give them their confidence and allow them to take part in the decisions which the Government wish to take.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is a Treasury Minister. I ask him to make it clear to his Cabinet colleagues—I ask him to tell Sir Robin Butler, the head of the Civil Service—that the Civil Service is waiting to hear from him as well as from others about the future. The three minutes for which I had intended to speak have now come to four. I have finished, but that is enough.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was speaking it was interesting to note that there was a problem about whether the aircraft was or was not in flight—and something similar attaches to the economy. We do not quite know whether the economy is in recession. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that none of us—even the most pessimistic—expected the economy still to be in recession, and, much worse, none of us thought that the economy would continue to be in recession through 1992 and perhaps into 1993.
The first thing to say is that the assumptions upon which the Budget was based have already turned out to be false. There was a provision in the Budget for an over-spend of £2 billion, adding to an existing PSBR of £26 billion, excluding privatisation proceeds. At that time a lot of people said that, given the size of the PSBR, adding to it by £2 billion was perhaps not the nicest thing to do. But if one wants to add to the PSBR, there are certainly better uses of £2 billion than giving income tax cuts.
Noble Lords opposite are obsessed about income tax for reasons that I do not understand. They continue to think that if they go on cutting income tax the economy will somehow miraculously improve. All I can say is that the past 13 years have shown that that is not so. What we are left with is not a lean and fit economy; it is an anorexic economy. And it is because it is an anorexic economy that we are worried, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is worried. Although my noble friend would like a devaluation, he fears that if there were to be a devaluation our industries would not be ready or able to deliver the goods that would be required. We have decimated manufacturing industry to such an extent that we are short of capacity.
I should like to discuss the Government's anti-inflationary policy in some detail. But the Government must recognise one thing: although it may be true that we need non-inflationary growth—I shall cast some doubt on this—one way to combat

133
inflation is by having sufficient capacity to produce goods when they are required. If one does not have the capacity to produce goods when they are required, even the tiniest revival in demand is bound to cause inflation or balance of trade problems. The Government have neglected the real economy for far too long and are still not admitting that that is the nub of the problem.
I turn now to the vexed question of the exchange rate mechanism. I have been in favour of entry into the exchange rate mechanism since about 1985. Indeed, I thought that we missed a golden opportunity to enter the ERM when our inflation rate was down to about 3 per cent. or 3.5 per cent. in 1985. We had paid a very high price in unemployment to get inflation out of the system. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington pointed out, that inflation was somewhat domestically created by doubling value added tax, etcetera. However, even after all those sacrifices, if we had joined the ERM in 1985 we would have been seven years ahead by now along the path to convergence.
But we did not do that; we did exactly the opposite. The inflation rate has doubled twice in the past 13 years. When it doubled the second time around, not only was monetarism abandoned, which I cannot complain about, but almost any discipline on credit was abandoned also. We had a fantastic credit boom, which we are now suffering from. Indeed, given what the tabloids have been talking about, we not only have anorexia but bulimia as well. We have gorged ourselves on lots and lots of borrowing and are now having to pay it back through very painful debt deflation. Although that is the case, I believe that the Government have gone too far this time in not relieving debt deflation.
Unlike my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Bruce of Donington, I believe that, staying within the exchange rate mechanism, it is still possible to have a more active interest rate policy than the Chancellor has pursued. Once the election was out of the way and the Government had won again, the market had a guarantee that we would stay within the ERM and that devaluation would not be contemplated. I believe that that was the time to take advantage of the credibility that had been established and to follow an aggressive policy of interest rate cuts by half a percentage point at a time, no more than that. There were very good opportunities to do that in April, May and June because the pound was strong. We could have cut interest rates then.
There has been a slight technical debate between various noble Lords about what would happen if we cut interest rates and about whether the pound would appreciate or depreciate. What actually happens when one cuts interest rates is that people hold the pound only if they expect it to appreciate in the future. For that to happen the pound must first fall before it can rise again. Technically, when one cuts interest rates, the pound drops, but because we are in the ERM people expect the pound to appreciate eventually and they will therefore hold it in the meantime. Therefore, although opportunities have been missed, I believe that it is possible to cut interest rates.
134
I remember saying when we had the debate on the gracious Speech, that it was a mistake to regard the deutschmark as a fulcrum within the ERM. The ERM does not have a fulcrum. That is the whole point of the ERM. If I may make an analogy, the ERM is like several people climbing Mount Everest. They are roped together and because they are roped together they do not have unilateral freedom to move wherever they like. They have to stay in tandem with other people. However, that does not mean that each one is in a straitjacket.
The mistake that a lot of people have made is to go on believing that, because of the past success of the Bundesbank, whatever it does is correct. However, I would say that during the past 18 months or so the Bundesbank has made a total mess of its own monetary policy. When reunification with East Germany took place, it suffered what is called a "supply shock" in economics. Given a supply shock like that, the Government had of course to borrow money, but cutting the money supply—or attempting to cut the money supply—was not the appropriate response to that shock. The Bundesbank has now got itself into the state where it does not quite know what to do. I should have thought that one thing that the Bundesbank should have done was to relax monetary guidelines but at the same time to realign the deutschmark upwards.
Part of the demand for the deutschmark exists not in Germany but in Central and Eastern Europe and because people are holding deutschmarks it looks as though the stock of deutschmarks is out of control. The Bundesbank is making a serious mistake and it would be wrong for us to follow it blindly. Therefore it would be perfectly legitimate for the Chancellor not to follow any increase in interest rates imposed by the Bundesbank.
What is more, at the first opportunity when the pound is off the floor and is anywhere in the range of 2.90 deutschmarks and above the Chancellor should cut interest rates slightly. He has allowed himself much less freedom than is possible. That is not only my view—and it is the one I stated when we debated the gracious Speech—but it is also the view recently put forward by my friend, Professor Mervyn King, chief economic adviser to the Bank of England. As various other commentators have said, given that we are in the ERM and given that we shall converge to a single currency sooner or later, the right policy is to get to 2.95 by 1995 and in the meantime keep the pound down within the 6 per cent. range and take as much advantage as possible of cutting interest rates within that framework.
Things are not as bad as people think, but an active monetary policy is needed. With interest rate stability one can allow oneself a little interest rate variation. Interest rates can go up or down. It is silly to think that they always have to go down. We have been far too cautious in the past year and a half since we joined the ERM. Most other countries have allowed interest rate movements both ways. I urge the Chancellor to do that. By cutting interest rates and by now and then putting them up again he will eventually achieve much more than he has so far.

135
If one cannot do much with monetary policy one has to do something with fiscal policy. What is surprising in this respect is that since the election the fiscal policy stance of the Government has gone into complete reverse. While the election was still to be won we did not hear any cries about the public sector borrowing requirement being out of control. At that time health could have what it liked; social security could have what it liked; everyone could have what they liked. Suddenly after the election we discovered that there was a PSBR problem. The Red Book showed that we had a PSBR problem. Why did the Chancellor not say at Budget time,"We cannot afford a £26 billion PSBR"? He did not say that and now there is panic about cutting public expenditure.
Although I am as worried about the PSBR as anyone else, I say frankly that it would be a mistake to tackle the PSBR problem by cutting expenditure. I agree with my noble friend Lord Barnett that we should think about increasing taxation rather than cutting expenditure. We have to get out of the American psychology that one cannot talk about increases in taxation because everyone thinks that taxes can only go down and not up.
According to the Red Book the tax concessions excluding concessions for income tax cost £59 billion. The VAT concessions cost £19 billion. As my noble friend Lord Barnett said, and, if I may say so, as I said during the debate on the gracious Speech, sooner or later the Chancellor will complain about Europe and finally abolish zero rating. He has to do that. That is the easiest way to get the PSBR down and to have a tax which is the least harmful—as noble Lords worry about incentives—to incentives. We shall ultimately have VAT with no zero rating. I do not necessarily advocate that but it would be the easiest way, given the philosophy of the Government, to tackle the PSBR and not deflate the economy further. The Government will have to think about that.
I want to mention one minor element of a certain tax. My noble friend Lord Peston has already mentioned it. I refer to the concession on inheritance tax in the 1984 Finance Act. It relates to concessions given to landlords in respect of access to land. Generous tax benefits have been given but landowners have not been asked to give sufficient access in return. The public's right to free passage has not been properly followed up. When the Finance Bill was in another place the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made some concessions on that and said that he would look into the point that existing agreements on inheritance tax with landlords were not working properly. He said that he would take up some suggestions and have discussions. Can the noble Earl tell us how the Government intend to implement the Minister's concession that the current system of inheritance tax is not working to the public benefit? What discussions are taking place? Who is being consulted about this matter?
I believe that, having had for a long time the single golf club of interest rates, the Government have now decided that they have a single objective of zero inflation. That is madness. There is no other word for it. It is nothing but sheer madness to have as a target
136
not low inflation but zero inflation. Before the election I made some calculations with the easiest available economic model. It is called the Layard-Nickell model and is used by my colleagues. The unemployment figure necessary to achieve a zero rate of inflation as of the first quarter of 1992 is 4 million. It may not be 4 million; it may be 3.5 million, it may be 4.5 million. But the point is that zero inflation is not a sensible target. One must believe in a trade-off at some stage. One must believe that zero inflation at the cost of so much loss of output is not worth having.
I would point out to those who think that inflation is an enemy of growth that the longest period of sustained growth in the capitalist world was between 1945 and 1975. The inflation rate was then between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. across all advanced capitalist countries and there was the most rapid rate of growth. It is not true that a moderate rate of inflation is an enemy of growth. Very high rates of inflation may be an enemy of growth but moderate rates are not. To believe that there is no trade-off or that one should pay any price to achieve zero inflation is superstitious. It is to make inflation into a totem and sacrifice everything to it. I hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider his policy and agree that there is more to the economy than the inflation rate, especially as, given the appalling way in which the inflation rate is measured, he will not even know until many years later whether or not it has fallen to zero.
I hope that this Finance Bill will be rapidly forgotten as it has become totally irrelevant and that something more concrete will be done about the ills of the economy as things are becoming rather desperate.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Earl for introducing the Finance Bill and by expressing my agreement with those who welcome the intention to merge the budgetary, finance and public expenditure proposals. In future, when everyone will be quite happy to forget most of the measures introduced by the Government—that is, at least since 1987—I suspect that they will remember this admirable reform with approval.
It is in that friendly spirit that I turn to the present appalling state of the British economy. As I said in an economic debate last year and, repetitively, the year before, the Government are in fact boxed in and clearly feel boxed in. That is the main reason why their policies, especially their monetary policy, are so inert. They are boxed in with an exchange rate fixed too high, with real interest rates much too high (at a level unrelated to the stagnancy in the economy but solely to support the wrong exchange rate) and with a PSBR at a level which constrains the kind of further public expenditure increases and tax reforms which would normally be appropriate at this stage of a deep recession.
In the previous debates to which I referred, government spokesmen denied to me that they were boxed in. They forecast a Houdini-like escape from the box. Even the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh—though, perhaps, lacking Houdini's waistline—was confident of escape. Well, we are still waiting. The box

137
remains fairly closed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still locked in and the unemployed have little reason for hope.
I shall begin with interest rates which, I believe, are the nails in the box; in other words, the biggest constraint on economic growth. There is apparently little prospect of reducing real interest rates, as the noble Earl confirmed during Question Time and, again, in his opening speech. We are hooked to German monetary policy. No cuts in German rates are expected before the Autumn and there are even some frightening rumours of increases.
Even if UK nominal rates were to fall a little—that is, if we had a small cut—so, according to forecasts which I believe, would inflation fall. Therefore, real interest rates will remain astonishingly high. With a 10 per cent. base rate and below 4 per cent. inflation, that means over 6 per cent. real rates. Moreover, with the average businessman paying at least 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. above base, that points to above 10 per cent. real and is a devastating rate to pay. It is especially devastating to the prospects of investment and, therefore, the prospects of economic growth.
Surely such rates cannot persist for ever, thereby prolonging the slump. As my noble friend Lord Barnett so convincingly said, something must give. In that context and as a personal view, I must say that I agree with my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Desai: I prefer the currency risk of cutting real rates to the certainty of a prolonged recession and permanently high unemployment. I should point out that the Labour Party view, with which I agree, is that entering the narrow band reduces the risk.
We are now entering the third year of recession and the prospects remain depressing. The post-election boomlet has disappeared. All those green shoots that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Conservative press could see during the election campaign have withered from sight. City forecasters see negative growth for 1992—I emphasise the word "negative"—and only little improvement in 1993. I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to the July publication of the leading City forecasters, Goldman Sachs, headed Recovery Fears. I enjoyed hearing the reminder from my noble friend Lord Barnett of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecast of 2 per cent. growth this year. That has gone.
The housing market seems unlikely to give any help, whatever is done at the margins with stamp duty. The consumer is not helping either, as the savings ratio remains stubbornly high at around 11 per cent. The consumer is as boxed in as the Government; that is, boxed in by high personal debt and high interest rates. He is also boxed in by a diminishing rate of real wage increases which constrains his spending power.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the scenario is the effect that it will have on business investment. The brief period of post-election optimism has been squashed. Moreover, seeing consumer spending not rising, unemployment still rising, and the real cost of borrowing at record levels of 10 per cent. and above, why should the businessman invest? It is much more prudent for him to conserve cash and control costs in
138
such a situation. There is no point in borrowing to expand; indeed, the situation may well produce a further run down of stock inventories. All that is very damaging to our long-term economic interests. When the upturn comes, it means that our capital stock will be inadequate and out of date. To me, that is the most fundamental reason why we must get real interest rates down and our economy moving again.
Another side of the box is the PSBR which certain noble Lords have mentioned and which I see is forecast as being at least £40 billion in 1993 and beyond. Noble Lords will recall that those terrible Labour Governments—at least, that terrible Labour Government in 1976 at the time of the IMF—never achieved anything as impressive as that. The problem with such an astronomical PSBR is that it prevents the Government, or the Government feel that it prevents them, from using extra public expenditure or further tax cuts in the traditional Keynesian way, counter cyclically, to stimulate the economy.
As a diversion on tax and in relation to the fiscal provisions of the Bill, I must say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in respect of a tobacco tax. In relation to VAT, I should also like to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a quite disinterested way I am ever willing to help the Government—that he might raise several hundred millions and make many people happy by ending the VAT zero rating on newspapers. I support most zero-rating exemptions, but not that one. I believe that such a move would bring widespread support, even from the Royal Family, and would also lower the PSBR.
Another side of the box is the huge trade deficit, unprecedented at this stage of peacetime recession. Such a deficit is an inevitable reflection of the fact that the currency was too high when we entered the ERM. Yet, apparently, we cannot devalue; the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is not on the agenda. Therefore, the trade deficit will inevitably deteriorate further when the economy finally recovers.
So we are boxed into a long recession: we cannot, apparently, devalue out of it; we cannot further public spend our way out of it; and we cannot tax cut our way out of it. All the pain of this economic slump produces one benefit—the reduction of inflation. I genuinely congratulate the Government on that. Inflation is a destructive menace and it is in everyone's interest that it is reduced. But, as my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Barnett well argued, the pursuit of it to zero soon may be much too inflexible to the point of self-flagellation and vandalism. As my noble friend Lord Peston elegantly pointed out, the price is very high and perhaps too high. It is not clear what are the benefits of urgent zero price inflation if millions of unemployed cannot afford to buy at those prices.
In conclusion, what should be done in this plight that we are in where, I believe, we have the worst of both worlds: we have Anglo-Saxon levels of debt and European levels of real interest rates and low growth? That is a very unhappy formula. Well, what is to be done? Being of Irish descent, I must confess that I should prefer not to start from here. It is the result of the disastrous credit boom that occurred since 1986.

139
Even the Government's strongest supporters now seem stumped for economic remedies, except for the rash departure from the ERM which is as much a political remedy as an economic one. Everything has failed. I read in The Times on Saturday the conclusion of its editorial, that having dismissed every other economic remedy,
"the Chancellor must now talk Britain out of its recession".
What a sad conclusion to 13 years of economic miracle. The Chancellor needs Saatchi & Saatchi, not economic management. PR has replaced the medium-term economic strategy.
Rather than such despair and rather than leave the ERM, the Chancellor might read the public expenditure suggestions of my noble friend Lord Peston; look urgently at reducing real interest rates, as has been suggested; and cease the masochistic pursuit of rapid zero inflation, subordinating all else to that.
I have addressed the Finance Bill in the context of he British economy which it is supposed to influence and steer through its budgetary stance and its revenue-raising proposals. In that context, I am bound to conclude that it seems to have little relevance to the stagnation of growth, to high unemployment, to the slump in industrial investment, and to the alarming deficits on government and trade accounts. The Government are in the same box as they constructed for themselves with the disastrous credit boom that they began in 1986. They now seem to confess that they have no economic measures or proposals to get out of the box. Even their most uncritical supporters admit that only the last resort remains: to talk their way out of it. I look forward to hearing the Minister talk.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said t hat he wished for a longer discussion on the economy as a whole and on the important points of the Bill. I draw his attention—not that he will need reminding—to the fact that the previous Finance Bill was discussed only a week after a discussion on the economy, so there are opportunities in the House to discuss the economy. It was during that Finance Bill discussion that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he would concentrate upon the Bill and not talk about the economy at large, but he reverted to form today.
Many of your Lordships have expressed the anxiety that the economic recovery continues to be delayed, and some have doubted whether there is an upturn coming. While recent indicators have been mixed, taken together they point to our being close to a turning point, and few independent forecasters question the Government's belief that recovery will be established this year, as I said at greater length when I opened the debate.
We have a real opportunity not just to achieve lower inflation, but to do so on a lasting basis. The benefits from achieving that, in terms of higher sustainable growth over the medium term, will be felt for many years. It would be foolish to put them at risk. By jeopardising the progress that we have made on
140
inflation, a devaluation of sterling, either within the ERM or outside it, would put the future benefits at great risk. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in the clearest possible terms the Government's determination to keep their nerve in the battle against inflation and to remain within the ERM at sterling's existing parity.
When talking about inflation, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that zero inflation means unemployment at 2 million plus. Low inflation is the prerequisite for sustainable growth and only sustainable growth ensures job prospects in the medium term; so it is wrong to say that the zero-inflation aim is anti-growth. In the long run it is the only way for growth to flourish.
The noble Lord then said that our aim should not be zero but the EC average. For the first time since 1986 our inflation, measured on a comparable basis, is lower than the EC average, but just beating the average at a time when most of our competitors are seeking to reduce inflation even further should not be good enough for Britain. It might be good enough for the noble Lord and his party, but it is not good enough for the Conservative Party. The noble Lord should remember that two-thirds of our exports go to countries with inflation rates lower than ours. That is the measure of the challenge that faces us. It shows graphically that if Britain is to remain a successful trading nation we need an inflation rate as low as the best in Europe or, indeed, the world, whether that be Germany, France, Japan or anywhere else.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, also commenting upon zero inflation, said that it was a silly objective. The noble Lord is willing to accept a slightly higher rate of inflation—not the European average, but something slightly higher than zero. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The point about inflation is its tendency to rise out of control. Accepting a little inflation today, may mean facing up to a lot tomorrow. That is a bad scenario. A great deal of effort is spent on getting the timing right. Interim measures represent a constant fiddling with the economy. They often prove to be crude and clumsy in practice. Therefore I wholeheartedly support the objective of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister: the only sure way of conquering inflation once and for all, is to aim for a zero rate.
The noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Desai and Lord Donoughue, suggested that interest rates could be cut. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the credit boom of 1986– 87. When we cut interest rates in 1987, I seem to recall the Opposition saying that we had not cut them enough. If we had followed the noble Lord's voice then, we would have had not a disastrous credit boom—in his words—we would have had a very disastrous credit boom; so I have to take what he says with a pinch of salt. But now we are in the ERM. If any country within the ERM is to have lower interest rates than Germany, the markets must expect its currency to appreciate against the deutschmark, as I said at Question Time.
The deutschmark has never been devalued in the whole history of the ERM, so it is scarcely surprising

