Sitting of 3 June 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  Lords amembnents agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Peru
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Peru in relation to the coup in that country; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): The recent events in Peru are a substantial setback to democracy in that country. In company with our Community partners, we have expressed deep concern at the suspension of constitutional rule and reports of human rights violations. We urge the early re-eastablishment of democratic institutions and respect for human rights within the framework of the rule of law. The Peruvian charge d'affaires was left in no doubt of our position when he called on me at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22 May.
    Dr. Howells: If the principle of delivering non-humanitarian aid to Governments who are prepared to move towards liberty and democracy is to mean anything, will the Minister ensure that the Peruvian President is made aware of the fact that the people of this country consider that the days of South America being ruled by dictators are long gone? Will he further ensure that our partners in Europe understand our policy on that matter and that we deliver no aid to that country, other than the most vital humanitarian aid, until we have proof that democracy has been re-established?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: We discussed those matters at length last week in Santiago, Chile, with our Community partners and with members of the Organisation of Amercian States. We are working with them to try to bring about a return to democracy in Peru as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must take other action to reinforce that position and we have already suspended balance of payments assistance promised to President Fujimori during his visit to this country earlier this year. We have also suspended consideration of the write-off of certain
    810
    Peruvian debts owed to the Government, as well as action on aid proposals. We shall, of course, continue with existing humanitarian aid programmes.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell the House what representations have been made by members of the joint Houses of Parliament of Peru to the British ambassador, and what action he intends to take about them?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I cannot answer the specific question, but the hon. Gentleman will wish to know that we are aware that there is substantial support for President Fujimori inside Peru and that our efforts and those of our Community partners are directed towards seeking to help him to return to democracy as soon as possible. I understand that on Monday of this week he made a statement that elections for a constituent assembly would be held on 18 October. That seems to us a hopeful step towards a return to democratic rule in Peru.
    Mr. Foulkes: Although we welcome what the Government have already done, and the Minister's statement today, the Minister will have read the Amnesty International report published yesterday, which shows that the human rights situation is much worse than we feared. Members of APRA—the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana—in particular, are under threat and there is no indpendent judiciary. It is, therefore, necessary to convey to Mr. Fujimori—and I hope that the Government will take strong action to do so—that unless there is not only a return to democracy but an end to human rights violations, the Government, through the EC and the United Nations, are prepared to take much firmer action.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and he can rest assured that any action that we take, with our Community partners and in co-operation with the Organisation of American States, will aim to assist Peru to rectify the mistake that we believe has been made.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Although my right hon. Friend is correct in stressing our support for the spread of democracy in Latin America and in disapproving of the action of the President of Peru in overturning the power of his congress, will he please bear it in mind that the President has to cope with a terrorist movement—Sendero Luminoso—which in many ways is worse than the IRA? It does not have popular support in Peru and it did not have the courage to test its popular mandate in either the recent presidential elections or the elections for the congress.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend's point is well made. That is why we have to balance our reaction to these events with the knowledge that there is substantial support for President Fujimori in Peru. Much of that support derives from the fact that the Peruvian people have suffered for more than a decade now from one of the most violent terrorist organisations on the face of the earth.

    Yugoslavia
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts on the situation in the former state of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The Yugoslav crisis has been discussed at every recent meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers. I made a statement to the House about it yesterday.
    Mrs. Ewing: May I first apologise to the Secretary of State for having been unable to attend yesterday because of a constituency engagement?
    Is the Secretary of State now discussing specifically with his counterparts the possibility of the implementation of a naval blockade and air cargo inspection to ensure that sanctions are effective in resolving the problems, especially in Serbia? Has he had any specific discussions with representatives of Greece—[Interruption.]—one of the European Community partners, given that Greece may suffer as a result of the sanctions?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady was not very courteously treated by the hon. Members in front of her, so I did not hear the last part of her question. On the first point—
    Mr. Skinner: It is all about Denmark.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us proceed in good order today.
    Mr. Hurd: I answered questions on the hon. Lady's first point yesterday. I am not sure that a naval blockade or an inspection of air cargoes would add very much at present to the efficacy of the sanctions. A monitoring committee of the Security Council in New York will keep an eye on the matter. We are in very close touch with the Greeks, not only on the question of Macedonia, on which they have especially strong views, but on the whole question. They are bound, and accept that they are bound, not only by the European Community decisions, but by the mandatory decision of the Security Council.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) does not see the parallel between Yugoslavia and Great Britain, in which all attempts at ethnic fragmentation, when 80 per cent. of Scots live in England and half those who live in Scotland are not Scots, are fallacious and wrong? The Government did well to protect the Union.
    Mr. Hurd: I admire my hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity. I cannot say what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). My hon. and learned Friend compels attention across the world as a flower of Scottish democracy.

    Hong Kong Governor
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the new Governor of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Hurd: The whole House will want to join in wishing Mr. Patten well as he prepares for this demanding job. His role and that of the Government will be to administer Hong Kong justly and efficiently until the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, and to do everything possible to lay secure foundations for preserving Hong Kong's way of life and economic success beyond that date, as provided for in the Joint Declaration.
    Mrs. Mahon: How can Chris Patten expect or demand the respect of the Chinese Government when the British Government have failed to democratise the Government in Hong Kong? May we have an assurance that Chris Patten will not spend his expensive time collecting funds for the Tory party?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is notably misinformed. The Government have begun the task of introducing democracy—directly elected representatives—in the Legislative Council. That is something that no previous Government have done but which we now have under way. The question is one of pace, as the hon. Lady knows: it is a question of how much further progress we make in 1995 and of how we ensure that the process continues after the transfer of power. The hon. Lady ought to know better than to ask such tendentious questions.
    Mr. Renton: Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the choice of Chris Patten as governor. He is a friend and colleague of hon. Members on both sides of the House and I believe that he will be an outstanding governor. Further to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just given, can he tell the House a little more about what decisions he expects to be taken regarding, for example, the future composition of the Executive Council and the number of elected members on the Legislative Council in the run-up to 1997? Obviously, those matters are of continuing and great interest to Hong Kong.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the new governor will want to rush to conclusions on these matters as soon as he takes over. He would be wise to want—I am sure that he will want—to consult widely after his arrival, to weigh up all the factors and then to put his advice to us. That will take time. I would not expect conclusions on the kind of matters that my right hon. Friend mentioned to emerge until the autumn at the earliest.
    On the specific point concerning the 1995 LegCo elections, we have said that we shall be discussing those elections with the Chinese side with the aim of ensuring as much continuity as possible. Decisions on electoral arrangements will need to take account of such discussions; they are, I think, some way off.
    Mr. Loyden: How can the Foreign Secretary in principle agree that a man rejected in democratic elections in this country should be imposed upon the people of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Hurd: Because he is a first-class man, as hon. Members know. The hon. Gentleman will know of the very wide and hearty welcome that his appointment has received in Hong Kong.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to bring Gibraltar within the external frontier of the EEC.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: We and the Spaniards are in discussion with the Portuguese, as the EC presidency, to find a way of ensuring that the external frontiers convention applies in Gibraltar.
    Mr. Colvin: When I tabled the question, the kind of Common Market to which Gibraltar, as a Crown colony,

    813
    would belong was clearer than it is today. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a British Crown colony, Gibraltar will benefit from all the provisions of membership of the EC? Can he tell us why Gibraltar is at present expressly excluded from the air services agreements in Europe from which other member states have benefited?
    Mr. Garel-.Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Gibraltar's membership of the Community is undisputed, its having become a member by virtue of Britain's accession in 1973. As my hon. Friend will know, the attachment to the air liberalisation agreement of the implementation of the airport agreement has meant that the air liberalisation agreement has been withheld for Gibraltar. We have urged Gibraltar to implement the airport agreement: we believe it to be in its interests to do so.
    Mr. David Young: Will the Minister take on board that fact that time is of the essence in discussions of this matter because the financial infrastructure and plans of Gibraltar depend on the air agreement? Can the Minister assure us that the Government will do everything possible to expedite those discussions?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Implementation of the airport agreement 'would substantially reinforce the efforts of the Gibraltar Government to promote Gibraltar as a financial centre. We do not believe that the airport agreement has the sovereignty implications that the Gibraltar Government believe that it has. We have urged them over a number of years to proceed to implement the airport agreement.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Portugal is an excellent friend of this country and it is close to Spain. Is there not now a unique opportunity under the Portuguese presidency to make progress on the airport issue? Will the Minister give the people of Gibraltar a clear assurance, to allay any anxieties, that their democratically elected Government will be kept fully in the picture on any tripartite discussions about the future of the Rock? Will he also tell us the current status of the reference to the European Court of Justice?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Portuguese presidency is uniquely well placed to help the United Kingdom and Spain to resolve the issue. All parties are extremely grateful to the Portuguese presidency for its enormous work on the issue which we hope will be crowned with success. With regard to the case before the European Court of Justice, a preliminary hearing on admissibility took place on 5 May, but the European Court has yet to pronounce on it. We think that it is likely to do so in July. It would be difficult for me to comment until we know whether the European Court has ruled that it is admissible.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to help bring about a solution to the conflict in Kashmir.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We
    814
    take every opportunity of impressing on the Government of India our concerns over human rights in regard to Kashmir, and the need for a political process there, and on the Government of Pakistan the need to prevent material support being given to the men of violence in Kashmir.
    Mr. Battle: When does the Minister expect the Indian Government to respond positively to the proposals made last year by this Government that international independent organisations should be allowed in to investigate violations of human rights? Serious violations of human rights in Kashmir are reported daily and they affect many of the families and relatives of our constituents.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to those problems. Human rights abuses are totally unacceptable wherever they come from, whether from terrorists or, as they have undoubtedly come, from the security forces of the Indian Government—although there has been much exaggeration about that. We have emphasised to the Indian Government the need to respond to those terrorist threats by respecting human rights and the rule of law. We are encouraged by their decision to establish an independent human rights commission and I talked to the high commissioner about that only two weeks ago.
    Mr. Jessel: Is it not basically an internal matter for India? What moral support can we give India in resolving that tragic and long-standing problem?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, as my hon. Friend knows, we are friends of the Indian and Pakistan peoples and we wish to maintain that friendship. We are balanced on that important issue. We know that it must be resolved. It is a serious problem which has led to three wars in very recent memory and we will do anything that we can. However, any intervention on our part must be with the agreement of both sides.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his bromidic utterances this afternoon contrast markedly with the encouragement that the Foreign Secretary gave to Kashmiri voters in Luton when he was seeking to rustle up Conservative votes there—that this Government were going to try to do something specific to deal with a problem that has lasted far too long, has resulted in many deaths on both sides and serious violations of human rights and in respect of which the United Kingdom has a unique role and responsibility?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Government's position has not changed. We make our views absolutely clear. I am happy to follow every word that my right hon. Friend has said. May I also add that when he went to India he insisted on the need for a political process in Kashmir. That is also fundamental and we stand by that position.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case that, apart from the efforts being made with the Indian Government, some pressure ought to be put on the United Nations, bearing in mind that two Security Council resolutions—the first dated April 1948 and the second dated January 1949—still guarantee that the Kashmiri people shall have a plebiscite on their future? Why can we not put pressure on the United Nations on the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend knows, those resolutions are about 40 years old, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then and there were also resolutions calling for a plebiscite for the state of Jammu and Kashmir to decide whether to accede to India or to Pakistan; the question of independence was not at issue. We believe that some political process to enable the Kashmiri people to state their wishes for the future is the way forward.

    South Africa
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the prospect for a democratic settlement in South Africa.
    Mr. Hurd: In spite of the lack of final agreement at the CODESA 2 conference, some real progress has been made in the negotiations. We welcome the commitment by all parties to continue those negotiations and will continue to give full support to the process of reform. We are deeply concerned about the amount of violence. We urge all political leaders to support the peace structures which are now in place.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the South African Government's dogmatic insistence on a 25 per cent. blocking veto for whites is totally undemocratic and that it calls into question President de Klerk's sincerity, especially since his security services are involved in political killings which are running at 12 a day? Surely the South African Government would be best advised to pursue the majority rule course which successfully accomplished the transition in Namibia and Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Hurd: One would not guess from what the hon. Gentleman said how narrow the point of difference is. On the majority necessary for regional devolution in the constitution-making body, the ANC proposes the decisions being taken by 70 per cent. and the South African Government by 75 per cent. That is an important, but relatively narrow, point of difference. I very much hope that it can be bridged, but I do not think that it will be if we, or anyone from outside, start to lay down the law about it.
    Sir George Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cause of democracy in South Africa is ill-served by those in this House who champion the negotiating position of one of the parties to the negotiations—the ANC—to the total exclusion of other, equally legitimate interests? Is it not by far the wiser course for us to leave the South Africans to settle it among themselves?
    Mr. Hurd: The constitutional negotiations must be concluded between themselves. The line that we have taken on the matter under two Prime Ministers has been vindicated by events. As a result we have an ability to help, which is accepted on both sides, and we are giving help, for example, by encouraging those involved in the peacekeeping process to take advantage of policing experience in this country.
    Sir David Steel: While the Government have a commendable desire to give every possible assistance, including economic assistance, to South Africa during the transition to democracy, is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is some anxiety among South Africa's
    816
    neighbours in the South Africa Development Coordination Conference—all of which are poorer countries —that their needs might be forgotten. Can he lay those anxieties to rest?
    Mr. Hurd: There is something in what the right hon. Member says. We are especially concerned because of the present drought, which is savagely affecting countries such as Zimbabwe and Zambia. The right hon. Gentleman may know—if not, we can tell him—of the extent of the help that we are giving, and encouraging others to give, in those circumstances.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in Cambodia towards a peaceful settlement and democratic government.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alistair Goodlad): Under the leadership of the United Nations Secretary-General's representative, Yasushi Akashi, events are on course to meet the timetable of free and fair elections under United Nations auspices in April and May 1993. The United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia was established on 28 February. The repatriation of those Cambodians now in camps on the Thai-Cambodian border under the supervision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees began on 30 March and cantonment and demobilisation of the armed forces of the four Cambodian factions will start on 13 June.
    Mr. Heald: Given the political complexity of the situation in south-east Asia, can my hon. Friend confirm that the Khmer Rouge and the other parties to the Cambodian settlement are all co-operating fully with the United Nations temporary agreement?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are concerned at the Khmer Rouge's unwillingness to co-operate with UNTAC and we have registered our concern with it. It is vital that all the factions work fully and unconditionally with UNTAC.

    EC Presidency
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government proposes to do during its presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to make a statement later today on the implications of the Danish vote yesterday.
    Apart from those implications, the Government will have two main priorities for the United Kingdom presidency—the completion of the single market and preparation for enlargement negotiations. We will also take forward, from the Lisbon summit, the future finance negotiations now under way and develop closer relations with eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
    Mr. Gapes: In view of the Danish people's rejection of the Maastricht treaty, which they clearly saw as more about a bankers' Europe than a people's or social Europe, what proposals will the Government bring forward to

    817
    amend the treaty to get rid of the excessively restrictive monetarist provisions such as the 3 per cent. budget deficit proviso? Will the Foreign Secretary also accept his responsibility for the fiasco caused by the British Government's ridiculous opt-outs on the social charter and on economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that it would add to the clarity of the afternoon if I left questions about the Danish referendum to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right: the Community must work and develop for the benefit of its citizens. The completion of the single market and the practical measures needed for that are precisely in the interests not of bankers, but of citizens.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that during the British presidency and in the few weeks before that begins, the British Government will not agree to the renewal of Jacques Delors' post as president of the European Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. Mr. Delors is a highly intelligent and dedicated public servant—[Interruption.]—with whose views on the future of Europe we sometimes strongly disagree. No commitment or decision has been taken by the British Government as to whether he should continue in his present office after the end of the year.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Foreign Secretary not admit that the Tory Government's wonderfully laid-out plans at Maastricht have fallen apart? Why does he not acknowledge that the halcyon days of the Common Market are over, that political union is now off the agenda, that there will not be a single currency for all the Common Market states, that the European bank has gone out of the window and that the Common Market is crumbling? The sooner the Tory Government and those on the Labour Front Bench understand that, the better.
    Mr. Hurd: I am only sorry that, by catching your eye now, Madam Speaker, the hon. Gentleman may have prevented himself from making those observations to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend consider, during the British presidency, the enormous importance of the north-south divide and the contributions that the Community and the countries of the Council of Europe, of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will also be president, can make in alleviating the tremendous poverty in many parts of the world? That poverty is putting great pressure on the frontiers of the European Community as people seek to enter the Community to escape from the conditions at home.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is one reason why we hope very much that before we take over the presidency it may be possible to reach agreement in the GATT round. We are not so far apart now. It is conceivable that agreement will be reached; and, more than any measures of additional aid, success in the Uruguay round would help to solve the problems of the south to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the most worrying aspects in Europe—and worrying to everyone in this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—is the rise
    818
    of racism, xenophobia and right-wing populism which seems to derive from increasing levels of unemployment throughout the continent? Should not one of the top priorities for the British presidency therefore be tackling the growth of unemployment? Is not the fact that that is not a priority evidence that the Government who do nothing about unemployment in this country are encouraging a do-nothing policy throughout Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: The best cure for unemployment is a recovery that is substantial and durable and does not fade away because panic measures have been taken too soon. The hon. Gentleman should also look at the experience of race relations in this country and deduce from that the importance of being able to keep in place effective frontier controls against illegal immigration.

    Middle East
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position in the middle east peace talks; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The fifth round of bilateral negotiations between the parties took place in Washington on 27 to 30 April. Although progress towards resolution of the difficult issues involved has inevitably been slow, substantive discussions are now under way. The momentum of the peace process has been maintained in the five multilateral regional working groups which have taken place in various capitals over the last three weeks.
    Mr. Hicks: To help the peace process, would it not be sensible when we assume the presidency to take an initiative similar to the Venice declaration to make it clear that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories, that the human rights of the Palestinians living there must be restored and that all United Nations resolutions on the subject should be adhered to?
    Mr. Hogg: We are, of course, committed to the provisions of resolutions 242 and 338. We think that the best way of tackling the problem lies within the peace process. Certainly the United Kingdom will do her utmost during her presidency to underpin the peace process now under way.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: A recent report published by the Israeli central bureau of statistics states that the number of housing starts on the west bank and in Gaza climbed to 8,110 in 1991—a fourfold increase on the previous year. Bearing in mind the international consensus on the illegal nature of those settlements can the Minister tell the House when the Government last made representations to the Israeli Government on this issue?
    Mr. Hogg: We do so repeatedly. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says: the settlements in the occupied territories are indeed unlawful and an obstacle to the peace process. We make that point repeatedly, and I do so again now.
    Mr. Jopling: To what extent has the success of the talks been made more difficult by the massive flow of armaments into the middle east from former Warsaw pact

    819
    countries? And to what extent have the activities of the British Government and other Governments been successful in stemming that serious flow of armaments?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right. The flow of armaments into the middle east is a destabilising factor. We have tried to persuade a number of actual and prospective suppliers not to supply. We are of course heavily committed, in the process within the multilateral talks, to try to prevent the flow of arms into the middle east, but the truth is that until the peace process brings about a settlement of the essential dispute it is likely that arms will continue to enter the middle east.

    Peru
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Peru.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The United Kingdom is deeply concerned at the recent suspension of constitutional government in Peru. A number of measures affecting our bilateral aid programme have recently been taken and the content of the bilateral relationship is currently under review.
    Mr. McFall: President Fujimori's actions have created a democratic vacuum, with the result that the wretched people of Peru are faced on the one hand by the military, whose human rights violations are well documented, and on the other by the most ruthless terrorist group, the Sendero Luminoso, which is not content just to kill people but stuffs their dead bodies with dynamite so that they and perhaps also their neighbours are blown apart. In view of that, and in view of President Fujimori's statement that on 18 October there will be a renewal of constitutional rule, but that political parties will be excluded from the process, will the Government assure us that they will maintain the political and diplomatic isolation of Peru until the situation becomes clear and the democratic process is reconstituted?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman half the assurance that he wants. We are not in the business of seeking the isolation of Peru: not only with our partners in the Community but with other democratic states in Latin America, we are seeking to draw Peru back into the democratic fold. The hon. Gentleman is slightly inaccurate in saying that President Fujimori wishes to exclude political parties. I recognise that what the president said is controversial. He said that those who seek election to the constituent assembly will not subsequently be able to seek election to whatever assembly is agreed by the constituent assembly. I do not think that President Fujimori has excluded political parties from the process, as the hon. Gentleman hinted.