141
that at present foreign exchange markets are not prepared to hold ERM currencies yielding substanti-ally less than the deutschmark. We need look no further than France for clear and practical proof of that. It has been all of five years since the franc was devalued against the deutschmark. French inflation is below that of Germany; and last November when the French cut interest rates to a level just below those of Germany they were forced quickly to reverse that cut. Nevertheless, some noble Lords have suggested that Britain should have a bit more flexibility, and that allowing the pound to fall to the bottom of its wider band would create scope for a subsequent apprecia-tion and hence our interest rates could be much lower than Germany's. That is theoretically ingenious, but wholly unrealistic. If that were true, the weakest currencies in the ERM would have the lowest interest rates. But foreign exchange markets do not expect a weak and falling currency with low interest rates to bounce back up again. They expect it to carry on falling, and they sell it, forcing up interest rates.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, wanted a depreciation of the currency. He said that the rate at which we entered the ERM was too high. If depreciating the currency solved anything, Britain would already have one of the most successful economies of the world. In 1966, the pound was worth more than II deutschmark, but the devaluations of the past yielded, not booming exports, but a steadily falling share of world markets. The noble Lord did not say at what rate he would have entered the ERM or what he would have done had the rate at which we entered been under pressure. It would doubtless have led to another devaluation.
The noble Lord, to whom I have listened with great attention for many years, as he knows, made one other point. He said that British industry was unable to compete. That is not so. Exports were at a record level in May and the UK share of world trade in manufactures was estimated to have risen over the past three years. He will recall what I said at Question Time about our trade with the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was the most vulnerable in society who were least likely to gain from the defeat of inflation. I beg seriously to differ with him on that point. Those on fixed incomes, for example, are among those most penalised by inflation. I remember that in the 1970s my mother was on a pension and she, together with many other elderly people, was hurt by the high inflation of those days. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, summarised the point better when he said that inflation was a detriment to all.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, chided me about Treasury forecasts. I confirm the line that he expected me to take by saying that he will have to wait for the Autumn Statement in the normal way. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter welcomed the fact that we shall have a unified Budget. I say to the noble Baroness, as did my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the first unified Budget will be in December 1993. I agree with
142
her—and this is something I said when I was in the Treasury—that it seems odd to split the two. It is a good thing that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put the two great debates together.
The noble Baroness also referred to investment in this country. She will be pleased to know that business investment increased 3.5 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. Fixed investment and investment in plant and machinery also increased. I wish to spend a moment on another type of investment which the noble Baroness did not mention and which produces enormous benefits for Britain. That is inward investment. We welcome it because it strengthens competition and innovation in the United Kingdom. We are reaping the benefits of it. In 1991, the United Kingdom still attracted one-third of all inward investment in the Community. The next most successful country was France, with only 17 per cent.
As a result of that inward investment, we are now a net exporter of television sets and the trade balance in cars is set to improve during the 1990s, as the massive investments by Nissan, Honda, Toyota and others come on stream. Although some of those investments were criticised at the time, they have done an enormous amount for British industry: they are welcomed and will have a great effect on our balance of payments.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about training for 16 to 18 year-olds, two for each job. I shall note the point and put it to my right honourable friend the Chancellor. I am sure that managers and industrialists would also wish to take her advice. The noble Baroness raised the subject of childcare. The wider tax relief will only help with childcare because it will give working wives who are able to pay for the care the extra benefit. The Budget tax cuts reduce the burden for all taxpayers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that will not help single parents.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Budget tax cuts will help single parents but I take the other points mentioned by the noble Baroness. I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter had to say about VAT and car tax. I hoped that he would welcome the fact that car tax had been halved to 5 per cent. I remember discussing the subject with him at the Dispatch Box, when he chastised us for having a car tax at all. The fact that it has been halved to 5 per cent. is something which I am sure my noble friend welcomes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is good that the Government have gone half way to remedy an absurd situation of taxing something at a price inflated by another tax. I hope that the Government will soon tear up the other half.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are half way there and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to listen to my noble friend on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, quoted from the Budget speech when he said that most forecasters expect growth to resume

143
this year. He said that he had seen no signs of it. It might be true that most independent forecasters have adjusted their projections, but the vast majority still believe that growth will re-establish itself this year, as do the Government.
The noble Lord went on to say that I was smiling when he asked me whether, if we were going to reduce borrowing, we would put taxes up. Of course I was smiling. It was a gem of a question from a former Chief Secretary, the kind which one believes will never be asked. He knows very well that I cannot answer it today, and, as usual, he will have to wait. If he had been at the Dispatch Box, he would have suggested that we would have to wait and he would make appropriate remarks as and when it was suitable to do SO.
The subject of the zero rate of VAT was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Desai. The Government will not agree to any directive in Brussels that removes our right to continue levying current zero rates. We have an absolute veto on this. The Government have no current plans to change the present rate or scope of VAT.
I now turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said. I listened with great care to him. He suggested that Clause 12 of the Bill was inappropriate. The vast majority of disabled people benefiting from the exemption—400,000—are in no way affected by the clause. These people have transferred from the old mobility allowance to the higher rate mobility component of the new disability living allowance, which carries automatic entitlement to the exemption. Because of this change, we are bringing an additional 10,000 people into the scheme who did not benefit from it previously. I am sure that the noble Lord welcomes that.
Nor do the Government seek to alter the position of those who use invalid carriages. Their vehicles will continue to be exempt from vehicle excise duty. However, those sections of the Finance Acts and Vehicles (Excise) Act which we propose to repeal concern the disabled passengers scheme. That does not mean those who own or operate buses or coaches for the benefit of the disabled. Like invalid carriages, those vehicles will remain exempt. Rather, the disabled passenger scheme covers those disabled people who have their own car but who, because of their disability, are unable to drive it. Current beneficiaries under the scheme will not lose out as a result of the repeal. The Government propose the repeal of the relevant sections of the Finance and Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 because the new machinery for disability benefits makes them administratively unworkable. The old scheme depends on establishing, among other things, the extent to which a person's walking ability is affected. We cannot rely on self-assessment claim forms used for attendance allowance and the care component of disability living allowance to provide the level of information required to make a fair decision on this. The Government's present assessment is that to introduce new procedures for continuing the relief would be difficult, expensive and intrusive. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that would not be welcomed.
144
As my right honourable friend the Paymaster General said at Report stage in another place, we shall take careful note of the views of MENCAP and other bodies representing disabled people.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret referred to Clause 73 and Schedule 14 when talking about inheritance tax. The clause and schedule make changes to the rate of relief from inheritance tax for certain business assets and farmlands. The higher rate of relief is increased from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. The lower rate of relief is increased from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. There is a difference between the rate of an owner-occupier and that of a landlord of a tenanted farm. The reason for the difference reflects the greater risks involved. I add for my noble friend that the changes apply to deaths and other transfers occurring and charges arising on or after 10th March 1992.
Talking of inheritance tax reminds me that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, also raised the matter. He said that public funds had been used to purchase public access to the countryside, but that the public had not been allowed to know where the access land is. I put it to him that that is incorrect. The Inland Revenue insists that, as part of the undertakings entered into by the owner, the owners give publicity to access arrangements. The owner need not publicise the fact that access results from conditional exemption unless he wishes to. The legislation requires that reasonable public access should be secured as a result of the conditional exemption. If, in the view of the Countryside Commission, existing rights of way or other paths already provide a reasonable level of public access, it would be unreasonable to seek a further degree of access beyond that.
I was slightly saddened by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I sat back to enjoy more than four minutes of what the noble Lord said. After 43 years in politics, and with a long career before that, he is listened to with great respect and interest in this House. I fully sympathise with him about the views of the Civil Service. It does an excellent job. It has served past governments and this Government extremely well. Our intention is to provide it with stimulating jobs and the best opportunities possible.
The Finance Bill, which was the subject of our discussion today before we went to the wider economy, is a link between the last Government—we discussed the Finance Bill just before we rose—and the beginning of this Government. The work of the Finance Bill continues the good work of the past 13 years and continues to offer greater opportunities for British businesses in the 1990s. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No.44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 13th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No.44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 13th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Enlargement of the Community: ECC Report
6.12 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Enlargement of the Community (1st Report 1992–93, HL Paper 5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my colleagues and I on the Select Committee are happy to see that the report that we discuss today has attracted a substantial list of speakers, sweetened and no doubt sharpened by the two distinguished Maidens who I am so glad have chosen this debate in which to make their debut. We all look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who sits opposite, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I feel just a twinge of pride that they should take part in the debate on the report which I am about to present to the House.
The hour is a little later than I had expected this rather important debate to begin. Therefore in my introductory speech I shall make a shorter summary of the report than the House has grown accustomed to on such occasions. I shall inevitably leave out some points which some noble Lords may consider more important than those which I cover. However, I must do my duty and express the sincere thanks of the committee and of the House to all those who gave evidence to us. I refer in particular to the distinguished ambassadors from Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, and to three former commissioners who are our colleagues in this House. We also owe thanks to many who helped us in a less formal way, including two vice presidents of the present Commission and senior members of the Commission staff, when some of us went to Brussels. In London we had informal help from the Danish ambassador and from senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials who were able to give us advice. However, perhaps our loudest vote of thanks should go to our specialist adviser, Sir John Fretwell, whom many of your Lordships will know. He brought both his high personal qualities and his considerable diplomatic experience to our aid. Everyone should know by now that no report from our Select Committee to your Lordships is possible without the excellent Clerk with whom my wise and tolerant colleagues and I are blessed.
The message in the report is clear and positive. It is set out in paragraph 141. The benefits which can flow from enlargement are powerful for the future of the Community, its existing member states, new member states and also for the United Kingdom. Economical:), there will be gains in industrial and financial strength from the EFTA countries as they join us. The Community will gain from added diversity. Democracy and stability in Europe will grow stronger when the Community grows eastwards after its western, southern and northern extensions, as we confidently expect. The enlarged Community will carry more weight in the world, and its diversity will safeguard its ability and its will to look outwards and not inwards.
That vision is clear. However, the reality is complex and in many ways difficult. We have tried to outline the problems. To admit as new members, states which cannot fulfil the criteria of membership, even after allowing some derogations over a specified time—and derogations have been allowed, I believe, to all new members since 1971, including the United Kingdom—would do damage to the new members and to the old. It would weaken the effectiveness of the Community, and weaken, too, its attractiveness to other new applicants. It would also reduce the weight of the Community's economic and political position in the world.
Aspirants to membership do not hope to join just a forum for discussion; there are plenty of those—and valuable associations, institutions and organisations they are. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, described such a forum, for all its importance, as a soft organisation. But such aspirants seek to join a Community with obligations and powers to make laws and to take action in agreed fields. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, described that concept as a hard organisation. It is the success of the Community to date, with the important improvements of the Maastricht Treaty, many of which spell out, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said on 2nd July—and I am glad that he will speak later—what has been evolved in recent years and has begun to work already, which has attracted the new applicants and many others. It is the success of the Northern Atlantic Alliance which has opened the gates to the East and made possible applications from the countries of Central Europe and Eastern Europe.
Perhaps I may add this thought. Those who find fault with the concept of European union as set out in the Maastricht Treaty might pause for a moment and ask why so many other countries which can also read what is contained in the Maastricht Treaty want to join that union, for it is that union which they are applying to join.
Indeed, there are difficult and complex problems to be resolved and they have to be resolved bilaterally between the Community and each applicant. They have also to be resolved internally within the Community and within the institutions of the Community. Those problems are difficult and complex but we are convinced that they can be resolved given the will and the timing.
The EFTA country applicants should, in our view, be dealt with first. I am very glad that preparations for negotiations with those which have applied will begin under the United Kingdom presidency. We expect the principal difficulty with those countries to arise from the so-called neutrality problem. We set out our views in paragraphs 168 and 169. We said that there are two vital questions which should be asked. I should be interested to know whether noble Lords agree with those two questions and also agree with us that no conditional response can be accepted.
We believe that the existing applicants which are not EFTA countries—Turkey, Malta and Cyprus—should wait a while, for the reasons that we have given. In relation to known aspirants for membership, we advise early, perhaps immediate, negotiations with any EFTA country which decides to apply. However, we advise that appropriate time should be given to Poland, Hungary and the Czechoslovak countries, if that is what they become.
However, we call for closer association agreements with all European countries—including Turkey—as relations develop, particularly on the political front. The idea of a European political area which does not attempt to copy in every way the European economic area which will be in force next year with EFTA, was voiced earlier in the year at a United Kingdom conference, and, I was interested to see, was picked up in the Commission's report.
Those who cannot yet meet the undoubted challenges of the single market need to feel that they will be more closely linked politically to the Community or to the union while they wait for full membership. I welcome the plans of the United Kingdom presidency to develop political co-operation at the top level with the three or four Central European states.
It is important to keep up the tempo of the association process with all European countries, a process which starts with trade and co-operation agreements and develops into full and close association. In the Select Committee we saw examples of those trade and co-operation agreements with the Baltic states and others.
The timing of accessions after those of the EFTA countries is difficult to forecast now. Indeed, it would be unwise to try to do so. However, it is right to set targets to encourage economic progress and change. Those countries will need encouragement bccause the targets will not be comfortable.
Whenever other new members join after the EFTA countries, the Community will need to adapt its institutions and procedures to meet the needs of an effective Community or union of more than 20 members. On the basis of the evidence given to us we believe that institutional change is not necessary in the first years of a community of 15, 16 or 17 members which includes new members from the EFTA countries, though some procedures may need to change. However, soon after 1995 members will need to agree new rules concerning the Commission, most likely in relation to its size and portfolios; the Council, its voting and the rotation of the presidency; languages; and some adaptations to the other
148
institutions. They will also need to consider the position of small states which become members later. Most of those issues are sensitive and will need careful handling. We decided to offer no blueprint.
The German Ambassador said that it is up to the union to adapts its institutions, structures and procedures to the number of members and not the other way round. We strongly agree. Of course it will be difficult to adapt the Community's balanced structure from that created for six members to one suitable for 26. With political will the problems can be resolved. I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's exasperated advice to his minister and staff:
"Don't make difficulties. They make themselves! ".
Subsidiarity will help. That principle is indeed essential for administrative reasons, as the Secretary General of the Commission made clear to us. Other difficulties facing the Community from further enlargement include budgetary problems. However, in the early EFTA stage, the budget will gain. It will be assisted by nearly 3 billion ecus net contributions, rising to more than 4 billion ecus if Switzerland joins too. We set out those figures in Tables 2 and 3 on pages 25 and 26. Those tables show also that with later accessions there will be a real strain on the budget if the economies of the new members who join later do not improve in relation to the Community. That extra strain on the budget could amount to 22 billion ecus.
That is a short summary of our report. We have sought to analyse the facts, the opinions and the choices. As I said at the start, I believe that our message is positive. I also believe that too much of the debate about Europe, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere, has become negative. The United Kingdom as well as the Community gains greatly from our membership. It gains in trade, in financial strength and in position in the world. It will gain further from enlargement.
When we reported to your Lordships on political and economic union in 1990 we remarked on the importance of public opinion being helped to understand the Community's objectives. I hope that this report will help as a useful background to the discussion in Britain and the other countries of the changes that will be necessary within the Community as a consequence of enlargement. I also believe that the report is relevant to the continuing discussion of the Maastricht Treaty.
As we say in the concluding paragraphs, the 1996 review of the Community's structure and rules will raise considerable political issues. Such decisions cannot wisely be rushed or taken without public debate in each state. Perhaps I may be allowed to hope that this debate in your Lordships' House will help at the start of that longish process of public debate. In most political matters—so it seems to me—and in all political matters affecting the Community, there are major objectives that have to be balanced and that balance has to be understood. We have sought to help in explaining those major objectives and all that goes into that important balance. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Enlargement of the Community (1st Report 1992–93, HL Paper 5).—(Lord Aldington).
6.30 p.m.
Lord Healey: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to be making my maiden speech in this House following the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and on somewhat the same theme. It is perhaps appropriate that the sandbag should follow the handbag. I am delighted to see that another sandbag will be speaking in this debate—my good friend and old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. If I may use Lady Thatcher's metaphor: I come here after more than 40 years before the mast in another place, and after nearly seven years before that oiling the wheel at Transport House. Almost the whole of that political career of mine has been dominated by the set of problems which we are discussing today.
I sincerely praise the noble Lord and his colleagues for producing such a clear and comprehensive report which sets out the structural and juridical problems with admirable clarity and objectivity. I strongly support his conclusions, particularly that we should aim at enlarging the Community to include those EFTA countries which wish to join by 1995. I slightly disagree with him on one point: I do not think that neutrality will be more of a problem for them than it was for Ireland. I hope that we can bring in at least Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary from what I still call Eastern Europe as soon as possible thereafter.
Some may feel that there is one potential shortcoming in the report. It may lead some readers to assume that the Community is embarking on this voyage of enlargement in weather that is far more serene than the whirlwinds which are whipping up the oceans at the present time and which are likely to produce even greater turbulence on the ocean we sail in the years to come. Indeed, in my view, unless we start acting now to try to reduce that turbulence, we may find that our enterprise ends in shipwreck.
The leaders of the seven richest countries in the world told us last week:
"Strong world economic growth is a prerequisite for solving a variety of challenges we face in the post cold-war world".
If that were true, there would be no hope, because the G7 summit gave us no reason to believe that we shall get a resumption of growth on any substantial scale in the near future, and none of the governments represented there suggested any policies which might change the current situation. But I might verge on the controversial if I were to pursue that theme, and it was the subject of the debate which has just taken place on the Finance Bill.
The point that I want to make is that the present economic weakness of the Western World is no excuse whatever for continuing to ignore the threat posed to us and to the countries of Eastern Europe by the tragedies which are now taking place in what used to be the communist empire. In 1990, the last year for which we have reliable figures, when recession had already hit Britain and the United States and many
150
other English-speaking countries, the G7 countries between them produced 14,000 billion dollars worth of wealth. Their governments spent more than 5,000 billion dollars of that from the public purse, including 500 billion dollars on defence. That was the year after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, when the end of the communist empire was already in view.
The question I want to put is this: is it really necessary to limit aid, for example, to the former Soviet Union, to one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the output of the seven richest countries in the world when, in the years just after the last war, the United States alone from a far smaller output could spend six times as much in Marshall Aid? To spend money in reducing instability in the ex-communist world is not a matter of charity. It is direct self-interest.
We are still slaughtering sheep in Cumbria because a Soviet atomic plant exploded years ago in the Ukraine. Eastern Europe today is studded with similar unsafe Soviet nuclear plants. Yet, last week, the G7 could only offer 100 million dollars to help deal with that problem in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union too, when the estimated cost of making the plants safe is something like 10 billion dollars.
The United States Government rightly offered Mr. Yeltsin help in the extraordinarily difficult, expensive and lengthy task of dismantling and making safe the ex-Soviet nuclear weapons which are now surplus to the agreement reached the other day between Russia and the United States. The cost of such an operation again will run into tens of billions of dollars; but the United States has offered only 700 million dollars. That runs out in September and President Bush has not asked Congress to renew it for the coming year. All this in a year when the United States is spending 300,000 million dollars on defence and justifying that expenditure, as we justify our defence expenditure, partly by the possible threat that the Soviet nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of evil men.
I believe that we in the West have the most direct national interest in helping to solve those problems, and I doubt whether any of us would dispute that. I hope that that is an uncontroversial remark.
Meanwhile, the economic situation in Eastern Europe is one of collapse. In three of the countries we have identified as potential members of the Community, output has been falling steadily and heavily for two years and unemployment has already reached levels which we have never known in the Western world.
I suggest that the scale of the problem can best be understood by looking at Eastern Germany, which had the immense good fortune of joining the Community automatically by the simple act of voting to join Western Germany in a united republic. The Bonn Government, which is the only western government which, in my view, has shown any sense of the scale of the problems that we face, are spending about 160 billion deutschmarks a year, certainly until the end of this century, in aid to the East German economy. On top of that, they are giving unprecedented help to the political parties in Eastern Germany and are providing the financial and logistic infrastructure which is essential to bring East

151
Germany up to western standards. Yet they now admit that it will be well into the next century before the people living in East Germany will enjoy the same living standards as those in West Germany. We already see political tensions growing in East and West as a result of this problem.
If the rest of the Community continues to fail to give help on a similar scale to the potential East European members of the Community, I think we shall face not only economic disaster but political tensions which will lead to a growth of nationalism and extremism throughout the area. Already in Poland, President Walesa is casting himself more and more in the role of the old dictator, Marshal Pilsudski. President Havel only the other day pointed out that in Czechoslovakia its release from the prison of Soviet authority produced,
"an enormous and dazzling explosion of every imaginable human vice."
Anyone who has read any of the reports about the growth of crime in Eastern Europe, and even more of course in the Soviet Union, will find it difficult to contradict his words. Slovakia has now already decided, we hear, to break away from the Czechoslovak Federation, creating enormous anxiety among the 700,000 Hungarians who I think live in Slovakia. If we look at Hungary, that country finds itself, amazingly, faced with four states as neighbours which did not exist two years ago: Slovenia, Croatia, Ukraine and, shortly, Slovakia. They already face a very serious national problem with the ethnic minority of Hungarians in Transylvania.
It seems to me that unless we act on these problems, which we can all witness and see described in our newspapers every day, we shall see the Yugoslav tragedy repeated elsewhere in Eastern Europe. At this moment the Croatians are pushing refugees across the frontier into other sovereign states like Austria and Italy, because they claim they can no longer look after them. We also face the immediate possibility of war in Macedonia, which could bring in a number of sovereign states: Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece, as well as Serbia, if we so describe it. Incidentally, although this is not directly relevant, I cannot understand, if we believe in peace-keeping, why we do not organise the presence of United Nations troops in Macedonia now, before the war starts. Once it starts, as in Yugoslavia, it will be too late.
The question I ask us to consider is this: cannot the European Community, so much wealthier now than America was when it launched Marshall Aid, offer help commensurate with the danger? It will be much easier to do so once we get the EFTA countries in, because each of those countries has a higher per capita income than any of the existing members of the Community, including Germany.
When I started my political career nearly half a century ago, I remember Jim Griffiths (who I think later became a member of your Lordships' House) saying,
"Science has turned the world into a parish, but men have not yet learnt how to be neighbours."
That has reverberated in my mind ever since. It has latterly been an unfashionable way of looking at
152
things. I have heard it said by a head of government not so long ago that there is no such thing as society, and that consensus is a dirty word, fit only for quislings and traitors. But we cannot afford isolationism and we cannot achieve isolation in the modern world. We are going to be directly and possibly disastrously affected by what will happen in Eastern Europe in the coming years unless we take very drastic and collective action now to deal with it.
Surely the lesson of the Rio conference is that we do now live in one world, where the burning of trees in Brazil can raise the level of the seas all over the world. I suggest that we might return to an older wisdom because 370 years ago a dean of St. Paul's, by name John Donne, preached the following sermon:
"No man is an Island, entire of itself; …
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
6.46 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Healey, on behalf of the whole House, on his maiden speech. It was a characteristically robust and interesting speech, which we all listened to extremely attentively. The noble Lord has always enjoyed Parliament and politics; and the long experience, wide knowledge, wit and sense of enjoyment which he brings to this House are valued and valuable assets, from which we shall undoubtedly benefit. The only problem I have in relation to the noble Lord is that he is not part of the Opposition Front Bench, but wherever he speaks from we look forward to many more speeches from the noble Lord. May I add here how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech, and with equal enthusiasm, of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
The Government are absolutely right to make enlargement a top priority for the Community. There is very wide agreement about this, and this report is very helpful in analysing that process and the likely progress of enlargement. It is a very clear and crisp assessment, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Aldington and his colleagues on it. It was to be expected that it would be an assessment of the way forward, as viewed from here—that is to say, from the Community's point of view. Of course that was the Committee's remit, but there is another side to the coin, and that is the situation in Eastern Europe, about which the West so far has taken much too rosy a view. I want to speak on that aspect, and I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Healey, has just been saying.
The dismantling of the Berlin Wall was the symbol of one of the major turning points of the 20th century. The entire geopolitical landscape changed overnight. Suddenly and dramatically we were all faced with the opportunity we have been working for ever since the war: the opportunity to rebuild Europe once again. This is something that happens only very rarely, about once a century: 1714, 1816, 1918. The last was of course a failure, leading to the Second World War and