    Cyprus
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last visited Cyprus to discuss the situation in the island.
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make an official visit to Cyprus to discuss progress towards a settlement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made towards resolving the situation in Cyprus.
    Mr. Hurd: We give full support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to bring about a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. There are grounds for some sober optimism. All sides have now endorsed the ideas set out in Security Council resolution 750, and the secretary-general has invited the leaders of the communities to New York for talks on 12 June. We have had frequent talks with Cypriot Ministers, and with all other parties to the dispute, since the last bilateral ministerial visit, which was in 1983. It has been important not to cut across the negotiations by United Nations envoys in Cyprus itself, which are again active.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that to the Cypriot community in this country the absence of a ministerial visit indicates that the 1974 invasion by Turkey and the continuing occupation of the northern part of the island of Cyprus is not a high priority for the Government? Does he not consider that the fate of the refugees and of the missing people in that country deserves a much more vigorous Government approach?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady will be able to explain to the Cypriot community why this has happened. The last ministerial visit, by Lady Young, took place before Mr. Denktas had proclaimed that part of Cyprus as an independent state. If a Minister went in the present situation he would face the difficulty of having to choose whether to meet Mr. Denktas. Either way it would be difficult to argue that such a visit would help towards an agreement. Our main interest is to get an agreement and there is a possibility of that. I am strongly in favour of a British ministerial visit so long as we can be clear that it would help and not hinder an agreement.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government of Cyprus would welcome such a visit? As the British Government do not recognise Mr. Denktas, what is the difficulty about the Foreign Secretary going to Cyprus? He will go to Athens and Ankara to talk about Cyprus, but he will never go to Nicosia to do so. Why does he not do that?
    Mr. Hurd: I have explained the reason. We had an exchange a few weeks ago and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that we recognise one Cyprus in which there are two communities and, as everyone accepts, those communities are of political equality. We keep in close touch with President Vassiliou of Cyprus and with my Cypriot colleague and shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Coombs: While recognising the importance of the present UN efforts to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important for Britain to support continuing negotiations on the application by Cyprus to join the EC, as not to do so would not only be entirely unjustified but would give an effective veto to Turkey which occupies half of the island?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that we should try to strengthen the relationship between the communities in Cyprus. The technical position is that we are waiting for the opinion from the Commission that the Council of Ministers requested in September 1990. We want this relationship between the communities in Cyprus to facilitate, not to make harder, the solution to the inter-communal dispute. Finding an answer to that dispute, which is possible, would unlock many doors.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable that, at a time when barriers are coming down all over Europe, a small Commonwealth island should still be divided in two? What is the Government's attitude towards the suggestion by the secretary-general that the peacekeeping force in Cyprus might be reduced, bearing in mind that Britain plays such a sterling role in that force?
    Mr. Hurd: There is a strong case for reduction, and we are proceeding cautiously in that direction in concert not just with the secretary-general but with others such as the Canadian Government, who are also involved. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. There is now a better opportunity than there has been for some months to get a solution, and we are bending all our efforts to helping the secretary-general in that direction.
    Mr. Kaufman: The House will have noted that the Foreign Secretary signally, significantly and shiftily failed to answer the specific question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). While Ministers have scuttled off regularly to Turkey, the right hon. Gentleman himself having gone there only a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues will not go, and have not been, to Cyprus. This demonstrates that there is a significant tilt of the Government's policy in favour of Turkey and against the sovereign Cypriot Government. In reply to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who asked about membership of the Community, the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped for speedy Turkish membership of the Community, but did not respond to the proper application of a sovereign Commonwealth country—Cyprus—to be a member of the Community. Is it not time the Government stopped being pro-Turkish and anti-Cypriot on this matter?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman seems determined to go out with a bang rather than a whimper. He was wholly inaccurate on a central point. He has never heard me advocate, firmly or otherwise, full Turkish membership of the Community. He is wrong about that. I have chosen my words carefully and they have not added up to that. I will tell you why—[Interruption.] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, through you, Madam Speaker, why we have not in recent years had a ministerial visit to Cyprus. I have already explained it. We want every step that we take to contribute towards a settlement, for the reason that 1 gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). It is clear that if we paid a ministerial visit to Cyprus, the choice—as the Canadian Minister has just found for herself—in terms of arrangements for a programme, far from helping a settlement, might set one back. For heaven's sake, let us concentrate on the central objective, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for
    822
    Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said, to bring about an inter-communal settlement in this one sovereign island with two politically equal communities.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the priority that Her Majesty's diplomatic service gives to the monitoring of human rights abuses overseas.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: All diplomatic missions overseas monitor closely, and report on, the human rights situation in the country to which they are accredited.
    Mr. Michie: If it is being monitored efficiently, the Minister will know of the continuing abuse of human rights in Indonesia, where the massacre of innocent people still goes on. Despite that, the Government have a policy of selling arms to the Government of Indonesia. Is it not time that that policy was reviewed and revoked?
    Mr. Hogg: We remain concerned about human rights in East Timor. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Office issued a statement on 28 January on the tragic events which took place in Dili. We shall continue to make our concern crystal clear to that Government.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the diplomatic service monitors the abuse of human rights in countries that are recipients of aid from the United Kingdom and from the European Community? Will he ensure also that all future aid packages have strings attached to ensure that we no longer prop up unacceptable regimes which use weapons and aid to suppress the reasonable political rights of their countries' inhabitants?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think that he would agree that there is a distinction to be made between humanitarian aid and programme aid. In those countries where there is gross abuse of human rights, there would be a powerful case for cutting back on programme aid. Indeed, we have done that in respect of Burma, Sudan and China.

    Bangladesh
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Bangladeshi high commissioner to discuss United Kingdom-Bangladesh relations.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I look forward to an early meeting with the new Bangladeshi high commissioner.
    Mr. Bennett: As the majority of people in Bangladesh are extremely vulnerable to any small effect of global warming, how far can the Government reassure the high commissioner that the Government will do everything that they can at the Earth summit to deal with the problems of global warming?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the United Kingdom has indicated that it will be signing the climate change convention, which deals precisely with the matter that he has raised. Furthermore, we promised about £40 million to the United Nations global environment facility, with a

    823
    conditional offer of more money for the developing countries. We have helped Bangladesh specifically with cyclone relief by providing large sums of money—for example, 10 million last year.

    Rudolf Hess
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to release to the Public Record Office the papers held by his Department relating to the arrival, interrogation and incarceration of Rudolf Hess between 1941 and the Nuremberg trials.
    Mr. Hurd rose— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will settle down. It is difficult for Ministers and for those hon. Members who are asking questions and it is difficult for me to hear.
    Mr. Hurd: I propose to release to the Public Record Office virtually all the papers relating to the arrival, interrogation and incarceration of Rudolf Hess between 1941 and the Nuremberg trials previously withheld by my Department. The first batch of papers to be released is being transferred to the PRO this week. The remainder should be released by July.
    Mr. Morgan: I welcome the main part of the Foreign Secretary's reply, but what does he mean by "virtually"? Is he aware that a promise was made to historians last autumn, long before the Prime Minister's, that the Hess file would be released to the PRO in the spring? It was not. The Prime Minister subsequently made it clear that he intended to practise more open government, hut, in spite of that, the Government have become more closed. How does the Foreign Secretary intend to communicate to the historians who read the file when it is eventually released which parts he has withheld by the process of weeding? What is it that the Government have to hide?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is rather grudging in his welcome to what is a substantial move forward, although it has not come so fast as he would have wished. So far. I have agreed to the withholding of only one paper —for reasons which have nothing to do with the substance of the Hess question. There are certain records which still pose a risk to national security—[Interruption.] Of course there are. I have said that we are reviewing withholding. I have said that the process will not amount to a sudden avalanche. The hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters, will find as the months progress and the review continues that it is producing a substantial advance for the benefit of historians, and one far greater than has been contemplated before by any Government.

    Somaliland
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on recognition of the countries that were formerly (a) French Somaliland, (b) Italian Somaliland and (c) British Somaliland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We recognise the Republic of Djibouti, formerly the French territory, and the Somali
    824
    Democratic Republic, which was created by the union of the former British protectorate and the Italian-administered territory.
    Mr. Bowis: Only two of the five Somali nations represented by the five stars on the Somali flag are within the republic known as Somalia. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, French Somaliland is now independent as Djibouti, and British Somaliland is part of Somalia. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the people of Somaliland hope that they, too, will return to independent status some day? Will he keep an open mind on that, as the people there and their Government move towards the conditions in which such recognition might one day become possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern for the people of the north, with whom we have many historic ties. Their plight is often overlooked. The Somali national movement is, however, divided and is not in control of northern Somalia—so the question that my hon. Friend poses does not arise at the moment.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the people of northern Somalia, that is the Somaliland Republic, who have strong links with this country through family ties and the service that they rendered in successive world wars, are caught in a trap? Unless they can achieve stability and good administration, they cannot win recognition from Britain or the international community, but without recognition and help they are unlikely to be able to create the administration, peace, and stability to which I am sure the Minister also aspires. Will he seek a creative way of trying to help the people in the north?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development would look kindly on initiatives to help the hard-pressed people in the north, along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests, were it possible to deliver aid to that area. The prime obstacle in the way of helping in any part of Somalia is the security situation—though we have managed to provide some help to the north in recent times.