153
the subsequent division of Europe by Stalin. Now suddenly we find ourselves at a new beginning, with the chance to achieve what our predecessors failed to achieve before.
Ever since the Berlin Wall came down I have had the feeling that the West has underestimated quite seriously the scale of the deprivation of all those unfortunate nations that were part of the Soviet empire. They have lost out on practically all the technological advances and the social and political changes that we have grown up with. They long to have the same prosperity as we enjoy. But they are handicapped with enormous burdens; bankrupt economies, no institutional infrastructure and no experience or practice in pluralist democracies or market economies. Their position is far worse than ours was in 1945. No outside help is available to them on the scale that we enjoyed at that time. Surely our primary strategic objective must be to convert the whole of Europe into one diverse but coherent and cohesive entity. With so many different nations, cultures, traditions and languages, not to mention the chasm between the standard of living of the richest and the poorest, obviously that will be difficult.
What concerns me is that the thinking and the language used throughout the Community seems to be based simply on the conditions which must be fulfilled before a nation can join."We are not going to change", appears to be the message which goes out—"You must conform to the club otherwise you cannot join". That approach is the natural one from the Community's point of view. It is appropriate for enlargement of the EFTA countries, whose profile is essentially the same as that of the Community countries.
However, as regards the countries of central and Eastern Europe a very different approach is required because their circumstances are so different. The ultimate aim is for them to be in the same kind of political and economic position as the rest of us in the West. But that prospect is so far off that it is no more than a dream. Having thrown off their communist oppressors they find that in many ways their everyday life is worse than before. The glitter of western prosperity is not available to them and it will take decades to put in place the necessary investment and training to make that available. The danger is that the disappointment and bitterness felt by so many people could well lead to political difficulties, uprisings, conflicts and to anything one might like to imagine.
The seeds of discontent are already highly visible, which is not surprising. Currently we read articles in our own press arguing that unless the recession here ends soon the people will become impatient and force change. The equivalent in Central and Eastern Europe is 10 if not 100 times worse and so few people seem to appreciate that. If one wants an object lesson in what may happen if people start taking the law into their own hands one need look no further than Yugoslavia. Post-communist Europe is a very sick man and in need of intensive treatment; that is mentally and psychologically as well as physically.
154
Against that background—that is, the actual situation in Central and Eastern Europe—the posture of the Community appears to some to be inadequate, unimaginative and actually inward looking. Of course, we want to maximise the economic strength of the Community in order to help Eastern Europe but the whole context in which the Community operates changed when the Berlin Wall came down. I sometimes wonder whether people actually noticed that. The question is: how can policies and methods best be adjusted to this wholly new situation?
There are in place at present the European agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Certainly they are a valuable start and can be developed, but by themselves they will prove inadequate. I should like to see two new initiatives taken. The first is one which I have previously proposed in this House. It is a structure, a forum, where all the countries of Europe are represented and where the European picture can be considered comprehensively, continuously and as a complete whole. The most urgent needs and crisis points can be identified there and priorities can be recommended.
I believe that that role can best be undertaken by CSCE. The fact that that organisation includes the United States and Japan appears to be an advantage. At its recent meeting CSCE slightly enlarged its role by making some new special arrangements for national minorities. That is a welcome development, but in my view something altogether more substantial is required. Obviously it is important that the numerous initiatives already being taken by govern-ments, by industry and commerce, by the banks and by many international organisations continue. The more links that are built up between East and West the better. But those individual initiatives will be more beneficial and cost effective if they are targeted in the light of the political and economic landscape of Europe as it is at the time.
I shall not repeat what I have said on previous occasions about the many bridges which need to be built across the divide. But unless there is some structure in place to facilitate the process I doubt whether we shall be able to manage the transition successfully or peacefully.
The second initiative that I wish to suggest is the study of the nature and structure of the Community when it is enlarged to 20 or more members. My noble friend Lord Aldington touched on the issue. The present arrangements were designed for a much smaller group of countries and I am doubtful about their appropriateness for a Community of more than 12. But even if they are adapted successfully for, say, 16 members—the EFTA countries—beyond that a new design will surely be necessary for a group of 20 or 25 countries. At present no thought appears to have been given to that.
I believe that the transition process would be helped if we could formulate together joint ideas from East as well as West on how exactly we see an enlarged Community working. I know that vested interests in the status quo make that difficult, but we must rise above that and use our imagination and experience to

155
design methods and systems which are appropriate for a group of 20 or 25 countries, which will be new territory.
My view is that such consideration will lead us to conclude that the Community at the centre must concentrate on broad strategic issues, in particular political co-operation, and play a lesser role in matters of detail. But however that may be we ought to be clear in our minds about the kind of enlarged Community that we should be working for, the form of the institutions that it will need and how it will work.
In conclusion I wish to quote two sentences from a speech made by the Prime Minister in another place on 20th May. He said:
"It would be fatal to take the attitude that we have our prosperous club and that nobody else can join unless they are prepared to pay a heavy price. We the Community, this country—would all pay a heavy price if, by our attitude, we damaged the chance of re-establishing for the first time in 50 years a firm democracy throughout the whole of Europe".—[Official Report, Commons,20/5/92; col.272.]
We should indeed pay a very heavy price.
In my view we must reject any flavour of,"I'm all right, Jack". Rather we must see that central strategic objective of bringing the whole of Europe together in one diverse but cohesive entity as a challenge to every country in Europe—to East and West, North and South, rich and poor. We shall all have to work closely together, and contribute whatever we can in a variety of ways according to our circumstances, if we are to maximise the progress of Central and Eastern Europe towards greater prosperity and thus attain our European goal.
7 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, as I embark on my first speech in your Lordships' House, it is a privilege to be able to do so following the distinguished and perceptive speech of my noble friend Lord Pym, just as I followed him, as it happens, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office some years ago. It is some comfort also to be taking part in this debate in the company of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Healey. I dare to venture the observation that even this House has seldom perceived before such a gnarled and battle-scarred pair of maidens.
Perhaps it is less of a coincidence that I find myself speaking on the same topic as my noble friend Lady Thatcher (who tells me that she is in her former constituency this evening) because both she and I were swept off the Front Bench of another place by one of those European storms of which the noble Lord, Lord Healey, spoke; and now, rather like the characters of Twelfth Night or The Tempest, we have both survived that turbulent experience and after some time adrift have been washed on to the red leather Benches of the same friendly shore. Some may wonder whether it is Illyria or Caliban's island which we have reached. However, your Lordships may think it wise for me to refrain from speculation about that. Suffice it to say that in both those places the natives were friendly and all was well that ended well.
It is a particular pleasure for me to find on the Benches opposite not just an old friend but a former
156
constituent of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He was never able to vote for me because he was always a Member of this House. But, although I am sure he will not remember it, he welcomed me as the Minister replying to the debate after my maiden speech in another place many years ago.
I am particularly glad also to be able to speak upon the basis of the excellent report from the Select Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Aldington. I join in congratulating him and his colleagues on the quality of that report. Reports of such quality have done much to give your Lordships' House the reputation—and I can testify to this from personal experience—of probably the best informed and most expert parliamentary assembly in Europe.
I agree with the Select Committee that all member states now rightly accept enlargement as "both inevitable and desirable". Way back in 1983– 84, I was the first Western Foreign Minister to visit every one of the East European capital cities. In those days I felt the full force of their yearning for escape from Soviet bondage. How much I agree with the Select Committee that those countries now look to the Community, as they did then, as "an anchor" and "a source of strength for their crippled economies" and, above all, as a "guarantee that they will not be sucked back into the quagmire from which they have just escaped".
Of course they want to join us. But what is it that they want to join, and why? I believe that it is important to appreciate the central, dynamic, magnetic role played by the Community in inspiring those revolutionary changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe. They now wish to join our Community because of their admiration for its central achievements: first, its success in curbing nationalism without suppressing patriotism; secondly, its success in finding ways of sharing sovereignty without destroying the nation; and, thirdly, its success in setting the magic of the marketplace to work in the cause of wider unity.
No achievement was more important in that respect than the Single European Act which my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I negotiated together at Luxembourg now almost seven years ago. It is not the precise equivalent, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay who said the other day that it was,
"every bit as great a milestone as the Maastricht Treaty".—[Official Report,2/7/92; col.944.]
Certainly there can be no doubt about the scale of the achievement of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Maastricht because there can be no doubt about the extent to which it was applauded in this country and welcomed throughout the Community. There is little room for doubt that that success was due to our Prime Minister's sustained and, most importantly, continuing commitment that Britain should no longer be seen as "anchor to windward" of Europe but rather as in the engine room of the Community, as part of its driving force. Equally certainly, any attempt now to repudiate Maastricht would be, in my judgment, for Britain as well as for Europe a disaster of the greatest magnitude because it would be the loudest possible

157
signal for a resurgence of the worst kind of nationalism, which is the most persistent and pernicious of all European diseases.
We forget at our peril that Balkanisation is not a disease which is or can be regarded as safely confined to the Balkans. Sarajevo is for the second time this century the tragic symbol of that—a brutal reminder of the need to keep up the search for a better way of handling the emotive nationalism that can give patriotism such a bad name. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and my noble friend Lord Pym on the need for positive solid help to the countries of Eastern Europe as soon as we can manage it.
None of that implies any disposition on my part to ignore the implications of the Danish vote or to dismiss out of hand the message underlying that event. I agree with those who have argued that we have been given an opportunity to think again, but emphatically not an opportunity to make a fresh start, or anything like it. Of course as we proceed towards enlargement we need to think again about the best way forward from Maastricht, but equally certainly we must not end up trying perversely to retrace our steps in the opposite direction.
Certainly the way forward must embrace the search for a clearer, firmer entrenchment of "subsidiarity". It would be desirable to fortify subsidiarity with a buttress even more secure, if we can find it, than Article 3b of the treaty, as that may be interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Ideally that buttress should be located in the Council of Ministers, for that is where the laws are made. All too often it is Ministers in Council who have adopted the very laws of which they later complain as reaching into the nooks and crannies of national life. Why should we not have a real subsidiarity test in the Council; for example, a requirement that there should be unanimity on the legal base for any new measure?
The Select Committee was certainly right to emphasise that this, subsidiarity,
"must be the key to the effectiveness of the enlarged Community".
Perhaps I may use the words of President Jacques Delors himself when he said that we need:
"a constant counterweight to the natural tendency of the centre to accumulate power".
And it would be good indeed if we could locate a large part of that counterweight at the very centre in the Council of Ministers itself.
Finally, let me make three points about enlargement. First, I agree with the Select Committee and my noble friend Lord Pym that enlargement will require changes and adjustments in the institutions and procedures of the Community. The key question is how far they may—I would say "will"—require change with the addition of five or more small countries. From having been until 1973 a Community with three large countries out of six, it will in due course and quite quickly become a Community of 11, 12 or more small countries alongside five large countries.
I agree with the Select Committee and my noble friend Lord Pym that that must raise at least three questions for early consideration: first, voting weights
158
in the Council; secondly, the pattern of rotation of the presidency; and, thirdly and most obviously, the number of official languages for use in ordinary proceedings.
Also we need to question whether such a large convoy can or should all continue to move at one speed. I once had misgivings about separation of speed in that way because I feared that we may inadvertently or deliberately get left behind. However, despite those earlier misgivings, I am increasingly persuaded that a two-speed, or more probably a variable geometry, Europe may be inevitable. If that be the case, it becomes all the more important to ensure that the United Kingdom remains at the heart not just of the Community as a whole but of the inner core of that organisation.
That brings me to the final point I wish to make about the framework within which enlargement should take place. We should take care not to underestimate the importance to prospective new members of the Community, as well as to present members, of the Maastricht commitment to,
"progressive realisation of economic and monetary union".
This is neither the time nor the place for me to argue the case, which I support, for the objective of a single currency. But certainly we should not overlook in the context of the enlargement debate the extent to which applicant countries wish to be part of EMU. Norway, Sweden and Finland at least are already committed to shadowing the ecu as the anchor of their own monetary stability. For us too, our present attachment to the disciplines of the exchange rate mechanism is a vital feature of our own monetary as well as political constancy.
My noble friend Lady Thatcher was absolutely right to emphasise, when we joined the mechanism under her premiership, that entry should be seen as,
"an extra discipline for keeping down inflation".—[Official Report, Commons,30/10/90: col.888.]
Just as she and I stood together—now more than a decade ago—and as others have done before us, in defence of our joint commitment to monetary policy as the then foundation of our policy to defeat inflation, so it is no less essential to be just as constant, indeed courageous, in defence of today's,
"discipline for keeping down inflation".
I judge that the present Prime Minister has been absolutely right to commit our country to participation at the heart of Europe. So too he has been right, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to emphasise our commitment to the discipline to which we have committed ourselves of the European monetary system. Each of those commitments is in line with the long-term needs of the United Kingdom; each of them therefore deserves the wholehearted commitment and support of this House.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, There is a suspect car in Parliament Street. There will be a controlled explosion in a few minutes but let us not allow it to interfere with our debate.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on his maiden speech. He has unique experience of dealing with the Community, but the manner and thoughtfulness of what he has said today will, I am sure, mean that we shall want to hear him on many more occasions in this House. We have heard two remarkable maiden speeches and, as someone who as a former Cabinet Secretary was more used to trying to keep up with the eloquence on the opposite side of the Cabinet table, perhaps I may say how nice it is to see both speakers here today.
I was privileged to serve on the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I support what he had to say today. In particular, at a time when there seems to be in this country undue pleasure in sniping at the Community, it was salutary to listen to witnesses from applicant countries, all of whom were to be net contributors, who spoke of what they saw as the Community's success and their wish to be part of it. Similarly, I have no doubt that we in this country should benefit from enlargement. I am not thinking of the effect on our budget contribution but rather of the advantages which an even larger single market will give us and the advantages of a stronger and more outward-looking Community.
The arrangements to be made with the central European states with a view to their co-operation and possible membership of the Community in due course are of enormous importance in the context of stability and democracy in that region. But I propose to confine my few remarks tonight to underlining two points relating to the EFTA countries and the more immediate future.
The Community has enlarged before—the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark and then Spain, Portugal and Greece—but the next enlargement will be of a different order for three reasons. First, the new members will be joining not just the European Community but the three pillars of the European union and the completed single market. In other words, as one of our witnesses put it, we have "raised the integration threshold" which new members have to cross and also the ultimate goals of membership. They are joining a more developed Community. That may yet cause problems for one or two of the neutrals, but I hope not.
Secondly, the distinction within Western Europe between those countries which are members of the Community and those which are not will largely disappear, while of course the East-West division is also disappearing.
Thirdly, there are already other applicants in the offing, which makes it much harder, even though it will be necessary, to deal with this wave of enlargements on a discrete basis. Indeed, we are already having to talk about devising new forms of waiting lobbies and half-way houses. Therefore I do not believe it will be the same as previous rounds of enlargement.
That brings me to my second point, which relates to institutional reform. I entirely support and share the
160
committee's view that institutional difficulties must not hold up the next round of enlargement. I accept also that the EFTA countries can join in advance of any structural reform, although the elastic will be stretched pretty thin. I fully understand the reluctance of governments, having endured the IGCs recently, to embark upon another structural review before 1996. However, it seems to me that some of the consequences of the next round of enlargement cannot be divorced from other questions which will need to be considered shortly relating to the sort of Community we wish to see developing.
In other words, I am not thinking so much about the number of commissioners, the changes in qualified majority voting, the arrangements for the presidency, the number of MEPs and so on; I am thinking more of what the Community is going to do and how it will operate. A framework for six, nine or 12 countries—as we have at present—is not necessarily suitable for 16 or 20. We may need to think again about what we mean by integration and how the borderline between Community level policies and national policies should be drawn in an enlarged and different Community. We may even need, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, suggested, some kind of variable geometry to take account of the more varied composition of the Community, although how much of that will be tolerable if the Community is to remain effective and strong is a big question.
"Subsidiarity" is currently the buzz word, but flesh will need to be put upon it. I am not sure whether anyone knows at the moment what we mean by it. At one extreme it could mean having a cost-benefit analysis done of all draft directives to see whether it is better and more efficient to do it at Community level rather than national level. It could mean the repatriation of some powers to national or regional authorities from Brussels. Some repatriation may be necessary anyhow in the context of an enlarged Community. Therefore discussion of the future of the Community and what it will do—I am not thinking simply of institutional reform—needs to take account of enlargement.
My argument is that, although some short-term decisions on commissioners and MEPs will be necessary when the EFTA countries come in, and although major institutional reform may have to wait until 1996, we should not think of enlargement as a single one-off subject on its own where one negotiates with a round of people, brings them in and that is that. We need to see the consequences of how a larger and wider Community will develop post-Maastricht and in particular the meaning to be given to "subsidiarity". Otherwise the Community will seize up.
I would like to emphasise that in saying that I am not arguing for dilution or emasculation of the Community. I know that some people have felt that this country wants to see enlargement because we wish to see the Community weakened. That is not my point at all. The Community needs to be enlarged but it also needs to be effective within the agreed role for it, and in the context of enlargement that may need some modification.

161
The subject is an important one and no doubt we shall return to it in due course. My point is that enlargement this time is not something which can be seen as a one-off negotiation to accept new members; it is something which can strengthen the Community provided its link with subsidiarity is maintained. If we do that, the somewhat artificial argument between widening and deepening will disappear.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have already heard two excellent and thoughtful maiden speeches by noble Lords who are much more experienced in these matters than I shall ever be. Therefore, I shall keep my comments brief because there are many more experts to come. When I was getting my doctorate in the early 1960s in America there used to be EFTA and the Common Market. Europe was at sixes and sevens. It was not at all certain which association would prove to be the more durable. Although many people thought that EFTA was an entirely economic interest with not much political or ideological structure, it was believed that it would be more likely to expand than the Common Market as it was then called.
History has shown that it is the Common Market which has grown into a European Community. The reason it has done so is that it has depth and not just size. The success of the European Community is due to the fact that it commits its members to a much more sterner test of membership. much more sovereignty has to be pooled and much discipline has to be accepted if one is to join the club. If the Community is to enlarge it can only do so successfully by not losing depth while at the same time gaining additional membership. That is an important principle which we must bear in mind in discussing this excellent report which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his Committee have set before us.
When there were only six members there was a clear economic and political programme, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has pointed out. The programme was to overcome nationalist divisions in Europe. It was built round the Franco-German axis. That gave the organisation backbone. Membership has grown from six to 12 and we have had some problems. I believe that the Danish vote on Maastricht gives us an opportunity to think very carefully about the political logic behind the Community. The economic logic of the Single European Act is quite clear.
But what is the political logic of the European Community? In that respect in many senses we have not yet had a real debate. The move towards Maastricht and a single economic and monetary union has been driven by Brussels and the Commission. The large populations in the many nations of the Community have not as yet played as great a part as they should be playing if they are seriously to contemplate a deep European Community. We do not have a sufficiently good model to aim at.
What is the ideal towards which the European Community should aim? The membership of six was built on two conflicting ideals, one of which was the
162
Benelux customs union which was straightforward and has now grown into the Single European Act. The other model was the coal and steel community which was dirigiste, bureaucratic and harmonising. I believe that the conflict between those two tendencies continues to this day. Half the time we are for the liberal movement of capital and labour across frontiers and for the other half we are for harmonisation, regulation and so on. That conflict needs to be sorted out.
The Danish vote on the Maastricht Treaty allows us, while committed to the goal of the Community—I have no doubt that I am very committed to that goal—to think again as to what is the political logic behind the Community. As regards Maastricht and the discussions around it, we have not paid sufficient attention to the political dimension (the democratic deficit) which is at the heart of the European Community. Unless we do something much more drastic about the democratic deficit within the Community I believe that we shall have difficulties. They will increase when the EFTA countries enter because the union of five or six large countries and many more smaller ones is bound to create many problems. The small countries will feel threatened by the large countries which will not wish to share power on an equal basis with the smaller countries.
This debate should give us an opportunity to say much more about the political logic behind the Community. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, it may be that we have variable geometry at the heart of this new Community. Something of that kind is already happening with the economic and monetary union. The convergence conditions are such that we may ultimately end up with an economic and monetary union of fewer than the 12 plus five and have a periphery of countries which are not quite ready to join. If that kind of variable geometry is admitted in the economic and monetary union we may again have variable geometry also on the political front with a different cluster of countries which are more committed to political union than others. These kinds of models have to be thought through.
As regards Eastern Europe, I am very doubtful that we can say very much at all as yet. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Healey, whose maiden speech I enjoyed very much, that our task concerning Eastern Europe is not so much to think of them as potential members of the club as to help them out of their immediate dire need. Our task right now is to help them to be restored to some semblance of economic and political health. It will take much longer before one can accept the countries of Eastern Europe or the CIS as full members of the European Community. If that happens the variable geometry will become even more variable. We shall have several layers of association in the EC.
The EFTA countries will join the Community without any great economic problems. That should give us pause for thinking about the political basis on which we are going to enlarge the union. Even if it is not enlarged, what will be the political basis on which