    Gulf Co-operation Council
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council: and what was discussed.
    Mr. Hurd: At the third EC/GCC Foreign Ministers conference in Kuwait on 16 May, I met the Foreign Ministers of all the Gulf states except Saudi Arabia, which was represented by its Oil Minister. We discussed ways of developing closer economic co-operation between the European Community and the Gulf Co-operation Council and regional issues—especially the strengthening of the Gulls collective security. I stressed that the security and well-being of the Gulf states remain of great importance to us.
    Mr. Arnold: Was careful consideration given to any growth in the reconstruction of the Iraqi military machine, which would destabilise that region?
    Mr. Hurd: Everyone at the conference was clear that we must maintain sanctions against Iraq in their full present rigour and that we must insist on Iraq's full compliance

    825
    with the Security Council resolutions—notably those which provide for the inspection and then the destruction of the weaponry of Saddam Hussein.

    Abu Dhabi
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Britain and Abu Dhabi.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: They are excellent.
    Mr. Vaz: The Minister will know that more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members signed a personal appeal to the Sheik of Abu Dhabi asking him to increase the compensation agreement that he put forward to the creditors and depositors of the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows also that negotiations are at a critical stage. Does he agree that now is the time for the British Government to become directly involved in securing the best possible deal for the bank's British depositors and former employees?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has discussed that with me on a number of occasions and he will therefore know the position of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have no locus in the matter: it is a matter for the courts, the creditors and the liquidators; consequently, I do not think that it would be right for Her Majesty's
    826
    Government to press the principal shareholders in any way to increase the contribution that is already on offer. That is a question for the others to whom I have referred.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to raise the situation in Kashmir with the Governments of India and Pakistan.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall continue to raise our concerns about Kashmir in our regular dialogue with the Governments of India and Pakistan.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: In being—as the Minister put it earlier—a friend to both India and Pakistan, are not the Government being all things to all people? That is hardly an honourable position in the face of such violations of human rights.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I indicated in my answers to an earlier series of questions, of course we make representations about the abuse of human rights whenever appropriate. First, terrorism constitutes such an abuse and must be put down by a legitimate Government. Secondly, we make it clear that the putting down of such abuse must be done by proper means, and we have criticised the conduct of the Indian Government in the past.

Maastricht Treaty (Danish Referendum)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the implications of the Danish referendum.
All 12 members of the European Community agreed and subsequently signed the treaty of Maastricht. The treaty amends the treaty of Rome, which can be changed only by unanimity. To come into effect, the Maastricht treaty needs to be ratified by all 12 member states. As the House knows, the Danish people voted against the treaty by a narrow majority yesterday. The Danish Government are now considering how to respond to that vote. One option is to resubmit the matter to a further referendum.
The Maastricht treaty began to build the kind of European Community that we wish to see. It introduced the concept of intergovernmental co-operation outside the treaty of Rome. It established the principle of subsidiarity rather than centralism. It established financial and other controls over the Commission.
The House has three times endorsed our policy. It did so before the final negotiation, and again after it. Following the general election, the House gave a Second Reading to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill by a large majority. The Government continue to believe that the deal that we secured at Maastricht is in the best interests of this country. In the expectation that Denmark will in due course be able to join them, our partners propose to complete the ratification procedures. We share that judgment, and intend to continue with the passage of the Bill.
It is clearly necessary, however, to consider further the legal and practical implications of the Danish referendum result before we can sensibly invite the House to proceed with the Bill's Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a business statement later this afternoon to change the business for this week. We shall, of course, consult widely with our European partners.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend a meeting of the Twelve in Oslo tomorrow. He will report to the House on his return.
The Maastricht treaty provided mechanisms for more broadly based development of the Community, and introduced procedures to reverse the trend towards centralism. These developments create a sound basis for co-operation, and open the way for the future enlargement of the Community. We hope that that enlargement will include the countries of the European Free Trade Association, and those of eastern and central Europe. The ratification and implementation of the treaty is in our national interest, and we shall continue during our presidency to work for the Community that we secured in that negotiation.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for responding to my request for a statement on the conditions arising from the result of the Danish referendum. I also welcome his agreement to postpone consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
828
May I ask the Prime Minister to make arrangements to present a thorough report to the House about the discussions and consultations on the full implications of the Danish decision before any further progress is made on the Bill? Does he not agree that such a report should be in written form rather than in the form of a ministerial statement, or a series of ministerial statements, which would not be adequate for the purpose of informing the House properly? Does he not also agree that the House should debate such a report before any further progress on the Bill is sought? Does the Prime Minister accept that such clarification is essential because it would not otherwise be possible to justify continued consideration of a Bill to ratify a treaty which the passage of events and the requirements of Community law might well render incapable of implementation?
Does the Prime Minister concur with the view that, unless and until there is an agreement in the Community that is capable of being implemented by the whole Community, it would be somewhat unreal to debate an agreement which, for the time being, has been cast into doubt by the votes of the Danish people?
Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever occurs in the immediate discussions on the Maastricht treaty, the enlargement of the European Community is still important, that the European monetary system will continue, that the democratic deficit will remain in existence, that the single market will be completed on 31 December of this year and that the social dimension is far from being adequate? In view of all that, does the Prime Minister share my view that the conditions that gave rise to the treaty persist and that the need to achieve more accountable decision making, to improve social protection and to promote the co-ordination of economic policies therefore remains?
The Prime Minister: I can agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the development of the Community, both in the short and long term. I am grateful for his support for the postponement of the Committee stage until the present situation is a little clearer.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to consider and report upon the Bill. We shall examine that. We shall be discussing the matter with our European colleagues, and I shall consider in what form a report might be laid before the House before we return to the Committee stage of the Bill. I would, though, suggest that the best way of considering the prospects for a debate would be through the usual channels. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about that matter.
Mr. John Biffen: May I respectfully suggest to my right hon. Friend that the result of the Danish referendum merits neither triumphalism nor recrimination? However, it does place upon the British Government a responsibility to respond with the initiatives that will be at their disposal during their period as President of the European Community. May I suggest that there is increasing evidence that, in the context both of the Danish decision and of the British ambition for a wider European Community, we need further institutional reform—above all, reform that will enhance the role of intergovernmental co-operation to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement—and, correspondingly, a

829
contraction of the centralising consequences of the Rome treaty and the European Single Act and of the overriding and pervasive political authority of the European Court? It is a challenge to the statesmanship of the British Government in their European character to see that those matters are addressed.
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, to curb centralism and to move towards intergovernmental co-operation were two of the objectives that we set for ourselves in the Maastricht negotiations. We achieved those aims and, subsequently, we achieved the support of the House for what we did in those negotiations.
At Maastricht I believe that Britain did help to turn Europe away from the direction of centralism. There is no doubt that that is the direction in which we must continue to move as we take over the presidency of the Community later this month. If we are to exercise the presidency in a way that delivers what is best for Europe, it is vital that we act with care and deliberation. The treaty has created the basis for co-operation in Europe. It has opened the way to the enlargement of Europe which for economic, social and political reasons is, I am sure, the right way for it to progress. We shall continue to work throughout our presidency for the kind of Europe that we have set out in these debates.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I greatly welcome—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ashdown: I greatly welcome the Prime Minister's statement. This is a decisive moment for Europe.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: No wonder we call him Captain Mainwaring.
Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters. I hope that the House will come to order and hear what all hon. Members have to say.
Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has given a clear lead to his party and has committed Britain to giving a clear lead to Europe during the presidency to ensure that Europe does not go into retreat. In both those matters, he will have the full support of this Bench.
Does the Prime Minister accept that the Danish "No" vote results from trying to create a Europe too much for politicians and bureaucrats and too little for its citizens? Does he accept that after the House confirms the Maastricht process, as I hope it will, the British people are entitled to have their say in a referendum and that the cause of Europe has nothing to fear from that process?
The Prime Minister: We are entirely concerned to ensure that we create a Europe that respects the individuality of nation countries and individual citizens within the Community. It was precisely to meet those objectives that we fought so hard for the subsidiarity clauses and for those parts of the treaty that provide for greater control over the Commission by elected Members of the European Parliament. There was the British proposal to ensure that there is a European ombudsman to deal with those problems, which also meets the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We share those
830
objectives and we think that they are achieved in the treaty that we have produced. That is why we shall continue to fight for the provisions of the treaty.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for getting the balance right and for making the obvious decision about the Committee because of the need for second thoughts, further thoughts and reconsideration of all the aspects. Can my right hon. Friend offer us the prospect of some firm statements by the Lisbon European summit at the end of June, which heralds the British presidency, so that we can have clear guidelines for the rest of the year on how the Maastricht treaty will prevail?
The Prime Minister: Upon the latter point, I prefer not to prejudge what might emerge at Lisbon. I hope that the way ahead for the Community after negotiation will be made clear by individual Governments in advance of the Lisbon summit, though no doubt these matters will be discussed there.
I inadvertently neglected to reply to the question of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about a referendum. I am not in favour of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy, and I do not propose to put one before the British people.
Mr. Peter Shore: Whatever else it was, the Danish referendum was a victory for democracy and a defeat for European bureaucracy and centralism. Will the Prime Minister look upon this event as a major opportunity, with Britain as President of the European Community, to attempt a substantial renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty with the objective of extending massively the area that falls under intergovernmental co-operation and reducing radically the area that comes under the supranational control of the European Community?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision for intergovernmental agreement is a new provision. It was obtained at British insistence and operates outside the treaty of Rome and outside the jurisdiction of the European Court. It was precisely because we wished to admit that fresh avenue of development within Europe that we fought for and obtained the provision in the agreement at Maastricht. There is always the possibility for developing that on future occasions. That is one of the fresh options for development of the Community that the Government find extremely attractive. However, I do not believe that a substantial renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty is a practical proposition at this time. We must wait and see what action the Danish Government take, but I still hope that the full provision of the Maastricht treaty will be carried forth into law.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is not it paradoxical that some of those in the House who are opposed to the Maastricht treaty are in favour of a referendum, which is an alien idea and incompatible with our representative system of democracy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if some other countries had followed the example he set in negotiating so skilfully the opt-out clause, we might not now be facing the present problems? Perhaps the way ahead lies in that direction. Should not we be reassured by the fact that my right hon. Friend is about