163
we will maintain the existing Community? If we do not think about that, there will be the danger that some countries may break away from the Community.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have, in one capacity or another, served with both the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I regarded them both in their own way as very formidable Chancellors of the Exchequer and no doubt very successful ones in the light of the policies which they were endeavouring to pursue. Indeed, had it only been possible to amalgamate them, they would undoubtedly have been the most successful Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present century. They have already contributed notably to our debate this evening. I am sure that we shall have a very great deal to learn from both of them.
We are debating a very wide ranging and careful report which deals with a vast panorama in a very judicial, careful and penetrating manner. In so far as in some instances I may appear to be critical, I am not critical of the report but of some of the ideas that have been advanced outside its ambit. The report and my noble friend Lord Aldington have wisely distanced themselves just a little from some of what I would regard as the rather wilder ideas that we have seen in recent months, if not recent years.
I shall deal with only two issues. I hope—and I propose—to deal with them not on a political or philosophical level, but essentially on a purely practical one. The first issue was the decision at the Lisbon summit that negotiations on the enlargement of the Community to include the EFTA countries should not take place until after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and after agreement on the Delors II package. I do not think that we should take that too tragically because all experience shows that the hard work is not done at the formal negotiations, but before the formal negotiations start.
As I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on 2nd July, in the case of the United Kingdom's accession to the Community the formal negotiations took only three days; but that was in the golden days when Mr. Heath (Sir Edward Heath as he now is) was Prime Minister. I would not expect to see such a remarkable turn of speed in these days. Dr. Manfred Scheich, the chief negotiator for the Austrian Government, has suggested that the formal negotiations could take six to nine months, which seems to me to be a reasonable estimate. I should have thought that if the preparatory work is done under the British presidency, in the case of Austria, Sweden and Finland it should he possible for the accession of those three countries into the Community to be achieved by 1st January 1995, which is the target date.
The other issue that I wish to deal with is the cost of enlargement. On many occasions I have suggested that it would be wise if figures were produced showing what the cost of the enlargement of the Community will be. I am glad to see that those figures are now included in the Select Committee's report. The only trouble is that I do not believe them. This is no criticism of the Select Committee because the figures
164
are derived from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and that gives me even less confidence in the figures.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it obtained them from the Treasury.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that reveals internal workings of the Government that are better shrouded in secrecy.
Let me start with the EFTA countries. I have said on many an occasion that the EFTA countries are relatively wealthy countries and that their accession to the Community would impose no burden on Community finances. However, I have considerable doubts about whether the figure of a benefit to the Community of 3 billion ecu a year can be justified. There is in fact no connection at all between wealth or income per head and the benefit or cost of Community membership. In the case of Holland and Denmark—if I may take two of the more prosperous countries—the Dutch benefit to the tune of £15 per head of population per annum, and the Danes benefit to the tune of nearly £60 per head of population per annum. On the other hand, Spain, which is one of the poorest of the countries, benefits to the tune of only £30 per head per annum and, but for the transitional provisions, might even have been a net contributor. I shall not say very much about the United Kingdom; but The Times this morning described the United Kingdom as,
"eighth in the ranking of GDP per head of population … the poorest country in the EC not receiving cohesion funds".
However, although the poorest country not receiving cohesion funds, we contribute no less than £41 per head per annum to the financing of the Community.
Therefore, there is no nexus whatever between the wealth of a country and what it has to put into or draw out of the Community. That is my first point and I go no further than saying that, in the case of the EFTA countries, I am sceptical about the figures. I do not think that those countries will be a burden on the Community, but we should be wrong to regard them as a source of net income to the Community.
When we come to the Central European countries, I do not believe the figures. On this my views are very similar to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Healey. Let me start with the figures that actually appear in the report. As I have said, they are derived from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon confirmed, they came ultimately from the Treasury. The report states that those countries will cost approximately 10 billion ecu per annum in terms of net support from the Community. The present position is that our own Government—and I am not in any way criticising them—have strongly attacked the Delors II package on the ground of its excessive expenditure. That amounts to an increase in Community expenditure of 20 billion ecu per annum. I have said that I think that the figures are probably too high so I am not unduly criticising the Government for that. However, by bringing the Central European countries of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia into the Community, they have now

165
proposed to increase the cost of the Delors package by no less than 50 per cent. I simply do not believe that when it came to the point that would be regarded by our own Government as a tolerable outcome.
However, I go further than that and say that I do not believe the figures. I shall explain why. I suspect that they have been compiled on what is sometimes called an "as is" basis—that is, they assume that everything will remain the same. However, the lesson of every single enlargement in the past is that things never have remained the same. After the accession of the United Kingdom, for example, we had the foundation of the regional funds. After the accession of Greece, we had what we call the IMPs, the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes. Then after the accession of Spain and Portugal, we had the doubling of the structural funds. A further massive increase is now proposed under the heading of "cohesion". Perhaps I may illustrate what has happened by going back to 1987 when the cohesion and structural funds—there is no difference between the two except in the terminology—amounted to 9.1 billion ecu per annum. By 1997 under the Delors proposals they will have risen to 29.3 billion ecu per annum. That is a threefold increase.
If we look at these three central European countries, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, we should start by looking at what happened in the case of East Germany, as the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said. The cost to the Federal Republic of Germany has been estimated at various figures up to 500 billion deutschmarks—not per annum, but in total. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, gave the figure of 150 billion ecu per annum. But the fact of the matter is that nobody knows what the figure is other than that it is astronomical. Indeed, it has almost brought the most powerful economy in Europe to its knees. The problems that were being discussed in our earlier debate on the Finance Bill—rates of interest, which are so greatly determined by the Germans, rates of inflation and so on—are essentially a reflection of the tremendous burden that the Federal Republic has assumed as the price of the unification of Germany.
The population of East Germany is 16 million. The population of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland combined is 64 million—four times as much. Poland, if anything, is in an even worse industrial and economic state than East Germany was. Slovakia, which is the industrial end of what is now called Czechoslovakia, faces similar problems. Hungary is in a much more fortunate position but it is a small part of this total of three countries. There is no way whatever that the accession of these countries to the European Community could be financed within a figure of 10 billion ecus per annum, the figure which appears in the report. The authors of the report are not responsible for that figure. It has come from Government sources.
There is one other matter with which I ought to deal. It is very difficult and delicate. The report assumes that the United Kingdom will receive a two-thirds rebate on the cost of these proposals. I entirely understand that in the present delicate
166
situation the Government have to maintain the integrity of the British budget rebate—I accept that. But this is a different matter. This is a policy that our own Government are promoting. What rational chance is there that the other members of the Community will agree to give the United Kingdom a two-thirds rebate on the cost of the United Kingdom's own proposals?
It is no good saying that we have a veto and that the United Kingdom rebate is entrenched in the regulation. That is valid so far as concerns existing policies; but what will happen if we come along and say that our policy is to bring these people into the Community, which will bring with it a certain figure, and then claim a two-thirds rebate? Unless we are prepared to meet the other countries on the cost of our own proposals, the other countries will simply refuse to accept our proposals. We already see this in the case of Spain and the EFTA countries. Spain has said that unless we pay up under the cohesion fund it will block the accession of the EFTA countries. Spain has probably put it more politely than that, but I am stripping out the sense of what is said. That is what will happen when we come to the hard negotiations on the enlargement of the Community.
In conclusion, we have a responsibility and a duty to these countries. That is true and I have said so repeatedly. But what we must have also is a policy which is realistic, which is achievable and which can be achieved. Almost certainly we will go down not the path of immediate enlargement. We will not go down the path of concentric circles or different layers of membership. They raise impossible problems on the decision-making process. One has only to look at what has happened on the EEA negotiations to see that. What we shall have to do is to start on a free trade basis, extend that into a Customs Union, bearing in mind that the Customs Union was the foundation stone of the Community, and by specific agreement extend this area of co-operation to the services.
By the time that has been done it may very well be that these countries will have reached the stage at which they can be welcomed into the Community without creating impossible strains. But, quite frankly, that is likely to be well into the next century. If we try and hold out hopes which cannot be achieved, if we offer what cannot be delivered, it will end up in tears, in disappointment and in recriminations. What we have to do is to have a policy which clearly leads to success. That is the kind of policy which I hope will be hammered out in the course of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, this is a debate about enlargement. Before embarking on that subject I should like to say a few words about the effect of the considerable influx of new Members into your Lordships' House over the past few weeks, something which could, I suppose, be called an enlargement of our own number. We have seen the effect this evening with two remarkable and very distinguished maiden speeches, which did not in the least surprise me

167
knowing as I do the quality of the two noble Lords in question. I suppose that there is a certain irony in that two noble Lords who have spent a large part of their political lives engaged in almost mortal combat in another place—"savagery" is one of the words that was used at one time—should have come together in what might be called a combined performance. Their maiden speeches have given us much food for thought.
As one who was fortunate enough to serve on the sub-committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, I join him in commending the report to the House. It is a useful and timely document and it is valuable that we should have the opportunity to discuss the subject before the Recess, given the great fluidity and uncertainty of the European situation at present. I shall attempt to cover only those aspects which seem to me to be of immediate relevance.
My first comment is that the subject has changed greatly since the sub-committee set the work in hand at the beginning of the year. At that time there was every reason to believe that preparation for the enlargement negotiations would fall during our presidency and that this would be one of our most crucial tasks. We reasoned that the period between the signature of the Maastricht Treaty and the end of the ratification process—that is, during our presidency—would be the time when serious thought would be given to the way in which negotiations for accession would he undertaken; how, and with whom, in what order, and so on. The report was conceived to give some guidance on these matters to the House and to the Government. Now the Danish referendum has fundamentally changed that perspective. Recognition of the changed circumstances is explicit in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council last month, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has just referred.
It is clearly stated there that the negotiations for accession will begin only when three other things have happened: first, when the Community has terminated its review of its own resources—that must include our own budgetary contribution, to which the noble Lord has just referred; secondly, after all ratifications of the Maastricht Treaty have been completed; and thirdly, after agreement has been reached on the Delors II package. That is a rather formidable programme. I do not say that this means putting off enlargement until the Greek calends. But clearly there is a quite different timescale and we cannot be confident when the negotiations will begin.
One significant factor in ratification of the treaty will be the state of internal political affairs in a number of member states, whether these concern economic and constitutional questions, as they do in Germany, or the standing of an individual government, as happens in France, where the referendum will be just as much about the presidency and the ruling government as about Maastrict itself. So the outcome seems to me to be unpredictable. What appeared to be a racing certainty only a few months ago is now much more questionable.
The second comment I would offer to the House is that we should not allow these current doubts to cloud our long-term judgment. The opinion of the
168
committee at paragraph 184 of the report is that enlargement is in the long-term interest of Britain. I strongly support that view. In the coming years the Community, and we as part of it, would greatly benefit from the accession of those members of EFTA who wish to join. Their support would be invaluable to the existing 12 member states—partly because the economic activities of those countries are in the main strong, prosperous and complementary to our own.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said in that connection. At least they will not benefit from the cohesion fund; in fact I strongly hope that they will contribute to it. Those states are also democratic and soundly based, with an excellent political and social record. Whatever we may think of Maastricht, it would be a great misfortune if a prolonged controversy about that treaty were to impede the accession of states already so close to us in many ways—not least, they are just as European as the existing 12 members of the Community.
The issue of the definition of Europe in the Community context is an intriguing subject and one which detained the sub-committee for some moments. Thoughtful advice was proffered by a number of witnesses, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. My own conclusion is that we need not worry over-much with dictionary definitions of Europe but that we should pay due attention to the historical factors which condition public attitudes. The concept of Europe is, happily, an elastic one which need not be a barrier to the decisions which face the Community at present.
We should also beware, I suggest, of geo-political notions; that is, a priori concepts about the extent of Europe. They are quite common, they often mislead and they can be unhelpful to the actual conduct of affairs by government. Of course there will be problems at the geographical margin in future; for example, how European is Russia or the Ukraine? But those questions are not on our current agenda.
A further comment that I should like to suggest to your Lordships concerns the difficult issue of neutrality. The report has two pithy paragraphs on the matter—namely, paragraphs 168 and 169. Those words reflect a lot of thought and discussion and seem to me to address one of the most essential parts of the whole subject. I support the committee's conclusions. The problem arises because a number of countries seeking membership have followed different forms of neutrality in the past—sometimes with rather specific public commitments to that effect—or have chosen to follow neutral foreign policies as a question of political judgment in relation to a current situation. At present we have only one member state in the Community with a policy of that kind. My concern is that a future Community, with, say,20 members, of which four or five had a preference for neutral policies, might find its choice and freedom of action limited by such historic preferences.
I have no personal blueprint of my own about the way in which the Community might develop in the field of political security or collective collaboration on defence. But I believe that it needs to have a wide freedom of choice over policy because we cannot

169
foresee how its security needs may develop. The current situation in Bosnia illustrates just how uncertain the future roles of the various organisations appear to be, with the United Nations, the European Community, the Western European Union, NATO and the CSCE all involved. The words at paragraph 169 of the report are surely correct:
"We are of the firm opinion that Ireland's neutral status should not be considered a precedent for applicant States to follow".
I agree with that; indeed, one might go further. There is a case for saying that the question needs to be explicitly recognised by acceding member states, perhaps even in the form of a clause in each agreement renouncing any previous obligations or traditions of a neutral character and making instead a commitment for the Community's future foreign and security policy. At least there should be no ambiguity on the subject.
Those who have spoken in the debate have shown how important they regard the subject to be. In general, the debate has given clear support to the approach suggested in the report. If we do agree that enlargement is in the common interest, I suggest that the only practical policy to give effect to that wish in the course of the next few years is by ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. If that can be achieved, the conclusion of accession agreements themselves should not be too difficult. But if Maastricht should fail, I believe that we would enter a long and difficult period of European debate. That would be divisive, uncertain and demoralising.
No European state outside the Community will wish to begin negotiations for accession until it knows what it is joining. In particular, none of the Nordic states will be interested now until they know whether Denmark has or has not reversed the decision in the referendum. So I offer my opinion that the only certain way of bringing about the next enlargement—or, rather more accurately and in deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, the first step of enlargement—is surely to see it as the key to the development of the Community in the way that we wish to see it. We must continue on the path followed by the Government in seeking to ratify the treaty. After all, it was endorsed in an emphatic way only a few months ago in another place. I hope that steadier counsels will prevail and that the current policy will succeed, both in the United Kingdom and in the other member states.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the chairman of our ad hoc committee, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is to be warmly congratulated on producing a quite excellent report, the opinion of which I wholly endorse. I should like to thank him for the work that he did. I should especially like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Tudor, our very hardworking Clerk, and all her assistants who on successive days organised meetings for us on a very restricted timetable. They managed to produce vast amounts of paper which I believe we all read with great attention. She is to be
170
warmly thanked, as are all those who assisted her in a mammoth task, especially in getting the report prepared within the timescale required.
At this point, as what I might call a foot soldier on these Benches and as a modest Back-Bencher, I should like to say what a privilege and honour it is for us to be able to have in this House politicians and statesmen of the stature of those who made their maiden speeches tonight. I refer of course to the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. They are representative of the statesmanship of our country over several years. We should be thankful that this House exists and that we can receive these great statesmen into our Chamber. Thus they are not wasted in the countryside but can take part and contribute to the political debate at the high level that we have had tonight. I warmly congratulate them.
The opinion of the committee is wholly to be endorsed, with practical emphasis on the rapid acceptance of the four EFTAns' request for membership to be completed, as I understand it, by the end of 1995. There is certainly no reason why they should not be able to complete that, considering the work that has already been completed in the European economic area which must have overcome many of the issues that would normally cause so many problems during accession. Therefore, we should possibly be able to conclude those requests within a reasonably short space of time; indeed, I believe that one noble Lord suggested six to nine months.
Although we made somewhat heavy weather of the issue of neutrality in the report, it was most encouraging to read recently the statement of the former Austrian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jankovitsch, on the subject of Austria's neutrality. He said that,
"the concept of neutrality, as we understand it, is flexible and has to be adapted to political and military circumstances in Europe and Eastern Europe. It has to he interpreted constructively and this is how we will explain to our citizens that our country's neutrality is no longer what it was in 1955".
He went on to say:
"Austria subscribes 100 per cent. to the Maastricht Treaty";
that the treaty was in no way incompatible with Austrian neutrality; and that,
"Austria was ready to take part in a common defence policy".
He continued:
"We are even ready to take an active part, alongside our Community partners, in peace keeping operations to fulfil our role in the case of an international crisis, as Austria has always done".
Our view of neutrality in the report has been overshadowed by that recent statement. I hope that other applicant countries will follow that line. When the Swedish Ambassador gave evidence to the ad hoc committee he indicated that was the way Sweden would be looking. It is to be assumed that accession will be to a post-Maastricht Treaty Europe. Requesters will be bound by the three criteria set out in the treaty—European identity, democratic status and respect for human rights. That provision implies that the best point of entry is to cross the threshold from membership of the Council of Europe, which already includes 27 European states.
It might well be conjectured that if Yugoslavia had been able to become a member of the Council of

171
Europe the present tragic situation might never have taken place. The prospect of the central European states joining the European Community is to be warmly welcomed, even if it is a distant prospect. The timing will be a political decision. Recognition of the need to fulfil the aspirations of people newly restored to freedom with those aspirations of greater prosperity, the change in regime causing temporary economic and social disadvantage in many cases, and the complex structure of a modern democratic system, coupled with the European Community's legislation, demand balanced judgment as to the time of entry.
The European agreements are helpful in what might be called a preparatory process to meet the exacting demands of the existing Community. It is necessary only to think of the provisions of free movement and rights of residence to be aware of some of the many problems which are certain to arise. In the meantime, emphasis on education and training opportunities, fostered by Her Majesty's Government's Know-How programme and the European Community's PHARE and TEMPUS programmes, are to be warmly welcomed and encouraged.
There needs to be a balance between, on the one hand, the political imperatives of including those nations whose new democracies would be sustained by taking part in a flourishing part of Europe and being involved in joint decision-making in the region and, on the other hand, consideration of how such countries would be able to accept, implement, apply and enforce the corpus of European Community law, with all the implications that that involves.
Institutional problems envisaged, following en-largement to 16 member states, should not be very arduous. I believe that that was accepted when we visited the European Commission in Brussels. But, at over 16, membership is bound to invoke changes. With an intergovernmental conference by 1996 surely they can then be considered.
We have to face the fact that there are at least two options as to the direction in which the European Community will go: first, a closely knit system of institutions, with qualified majority vote, or even a single majority vote, becoming the norm in the decision-making process, and more effective scrutiny and control by the European Parliament; or, on the other hand, a more loosely-knit system of intergovern-mental action. It should be the task of policy makers to see how an effective compromise, if that is what is required, can respond to those apparently incompat-ible approaches so that an evolutionary process within the institutions responds to the demands and expectations of the people of Europe. I hope that the result of the Danish referendum has taught us a lesson in that regard.
There will be many opportunities to debate further changes and the demand for institutional changes before the next intergovernmental conferences are due. It is sometimes to be recalled that the United States—although perhaps not a model for Europe—took from 1787, with seven states, until 1959 to
172
become 50 states. We do not necessarily have to be in a hurry to complete what one would imagine to be a European union.
The overriding imperative is to ensure that applicant states are encouraged in the process of preparation for membership so that they might in future be able to envisage a Europe of dimensions from the Atlantic to the Urals. Yesterday there was a reception in the Locarno Room in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Many people there could not remember, or perhaps did not know, who had signed the Locarno Treaty. I took the trouble to look it up in the History of Europe by H. A. L. Fisher, in which there was a telling phrase that Aristide Briand, as one of the signatories, had made the comment:
"There is a new language in Europe; it is the European language. Perhaps that is the language that we should now be learning".
That was in 1925 so perhaps there is still a great deal for us to learn.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Healey and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on their maiden speeches in this House. In the past it has been my fortune to listen to them from time to time from the safe haven of the Peers' Gallery in another place. After listening to them there for many years, and hearing them here this afternoon, it seems possible that I may be able to engage in arguments of amiable dissent with both of them from time to time. That is always an agreeable prospect. I should like also to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Flies, on the sterling work done by the committee staff, in particular, Dr. Tudor on sub-committee A. The volume of work, the lucidity and carefulness with which the various items of evidence and argument were put forward reflect great credit upon her as well as, if I may say so, on the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, himself.
Those of us who believe that the GATT negotiations are a vital ingredient in securing a more prosperous world and far greater trade between member countries, can hardly dissent from the concept that the European Community should welcome to its ranks other European countries, with the objective of extending the area within which freer and more extensive trade may take place. They are vital to the development of Europe and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has pointed out, subject to certain conditions, to the remainder of Europe as well, including those countries that are now in the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the various other countries between the existing Community and the CIS.
It is inevitable that in putting forward the proposals which are so admirably dealt with in the report there should be an element of enthusiasm which should express itself in optimistic terms; but it is occasionally necessary that we should sound a note of caution in some of the more optimistic assumptions that we make. I quote, for example, from paragraphs 141 and 146 of the report, in which the Committee states:

173
"The Community's advantages of democracy, stability and prosperity can best be extended to Central and Eastern Europe by integrating those countries, when ready, into the Community".
A similarly optimistic note is sounded at paragraph 146 which says:
"The Community of 12 has proved so successful that there will be pressure for its membership to double or treble over the next 15 to 20 years … They look at its economic successes".
There can be no doubt that progress has been made in all the countries of the Community over the past 40 years. However, we ought to remember that, in all the countries apart from the United Kingdom, democracy as now practised within member states is only 45 to 50 years old. It is essentially of post-war vintage and varies in quality. One should not denigrate it in any way, but it is variable.
For example, at present it is not possible for certain areas of Italy to be brought firmly under the control of central government. Large sections of its land, population and finances are under the control of the Mafia. That is well known. The degree of law enforcement which we take for granted in this country is not always universally applied among members of the Community. That is not in any way to disparage or criticise them, it is merely to acknowledge that there are differences.
As to economic successes, we must be careful. Most of us in the House and, to some extent, in another place are sheltered from the harsh realities of life. We tend to think in terms of concepts and ideas, as we are bound to. After all, that is partly what we are here for. But we do not always take into account the harsh realities of the lives led by millions, not only in our country but in Europe as a whole. When we talk of economic success, we should bear in mind first that in Europe as a whole the rate of growth is significantly lower than that of either Japan or the United States. That is to dampen our sense of self-satisfaction a little.
We should also bear in mind that unemployment in Europe at the moment in the Twelve is at the unacceptable level of over 17.5 million, including 2.7 million in this country and probably, on the old count, nearer 3.7 million. So there is an unemployment level of significant dimensions. We should never underestimate its effect. Already there are signs in some parts of Europe of neo-fascism and fascism emerging again. There are also incipient signs in France. There are, as I said, areas of Italy which are not under government control. Let us bear these points in mind before we smugly say that we are economically successful and imply by that that everything in the garden is more or less lovely, apart from certain unmentionable matters at the periphery of which, perhaps fortunately, we have no personal experience.
That brings me to the question of what form enlargement of the Community should take. There has been much talk of the necessity for cohesion—a term which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, who will address the House presently, and I have been trying to clarify for some time. The nearest definition that I can find presupposes the existence of disparities between
174
regions or groups, but insufficiently to make them socially or politically intolerant. That is the nearest definition that I have been able to obtain.
Clearly, there are countries within the Twelve in which there are wide disparities. We have them in the United Kingdom, Spain and practically all the countries. One question that will have to be addressed sooner or later is whether the disparities that exist within member states should be addressed by action taken by the Community as a whole, by decisions from the centre, or whether the disparities should be dealt with within the member states.
There should be considerable argument about this because so far—and reference to the European Community's annual regional reports confirms this—in spite of massive sums being diverted from member states' own resources to various other member states qualifying for regional aid, regional disparities have not diminished over the years. Year after year, we find that the differences between the richer and the poorer member states remain substantially the same despite massive injections of money into their infrastructure and for various other purposes.
The position would be far worse, of course, if no such aid were provided. However, it raises the question as to whether, to be really effective, such issues should be dealt with by member states themselves or whether it is wise for them to be determined centrally. That is a matter for consideration.
That is why I welcome the present discussion on subsidiarity. Despite its summary dismissal as something that has already been decided, subsidiarity will, I assure your Lordships, be the subject of argument for a considerable time. Subsidiarity applies only in areas which are not covered by Community competence. The only way to determine that competence is by reference to the Treaty of Rome. Under Article 155, the Commission is made the interpreter of the rules of the Treaty of Rome. Thus the matter will be fraught with difficulty, but the decisions have to be made.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that any suggestion as and when the enlargement takes place, of the establishment from the centre of a level playing field covering the whole is thoroughly out of the question. Someone will have to think a little harder about it. Moreover, when new members join—and I hope that, for the reasons that have already been eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, no hindrance will be placed on them—they will face the fact that they will be required in a greater or lesser degree to accept the acquis communautaire. That means the existing body of laws already in existence within the Community. Noble Lords will find that paragraph 50 of the report involves 12,000 pages of rules and regulations, not all of which may be acceptable to the new member states. If derogation is required, it will involve detailed documentation occupying so many further acres of paper that we shall massacre hectares of forest well into the next five or 10 years.

175
Those are important matters. I sincerely hope that the Community will enlarge. However, I hazard the view that it will be far better if the member states come together at their own speed and on the basis of unanimous co-operation between the other member states rather than being artificially propelled by the non-elected Commission, which may have entirely other purposes in mind. It would be better to do what we are going to do solemnly rather than being hurried into action which many of the countries and most of their populations may not understand. They may resent its full impact when what is done in their name is finally carried out.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who began his maiden speech by saying in the politest of ways, as is proper for a maiden speaker, that there was something lacking in the report: a sense of the immediacy of Europe's problems. Not being a maiden speaker, I have no obligation not to be controversial.
I would say that the most marked feature of the report is that, while the issues are discussed with great learning, knowledge and technical competence, the report resembles much of the work that comes from your Lordships' committees on Europe—it takes the Community at face value. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Healey, was too polite to ask why the Community and its members seem so indifferent to the sufferings in Yugoslavia and potentially in the remainder of Europe. He could have enlarged on the problem of refugees; he referred to them. He could also have called attention to the fact that what worries many European countries is the likelihood—we already see its beginnings—of massive migration even from areas which at present are not victims of internecine strife.
Having asked the question on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, the reason is clearly that the Community is not a community. It is still a collection of countries which, reasonably enough—it is, after all, true of politics through the ages—look to their own interests and concerns and take a view of successive events in the light of those concerns. The more closely those countries are in touch with their own public opinion, the more likely that will be the case.
Let us consider the history of the Community. It begins with a very simple proposition: the need to prevent a new war between France and Germany. To that proposition various other objectives, mostly although not exclusively of an economic nature, have been attached. It has been said by some eminent historian that all wars begin as a crusade and end as a business. I sometimes think that one could say of the movement to European unity that it began as a crusade and is ending as a boondoggle—that is to say, it is a method of creating jobs, of transferring income and of satisfying particular interests in different countries. The language that is used to express the movement's purposes is more and more remote from what we actually see.
If that were not the case it surely would be true that when we consider the situation in Eastern Europe we
176
would first wish to ask what can be done for those people in order to prevent a recrudescence on an even worse scale of what we see in Yugoslavia. But in Yugoslavia the European Community has already proved its total incapacity. It has not managed to produce a solution. It has not managed to do more than belatedly to bring a little material aid to the worst affected people. It offers nothing in the way of resettlement for the refugees who have been created. The reason is simple. There is no Community; there are different countries, some of which are more affected and some less affected by what has been going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to this point in some detail. It is interesting to note how much attention our committee paid to the problem of neutrality with regard to the EFTA applicants. One would have thought that all the other countries in the Community were equally committed to common action on matters of major interest. But that is not so. Let us take the most important country in the Community; namely, Germany. I believe that this point was referred to earlier. Germany took an important part in framing a policy for Yugoslavia as the collapse of the post-Tito regime became clear. It urged that policy upon its colleagues in the Community. That policy may or may not have been correct. However, the policy that has been adopted now leads to an involvement of military force, at present not provided to any great extent by this country but involving several other countries. However, if troops are requested from Germany, Germany will say that it cannot send anyone to Yugoslavia because its constitution prevents it from doing so. Are the German constitution's restrictions on the employment of its armed forces more important than the potential neutrality of Finland?
We have to ask ourselves whether we wish to enlarge the Community because it will make the Community more effective, or because we believe that we have a commitment to the remainder of Europe which will not be fulfilled unless in some way those countries are brought into a common organisation.
I do not know how many noble Lords have read the evidence, in addition to reading the report and listening to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. The evidence gives a picture of a situation which is totally different from the picture given in the report. No doubt much time and effort went into the giving of evidence by the ambassadors of the Federal Republic of Germany and France. If one reads that evidence and the document submitted on behalf of Italy, one will see that the emphasis which they place on, let us say, the importance of deepening as against extending the Community is quite different from the emphasis given by Mr. Garel-Jones and others who spoke on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Those are major differences of priority. It is clear, for example, that from the French point of view anything which diluted the pressure towards common policies and common institutions, which they regard as their lifeline against the growing predominance of Germany in Europe, would be rejected irrespective of the possible consequences for the rejected applicants.

177
On the economic side it has been argued frequently that what the countries need—apart from the massive aid which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as probably being beyond our reach—is opportunities for selling their produce, not only agricultural produce but in some cases, particularly in the case of Czechoslovakia, industrial products. As has frequently been commented on by those who study these matters, the reaction of Community countries towards their demand for markets has hitherto been heavily and distinctly protectionist.
That is not surprising because the dominant element in the framing of the Community is the Commission. The Commission is dominated by Monsieur Delors and Monsieur Delors is a French socialist planificator in the mould of the great Colbert. France is true to its protectionist traditions. This country on the whole is still at heart Cobdenite. Why should one think that they could get together and in an institutional fashion devise a new Europe for the countries which wish to enter?
That question relates particularly in my mind to the timetable and to what the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said. It would be very nice if we could say that we would proceed bit by bit and by early next century or by the year 2020 this little group of 12 will become 20 or 25, or whatever it may be. Time does not wait for bureaucrats. Time does not wait for negotiators. Time is against us, not for us. As the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said, the position in Central and Eastern Europe is grave—and as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said there are already repercussions in the rest of Europe. The idea that one can spin out the process and can say that in 1996 we shall look at one matter and in 1999 we shall look at another seems to me to be running away from the major obligations of governments and of parliaments.
I hope that this little element of controversy will not upset your Lordships too much.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aldington and his committee have once again provided us with an excellent report to debate. I predict that it will be scrutinised and used by many not only in those countries which seek to be part of the enlargement process but also by other countries in other parts of the world which are attempting to set up or to develop regional organisations on the same lines as the European Community. Our blueprint and the changes and modifications we make to it are of considerable interest and influence outside Europe as well as within.
My noble friend opened the debate in his customary vigorous and constructive style. It has been a debate which has given us the opportunity to hear two memorable speeches from two distinguished new Members, from whom we all expect to hear much more on many topics in the future.
I unreservedly join those who welcome the conclusions of the report, despite the stern warnings just given by my noble friend Lord Beloff. Enlargement of the Community has always seemed to
178
me a wholly desirable objective. After all, without the possibility of the process of enlargement we would not be here today debating the report, and certainly not from the strong position which the presidency of the Council of Ministers gives us.
It is that opportunity to have a voice in the development of the European Community which I believe, and indeed know from my contacts with individuals in Sweden and Finland in particular—individuals incidentally who are not also politicians—those countries want. As my noble friend Lord Aldington said at the outset, they already have virtually all the economic and market opportunities which membership of the Community brings. Yet they want more. As mature and developed countries which have given lengthy consideration to the consequences, they still want the closer partnership of full membership, the Maastricht Treaty and all. I see the Maastricht Treaty as a considerable advantage in all this since it has succeeded, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said in the presidency debate last week, in crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. It has clarified some definitions and tightened up scrutiny procedures.
Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who put the matter so clearly, that since subsidiarity will be crucial to any future enlargement we shall need a full and practical definition of subsidiarity and what exactly it means in practice.
Enlargement is not a simple process—we know that from our own entry experience. Having been a Member of the European Parliament at the time, I remember the complexities of enlargement during the entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal. However, I believe that enough has been said about the advantages of the addition of the EFTA countries to the Community, both in the report and in the course of the debate, to make it clear that it will be a worthwhile exercise to overcome those complexities.
It is on the importance of Central and Eastern Europe that I wish to concentrate my few remaining remarks. Again, despite what my noble friend Lord Beloff said so powerfully, I believe that it is of great importance to make it clear to those countries that they are welcome in the family of the European Community and that we recognise the need to support their new-born democracies. However, I believe that we should regard that as a much longer-term goal than even perhaps the Select Committee recommends. In the interim, however, they need a clear timetable, a step-by-step approach very much on the lines elaborated by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. Without some form of commitment they will inevitably feel abandoned. A slow and steady process which takes account of the changes in those countries, the changes in the Community itself and changes in the wider world is essential.
As an interim measure my noble friend Lord Pym proposed the setting up of a forum representing the wider Europe. He referred to the CSCE in that context. However, we should not forget the Council of Europe, which was mentioned in the report and brought to our attention again by my noble friend

179
Lady Elles. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria are already members. Applications are on the table from Romania and the Baltic States. At a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Budapest some two weeks ago representatives of all those countries were present and participated in the debate.
I know that my noble friend Lord Finsberg gave evidence on that aspect to the Select Committee and pointed out the fact that countries unable to pass the Council of Europe's tests on human rights would be highly unlikely to be admitted to the Community. That in itself is important. I believe that the Council of Europe should therefore be used as a vehicle to provide a halfway house.
However, if that is to be an effective and useful role for the Council of Europe, we have to show that we take the work of the Council of Europe seriously and that we do not regard it as a so-called soft organisation. There needs to be far more collaboration between the European Community and the Council of Europe itself and perhaps—dare I say?—more recognition of the work of the Council of Europe in our national Parliament. I need hardly add that as a new member of the parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe I am hoping to make a contribution on that score.
I believe that the only way that we can show the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that have been through so much that we are in earnest in our support is to give them a concrete goal at which to aim. It is essential to do so to fulfil the ideals of a united and peaceful Europe, which, in my view, is what the European Community is all about.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, along with the noble Lords, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Pym, I had the privilege of going to see M. Delors in January on behalf of one of your Lordships' committees. After expressing the Commission's high appreciation of the value of the reports of the Select Committee in general, he went on to express the hope that the committee would undertake a study on enlargement. It was gratifying to hear that the member of the Commission's staff who was responsible for its own recent study of enlargement had expressed his own personal appreciation of the help that the sub-committee's report had given him. As a member of the sub-committee, I pay warm tribute to our chairman for the enormous amount of work which, together with our clerk and specialist adviser, he put into the production of this report and other reports for which he has been responsible.
I was interested in the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Pym, that the time had come to address the question of the future structures that may be necessary as the process of enlargement develops. It seems to me that the central issue is how the Community—the union—is to retain a fair ability to be able to take prompt and effective decisions on difficult and controversial issues. Most of the main fields of policy outside the single market area are
180
subject to unanimity. One small government can block any decision, as the Greek obstruction over Macedonia and also, I believe, over closer political association with Turkey has vividly illustrated.
If that blatant abuse of the veto by a small state has occurred in a Community of 12 states, how often would it occur in a Community of 20 to 30 states? But the power of veto nevertheless remains the only present safeguard against the overriding of vital interests of a major country by the concerted action of others. I was very interested in the observation of the noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in his excellent maiden contribution to your Lordships' debates; namely, that perhaps the time has come when the Council might seek to adopt a legal base in unanimity for certain directives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, posed the choice for the direction of future development after enlargement between the extension/trimming of the existing institutions on present conventional lines or alternatively some more loose-knit kind of future inter-governmental relationship within the Community. It is argued that qualified majority voting has served the Community exceedingly well over the wide spectrum especially of single market and related matters.
The Maastricht pattern—and like other noble Lords, I certainly hope very much that the treaty will be ratified by all members—of separate "pillars" retains normal inter-governmental processes as a possible form of procedure. The crunch will not come before 1996; but the pressures to extend centralised European decision-making remain.
I should like to throw into the ring of public debate something that had very little emphasis in the evidence given to the sub-committee; namely, the problem of how to establish some kind of effective decision-making or assistance to effective decision-making as the process of enlargement proceeds. Do we not want some kind of formalised inner grouping to act on behalf of the councils between meetings? I believe that the favoured label is directoire. There could be various patterns of membership of course—a few permanent members, as in the case of the Security Council, with rotation of others; bringing in the troika. But resistance from the growing number of smaller states would obviously be strong and apparently such a bogey played a certain part in the unfortunate development of Danish opinion over the referendum.
Can one imagine any ordinary group of 30 partners in an enterprise managing without delegating substantial powers to an inner committee? If there is no formal inner committee as time goes on, the same kind of processes of consultation between the major powers will undoubtedly take place behind the scenes. We must resign ourselves to a very long timescale for significant change. But external pressures may force the pace. Also, as the institutional mechanisms finally depend on the development of public opinion in all European countries, it may be that with the younger generation subject to common television programmes and, it is to be hoped, the greater use of English in all countries, new attitudes will come more quickly than we may at present suppose. I submit that eventually

181
there must be a greater correspondence between the reality of national resources and the Community's decision-making. A solution may perhaps lie in the variable geometry Europe to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred as a possibility.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I have long been convinced that the expansion of the Community is in the British interest and my membership of the sub-committee on expansion has only served to strengthen that conviction. I should like to pay tribute both to the chairman and to the Clerk for guiding us through the perils of this subject and producing the report which is before your Lordships this evening. It is so late that I shall deal only with two topics and I shall try to deal with them briefly.
First, much has been said tonight about the nature of the Community both now and in the future. Our report at paragraph 140 describes the structure of the Community in terms of what is often now identified, and indeed has been identified tonight, as the "pillar" concept. However, in paragraph 171 the report adds an important rider that the advance towards EMU and some of the social legislation do not go to the core of the Community.
In this matter the report is doubtless accurate in representing the views of the great majority in the United Kingdom, but does it represent a general view in the Community?
While we do not know what the founders of the Community had in mind, their vision has come to be encapsulated in the words "European union"—a concept which is continuously being developed and constantly being made more specific: from the first reference to "ever-closer union" in the Treaty of Rome, given prominence in the Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart in 1983, again featured prominently in the Single European Act, and now much more precisely in the Maastricht Treaty.
It seems to me that we fall into the trap of construing Community legislation such as this as if it were a British statute. The Community cannot be understood by considering it as a legal structure created either by a single treaty or a series of treaties. Rather, in my view, it should be seen as an objective or a series of objectives which have been agreed in outline and to which the judicial and political processes of the European Community are gradually giving detail and life—a wholly new form of complex political relationships which are gradually evolving.
In that evolution, states of course abandoned some sovereignty and some freedom of action in order to bring into being the common agricultural policy, the single market, the ERM and ultimately the ecu. To that extent the relationships between the states have federal characteristics in so far as a federation merely describes a division of responsibilities between a central power and state powers.
In 1990 President Mitterrand suggested that Europe should be looked upon as:
"a federation in monetary matters and a confederation in political ones".
182
It may be that words such as "federalism","confederation" and "sovereignty" belong to an old political order and are unsuitable to express the concepts of a new political ordering which is gradually emerging from the European Community. However, President Mitterrand's analysis is in one sense prophetic of the "pillar" motif—a further stage in the gradual crystallisation of the political vision of Europe's future, unlike any arrangement between states that has been attempted by earlier generations. It was in Amsterdam that a Dutchman told us:
"The British, as islanders, have no conception of the European desire for a political organisation which would transcend national boundaries".
He then thought for a moment and added:
"Of course, we will never give up our right to hate the Germans".
What I should like to suggest is that this ability to grow and to develop, which is something quite unique in the development of Europe, is a process by which the problems that we face today over enlargement might well be solved. The future wider Community must be welcomed as an opportunity to continue to change the Community and, far from weakening it, those changes must be ordered so that it is strengthened.
My final point concerns the "multi-speed Europe". Paragraph 171 of our report, to which I have already referred, may contain the seeds of a solution to one problem. It proposes that the options and derogations which do not go to the core and which were made available to us at Maastricht should be available to new members. The basis and the core of the Community, or union, should be the single market, and all its obligations must be accepted on membership, subject to the process of derogations. But a would-be member must have achieved sufficient economic convergence to stand up successfully to the strain of the single market.
A much greater degree of economic convergence is required to fulfil the stringent tests laid down by Maastricht before a member will be allowed to adopt the ecu. So often the implication is that the ability to adopt the ecu is fundamental to membership of the Community. Why not a multi-speed Europe? States could be admitted to full membership when they have achieved sufficient economic convergence to participate in the single market, and countries such as the Visegrad 3, the Eastern Europeans, might defer their acceptance of the ecu until such time as they consider themselves, and were considered, to be economically strong enough. This might be something that would make amends for what I would regard as the stinginess of the European agreements.
While it is appropriate that one of the aims of the Community should be to lessen the economic differences between member countries, the primary obligation to achieve convergence should rest upon the individual member states themselves, and if we were able to get ourselves into that position then we might reduce the financial burden which Delors II foresees because of the construction which the Commission is currently putting upon Maastricht. I submit that it would also enable the Community, or union, to be expanded more rapidly.