831
to assume the presidency in what undoubtedly will be an extremely difficult period? His presidency should be warmly welcomed.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We certainly will seek to use our presidency to try to bring Europe together and to try to solve the difficult problem that lies immediately ahead of us. As for the referendum, my right hon. Friend is characteristically generous in using the word "paradoxical".
Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Prime Minister use his presidency to ensure that no pressure is applied to the Danish people to reverse their democratic decision? Does he realise that he has nothing whatever to fear from the widest consultation with the citizens of the four component parts of the United Kingdom on a common system of decentralisation of powers and in regard to relationships with any external institution?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that the decision in Denmark is for the Danes and I see no external pressure being put on them, but it is a matter for the Danes and for their Government to decide. As for decentralisation, the right hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say a few moments ago. That represents all that I have to say on that matter today.
Mr. William Cash: In the light of my right hon. Friend's insistence on decentralisation in Europe, with which we all agree in principle, how is it that there is in the common provisions in title I of the treaty an insistence that we comply as an obligation with the single institutional framework which implies centralisation together with those provisions that deal with the union, which imply that we will be citizens of a union with duties imposed on us, and as a result of which we shall be moving into a centralised Europe?
The Prime Minister: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, who, I believe, is wrong in almost every particular. I do not agree only in principle with the question of decentralisation; I agree in practice with decentralisation, and that is why among the institutional arrangements that we have produced is the intergovernmental agreement which is covered by the areas that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the real importance of the Danish referendum is, first, that the Danes recognise that people have rights in how they should be governed and, secondly, that they have exercised those rights against the transfer of power to people who are not elected—commissioners and bankers? Far from ruining European co-operation, when history comes to be written the Danes will be seen to have opened the way for a different sort of Europe, harmonising by consent in intergovernmental co-operation that could extend over the whole of Europe a commonwealth of Europe rather than a federation.
Will the Prime Minister recognise that, if one lives in a democracy, the only common currency that matters is the common currency of popular consent for the laws under which we are governed? On that basis, the Government are
832
right to defer the legislation because, in my opinion, the Danes have struck a blow for the people of every country in Europe, not just their own.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a distinguished Member of the House for many years, that common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House. As for the sort of Europe to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—a decentralised Europe—I believe that the point that is central to the agreement secured at Maastricht is that Maastricht traced the pattern for the development of that sort of Europe. That is what lies behind the provisions for intergovernmental agreement rather than agreement only under the treaty of Rome, and that is what also lies behind a number of the other provisions, including subsidiarity. We have begun to build that sort of Europe.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the siren voices now suggesting that the timing of enlargement should be slowed because of our present reappraisal of the situation should be rejected? During his presidency, will he reassure the House that we shall move with all speed and not be delayed in any way in bringing the countries of central and eastern Europe into this alliance?
The Prime Minister: That would certainly be my intention. I believe that the more speedily we can move to enlargement, the healthier we shall find democracy across Europe and the more secure democracy will become in those eastern states that first become association members and then full members. It is, of course, a matter that will need to be agreed with all our Community partners, but the British position is quite clear: we favour enlargement, and we favour it sooner rather than later.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Looking forward to Edinburgh in December, may I ask the Prime Minister on what basis the Danes will attend? As one who, rightly or wrongly, voted for the Maastricht treaty, may I ask what the price of all this is in terms of European co-ordination on the environment, the rain forest, and the ozone layer? In terms of the environment, what do we have to pay for the Danish decision on Maastricht?
The Prime Minister: The Danes will, of course, continue as full members of the Community. They have been full members and valuable partners within the Community, and will continue to be so in the future, as they have been in the past and are at present. Co-operation on the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will also continue, precisely as at present. As for the future—the new areas covered by the Maastricht treaty—that will depend on how the matter eventually falls out, and what final decisions are taken by the Danish Government.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Prime Minister will face a rather more difficult but also a more hopeful and more flexible opportunity as President of the Council, will he tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Government have agreed to extend Mr. Delors' period in office by two and a half years—or is it totally untrue? If it is true, what would be the implications of such an extension?
Mr. Skinner: He would get a bigger pension.
The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, on the presidency of the Community, nobody said that it would be easy at any stage, and I doubt whether it will be now. None the less, there is a great deal to be done, and we shall try to move in the direction in which we believe Europe should go over the next six months. No decision has yet been taken on the presidency of the European Commission, and any reports to the contrary are unfounded and premature.
Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government's objectives will be when they carry out the urgent consultations with our European partners?
The Prime Minister: First, we need to examine all the details of the precise impact of the Danish electorate's rejection of the Maastricht treaty. Some parts of the treaty do not need to be carried into domestic legislation—for example, the part on intergovernmental agreement. We first need to examine precisely what does and does not require to be taken into domestic legislation. We shall then wish to discuss with our partners in Europe precisely what mechanisms exist to carry the treaty fully into operation, and to discuss with the Danes how they now see the future. Clearly, that is the first matter, and a great deal of consultation will be necessary.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to put on the record today the fact that in doing as it did the Danish nation was exercising its democratic right, and that the Danes deserve to be accepted for what they did in a democracy? Does he also welcome the fact that the people of Denmark have surfaced in defence of what they believe, and that their vote was a vote against Maastricht and has to be accepted as such?
The Prime Minister has confirmed at the Dispatch Box today that he is against centralism in Europe. Does he not believe that, as France is to have a referendum—far be it from me to advocate following France—the people of this country should have the same opportunity for a referendum? Having imposed on the people of Northern Ireland the so-called alien system of referendum, why will he not impose it on the rest of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I am pleased to follow such a prominent francophile as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Danes were operating within their constitution, with its provision for a referendum. Provision for a referendum has long been in the French constitution, too. If I recall accurately, one of the provisions of the French constitution is that if a matter is put to the people in a referendum the result can override the will of the French Parliament. That is not a constitutional arrangement that we have ever accepted in this country, nor do I believe that it would be generally acceptable to the House of Commons, or in the interests of good government in this country.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister was generous in responding to the Leader of the Opposition by offering a debate and, perhaps, a report. Will he now be as generous to the leaders of the national parties in Wales and in Scotland and invite them to talks as they supported the principle of the Maastricht treaty? We now have an opportunity to discuss the Prime
834
Minister's interpretation of subsidiarity and to consider the way in which membership of the Committee of the Regions should be organised.
The Prime Minister: Matters such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned are best aired on the Floor of the House in the time made available by the House. I told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that I would make available to the House the way forward as we saw it and what we saw as the implications of what has happened in the past few days. I also said that it was for the usual channels to consider whether there should be a debate. Personally, I am sympathetic to the request.
Sir Edward Heath: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that he is absolutely right to affirm as he has done his determination to support the Maastricht treaty which he and the Foreign Secretary were responsible for negotiating? The House gave it a majority of 244—an overwhelming majority—and rejected the hostile views which have been put forward again this afternoon. That is a sufficient basis for my right hon. Friend to continue his work.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion, as I understood it, by the Leader of the Opposition that we should go no further in Committee until we see where other countries are going is really not tenable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because if every country did that, nobody would see where anybody had got to. The basic point is for us to press ahead.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is also right in saying that this is a matter primarily for the Danish Government and the Danish people? Will he also recall that, in the history of the Community, we have had difficulties at times? One example is when President de Gaulle left the chair empty for several months and withdrew French participation in the Community. The French now, of course, have come back again. Will my right hon. Friend also recall that, when President de Gaulle vetoed British entry into the Community, the five discussed having a Community of six with us and rejecting France? We have had such problems before and the Community has not only survived them but overwhelmed them, and has become increasingly successful. That will continue on this occasion.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said. I see our role in the presidency as helping Denmark and not as condemning it in dealing with the difficulties that lie ahead. In my experience in the Community, one generally finds that all things are possible in due course.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the position of other countries. A number of other countries have made it clear that they intend to go ahead with ratification without, as far as can be seen from their preliminary statements, any delay. I agree with my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary and I believed that this was the right treaty when we negotiated it. The treaty itself has not changed, nor has my view of the treaty.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Prime Minister is clearly proud of the intergovernmental and subsidiarity provisions of the Maastricht treaty. Will he use the opportunity of the presidency to extend those excellent provisions to the very heart of the treaty—economic and

835
monetary union—so that we can reduce the power of the bank, of the Commission and of the court over economic and monetary matters?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a presidency matter as such, but a matter that would need to be dealt with in an intergovernmental conference. None is planned; such conferences tend to be planned some time in advance. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that, because of our concern that the House could take a decision on those matters at an appropriate time, and in the economic circumstances that were clear at that time, we secured a provision to opt into that arrangement at a later date, if the House of Commons felt it right to do so.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Would my right hon. Friend suggest to Monsieur Napoleon Delors—who today, rather than showing humility, seems to be showing his customary arrogance—that, henceforth, 2 June should be a public holiday throughout Europe, to be known as the day of the people, the day of democracy or, even better, the day of the nation state?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I would put it in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests to me—certainly not for this country. I cannot say what may happen in other countries, although I seem to believe that Hamlet said something like, "At least, I am sure it may be so in Denmark."
Ms. Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister will be aware that his statement will have done nothing to clear up the confusion that probably exists among thousands and millions of people in this country. Will he clarify the matter for me? As all 12 countries must agree to the treaty, and as one country has now agreed not to sign up to the treaty, are we not now faced with a completely new situation? What happens if France has a referendum and other countries have referendums and vote against? When do we decide that enough is enough and that we must start all over again?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be too impatient. The decision in the Danish referendum was taken yesterday. We need to reflect and consult upon that and determine what decisions the Danish Government propose to make. It is in the light of that consultation and consideration that we can decide the way forward. The hon. Lady is perfectly correct, however, in saying that if, at the end of all those considerations, Denmark still cannot ratify the treaty, amendments to the treaty of Rome as such cannot be made. That is undoubtedly the case.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, owing to the agreement between all the political leaders in this country, there was no proper discussion either of the details or of the principles of Maastricht at the last general election? Does he agree that, if we are to avoid having a referendum, there must be full, adequate and proper discussion in the House of all the details of the Maastricht treaty, otherwise we shall be left with a people who do not know what has
836
been signed up to and we shall have much the same misunderstanding as we have had about the Single European Act, which was so disgracefully guillotined?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, before my right hon. Friends and I went to Maastricht, there was a substantial debate in the House. There was a further debate on my return. It was a matter at issue at the general election and we have also had the Second Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend expresses his enthusiasm for detailed and proper discussion. I believe that we shall be able to accommodate him when we move to the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As the Prime Minister is obviously a great supporter of parliamentary government, I am sure that he will learn from the Danish example that the Danish people were fully informed about the pros and cons of the agreement. Will he therefore consider issuing to the people of Britain, as a matter of urgency, copies of what is proposed in the Maastricht treaty so that, during the re-examination process, they may make their views known to hon. Members, who can then inform him of what the British people want?
The Prime Minister: It is not for me to comment on the motives of millions of Danes who cast their votes in the referendum yesterday. They may well have had a whole series of differing motives for casting their votes as they did. The hon. Lady suggests that we advance the details of what is in the treaty to people in this country. I believe that we have one of the most extensive parliamentary and media reporting systems of any nation in Europe. We have also spent far more time debating the matter—both before and after the agreement in Maastricht—than any other European nation.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Had my right hon. Friend noted that among those who voted no in Denmark yesterday were those urged to do so both by those who thought that the Maastricht treaty would over-centralise Europe and by those who thought that it did not go far enough? On that basis, will my right hon. Friend not draw too many conclusions but instead press ahead, as he has said he will, to ensure, before the November leaders' meeting in Edinburgh, that the basis of the Maastricht treaty is the basis of agreement within the European Community? We can then ensure that we safeguard the principles that he negotiated last year—in particular, those that restrain the existing treaty of Rome, such as the Court of Auditors and increased powers of scrutiny of the European Parliament.
The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I had noticed the point that he drew to the attention of the House and it was largely for that reason that I indicated that it was not for me to comment on individual Danish motives. Clearly, many separate motives would have been at work in the decisions that individual Danes took.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In these days of democratic, open government, with lots of information, will the Prime Minister explain why every household in Denmark received more objective and partisan detail about the advantages and disadvantages of the treaty than was received from Her Majesty's Government by any

837
Member of the House? On his comments about intergovernmental co-operation, does he agree that such co-operation need not depend on a single currency or, bearing in mind the history and development of our eastern neighbours in Europe, on a single market.?
The Prime Minister: A single market is attractive to increase the flow of free trade and it is in the interests of the consumer in minimising the price levels that would otherwise apply. That issue has been discussed in this Parliament and throughout the European Community, largely, it must be said, at British instigation over recent years.
On the hon. Gentleman's initial point, I believe that a great deal of documentation has already been made available. I believe that people are well aware of the substantive issues.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have never been a critic of the Government's European policy, and I pay tribute to his achievements in modulating the Maastricht treaty? Nor do I share the extravagant fears of some of my colleagues about sovereignty. However, it must be said that the Maastricht treaty was never wanted by this Government, this House or this country. The Maastricht treaty makes the best of a bad job. There is no enthusiasm in the country, nor, I detect, even in the Government, for the treaty because the Government seem rightly more proud of their amendments than of the treaty. So well have the Government done that misgivings are developing in Germany over European monetary union and in France over the political implications of the treaty.
Therefore, I would recommend to my right hon. Friend, if I may, that he uses the presidency to promote in future, as he has promoted in the past, a dilution of the unrealistically federalistic aspects of the agreement and that he should bear in mind the motto that the Maastricht treaty was what back-burners were invented for.
The Prime Minister: If one went down the route that might inevitably follow what my hon. Friend has said and perhaps reopened an intergovernmental conference, I fear that we would go right back to the arguments about a centralist Europe that we spent so much time at Maastricht seeking to rebut. There is a great deal in the treaty that we have sought in this country for some years: the recognition of intergovernmental co-operation; subsidiarity; the reinforced rule of law; co-operation on justice and home affairs; improved foreign policy co-ordination without circumscribing this country's freedom in foreign policy; and stronger budget disciplines. All those are matters upon which the House has previously expressed a view and urged the Government to seek greater clarity in European policy to achieve it. We have achieved it in the treaty.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the Prime Minister and his colleagues will never again be able to say that a small nation of approximately 5 million people cannot possibly have a major influence on the development of the European Community, will the Prime Minister seriously take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), that the democratic nationalist parties elected to this House are willing to meet the Government to discuss the principles of subsidiarity and the extension of the European
838
Community? Given that we supported the Prime Minister in the Maastricht accord, surely he should consider that because the usual channels ignore us.
The Prime Minister: No one in the Government would ever suggest that the nation of which the hon. Lady is a representative has no influence in these isles or beyond. Indeed, it fills a large number of seats in my Cabinet at present, and will no doubt do so in future. The way for the hon. Lady and for the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) to make the points about which they are so concerned is in the series of debates and ample time that will be made available to debate those issues. Those representations can be made, and it is always open for other representations to be made direct to Ministers.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one vital British national interest—the proper completion of the single market by the end of this year? In all his negotiations in the weeks ahead, will he bear in mind that the enforcement provisions are badly needed if that policy is to succeed and we are to be able to achieve a proper and effective single market throughout Europe?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right. Some difficult decisions still have to be taken to ensure a free and fair single market across Europe by the end of this year. That is the objective that the Community has set itself, and it is one that I hope that it will be able to achieve during the British presidency.
Mr. Dennis Canavan:: Does the Prime Minister agree that the main lesson to be learnt from Denmark is that the sovereignty of the people is far superior to the phoney sovereignty claimed by any over-centralised institution, including this place? Does he also agree that the nations of Europe, including the people of Scotland, want the maximum self-determination consistent with maximum co-operation between all the nations of Europe, on as equal a basis as possible? Why not have a referendum on that?
The Prime Minister: On the question of a referendum, I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before that we are a parliamentary democracy and I believe that it serves our interests to operate as one. The extension of co-operation is one of the great themes set out in the Maastricht treaty, and so I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support on those matters in the Division Lobby later.
Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the derailment of Maastricht is not a problem; it is an opportunity? Does he further agree that British public opinion has never changed on Europe? Our people have always been in favour of a Europe-wide free trading area. They have never been in favour of the gradual and surreptitious building of a European state. Does he agree that, if we defer consideration of the Maastricht treaty for a considerable time, we shall strengthen his negotiating hand, and, with his presidency, perhaps build a Europe at ease with itself?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, the people of this country have consistently voted to make a success of our membership of the Community and in recent months we have repeatedly set out our vision of the development of the European Community. It is too

839
early to determine precisely how events will continue. A great deal of consultation and consideration will need to take place in this country and with our partners abroad.
Mr. Tony Banks: Why can we not have a referendum in this country? Is the Prime Minister uncertain of his position when arguing in a referendum? It is wrong to say that referendums are alien to this country. They are unusual, but not alien: we had a referendum in 1975. If it is right for other parliamentary democracies such as Denmark, France and Ireland to have a referendum, why cannot the British people have one?
The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's 1975 illustration, as I recall, the Conservative party voted against a referendum in 1975. It was introduced only to cover up divisions in the Cabinet of the day. No such divisions exist in my Cabinet.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that the no vote in Denmark is binding upon the Danish Government, and that if one country of the Community fails to ratify the Maastricht treaty before the end of this year the treaty collapses? If he is prepared to confirm those facts, will he give the House an assurance that we shall start all over again and renegotiate along the lines of the excellent suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher)?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is partly correct on the facts, but not wholly. He is certainly correct in saying that, if one country fails to ratify the treaty, the amendments to the treaty of Rome cannot be made; they can be made only by unanimity. He is not correct in saying that ratification has to be by the end of the year. That is not necessary.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: From the various answers given by the right hon. Gentleman, may we take it that it is the Government's intention, after a period of postponent and consultation, to return to the House with the same treaty and the same Bill and to try to implement it?
The Prime Minister: We propose to negotiate with our partners and others. On the basis of that negotiation, we will bring back the treaty to the House at Committee stage, yes.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who greatly admire what he has done and support his stand nevertheless feel that the biggest single impediment to achieving what he wishes to achieve is the continued presence of the present President of the Commission?
The Prime Minister: I note with interest what my hon. Friend has to say on the matter.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that all of us who believe strongly that this country has already lost enough sovereignty are very grateful to the people of Denmark for their decision yesterday? The Prime Minister constantly reiterates that there was a substantial majority in favour on Second Reading, but is he aware that that was on a whipped vote? Bearing in mind the comments of some of his hon. Friends today, is he aware that there is no basic enthusiasm for the treaty among the British people or among a large number of hon. Members, possibly a majority? Therefore, in view of what the Prime Minister says about democracy and why we should not have a referendum, the next time that the treaty comes before us, would it not be right for arrangements to be made on both sides of the House for a free vote?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the debates that we had on that matter prior to the general election and of the debates that we have had subsequently to it. Before I went to Maastricht, no one was in any doubt about the negotiating stance that I would take in Maastricht. It was placed before this House, it was debated in this House, and it was approved by this House. Similarly, when I returned from Maastricht, I laid the agreement before people. It was discussed, it was debated, and it was approved. It was the policy of the Government in the general election, and the British people were not whipped in the decision that they took on that occasion.