183
My noble friend Lady Elles had cause to quote H. A. L. Fisher. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I too give a quotation from Fisher. He begins his History of Europe with the assertion that there is a specific European civilisation which can be distinguished from all the other great civilisations of the world. He concludes with this sentence:
"Ever since the first century of our era the dream of unity has hovered over the scene and haunted the imagination of statesmen and peoples. Nor is there any question more pertinent to the future welfare of the world than how the nations of Europe, whose differences are so many and so inveterate, may best be combined into some stable organisation for the pursuit of their common interests and the avoidance of strife".
My noble friend Lady Elles reminded your Lordships that that was written in 1925.
9 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too thank the
noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who chaired the sub-committee on which I was proud to serve, for his chairmanly skill and for his extraordinary patience with other members of the committee. I congratulate the noble Lord and the clerk for having produced from our deliberations a report with which I agree in principle, although I may differ from it in respect of some points of emphasis.
I wish to join other noble Lords in expressing the pleasure and genuine feeling of respect which we had when listening to the two speeches from the two battered old maidens who have joined us today. We look forward to hearing from them again. The distinction of this House has been increased by their presence; and our deliberations will be improved if they come here frequently to give us the benefit of their knowledge.
I must confess that I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, with great interest. He rightly put on the construction of Europe a far more Burkeian interpretation than is common in this country. He described its development from the Coal and Steel Community, on through the Common Market, through the European Community and to an idea of political union as a process of accretion and learning. That is what it has been. Too often we in this country see Europe as a kind of doctrinaire, continental approach imposing a preconceived pattern on us pragmatic Britishers who move slowly, step by step, without any vision on the horizon towards which we are aiming. His remarks seemed a healthy corrective to that attitude.
I propose briefly to touch on three aspects of the report. First, I shall deal with the criteria for membership of the Community, which lies at the heart of the problem of enlargement. Your Lordships will remember that the Maastricht Council presidency conclusions provided that any European state whose systems of government are founded on the principle of democracy may apply to become members of the union. That statement mentions two of the criteria necessary for membership; first, to be European—and in that respect the quotations from H. A. L. Fisher are highly relevant—and, secondly, to have a government founded on the principle of democracy. In practice it is now, in addition, necessary to become parties to the
184
European Convention on Human Rights. It would also appear to be necessary that the applicants, if I may so describe them, should be moving towards a market economy in order that their economies are strong enough to live within the Community.
Among the many obscurities embedded in those criteria it will be noted that the term "European" is not defined. Although it does not appear in the report, your Lordships' sub-committee spent a great deal of time and argument in trying to define what it meant by "European". It can be described geographically, historically or culturally. De Gaulle spoke of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. On another occasion Chancellor Adenauer said that Asia had now reached the Elbe—a rather more restrictive definition. European culture is generally thought to have been Greco-Christian. At that time Greece was largely in Asia Minor, which is now Turkey and which is now Moslem.
All those different factors having been taken into account, I am led to ask two questions of countries which apply to join. First, what is the candidate's political and cultural affinity to the existing membership? Secondly, and perhaps more important, what is the digestive capacity of the Community? The noble Lord, Lord Healey, referred to that matter when he rightly pointed out the difficulties which Germany is having in absorbing, in digesting, what was the GDR and is now East Germany.
That is exceedingly important because what attracts people to the Community is its effectiveness. If it tries to digest more than it can, its effectiveness will be diminished. It is one thing to digest a Nordic country which has a population of 10 million, a strong democratic tradition and a strong economy; it is quite another to absorb a country such as Poland which has a population of 35 million, an incredibly fragile democratic tradition and an economy which is in pretty desperate straits. It is a totally different thing altogether to absorb a country such as Turkey which has a rapidly growing population of 57 million, a rather poor democratic record, a very poor human rights record but which is of strategic importance. However, those differences must be taken into account; they cannot be brushed aside. Nor can we be told that we must absorb them in order to prevent some unknown disaster which may occur.
Thus, while it is quite easy, as the report indicates, to absorb those countries which have come to be called the EFTAns, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are another matter. In some ways I believe that the report is perhaps slightly bland in its description of the problems which confront the joining of those countries. That is partly because we underestimate the problems not of economic reform but of political reform. The difficulties of economic reform have made the problems of political reform even more acute. If there is a drop in industrial production of 20 per cent, a rise in unemployment of 20 per cent. and a rise in prices of 30 per cent., and if that is associated in people's minds with political reforms as it almost inevitably must be, that undermines the belief in the effectiveness and desirability of those political reforms.

185
However, what seems to me to require more emphasis than the report has given it, and which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made so abundantly clear, is that the cost of enlargement must be taken into account and must be faced. It seems to me that that has been neglected by the Government in their general approach. The Government have said that enlargement is the theme of their presidency. As I have already said, enlargement to include EFTAns does not pose any severe economic problems. However, enlargement to include the countries of central Europe will require very substantial sums of money from the Community both before and after those countries join. It is ludicrous to pretend that that is not true. They will need money before they join to strengthen their economies and after they join if any kind of cohesion is to be achieved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, one must see how much money Germany has been pouring into Eastern Germany and how long the cohesion of Eastern Germany within Germany will take. Who will pay for that? The chief supporter of rapid enlargement has been the British Government, the opponent of Delors II. How are we to reconcile those two positions? The British position appears to be, as one cynic commented,"Europe extends as far as the German taxpayer will allow". That is a position which we shall be unable to maintain.
The second point on which I wish to dwell very briefly is the second consequence of enlargement and another which the Government seem to me to be reluctant to face; namely, the impact of enlargement on the Commission's institutions.
It is difficult to accept that thought about institutional change can be postponed until 1996 and that the EFTAns can be accommodated within the existing structure. The idea that we can continue with existing institutional arrangements in a Community of 15 or 17 member states seems to me implausible. In addition to that, it is contrary to common sense to include countries as large as Poland and as small as Malta without radical institutional reform.
The present arrangements were devised for six countries and those countries managed matters basically on a consensual basis with very little voting. That has been put under strain for 12 member states and it will be largely unmanageable for 15 or 17. Therefore, it seems to me that consideration of the institutional consequences of enlargement should be put in train now rather than being postponed until 1996. Indeed, in a small way nothing can demonstrate more obviously the need for institutional change than the language problem to which the report refers.
Those are two matters which seem to me of considerable importance. I add to those problems the problem of variable geometry, to which many of your Lordships have referred. By that I mean that special arrangements must be made for those countries which cannot join the Community but which, if excluded, will feel that they are in some way insulted. One must develop special relationships with those countries to
186
avoid that problem and to avoid the idea that Europe is coterminous with the Community. That is an additional problem that we face.
We must also develop—and it will be exceedingly difficult—a common foreign and security policy. The problem which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, complained about—our response to Yugoslavia, and so on—is simply because, in my view, the process of developing that very difficult common foreign and security policy is in its earliest stages. Oddly enough, the conclusion that I drew from his remarks was that he was arguing for more integration and less political co-operation. That is one way of solving differences. Political co-operation inevitably means a bargain, a brokering of differences which tends to mean the lowest common denominator.
The agenda is indeed daunting. But if that is so, it is difficult to think of an era in which the role of the Community in Europe was more important both as an economic power house and as a kind of political model; above all, as an element of stability in a Europe which outside, as many noble Lords have said, is in a dangerous condition of flux which may descend into chaos.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this has been not only an interesting debate but also a unique one. Seldom have we been able to participate in a debate with two such notable maiden speeches as we heard tonight. It is a tribute also to the somewhat more clement atmosphere of your Lordships' House that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord Healey managed to make such notable speeches with a non-confrontational, indeed almost a consensual, attitude on both sides. They even eschewed agricultural metaphors; sweetness and light seemed to break out. It was rather like two heavyweight contenders who, having fought each other gamely in the past and having retired from the ring, were sitting down in a friendly way reminiscing about past contests. I sometimes thought that the only thing we missed tonight was,"You know what I mean, Harry"; or,"You know what I mean, Geoffrey" or "You know what I mean, Denis", to make the show complete.
They were remarkable speeches and those who had the privilege of hearing them tonight will long remember them. It may be a little presumptuous of me to say that we hope we will hear them both often again in the future, but we certainly do.
This has been an interesting debate not only because of the quality of the two maiden speeches but also because of the quality of the report we have been debating. This House is used to reports from the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. But on this occasion he has produced a report which is both timely and pertinent, and, I felt, closely argued. While I felt that these were some omissions and that the gloss I would put on some parts was perhaps not quite the same as that of the committee, nevertheless it is a significant report.
It has also been a good debate because of the quality of the contributions which came from other Members of the House. Obviously one cannot pick

187
them all out. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as always, with great interest and concentration. I have accused him in the past of elegant pessimism with regard to the Community. He perhaps expressed it again tonight—a feeling that things have drifted to such an extent, it is all so large and difficult that it is going to implode and its utility is over.
I give the House only one reflection on that. If that is true it is extraordinary that there is such a queue of applicant countries which wish to join the Community. Not only is it extraordinary that there is a queue of countries wishing to join: they also wish to join the Community as it is now, with its institutions, its present acquis communautaire. I totally accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that it runs to a large number of pages and instruments; there may well be a case for consolidation, a new Halsbury's Statutes of the European Community. No doubt that can be done. My point is that it is the existing Community, with all its faults and virtues, that various countries are queueing up to join.
I detected also tonight a tendency—save on the part of one or two noble Lords—to gloss over the institutional problems. One should not underestimate the problems for the institutional structures of the Community that enlargement will cause. I was frightened by paragraph 100 of the report which dealt with languages, which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to also. The report pointed out,
"The worst scenario of the linguistic problems of enlargement was put forward by Gary Titley MEP. The EC currently has nine official languages. This means there are 72 different pairs for translation (Danish to Greek, Spanish to German, for example). With the addition of the EFTA countries and four new languages (Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish) there would be 156 possible pairs. Mitterrand's European Confederation would bring the total up to, say,21 languages and 420 possible pairs. As a result, the Community's single largest expense would be likely to be on translation and interpretation services, which could swallow most, if not all, the budget".
Not only could that position not be accepted, but with a Commission which was enlarged to include 25 members—which is on the assumption that, if there were 25 members of the Community, each country had only one commissioner—the existing structure of the Commission could not cope. I suspect that the existing structure of the Parliament could not cope. Without a massive increase in majority voting in the Council of Ministers, for the life of me I do not see how that body could cope. I take the point warmly made by the noble Lord, Lord Pym, that this is something which we should be considering in advance of enlargement and not perhaps rushing to consider when we get to that stage.
The other matter that I found a little strange in this debate is how little has been said about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. However one looks at it, there is a linkage between ratification of the treaty and the enlargement of the Community. The Danish referendum result having thrown the ratification of Maastricht into some doubt, it now remains to be seen how that is going to affect the development and the proposed enlargement of the Community.
188
The committee was in the process of finalising this report when the Danish referendum took place. Consequently, the committee was spared the addition to its already extensive work of the somewhat tortuous task of considering the impact of Denmark's vote against the treaty. The report of the Select Committee clearly recognises the importance and potential advantage of enlarging the Community. Reflecting that, the members of the committee viewed enlargement as the Community's future and almost as its destiny. I am not sure whether the committee actually used that word in the report. The report clearly states that enlargement,
"must not and need not threaten the effectiveness of the Community".
Indeed, the issue for the committee was not whether there should be enlargement—the case for which it found "undeniable", to use its word—but rather how that expansion should proceed; its pace, the changes to the Community's institutions and the procedures which would be necessary to accommodate the accession of new members.
Under Article 237 of the treaty, any European state may apply for membership. Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and possibly Norway, all now want to join: as do Malta, Cyprus, Turkey and, as far as one can tell, at some stage most of the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. To qualify for membership applicants must be democratic and respect human rights, a condition which has so far retarded Turkish attempts to join. In particular, new members have to be parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. They have to accept the right of individual petition and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
In that respect the Select Committee also recommended that membership should only be extended to countries with the strength and capability to play a full and effective role in the Community. Consequently, the report says, that while the extension of membership of the EFTA countries would strengthen the Community both economically and politically, membership for Cyprus, Malta and Turkey would depend on their ability to overcome substantial economic and political problems. Similarly, membership for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe would have to be linked to whether they could continue to develop democratic institutions and strong, free market economies. In that connection, perhaps I may say how much I share the view of my noble friend Lord Healey who, in his analysis, was grim and perhaps apocalyptic in some ways about what was taking place in Eastern Europe and the possible effect on the rest of us if it goes wrong.
Enlargement of the Community was widely expected to be one of the main issues for the UK presidency. Among other problems, it has to confront the promotion of a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia; it has to try to effect a breakthrough in the impasse over the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty; and it has to resolve the dispute over the funding of the Community. That is a fair old agenda for a six-month presidency.

189
During the recent debate in another place I believe it was the Foreign Secretary who compared tackling these issues to pushing boulders up a steep hill. I hope that the efforts are going to prove herculean and not sisyphean in that respect. I should hate to have a situation in which we push and get near the top only to find that the next president has to start again at the bottom.
As my noble friend Lord Healey said, the gravity of the situation in the former Yugoslavia and the mounting incidence of nationalist and ethnic clashes and tensions in Central and Eastern Europe highlight the need to establish now, if we can, closer ties between the Community and the former communist states as a precursor to their eventual accession to the Community. Why do they want those ties? Why do those countries want to join? It seems to me that the Community offers new members the prospect of economic prosperity for themselves and for their people and a greater prospect of political stability than exists in any other conceivable grouping that would be available to them. It is an attractive option to countries which now face the twin challenges of exorcising their communist past and of rebuilding their societies and economies. To promote the peaceful development of Central and Eastern Europe the Community must somehow embrace those fragile democracies by the end of the century or, if not embrace them, at least appear responsive to them—perhaps more responsive than in the past.
Perhaps I may say a word about the membership of the EFTA countries. The Select Committee noted that Austria and Sweden in particular were already well placed to adapt to the Community's economic structure. Admittedly, questions remain about the neutrality of some of these countries, although I personally do not think that neutrality is so great an issue as the report seemed to indicate. I suppose that there are also questions about other aspects of their political and economic policies. In general, however, the EFTA countries are suited to meet the terms of Community membership and should be able to join sooner rather than later. If they do, it seems to me that such accessions would prove an asset to the Community as it moves towards meeting the challenges of the next century.
Having said that, however, we should recognise that the accession of the other applicant countries—Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, for example—would be infinitely more difficult. The Select Committee concluded—and I concur with its conclusion—that these countries will have to make further progress in confronting their economic and political problems if they are to attain Community membership.
Denmark's vote against the Treaty has, to a certain extent, put the enlargement process on hold. That was reflected at the recent Lisbon summit, which agreed (although in the face of some opposition from the Government) that there should be no formal negotiations with countries wishing to join the Community until the Maastricht Treaty had been ratified. I know that the Government have tried to play down the connection between ratification and
190
enlargement because they obviously hope to make enlargement the centre point of their presidency. The Government have also said that they will not allow ratification to dominate the six months of their presidency, but I fear that that is precisely what is bound to happen. Ratification will dominate the presidency because it is now central to the whole future of the Community. Whatever the position in terms of sounding out new members, in reality unless the problem of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty is resolved, one cannot expect to make any major progress on enlargement.
The Prime Minister has spoken somewhat grandiosely if not exactly originally, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, quoted, of a European Community that extends from the Atlantic to the Urals, adopting General de Gaulle's phrase. If that is the Prime Minister's vision, his task during this presidency is indeed formidable. If he succeeds in it, he may be able at the end of the presidency to say that he has taken the first steps necessary towards achieving that goal. If he fails, we may be looking at the beginnings of an unravelling process in Europe in which nationalism again predominates and in which ethnic tensions again emerge with all the attendant evils that those developments could present.
Europe needs glue. To mix a metaphor, it needs a cement to hold it together as it moves towards the end of this century and into the next. For the life of me I know of no source from whence that can come other than an enlarged European Community. It is in that respect that I reiterate our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee for their report and my personal thanks to all those who have taken part in the debate.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I begin with a tribute to my noble friend Lord Aldington and the other members of his committee for their excellent report. Today has been a very special day, even for your Lordships' House. I was delighted and privileged to listen to the outstanding maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. It is only a couple of months since I made my maiden speech in this House. Perhaps the House will allow me to recall a very happy time during my early days in another place. One day, when I was looking rather glum and a little dispirited by the work I was undertaking as a new Member, there was a wonderful shout from up a long corridor of "Hiya gorgeous". It was the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who was seeking to cheer me up. He was the best cheerer up that I could possibly have had in those days. He has continued it. Who knows, perhaps in a slightly quieter vein he may reiterate that remark just now and again, although it is nearly 20 years on.
I well remember the kindness of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon because he encouraged me to make my maiden speech in another place during the Queen's Speech debate some four days after the House first sat. He was responding for

191
the Opposition in that debate. So I suppose it was poetic justice when I said to him the other day, knowing when he would come to your Lordships' House,"How about your maiden speech on our debate on enlargement?" I am privileged to say that his was a far better maiden speech than I have ever made in either House. I compliment him most warmly and I look forward to his tremendous contributions and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Healey.
The report of my noble friend Lord Aldington and his committee is extremely welcome. It continues the tradition of thorough, searching Lords' analysis of Community issues. It is a valuable and timely contribution to the debate. It is helpful in focusing our thinking as we take forward the enlargement dossier under the UK presidency. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Richard, fair notice that we do not intend to stop progress on the enlargement issue, whatever he may think is the hiccup that we face, as we do, with the result of the Danish referendum and the question of the ratification of Maastricht.
The report deserves to be read closely in other European capitals and Community institutions. What it shows is how your Lordships' House has yet again made a first-class contribution to EC discussions. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Aldington, who has so ably steered the committee since 1989. I understand that he may be persuaded to relinquish his post later in the Session, but we know that he has certainly given his successor, whoever may be chosen, one of the hardest possible acts to follow.
We know that no committee report will please all its readers, but I believe that the committee rightly drew its own conclusions from the evidence it heard. There is no contradiction between the evidence and the report. On the contrary, the report seems to be an admirable distillation of a complex subject, as this debate has underlined. It has been praised to the Government by several witnesses who gave evidence, especially from abroad, both from within and outside the Community.
It is, therefore, in that sense that I now turn to what your Lordships said in winding up the debate tonight. The report is not only of great importance to us—that is, the Community as it is; it is also important for the wider Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, it is the quality of Europe and its strength that so many nations outside are seeking to join. In the Select Committee's report and the speeches that we have heard today there is certainly a convergence of views with those of the Government. The European Council decisions on enlargement at Lisbon, which the UK presidency will now take forward, reflect to a very large extent a similar approach to that taken by your Lordships' Select Committee.
The United Kingdom has long argued the case for enlargement and at last others in the Community recognise that fact. There is no doubt that we have great commitment. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Aldington that I believe the development of closer political dialogue with those outside the Community who are not ready, or not yet ready, to come forward for membership is a very important
192
stepping stone through the European economic area and perhaps through a European political area. That is one of the concepts that I believe we should be investigating thoroughly during the coming time.
There is no doubting the fact that the reason why so many nations wish to join the Community—or, indeed, to draw closer to it if they cannot yet join—is the importance of free trade and the single market which we have developed. Similarly, there is no doubt that the association agreements that we have been developing with Eastern Europe are seen by those in the former Soviet Union as a hallmark of what they too would like to achieve with us in the not too distant future. In other words, the Community's philosophy of opening up trading between our nations, and from outside with the members of the Community, is the most important bedrock on which those nations aspiring to the Community are placing their hopes. That is why I agreed so much with what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said when he talked about the progression from free trade to Customs union to service, without imposing impossible strains. I believe that that is exactly the way your Lordships—and, indeed, those in another place—would have us go. I shall return to that aspect later.
I must tell my noble friend Lord Cockfield that the figures in the report are of course figures which we were invited as a department to provide to your Lordships' Select Committee. They are figures from the whole Government and not solely from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Moreover, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon said, sotto voce, there was another place called the Treasury that had a considerable influence on producing the figures. We were invited to produce figures on the basis of a series of necessarily artificial assumptions. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Aldington agrees with me on that.
One country joining alone, and so on, is simply not a possibility in the present day. But we have to have a starting base from which we can then further develop the figures. That is something that we must do. Nevertheless, it is clear that the main conclusions likely to be borne out in real life are that the EFTAns will be net contributors; that Turkey will be a major net recipient; that Malta and Cyprus will be minor net recipients; and that the Eastern Europeans, should they join now, would be major net recipients. However, it may be different in a few years' time. I shall deal with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Healey, in a moment.
The figures that my noble friend Lord Cockfield gave on the Eastern European economic malaise demonstrate more clearly than anything else the need to bring Eastern Europeans much closer to the economic levels of the Twelve before joining. That would at least be of real use to those countries. That is why as a nation we have spent so much time on the association agreements for those nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in an uncharacteristically mellow speech, if I may say so, spoke about the importance of the GATT Uruguay Round. He will be aware from the many speeches that I have made in your Lordships' House and other places how essential