Business of the House
4.16 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for today and for the remainder of this week will now be as follows:
TODAY—Debate on the Earth summit in Rio on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I suggested that yesterday.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am glad, for once, to accommodate him.
Sir Peter Emery: Not too often.
Mr. Newton: I accept that as well.
THURSDAY 4 JUNE—Proceedings on the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the Mauritius Republic Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 5 JUNE—The same business I proposed when I made my statement last week—a debate entitled "Tenants' Rights, Opportunities and Participation" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I shall, of course, be making a statement tomorrow, in the normal way, on the business for next week.
Madam Speaker: Before I call hon. Members to ask questions on the business statement, I remind the House that it is a supplementary statement and that it deals only with the business for today and tomorrow. It would be totally out of order to ask other questions; I would not accept them.
Dr. John Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement and welcome his announcement of a debate later today on the Earth summit. May we have an assurance that, following the Prime Minister's return from Rio, we shall have a statement in the House on what transpired during that important conference in Brazil?
May I also express my disappointment that the Leader of the House has not taken the opportunity provided by the new time available to arrange a debate on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners? I understand the Government's need to bring the two Bills that will be discussed tomorrow to the Chamber at some time, but surely this was an excellent opportunity for the Government to provide time for a debate on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is riot heeding my warning—
Dr. Cunningham: But I am talking about tomorrow. I am asking the Leader of the House to think again about the business that he has announced for tomorrow, to take off the Bills that he has announced and instead hold a debate on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners. I am sure that that is in order, given the statement that has been made.
I reiterate the request made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister—that following the discussions at the Council of Ministers and the consultations in which the Government will obviously
842
be involved, the Prime Minister should lay on the Table of the House a written statement of the Government's conclusions; and that that statement be debated before consideration of the Maastricht treaty is undertaken.
Mr. Newton: To take those points in reverse order, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said in response to his right hon. Friend's request and his subsequent acknowledgement that, although this was a matter for further consideration, including by me, he was sympathetic to the proposal. I need hardly add that the Prime Minister's expressed sympathy for the proposal will be borne very much in mind by me.
As for the hon. Gentleman's intermediate point, I cannot add at this stage either to what I have just said in my statement or to what I said at business questions last week. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has said on a number of occasions that he hopes before too long to make a statement on the Government's proposals on the review of the framework of occupational pensions law. That will provide some opportunity for comment along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has sought.
Lastly, I would expect there to be a statement following the Prime Minister's return from Rio.
Mr. Michael Jopling: The first item under Orders of the Day is not to be moved, but I notice that on the motion for the Adjournment my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) will raise the matter of the future of the British banking industry within the European Community. Will my right hon. Friend explain how he will accommodate the two debates that appear to be before us today?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend is a former Chief Whip with considerable experience of these matters. I hope that I am right in saying that I expect that the Government Whip will shortly move the Adjournment of the House and the debate on Rio will take place on that motion until 10 pm—at which point the motion to allow further debate of the Maastricht Bill will not be moved and the Adjournment will again be moved so that the debate to which my right hon. Friend refers can take place.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Whatever view one takes of the issue, I am sure that the Government were right to defer debate on the Committee stage to a later date. That gives everyone a chance to take stock.
There is some prospect of the Foreign Secretary engaging in some quick negotiations with some of his counterparts in Europe, and he may be in a position to make a statement on Friday, so will the right hon. Gentleman encourage him in that and ensure that the facility to do so is provided?
Will the Leader of the House take to heart the fact that as the debate on Rio today takes the form of an Adjournment debate, so that the issue is unamendable and will not be voted on, we shall need an opportunity later for proper debate on a substantive motion which could be amended and voted on?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's last point should be considered once we know the outcome of the Rio summit and have heard the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will doubtless want to make on it.

843
One advantage of a debate taking place on a motion for the Adjournment is that it enables hon. Members to range widely; it is not excessively restrictive in terms of the negotiating position that the Government will need to adopt at Rio.
I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's second point—
Mr. Kirkwood: The Council of Ministers.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will seek to inform the House of the conclusions of the meeting at Oslo at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sir Peter Emery: So as to remain in order, the Leader of the House said that he would make his normal business statement on Thursday. I remind him of the Procedure Committee recommendations about the business statement. The House seemed to agree that, as far as possible, the Leader of the House should announce business for two weeks rather than one. If my right hon. Friend could move in that direction, he would become even more popular.
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a rather ingenious way round one of your earlier observations, Madam Speaker. My respect for my hon. Friend is such that even in those circumstances I am prepared at least to take note of what he has said.
Mr. George Mudie: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his response to the question about Maxwell pensioners? Is he aware that many thousands of Maxwell pensioners are facing severe financial and physical hardship? Is he further aware that those pensioners are getting ministerial views on the matter from the newspapers? Does he not think that it would be better for Ministers to make a statement tomorrow about the position of those pensioners?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Obviously the Government are aware of the concern about this matter.
Mr. Barry Porter: I welcome the statement about a debate on Mauritius, which occupies most of my waking thoughts. I hope that during the debate we shall deal with the problems that Mauritius may have about referendums. There is a distinct resemblance between the referendum in Denmark and a Mauritius referendum and it strikes me—it is only a thought—that the Danish Government might ignore the result of the referendum or have a replay in the hope of reversing the decision. I trust that the same thing would not happen in Mauritius.
Mr. Newton: Given that the purpose of the Mauritius Republic Bill is to provide for the consequential effects of Mauritius not only being independent but being a republic, I shall not attempt to use this occasion to tell the Government of the Mauritius Republic how to conduct its affairs; nor do I intend to seek to add to what the Prime Minister said about the decision in Denmark being a matter for the Danish Government and people.
Mr. John Hutton: Would the Leader of the House reconsider his business statement for today and tomorrow and find time for a discussion of early-day motion 82 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell)?
[That this House condemns the Government for pursuing policies that have led to an emerging crisis in National Health Service dentistry; notes the increasing difficulties experienced in many parts of the country in obtaining registration as National Health Service dental patients because of the growing number of dentists that have been driven to withdraw National Health dental services through a deliberate policy of underpricing the new dental contract; warns that further and rapid deterioration will take place if the Government fulfils its intention of cutting dental fees further; condemns the pursuit of a backdoor policy of privatisation of dentistry through underfunding and higher patient charges; and commends the General Dental Practitioners Association for drawing this serious situation to the nation's attention.]
Many dentists in my constituency—
Madam Speaker: Order. I regret to call the hon. Gentleman to order. I know that he is a new Member, and I am trying to be helpful. That is the type of business question to put to the Leader of the House on Thursdays during normal business questions. The hon. Gentleman has had a good try. I hope that he will attempt to catch my eye on another occasion.
Mr. David Shaw: In relation to the business that has been announced for tomorrow, does my right hon. Friend recall that 10 days ago, when we discussed the business for this week, the shadow Leader of the House said that he wanted a debate on Maxwell? I supported that call for a debate and said that in the previous Parliament the Opposition had not called for such a debate.
Madam Speaker: Order. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The hon. Gentleman must come to order and ask a question about the business today or tomorrow, and he must be precise.
Mr. Shaw: I am trying to clarify the situation. When I left the Chamber at the end of business questions last time, I was unfairly and incorrectly criticised by the shadow Leader of the House. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am prepared to hear the hon. Gentleman if he has a precise question to put to the Leader of the House about the business for today or tomorrow.
Mr. Shaw: I may have to raise the matter as a point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no points of order until we have finished questions. If the hon. Gentleman has a question to put to the Leader of the House, I am prepared to hear it.
Mr. Shaw: I would also support calls for a debate tomorrow, because this week is an appropriate week to have a debate on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners. This is getting serious. The number of Maxwell pensioners who face losing all or part of their pensions is increasing, as more information comes out week by week. We have also heard this week about the money controlled from Liechtenstein, which could be used to help these pensioners and should be brought back to the United

845
Kingdom. Parliament needs to address the issue. I urge the Leader of the House to change the business so that we can have a debate on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners.
Mr. Newton: Having touched on this matter twice now, I cannot add to what I said earlier except to make, as I think I did on the previous occasion that my hon. Friend raised this matter, the point that he was a member of the Select Committee and that another matter on my right hon. Friend's agenda is his reply to the Select Committee's proposals.
Mr. John McAllion: Given that yesterday's referendum highlighted the gap between Parliament and people in Denmark, that an even greater gap exists between the Scottish people and this Parliament, and that it will no longer be possible to raise that point in the debates in the Committee considering the Bill that would have implemented Maastricht, why does not the Leader of the House take the opportunity of the cancellation of the Bill to arrange a debate for tomorrow to deal with the demand in Scotland for a multi-option referendum? That would at least give the Prime Minister the opportunity to explain to the House and the people why he refuses to apply here at home the principle of subsidiarity which he preaches so piously across Europe.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to the extensive remarks of my right hon. Friend on the subject just a few moments ago.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: He said nothing.
Mr. Newton: That is what I am not adding to.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When we debate the Mauritius Republic Bill, will the Minister who answers be briefed on three specific issues? The first is the plight of those who lived in Diego Garcia and were turfed out and put in appalling circumstances in Mauritius so as to create the biggest Anglo-American base outside the continental United States. We have certain moral obligations to those people who were turned off their island and sent to Mauritius. Both the compensation that they were given and the diseases that they have incurred since arriving in Mauritius are shame-making. We have a moral responsibility, when Mauritius becomes a republic, for these Ilois people.
Secondly, will the Minister be briefed on what we are proposing to do to help Mauritius to look after its mangrove swamps, which are extremely important for fish breeding? Again, if we are serious about the outcome of Rio, we have an obligation, because we have great expertise both in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Department of the Environment.
Thirdly, we need clarification of the constitutional position between Mauritius and the former British Indian Ocean territories, particularly Aldabra atoll—a point that I raised at great length in the 1960s. It has been a success story, with an outstation of the Royal Society, but, nevertheless, its position has to be clarified if there is to be a change in the constitutional position of Mauritius.
Mr. Newton: I shall not attempt to answer all the hon. Gentleman's points, but he asked me the specific question whether I would draw these matters to the attention of the Minister speaking tomorrow. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be extremely pleased to have advance warning of what is to be raised in the debate and I shall ensure that
846
that warning is passed on. As to the second of the three points, it appears to me that fish breeding in mangrove swamps is a matter that, subject to the opinion of the occupant of the Chair, might be raised during the remainder of today's proceedings.
Mr. David Alton: I welcome today's debate on the Rio summit but will there be a statement during the debate on the Government's attitude towards the assassination of street children in Brazil? Bearing in mind that the number of killings has increased in the run-up to the summit, does the Leader of the House agree that this is an urgent matter which requires the intervention of the Prime Minister during his visit to Rio and a statement during today's debate?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will speak in the debate, is in his place and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a reference to the matter in response to a question during Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill is an important piece of proposed legislation. It would be a matter of great regret if tomorrow we were to allow all its stages to be completed on the nod. The business statement did not make clear exactly what arrangements are being made for amendments. Will the Leader of the House set out in some detail the procedure that will be adopted for the tabling of amendments to the Bill?
Mr. Newton: That is a matter for the Chair. I am sure that those who are responsible for considering whether manuscript amendments will be accepted will have heard the hon. Gentleman's implicit representations on the matter.
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill is an important piece of legislation. It concerns especially the position of Abbeyfield societies. As president of the Brainfield Abbeyfield Society, I feel strongly about the matter.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I share some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Will the Leader of the House confirm that we shall be dealing tomorrow with all stages of the Mauritius Republic Bill? If that is so, and given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding today's business statement, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at some stage during today's proceedings Members will have the right to table amendments to that Bill, and the other Bill that will be before us tomorrow?
Madam Speaker: I can be of assistance to the House. In the exceptional circumstances that we shall face tomorrow, I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if amendments are received by the Clerks at the Table before Second Reading. I know that an informal list of amendments will he placed in the Vote Office.
Dr. Godman: Is there a chance of a supplementary question, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Faulds.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the Leader of the House accept that there will be general pleasure that there will be an opportunity tomorrow to discuss the problems of endangered species? But does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that the dodos who have been on parade this afternoon do not represent either the majority view of the House of Commons or, indeed, the British people?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure precisely who the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I must say that I would never have dreamed of referring to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in that way.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the previous business questions I said that no Opposition Member had called for a Maxwell debate until those business questions, and had not done so before the general election. After I left the Chamber, the shadow Leader of the House deemed it necessary to accuse me of inaccuracy. I have since obtained from the Library a letter which confirms that I was correct and that no Opposition Member had called for a Maxwell debate in the previous Parliament. I would hope that the shadow Leader of the House would accept that I was correct on that occasion.
Dr. John Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman made a wild and inaccurate charge about the speeches, interviews and statements that were commonplace among Opposition Members about the plight of Maxwell pensioners. He is now narrowing the issue to what happened in the Chamber. He is trying to wriggle off the hook of the third-rate smear that he aimed at the Labour party, which I reject.
Mr. Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter. I have heard the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The matter is now finished with.