193
not just the Government, but, I believe a conclusion to the Uruguay Round is for us. It is a top priority for our presidency. It is essential for boosting world economy, and the EC/US agreement on agriculture is of course the key to success.
There will no doubt be real discussion with aspiring applicants to the Community, especially those which have large agricultural subsidies, as to what happens to the agricultural subsidies when they apply. But we cannot cross that bridge until we start the negotiations. We must make progress now with the Uruguay Round. That is one of the issues upon which we shall be concentrating our efforts and, as your Lordships are aware, the Lisbon European Council instructed the Commission negotiators to resolve the remaining differences with the United States. I believe that the CAP reform agreed at the end of May will help achieve that. It is because trade is the lifeblood of all our nations that we believe that that must have a high priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Healey, my noble friend Lord Pym in a helpful speech and many other noble Lords expressed deep anxiety about the conditions in parts of the former Soviet Union and parts of Central and Eastern Europe and the pressures and difficulties being faced by the people there. There is no doubt that we have to make many adjustments if we are to help those nations, but we must do so from a firm base. That is why—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Healey, knows this—it has been the United Kingdom's support for reform in Russia that has caused many other nations to copy many of the things we are doing and the World Bank and the IMF to give particular support to Russia. Our executive director at the World Bank has been carrying out the negotiations with the Russians, as their representative, with the IMF and the World Bank, and will continue doing so until a Russian director is appointed in November.
Not only have we been giving help in that way; of course our Know-How funds have been used to help develop financial institutions not just in Russia but in other countries of the former Soviet Union and other Central and Eastern European nations. My noble friend Lady Elles reminded us of how much was being done through the PHARE and TEMPUS programmes, through Europe, but very much with our help, because time and time again it has been British institutions and the British personnel who have been making those things happen.
I have to say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that I think that he was—I hope uncharacteristically—unfair about what the European Community has been seeking to achieve in a difficult situation in the former Yugoslav Republic. I believe that he was unfair also to our noble friend Lord Carrington, with the tremendous efforts that he has made to try to achieve peace among people who do not at present want peace.
Yugoslavia has had assistance worth £25 million from the United Kingdom in the past couple of months alone. Only today I dispatched eight doctors and nurses to undertake a special series of operations
194
for those poor children in Sarajevo. I do not know how soon they will be able to reach them in the hospitals, but we were prepared, and we have sent them, despite the fact that we do not yet know how quickly they will get through to Sarajevo from Zagreb. We shall continue giving practical help. We will also continue to give political help. The discussions I had in New York last week at the United Nations with the Secretary General and others underline just how much effort has been made by the European Community and by our noble friend Lord Carrington. However, we are facing one of the biggest difficulties that we have ever had with such a country.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may venture to comment on what the noble Baroness said. I made no criticism of the United Kingdom Government, still less of our noble colleague Lord Carrington. Their efforts have been well directed in difficult circumstances. My point was that the Community as a community has found itself unable to act in a constructive way. That is no criticism of Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. If I inadvertently assumed that he was being critical of Her Majesty's Government or of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I apologise. However, it is fair to say that the Community as a whole cannot move when one notable and clever individual working full time with full support staff cannot even obtain common sense responses from the people who are supposed to be in charge of the various parts of Yugoslavia.
Perhaps I may turn from the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe to talk of the other aspects of enlargement. One of the successes of Lisbon was the agreement to develop our relationships through association agreements as stepping stones to eventual membership. We aim to begin the effective implementation of the association agreements with the Visegrad 3 and high level political dialogue with them during our presidency. We also hope to conclude association agreements with Romania and Bulgaria. We shall have to consider how to take the discussions and preparations forward over Czechoslovakia when the situation in that country becomes clearer.
I wish to set the mind of my noble friend Lord Pym at rest a little. He spoke of the Community's conditions being too tough for the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course the Community is right to set high standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the Community is attractive because it works, even if we criticise its daily working, as we frequently do in this House. However, taking applicants before they can cope with the economic, political and practical responsibilities would not help them and I do not believe that it would help the Community to help them.
Moreover, maintaining the need for the Eastern Europeans to organise themselves into a position where they can benefit from the responsibilities and opportunities which will come with association agreements and eventually with membership will also help them to reform. That will add strength to the

195
arms of the reformers in those countries. That is why our strategy is to develop the Community's links with Eastern Europeans through trade, co-operation and political dialogue and that is why we are using the association agreements as the vehicle.
We have spoken a great deal about the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe, but it is absolutely right to turn our minds also to other applicants, seven in total. Let us look at the particular importance of Turkey, Cyprus and Malta. The Lisbon Council agreed on the particular importance of Turkey and that we should be developing our relations by building on the present association agreements and through political dialogue at the highest level. That seems to he happening much better now than in the past. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that it seems that no longer will the Greek Government stand in the way of the progress that we wish to make with the Government of Turkey.
It was also right that the European Council decided to strengthen relations with Cyprus and Malta by building on their association agreements and by developing their political dialogue. That is why the work that may be done in advance for the EFTAn countries will give us a patterning which may be useful in future in considering the applications of other nations.
One thing I should like to say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who made a most interesting speech, is that, although, yes, it would be right to say that we are not moving as fast as we had hoped because of the Danish referendum result on the Maastricht Treaty, there was nothing at the Lisbon conference that stops us making progress. We agreed at that conference that the official negotiations would open as soon as the future financing was settled and Maastricht ratified. However, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, the official negotiations can sometimes take quite a short time, as they did in the case of Britain's application for membership in the early 1970s. Therefore, in the meantime, during our presidency, we are ensuring that we make all preparation for the membership of the EFTAns to the European Community that can possibly be made. I anticipate that we shall be ready by the October Foreign Affairs Council of the Council of Ministers to consider the applications of the first three of the EFTAns in time for the Edinburgh Summit. That is indeed our intention.
We know that Turkey, Malta and Cyprus have very different backgrounds from those of the EFTAns. However, I believe that where we see progress we can encourage those countries further in a pattern that will lead them to be in a position in the years ahead to become members of the Community.
The debate has been fascinating. There is no doubt that we as a Government, and many of your Lordships, believe that the Maastricht Agreement represents the best deal for the UK. It is an essential part of the future enlargement discussion. The Treaty of Maastricht introduced procedures to reverse the trend towards centralism through intergovernmental co-operation and subsidiarity with controls over the
196
Commission. It is a sound basis for future co-operation. I believe that it firmly indicates that the tide of centralism has been turned.
We took stock a week or so ago with our partners at Oslo on how we should continue. I believe that the stance that we took then, giving Denmark time and space for reflection, is the right way forward. There are a number of options. I am quite sure that your Lordships will wish to discuss those again in the future. However, for tonight and indeed for our presidency, there is no reason to hold up the preparation work that we are doing on the applications of the EFTAns. We should get on with that work; It would be wrong to hold it up because of what has happened. At the same time we must give the Danes the time that they need.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked about the next stage of the Community's development in 1996. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Butterworth all spoke about the shape of the future Community. It is perfectly true to say that we cannot at this stage foretell what that may be. However, I believe that it will be founded on firm trade and co-operation agreements and that the political reforms have to be developed very earnestly indeed.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Hooper said. She talked about membership of the Council of Europe being a half-way house and of looking in detail at the political position of each of the applicant countries because in order to become members of the Council of Europe many of those political conditions which the Community requires already have to be satisfied. Other noble Lords have referred to that.
We have had an excellent debate. The Government firmly believe that enlargement is good not only for the United Kingdom and the existing Community but for Europe as a whole and in particular for those in the queue of countries that wish to join us in membership at some stage in the future. We want a Community that is open, diverse and outward looking. An enlarged Community will be more dynamic, as my noble friend Lord Aldington said in his report. We believe that it will speak with ever greater authority on the world stage and exert ever greater influence. We look forward to working with our present EC partners and with the new members as they join to shape the kind of Community and Europe that will be beneficial for all our people, whether they come from the 12, the 16, the 19, the 21 or the 25. We hope that we shall be able to communicate well. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that we shall have to turn our mind to the language question very soon indeed. But our hope is there and our determination is there. I believe that, starting with the EFTA accessions, we shall strengthen not only the Community's economic base but also the economic base of the wider Europe for the benefit of those emerging nations in Central and Eastern Europe which today have such dreadful problems.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I should like to start this very short last speech by thanking my noble friend the Minister for that splendid winding-up speech; for the kind things that she said about the report, my colleagues and myself; for the very interesting new information which she imparted to the House and for the way in which she fitted the debate into the wider framework.
I should like to thank all those who have spoken. I join with all the subsequent speakers in admiration of the quality, strength and depth of the two maiden speeches. They made the debate a very special one and I should like to thank both speakers, as they have been thanked by others. It is a joy to me to see both noble Lords here. They will greatly strengthen our House. That is an example of strengthening by enlargement.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Pym, who linked the two speeches and made some pungent and powerful observations which I should like to think about very carefully. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Cockfield who once again directed his own distinctive searchlight on to the main problems.
All the speeches have been of enormous value to those of us who continue to study the problems of the Community, its enlargement and its workings. I am conscious of the shortcomings of the report which have been pointed out. There are reasons for them. We elaborated insufficiently on the pressing needs of Eastern Europe and the importance to peace and the future of Europe and the world of tackling those needs. We also perhaps put too little effort into reminding people of the enormous costs and that is partly because about a year ago we prepared a report on those particular agreements and highlighted those points. However, I take the criticism, which is a valid one because that aspect is part of the whole picture.
We may be at fault, but perhaps not to the extent that some speakers indicated, for not attacking the costs of enlargement sufficiently thoroughly. I was warned by the Clerk when we put the tables into the report that they would be misunderstood—and my goodness they have been, despite the small print and despite the elaborate note which appears in the evidence section of the report. I apologise for that, but we needed some figures to give some indication of the effect in monetary terms of enlargement. Nobody pressed us more than my noble friend Lord Cockfield. However, one has learned once again that small print is not always read.
Other points were raised in relation to where we placed the emphasis, but taking the debate as a whole I do not believe that the report has come out too badly. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their comments. I am grateful even to my noble friend Lord Beloff whose elegant pessimism about the Community seems to have extended a little to your Lordships' Select Committee on European affairs. My last words are that the report can claim a little credit for the very high quality of a very interesting debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Summer Time Order 1992
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 23rd June [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Summer Time Order 1992 be approved. The draft order before your Lordships' House this evening has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place.
In itself the order is uncontroversial in that it continues for a further two years, that is for 1993 and 1994, the existing arrangements for the starting and ending dates of summer time. This will mean that, as in previous years, summer time will start at 1 a.m. GMT on the last Sunday in March and end at 1 a.m. GMT on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October. Summer time will therefore run from 28th March to 24th October in 1993 and from 27th March to 23rd October in 1994. The order is consistent with the operation of the Summer Time Act 1972.
The starting and ending dates and times conform with the sixth directive on summer time in the European Community. All member states in the Community, regardless of time zones, begin summer time on the same day, but the United Kingdom and Ireland end summer time about one month later than the rest of the Community, under a derogation in the sixth directive.
The order has no direct bearing on the wider issues of summer time policy, which were examined in the Green Paper, Summer Time: A Consultation Document.
As your Lordships will know, the Green Paper canvassed opinion on three options for future summer time arrangements. Of those options the harmonisation of end dates with the rest of the European Community, thereby losing one month of summer time in October, attracted very little support. The retention of the status quo, that is, Greenwich Mean Time in the winter months and Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour from the end of March to the end of October, was the option most strongly favoured in Scotland. On the other hand, in England and Wales there was considerable support for the adoption of Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour in the winter and two hours in the summer, effectively moving to Central European Time.
Strong views were expressed on both sides of the argument, and in the light of those conflicting responses we concluded that more time for reflection was required before bringing this matter to a decision. As I informed your Lordships on 29th June, in an Answer to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, we shall also wish to take account of a review of the future of summer time within the Community, which we understand is soon to be undertaken by the European Commission. We shall be discussing with the

199
Commission the scope and direction of that review and when that is clear we shall reach a view and report back to your Lordships' House.
I therefore seek the agreement of your Lordships to the continuation of the present arrangements for a further two years to enable the Government to complete their consideration of the options for future summer time policy, including whether there is a case for change. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 23rd June [4th Report from the Joint Committee.].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this side of the House certainly has no objection to the order and takes no issue with the speech of the Minister. He told us that there would be a further period of consultation and reflection. I may not have heard him correctly but perhaps he could also indicate to the House the drift of the Government's thinking as regards moving towards a common European Summer Time. In other words, I should like the House to know the direction of the Government's thinking.
Would the Minister care to tell the House the kind of consultation that the Government feel is appropriate and the kinds of bodies whose views will be sought in that two-year reflection period? Can he say whether the Government also have in mind that at the appropriate time there would be what I call a proper parliamentary opportunity to have a debate? That is not to say that this occasion, short as it may be, is not a good opportunity to take a tiny bite at the cherry but clearly a matter of this kind merits some time and a debate in which many people would be primed at the right moment to make helpful contributions.
Will the Minister tell the House the drift of the Government's policy, the kind of consultation that he has in mind and whether at the end of that consultation and before the two-year period is up it is the Government's intention to hold a proper debate on the issue? Other than that, we have no objection to the order.
10.5 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for just a short moment because I think it appropriate to discuss the question of time when the clocks in your Lordships' House seem to be rather upset and we do not quite know what time it is.
I think the order is disappointing to the extent that the question to which my noble friend referred on 29th June appeared at first sight to have been overlooked and indeed ignored. Having said that, the answer given by my noble friend was perfectly understandable. To consider any form of change in this country would be premature in the light of the expected discussion with the European Commission on what it may choose to do from 1995 onwards. Therefore it would seem to me that an order of this kind covering 1993 and 1994 has regrettably to be accepted.
200
Having said that, I am very mindful of the question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and perhaps I may just refer to it for a moment. He asked whether my noble friend could explain how it is possible for the European Community to know what it wants to do until it has some inkling of what we want to do. I think that is a very important point. Whether we like it or not, we are part of the European Community; and if we are, then we ought to play some part in it. If we are going to do that surely it must be acceptable for us to go along to a discussion and say to the European Commission that the United Kingdom would like to have whatever it wants.
I am not advocating whether it should be Central European Time, Summer Time, Greenwich Mean Time, or any other time that your Lordships like; that is not the issue for the moment. But I think it is important for the Government to take on board the responses to the Green Paper. I am very sorry to say to my noble friend that he somewhat clouded the issue in referring to Scotland. I have to tell him, and he knows perfectly well, that the overall response from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, was 86 per cent. in favour of adoption of Central European Time.
If that is the response, surely the Government have a responsibility to take that response on board, discuss it fairly and squarely, present it to Parliament and see what we want, and then go forward to the Commission and say,"This is what the United Kingdom wants and we will listen to what you have to say". We should do that instead of sitting back and waiting to hear what the Commission may say. It might say,"You will do this, that or the other" without our giving it an authoritative view of what we want.
I think it would be quite wrong for the Government to go to the European Commission and say what they think this country wants. I think the matter ought to be considered and debated, as the noble Lord opposite has said, and then we should go forward to the Commission with a definitive view and get the matter settled. That is the purpose of my intervention and I am grateful to my noble friend for having listened to it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like just to ask the Minister whether he would agree that it would be a good idea during the period of our presidency to adopt Single Double Summer Time before it is imposed upon us by qualified majority voting.
10.8 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, makes an interesting point. Of course we have had, since 1916, a number of different times. Summer Time was introduced from 1916 to 1939. From 1940 to 1945 we had continuous Summer Time and from 1941 to 1945 Double Summer Time was added. At the end of the war we reverted to Greenwich Mean Time in the winter, with normal Summer Time; but then we went back to Single/Double Summer Time in 1947. In 1948 to 1968 we were back to Greenwich Mean Time for the winter, with Summer Time. From 1968 to 1971 we

201
were on British Standard Time (Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour throughout the year) and since 1971 we have been on Greenwich Mean Time with Summer Time. If your Lordships are a trifle confused by that, I apologise; but of course in your Lordships' House we are at the moment on Greenwich Mean Time plus two hours, or Greenwich Mean Time minus 10 hours, whichever way one wants to read the clock that failed to work in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about consultation. We published a Green Paper in 1989 and the issues were examined in great detail. Before deciding on the next steps we shall need to see how the discussions and work within the European Community progress. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret was right in saying that in England an overwhelming majority was in favour of Central European Time. However, in Scotland—
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I did not say "in England". I said that the overall response in the United Kingdom as a whole was 86 per cent. or so in favour of adopting Central European Time. If my noble friend wants the precise figures he will have to look them up for himself. I believe that in England 96 per cent. was in favour but I was merely referring to the United Kingdom as a whole.
That issue is a red herring. I am merely asking the Government to take on board the point that the Green Paper shows that apparently we wish to adopt the same time as Europe. If that is so, will my noble friend be good enough to agree that the Government will have an investigation and a debate on the matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, is right in saying that in total there were more representations in favour of the proposal. However, I said that in Scotland in particular, where the problem is one of latitude rather than of longitude, the vast majority were against it.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me in which direction we are going. The Government are giving serious consideration to the matter and negotiations with our European partners on a directive for dates of Summer Time for 1995 and beyond are expected to begin about the middle of next year. However, we understand that before then the European Commission intends to conduct a review of the operation and the future of Summer Time across the Community. In order to assist that, it will hold a public hearing after the summer break.
One of the arguments put forward in favour of change is that it will enhance our communications with our European partners. Therefore, it would clearly be premature to ask Parliament to reach a decision before the Commission's approach is clear. We shall keep in close touch with developments and report back to your Lordships in due course. A change to Central European Time would require primary legislation and, therefore, a Bill would have to come before your Lordships' House. I hope that I have answered the points raised by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Ethnic Minorities: Employment in the EC
10.12 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will be taking during the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers to ensure that Britain's ethnic minorities seeking employment in the Community will continue to enjoy the level of legal protection against racial discrimination that they currently enjoy in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at this stage in the Session, and at this time of night, I shall endeavour to delay your Lordships' House for as short a time as possible. However, the subject of this Unstarred Question is a matter of considerable anxiety to many of our fellow citizens who are members of ethnic minorities. I refer both to those who hold British passports, and who therefore are EC citizens, and to those legally resident in this country but who are not EC citizens because they do not have British nationality as such.
Together they comprise a considerable number of people. They are greatly worried by the fact that however inadequate at times they believe the protection against discrimination might be in this country there is no doubt that the protection in the other EC countries is a great deal less. It is true that in the Netherlands and in Belgium there is a degree of protection. Other countries will claim that they have anti-discrimination provisions; for example, Germany will point out that its constitution states that there should be no discrimination.
Nevertheless, it takes little imagination to see that, for example, an unskilled worker from the West Indies who is nonetheless a British citizen is given little protection in practice by the fact that discrimination is banned in Germany. Effective protection requires that machinery for enforcement should be easily available to people for whom elaborate legal procedures are not a practical option.
That absence of protection against discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin is in sharp contrast to the protection given against discrimination on grounds of gender. As your Lordships are aware, that is extensive under European law and in fact the Community has been a leader rather than a follower in relation to discrimination on grounds of gender. In some regards, the UK has trailed behind and is still trailing behind in that area of discrimination. Therefore, there is a marked contrast between the provision against discrimination on grounds of gender and discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin.
I am aware that the Government are extremely unwilling to see any extension of what they regard as social policy coming from the Commission and the Community. However, I hope that they will not allow that to blind them to the very real issue which I raise today and the way in which it is regarded with, in my view, considerable justification by members of the ethnic communities.
When the question is raised, the first point made in discussions is to argue whether in fact there is competence under the treaties to deal with the question of discrimination on grounds of race. Of course, if there is not competence and it can be established that there is no competence, nothing can be done unless changes are made in order to ensure that competence exists.
I argue that there is at least a case to answer as regards claiming that there is competence because it is an undeniable part of the Treaty of Rome that there should be full free movement of labour. That is a central and undisputed article of the treaty about which there is no disagreement. The reality of the position is that, if for a number of people there is no protection whatever against discrimination as regards employment, housing, education or training, then free movement of labour is not a reality for those persons. Therefore, it can be argued that, under the full implementation of free movement of labour embodied in the treaty, there are grounds for saying that action should be taken to improve the position and to give genuine anti-discrimination protection for people throughout the Community.
Members of the all-party parliamentary group on race in the Community went recently to Brussels and discussed that issue with officials in the Commission. While they did not say that they agree that there is competence, they accepted the argument that it may well be possible to establish, under the free movement of labour argument, that such competence exists. However, I do not pretend that that is in any way established.
The Commission for Racial Equality took counsel's opinion on the matter and I have here a copy of that opinion. Counsel pointed out that on 11th June a joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and representatives of member states meeting within the Council and the Commission declared that they:

1. vigorously condemn all forms of intolerance, hostility and use of force against persons or groups of persons on the grounds of racial, religious, cultural, social or national differences;

2. affirm their resolve to protect the individuality and dignity of every member of society and to reject any form of segregation of foreigners;

3. look upon it as indispensable that all necessary steps be taken to guarantee that this joint resolve is carried through;

4. are determined to pursue the endeavours already made to protect the individuality and dignity of every member of society and to reject any form of segregation of foreigners;

5. stress the importance of adequate and objective information and of making all citizens aware of the dangers of racism and xenophobia, and the need to ensure that all acts or forms of discrimination are prevented or curbed".

"All acts or forms of discrimination" must surely include discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and education. The counsel goes on to point out that,
"That declaration was formally appended to the Single European Act, which last amended the EEC Treaty".
Counsel does not argue that that establishes competence, but points out that it is a step in that direction.
There is therefore a case to be answered and an explanation to be given as to whether the Government believe that action can be taken, recognising that there

205
is an issue of real importance to many people in this country. It is not only the CRE in this country and those of us who are particularly interested in the Question who are concerned with the matter. The Commission for Racial Equality is acting with the Dutch National Bureau Against Racism and the Belgian Royal Commission on Policy towards Immigrants. They agreed a common policy to lobby the European Community institutions. They are arguing for an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. That is based on the assumption that the case I put forward would not be accepted; it is a further stage. The amendment would state clearly the Community's competence to legislate against racial discrimination; it calls for directives to measure against racial discrimination; and it supports freedom of movement within the EC for all permanently settled third country nationals.
That is a reference to a point I made in the beginning—that there are people among the ethnic minorities who are not British nationals and therefore do not automatically have any right of free movement, giving them the same rights with regard to employment, establishment and family unity as EC nationals.
As I said, it is a matter about which many people in this country are anxious. Of course, the situation has always existed. What is new is that, with the coming of the single market and the changes that will take place in 1993, the whole issue has assumed much greater importance and urgency in the eyes of those concerned.
I raise the matter now at this most inconvenient hour and time because of the British presidency. It gives the Government the opportunity to take the matter up. If they do so, it will be greatly appreciated by the people in this country directly concerned. Therefore will the Government consider joining with other countries in the Community to see what legislation can be put forward or at least, as they are committed to a conference on equal opportunities, to make sure that issues of policy with possible legislative results are discussed?
10.23 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has covered most of the issues arising in the Unstarred Question. I am grateful to her for raising this important subject. I shall emphasise only one point that the noble Baroness mentioned; that is, the problem of third country nationals.
It so happens that countries of South Asia—India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—are reluctant to allow dual nationality for their citizens. Those people who are here bearing passports for those countries find it especially difficult to translate the entitlements that they have in this country when they travel into Europe for work or even for holidays. Indeed, their entitlement to national health is difficult to obtain.
I urge the Government to take on board the many useful points raised by the noble Baroness and perhaps take the view that racial discrimination is a matter of great economic and political importance.
206
Inasmuch as the UK is the head of Europe in that respect, we should take the initiative during the presidency and perhaps chivvy along the other countries to follow our example.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the 1989 CRE annual report pointed out that race issues barely featured on the European agenda. Since then the CRE and others have pushed it onto that agenda and this debate keeps up the pressure. In recent years there has been growing realisation of some of the inconsistencies and anomalies concerning discrimination in the European legal context. Community law gives rights of free movement to EC nationals including specifically the right to take up work, employed or self-employed. The European Court has apparently interpreted those rights broadly.
The first anomaly is that which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, just mentioned. Those rights do not extend to non-EC nationals. That topic is beyond the scope of the Question asked by my noble friend. But if the Community institutions feel able to tackle that problem, then they ought to be all the more ready to consider the problem raised by this Question.
The second anomaly is that those rights of free movement for individual economic activity do not in practice assist EC nationals who belong to ethnic minorities. The reason is the fundamental weakness in Community law which this Question invites the Government to address. The weakness is the absence of any expressed provision in European law prohibiting racial discrimination. That is by contrast to the express provisions of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with gender discrimination. For our ethnic minorities, and those from other European countries, it is no use having a theoretical freedom of movement to get work unless they also have legally enforced freedom from racial discrimination in seeking and retaining work.
Our Government's great advantage is that on this topic the United Kingdom can speak to its Community partners with considerable moral authority. The basis for that authority is that the UK has a well-established framework of legislation prohibiting racial discrimination. It is not perfect (that is a topic for another debate) but it means that this country has both that authority and also its expertise to offer. It also means that our Government can point to the further anomaly that, whereas people coming from Europe to this country have the full protection of our discrimination laws, our ethnic minorities cannot at present expect comparable protection if they cross the Channel.
The recent manifestations of racism in Europe are all too apparent. They are illustrated in the latest CRE report by a photograph of a "foreigners out" sticker circulated in Leipzig. It is not enough for us to disapprove of these matters from a distance. We should certainly feel no need to appease any extreme Right-wing elements in other countries.
The Government now have a valuable opportunity to galvanise thinking, to prevent racial exploitation; to prevent competitive disadvantage both for

207
employees and employers; and to ensure true freedom of movement for our ethnic minorities. There is no question of sovereignty being infringed here in an area in which we have in force superior laws and have little to be told about these matters by other European countries.
I therefore hope that the Government will not seek to suggest that the EC does not have competence. My noble friend touched on that. Even in this House, where time stands still, it is too late to debate technical questions of competence. But there is a compelling argument in the section on Europe in the CRE's second review of the Race Relations Act 1976. I also understand that it is possible to build on Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome and on the joint declaration appended to the Single European Act to which my noble friend referred. Whether or not our Government can ensure protection as the Question asks, the Government should surely try an initiative for which future generations will certainly be grateful.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I join in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her Unstarred Question. I am glad to be speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Meston, because he has put the case very well.
As president of the EC, the Government are in a position to influence what happens in the EC during the next six months and to push it forward after that. The question of whether one allows racial discrimination to dominate in a society is a very serious one. There is plenty of evidence in other countries and in other parts of the world of the consequences of allowing racial discrimination to be rife in society. There is plenty of evidence that although it is not rife, racial discrimination exists on the continent of Europe.
We have one of the largest visible minorities in Europe. The only country with a comparable visible minority is the Netherlands; but we also have the best and strongest legislation for dealing with it, and that puts us in a position of strength. Now that we have the presidency, we can say,"Let's look at the problem and see what can be done about it. Let's see to what extent the type of legislation in Britain is applicable to the EC as a whole and if there is a way of getting it enacted through a directive or other measure—even an inter-governmental agreement—let us try to do it." As I understand the Question, that is what the noble Baroness is asking.
The noble Baroness is asking that Britain's ethnic minorities be protected; but one cannot protect one's nationals when they are in other countries. On the other hand, we are supposed to be part of the EC, and what is more at this moment we are in the Chair. Therefore, we are in a position to influence what happens. We are asking the Government to use their influence in this very important area to try to get some EC activity which will make racial discrimination in Europe something that is not acceptable.
The problem of how people of different races live together in equality and friendship is the biggest
208
problem confronting the world today. Whenever we have a chance to do anything about it, we must grasp that chance. We are inviting the Government to do so.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Seear for tabling this Unstarred Question this evening. She referred to the anxiety which is prevalent among many people about the existence of substantial racial discrimination on the continent of Europe, an anxiety that has only increased with the recent symptoms of racism to which my noble friend Lord Meston referred.
My noble friend Lady Seear is also right to point out that those declaratory provisions in the constitutions of some countries on the continent are, in point of fact, practically useless. As we have found with our own legislation, the great problem is to have enforcement procedures which are actually effective. We have tried. We have not done as well as we could—we do better in Northern Ireland, something to which I have objected before in your Lordships' House—but we are still better than most of our continental colleagues within the Community.
Sir Michael Day, chairman of the CRE, wrote to the Prime Minister in September 1991 urging the need for protection against racial discrimination for British ethnic minorities travelling or working in EC countries. To that letter the Prime Minister replied that he was personally committed to the policy that the United Kingdom had long pursued of combating racial discrimination and wished to encourage our EC partners to introduce similar legislation to ours, but that he had doubts whether the policy gain would be worth acceptance of an extension of European Community competence. I find that a rather extraordinary response. It shows an almost paranoid fear of an increase in EC competence even at the expense of UK citizens, even to the extent of failing to protect UK citizens from the humiliation and injustice of unequal treatment. I cannot exaggerate the importance of protecting people from that kind of treatment which extends beyond the inability to get jobs to discrimination, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, to housing, which is of crucial importance, and to the provision of services.
Race relations legislation was introduced in this country in 1965 because of the injustice which discrimination inflicted on individuals but also because of the social consequences of widespread discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or national ethnic origin. Those social consequences are as damaging within the EC as they are within the United Kingdom and as they are within the United States. If the Prime Minister is anxious to encourage his partners to introduce comparable legislation, why does he not take the simple step as proposed by noble friend? Does he regret the protection offered to women against discrimination on the grounds of gender under a series of directives? If he does not regret it, why should not the same protection be

209
offered to members of ethnic minorities as is offered to women? It seems inexplicable and very difficult to justify.
Reports in The Times and in the Independent today indicate that we have opened our presidency with characteristic clumsiness, offending and irritating our 11 colleagues and confirming ourselves in the role of the slowest ship in the convoy which sets the pace for all the others. Would it not be a welcome change if for once we took the lead; if for once instead of blocking things we started something; if we proposed something positive which encouraged others to follow our example? For all our weaknesses we are in this respect ahead of the rest of our colleagues with the possible exception of the Dutch.
I understand that the Department of Employment means to hold a conference on equal opportunities. That conference will be an empty gesture unless it contains some positive proposals for dealing with unequal opportunities. One positive proposal is that which my noble friend Lady Seear has made. I hope that we shall not hear that the competence of the EC is a good reason for failing to press for positive action and that the competence of the EC is more important than checking injustice against individuals which we have regarded as important in this country and which is just as important in the Community of which we are members.
10.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for introducing a debate on the subject, even at this late hour. As noble Lords will know, these Benches have consistently supported the European Social Charter—or chapter as is now seems to be called. It seemed to us to offer greater protection and security for workers than our own legislation, much of which, since the advent of this Government, has ceased to comply with ILO standards.
Ever since the Treaty of Rome was introduced, there has been a commitment to sex equality. Subsequent judgments of the European Court have built on that and our own law has been amended, in my view, entirely beneficially. Therefore, it is strange that European Community law has not been developed to protect people on grounds of race. The Single European Act fails to guarantee equal treatment on grounds of race and ethnic origin. While other European countries may have some form of protection against discrimination, in most cases, as a number of noble Lords have said, it falls short of our Race Relations Act 1976.
In the Commission for Racial Equality we have a body whose functions include working towards the elimination of racial discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and good relations among people of different racial groups and keeping under review the working of the Act. It also assists individuals seeking to enforce their rights under the legislation. It can also make formal investigations into situations if it appears that racially discriminatory practices are being followed. While no one can be
210
entirely happy about the state of race relations in the United Kingdom, there is no doubt that our legislation and the existence of the Commission for Racial Equality have helped enormously to improve matters. It is no longer quite respectable to display racial prejudice—although of course much of it remains covertly.
Legislation is important in helping to change attitudes. Anyone who doubts that fact should read some of the popular literature published in the 1930s—certain ethnic groups were referred to in terms which would be simply impossible nowadays. Public perceptions of what is acceptable have changed. The CRE has already told your Lordships' Select Committee dealing with European directives (of which I am a member) in its written evidence that it is concerned that the creation of a single market by 31st December of this year, as set out in the Single European Act, may have a detrimental effect on ethnic minorities legally resident in Britain. There is worry that black and Asian British citizens without UK nationality will not have the same rights as EC citizens to reside and work in other member states. That is clearly important against the background of the freedom of movement directive which will allow the free movement of capital and people across EC borders.
The CRE has told your Lordships' Select Committee that it has three objectives in that area: first, to secure an amendment to the Treaty of Rome which would state clearly the Community's competence to legislate against racial discrimination; secondly, to secure the issuing of a directive outlining measures against racial discrimination; and, thirdly, the extension to third-country nationals legally resident and permanently settled in the Community of the same rights to freedom of movement and establishment as those enjoyed by nationals of member states.
Community legislation outlawing discrimination and the granting of equal rights to legally resident third-country nationals is essential if the integration of ethnic minorities is to be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has already pointed out, the CRE is very concerned about the rise of xenophobia in a number of countries, including Germany. I fully support what the commission says. I believe that the Government should take fully into account the views expressed by an organisation which has had many years' experience in dealing with such issues.
The CRE welcomes the EC Commission's proposal that certain non-EC nationals settled in a state should have a right to employment in another member state. The proposal that a firm should be able to move staff, whether EC or non-EC nationals, is also welcome. The proposals also include a strong statement about the rights of families which says that,
"the right to live with one's family is a fundamental right which cannot be denied by the authorities".
That surely is right and acceptable.
There is a problem about young people from ethnic minority groups. There is a real risk of marginalisation. We have seen what can happen in urban centres when the young feel themselves excluded. That could

211
well occur in urban centres in a number of EC countries. I understand that our neighbours in the EC have asserted that there is no need for them to have specific legislation on race relations as everyone, irrespective of race, has certain human rights guaranteed by law. As a number of noble Lords have said, that is not sufficient. We have seen that racial conflict occurs in France and Germany, despite rights allegedly guaranteed on an individual basis.
Our legislation, which I believe is in advance of that in the rest of Europe, specifically prohibits discrimination on racial grounds. Of course we know that it happens despite the law. There is clearly a reason why the chalices of employment for young black citizens are recognised to be less good than those for their white contemporaries. Nevertheless, the legal framework exists. The CRE exists to act as a monitoring agency and to assist with enforcement. It is no good having rights on an individual basis if there is no means of enforcing them.
I hope therefore that the UK presidency will see an attempt to ensure that the principle of equal treatment on pay, forbidding discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin, is incorporated into a Community-wide directive and also that all countries throughout the EC introduce such legislation.
There is a legal view—this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that the Community already has competence to enact legislation outlawing racial discrimination. The CRE, as your Lordships have already heard, has had advice to that effect. If necessary, however, the Treaty of Rome should be amended to include the requirement that there should be no discrimination. The UK presidency provides an opportunity for opening up this whole matter, and I hope to hear from the Minister that that will be done.
We owe it to our ethnic minorities to demonstrate that we have their interests at heart and will ensure that they have adequate protection and the same rights as others following 31st December this year.
10.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers):
My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the stalwarts who remain for giving us the opportunity to discuss what is an important matter. The noble Baroness explained her position clearly. Your Lordships' interventions have been of a brevity which must be the envy of other debates, but that has not detracted from them.
I agree with what the noble Baroness said in her Question—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, also said this—that the ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom enjoy a high level of legal protection against racial discrimination. They do. The United Kingdom has the most comprehensive race relations legislation of the whole of Europe. I should like at the outset to assure the noble Baroness that the Government remain wholeheartedly committed to combating racial discrimination—a policy which they have long pursued.
Our aim is to bring about the conditions in which people from the ethnic minority communities can develop to the full their contributions to the life of the
212
nation. Our country enjoys great benefits from the outstanding contribution which the ethnic minorities make in business, the professions and other walks of life. The noble Baroness said that there are worries among the ethnic minority communities that they will be unable to enjoy in Europe the safeguards against racial discrimination which United Kingdom laws provide. I realise that that is a genuine fear.
The noble Baroness said that free movement should involve anti-discrimination. Research which has been carried out on behalf of the Department of Employment earlier this year shows that Britain has established a lead in good equal opportunities law and practice within the field of racial discrimination. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, acknowledged that, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. We are, for example, ahead of other European Community countries in dealing with indirect discrimination.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said he wished that we would take an initiative and that we should not be the slowest ship in the convoy. I do not believe that we are. We would like to impart our experience and our knowledge to our European Community partners and to do so more widely. I can understand those noble Lords who would like to see some form of legally binding Community legislation on racism. That is an understandable view, but we take the view that European Community legislation is not the right way to take action in order to enhance racial equality. I believe that to do so might very well have the reverse effect to what we intend, given the attitude in some European countries, with the possibility that attempts might be made to water down our own legislation in order to produce a harmonised European version. In other words, we might indeed be in danger of becoming the slowest ship in the convoy, which at the moment we are not.
The exact legislative arrangements in each member state must be a matter for each individual state, taking into account its own particular circumstances. Each member state has diverse and differing experiences and problems in the field of race relations. Look at France; look at Germany. They have their own particular and distinct problems which they have to resolve in their own particular and distinct way. Each member state must, therefore, be able to frame—and must be free to frame—its own legislation which addresses its own needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was concerned to see whether we could get Community legislation on racism and xenophobia. In May 1990, the European Community Labour and Social Affairs Council and the representatives of the governments of the member states meeting with the council adopted a resolution on racism and xenophobia. It was agreed there that the responsibility for taking action on racism and xenophobia should rest primarily with member states rather than with the Community and that therefore the resolution should be mixed. The resolution is not legally binding, but it encourages member states to take measures to combat racism and xenophobia. The Government's position on the resolution is that

213
responsibility for taking action against racism and xenophobia should rest primarily with member states rather than with the Community.
The Government feel that it would be an appropriate moment for European Community member states to consider the issue of racism and xenophobia, especially in view of the recent manifestations of racial harassment and racial violence across Europe, which have been due largely to the rise of nationalism. The rise of the far Right in France and the desecration of its Jewish cemeteries, the reappearance of neo-Nazism in Germany and the attacks on refugees in Germany are all nasty reminders that prejudice continues to bubble underneath the surface.
We shall, therefore, during our presidency of the European Council, take any appropriate opportunity to make our partners in Europe aware of the measures—both statutory and non-statutory—which we in the United Kingdom have taken to address the issues of equal opportunities and race. We shall encourage our European Community colleagues to consider taking appropriate action at their own national level to combat racial discrimination in the light of their own policies, their own legislation and their own peculiar needs.
One of the ways in which we intend to achieve that during our presidency will be through the Department of Employment hosting a conference on equal opportunities in employment, which will be attended by representatives of both employers and governments in Europe. The conference will be aimed at the practical steps which employers can take in order to ensure that equality of opportunity is a reality in their organisation. It will be wider than the traditional "Women's Event", which is a normal feature of any term of a presidency. The conference will cover gender, race and age.
It is intended to use the occasion to build upon the success of a number of initiatives including Opportunity 2000, the Prime Minister's initiative on public appointments and the recently issued Ten Point Plan for Employers on Equal Opportunities
The plan was sent to some 36,500 employers in Great Britain who employ 50 or more employees. It gives employers practical advice on how they can offer equality of opportunity within their workforce for people from the ethnic minorities, for women and for people with disabilities.
In the United Kingdom, more and more employers are adopting, and improving upon, their equal opportunities policies and practices. It is intended to invite European Community employers and employers' representatives, as well as representatives of European Community governments, to the conference. We intend to use the occasion as an opportunity for employers across Europe to share good practice in equal opportunities in employment. It is hoped that the conference will result in a handbook of good practice.
Other more specific concerns about Europe have been voiced by members of the ethnic minority
214
communities. For example, there have been expressions of uncertainty, and indeed concern, about the implications of the completion of the single European market at the end of 1992 for members of these communities. Your Lordships have expressed concern about that today. I understand that anxiety, but I think that, to a large extent, those worries may be misplaced. They are based on a misunderstanding of the possible effects of the completion of the single European market.
Ethnic minority British citizens should benefit in the same way as should everyone else from the changes in Europe, and we are keen to ensure that this happens in practice. If people from the British ethnic minority communities experience difficulties when they travel or when they try to obtain work in the European Community, the British Government will be keen to help to try and ensure that those problems are put right.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked what redress there was for British citizens from the ethnic minorities whose freedom of movement may have been restricted. I can only tell him that any British citizen who feels that he or she has been prevented from exercising rights under the Treaty of Rome in another European Community member state, whether as a result of racial discrimination, or for any other reason, is entitled to pursue a case against the party through the Community institutions. But there is a real point in the concern that our ethnic minorities, whether or not British citizens, will not enjoy the same form of protection from discrimination in other European countries. It is probably true to say that the United Kingdom, together with the Netherlands, has more effective anti-discrimination legislation than has any other member state.
There will be opportunities for all British citizens, including those from the ethnic minorities, to live and to work anywhere in the European economic area. This is a fact, and it is a legal right which will be available to all British citizens.
When the Treaty on European Union which was signed at Maastricht is implemented, British citizens who are resident in another European Community country will be able to participate in local and European parliamentary elections as voters and as candidates. At the same time the position of non-European Community nationals will not worsen. In fact some developments will make it easier for them to travel within the Community. For example, the draft external frontiers convention will mean that visitors from a third country will be able to visit more than one European Community country on a single visa. It will also mean that non-British citizens who are resident here will be able to travel in the Community without needing to obtain a visa.
The Government are not of the view that the grant of residence or the grant of a work permit by one member state to a national of a third country should carry an automatic entitlement to live and to work in other member states.
The ethnic minority communities have also been anxious about the pressure from the European Community for us to introduce new internal controls.

215
The need for extensive changes of that kind should not arise so long as the United Kingdom is able to maintain its present frontier-based system of immigration control, which the Government intend to do.
It is important that we should all, whenever we can, emphasise to the ethnic minority communities that the completion of the single European market by the end of this year will in fact be a positive advantage to them. It will offer new opportunities to all British citizens, including those from the ethnic minority communities. Those are opportunities which we must try to encourage people to grasp and to enjoy.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he will answer the question that I raised when I opened the debate; namely, that at the equal opportunities conference which is to be held the question of a law should at least be discussed. I take the noble Earl's point that the details of the law may best be settled at the level of each individual country, but that is different from saying that there is no case for having a law at all. Surely it should he possible to discuss the requirement that there should be a law dealing with these matters
216
in the countries of the EC even if one agrees (and I can see that one could make a case for doing so) that the details of that law should be fashioned to suit the particular requirements of each individual state. Is it not possible that that could be raised as an issue at the equal opportunities conference?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what the agenda for the conference will he. But I shall certainly see that her suggestion is taken into account. I can see that there is no legal reason why it should not be discussed. The point that I tried to make was that it is our view that it is better for each country to frame its own laws to suit its own circumstances—and the circumstances differ—but that those laws should all, with luck and with assistance, be brought up to the level of those which we have in our country.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with an amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  TIBET: ALLEGED FORCED ABORTIONS
  TIBET: ALLEGED FORCED ABORTIONS
  MOLDOVA: UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE.
  MOLDOVA: UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE.
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION.
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION.
  ROYAL PARKS REVIEW: RESPONSE
  ROYAL PARKS REVIEW: RESPONSE
  OPTOMETRY: FUNDING OF CLINICAL TRAINING
  OPTOMETRY: FUNDING OF CLINICAL TRAINING
  REGULATED TENANCIES
  REGULATED TENANCIES
  THAMES WATER: DONATION TO POLITICAL PARTY
  THAMES WATER: DONATION TO POLITICAL PARTY
  HOUSING REPOSSESSIONS
  HOUSING REPOSSESSIONS
  SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR OLDS: LEGAL STATUS
  SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR OLDS: LEGAL STATUS
  COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE HOMELESS.
  COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE HOMELESS.
  ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL: BED CLOSURES
  ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL: BED CLOSURES
  ASYLUM: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  ASYLUM: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  SUNDAY TRADING
  SUNDAY TRADING
  JUVENILE PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS
  JUVENILE PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991, SECTION 95: PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991, SECTION 95: PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION
  EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE: CASES AGAINST THE UK
  EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE: CASES AGAINST THE UK
  LONDON: COMPARATIVE JOURNEY TIMES
  LONDON: COMPARATIVE JOURNEY TIMES
  MOTORWAY WIDENING: LIGHTING
  MOTORWAY WIDENING: LIGHTING
  CYCLE SCHEMES
  CYCLE SCHEMES