Business of the House

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 12 JUNE
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Andrew Robathan

  Mr. David Congdon

  Mr. Rod Richards

Earth Summit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay.]
4.39 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): Just over two and a half hours ago, the United Nations conference on the environment and development, the Earth summit, began in Rio de Janeiro. It is a unique event. Representatives from more than 160 nations are expected to attend. More than 100 of those delegations will be led by Heads of State or Government. It is the largest ever gathering of world leaders.
One of the first of those leaders to make the commitment to attend personally was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. His personal commitment reflects the leading role that the Government played in all phases of the complex preparations for the conference over the past three years.
In a moment, I shall set out in detail the goals towards which we have been working, the contribution that the United Kingdom has made to achieving those goals, and the ways in which we plan to take forward the process after the conference is over. I will first say a word about the context in which the conference takes place.
Almost exactly 20 years ago today, 113 nations met in Stockholm for the United Nations conference on the human environment. That was the first global discussion on the fate of our planet. Only one Prime Minister attended that meeting. The House will not underestimate the significance of the large number of Heads of Government attending the Earth summit. Their presence at a gathering of that kind concentrates minds. It focuses attention on the issues. It lifts their place on the agenda.
The Stockholm conference took place at the height of the cold war. The Soviet Union and the eastern bloc countries refused to attend. At that time the international agenda was dominated by the need to avert the threat of a global nuclear holocaust. Few then could see an end to that threat. Today it is much reduced, and we live in a saner and safer world.
The problems that we are addressing at the Earth summit are hardly less important for the future of mankind—and they are no less difficult. Winning the cold war took great vision to see that, despite the difficulties, peace was possible. It required a clear sense of the scale of the endeavour, so as not to have unrealistic expectations about the pace of progress. It called for hard realism about achievable goals so as not to be tempted into fallacious and potentially fatal policies by the allure of easy-sounding solutions.
Putting the planet on a course towards sustainable development will require those same qualities of vision, sense of scale, and realism. Those are the qualities that the Government are determined to bring to the task, which is why I do not share the pessimism and faint-heartedness of those who so glibly dismiss the Earth summit as a failure before it has even begun.
Our overriding objective at Rio is to begin a process. It will be an evolutionary process that will lead to action to deal with the problems of the environment and development that we must and shall overcome. We must begin that process in each of the areas that we are addressing at the summit.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his words so far, and do not dissent from them. I am also grateful to the Government for giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject today. Given that only three paragraphs of the Queen's Speech dealt with this topic, why have the Government waited until the very last moment before allowing a debate for which there has been great demand, but which the Government have resisted until now?
Mr. Howard: I am not sure that matter is for me. The normal procedure is to make a statement and, where appropriate, to allow a debate, after such a conference has taken place, so that progress can be reviewed and the Government can report. That is the course that the Government intended to follow. I am delighted that this opportunity has arisen in the course of a crowded calendar, because it enables us to discuss those matters at an early stage in the conference.
The first of the policy areas that we shall address at Rio will be the creation of new international legal institutions to deal with immediately urgent problems. The most important and difficult of those agreements is the framework convention on climate change. We have also been working towards a convention to protect the planet's great diversity of plant and animal species, and to adopt a declaration on the protection of forests—to provide the foundation for a future convention on that increasingly important issue.
Secondly, we shall set out to agree Agenda 21—a comprehensive framework of action by Governments, international and regional organisations, and other bodies. Thirdly, we seek an agreement on a statement of principles on environment and development—the Rio declaration. It will update and reinforce the 26 principles agreed at the Stockholm conference. Those principles have provided a firm foundation for the development of international law over the past 20 years. We are looking to the Rio declaration to provide an equally durable basis for the next two decades.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Minister for Overseas Development knows, I have entered into long correspondence on the biodiversity treaty or convention. Will the Secretary of State, at some convenient point in his speech, set out the reasons for the Government's hesitations and reluctance in signing that treaty? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the Malaysians and others say, "If you can't implement the biodiversity treaty, why should we do what you want in relation to our forests?" That is a crucial matter.
Mr. Howard: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall come to that important point. I am sure that he is the first to realise that concern for biodiversity does not necessarily equate with signing a particular document or agreement.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the conference be discussing the policy advanced by third-world countries, that the rich countries of the north should cut their consumption to ensure that the earth's resources are rationed so that our children and grandchildren can benefit from them?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman puts that point in his particular way, but it does not actually correspond with the way in which the matter is dealt with in any of the
850
documents, agreements, or declarations that are before the Earth summit. The summit will discuss matters of that kind, and ways in which development can take place in harmony with the environment. I hope that the summit will be able to reach agreement on those matters.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The Secretary of State says that concern for biodiversity does not necessarily equate with a willingness to sign the convention. Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that he and the Government played a part in the preparatory work on that convention? If he is not prepared to give an undertaking to sign it—I hope that he will, right now—what other instrument is available to him as a means of proving the concern that he expresses in general terms?
Mr. Howard: I shall deal in some detail with the biodiversity convention. I was making the point to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that one should not equate concern for biodiversity, which we clearly share, with a particular convention or agreement. The reason relates to the particular terms of the convention, with which I shall deal later in my speech.
I was talking about the principles and aims contained in the Rio declaration, which we hope will take forward and update, in an effective and constructive way, the principles that were agreed at Stockholm some 20 years ago. To support those aims, we also set out to develop more effective ways in which to help developing countries to finance their part in meeting global environmental challenges.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that, during the past 20 years, there has been an acceleration of the transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest on the planet? There has also been an acceleration in environmental destruction in third-world countries, largely because of the economic policies that have been imposed on those countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank.
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise that the world economic structure is fundamentally wrong, and that, until there is some justice in it, the destruction of the environment—especially in third-world countries—will not only continue, but worsen?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will not be astonished to learn that I do not agree with his analysis of what has happened in the past 20 years, or with the reasons that he has given for what has happened. The Governments of most of the countries to which he referred do not agree with his analysis either.
I do not know whether it is now the Labour party's view that the policies of the International Monetary Fund are not sensible or appropriate. Of course, we understand Labour's sensitivity in relation to the IMF, but I was under the impression that its policies enjoyed widespread support.
We intend to improve the flow of environmentally beneficial technologies to developing countries, and to strengthen the international institutional arrangements to support sustainable development. The Government have played a leading role in the efforts of the international community to achieve those goals, and I believe that we have every reason to take pride in that role.

851
As the House will know, on 9 May the United Nations intergovernmental negotiating committee adopted a convention on climate change. That followed 16 months of difficult and delicate negotiations. The convention will now be opened for signature during the United Nations Conference on environment and development, and the United Kingdom Government will sign it at Rio.
Those who have attacked the agreement on the ground that it is empty of content or lacking in specific commitment cannot have taken the trouble to read it with any care. It commits all the signatories to devising and reporting on the measures that they propose to take to combat climate change. It also specifically commits all the developed countries to giving a lead by taking measures aimed at returning emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Through the global environmental facility, it will provide a mechanism for financial support to meet the agreed incremental costs of projects in developing countries. We have undertaken to provide the GEF with new and additional resources for that purpose if others do likewise.
I believe that the outcome of the negotiations represents a significant first step in the global response to climate change, but it is only a first step; others will follow. It is a sensible precautionary response, delivered while we improve our scientific understanding of climate change. As our knowledge develops, it may become necessary to make further commitments to limit emissions: that is why one of the most important aspects of the convention is the strong process that it has established for review of the action being taken by parties to the convention, and of the need for further action.
The draft biodiversity convention contains many useful elements. It would pave the way for individual countries to set up a network of protected areas to safeguard habitats. It would assist countries—particularly those'in the tropics, where most important sites of biodiversity are located—to devise plans that meet their national circumstances. It would contribute to the global benefits of conserving as much biodiversity as possible. It would facilitate the sharing of benefits, in the form of potentially valuable biological resources, between the countries providing them and those that develop them.
But—yes, there is a but—the financial provisions of the draft convention have caused us a good deal of concern. They are drawn broadly, and, on the face of it—given an appropriate interpretation of them—it is possible that they would allow the conference of parties to the convention to determine the amount of contributions that would have to be made by other countries, including the United Kingdom. That is not yet settled. We continue to examine the text very closely, and we are exploring urgently ways in which we can safeguard our position and which would enable us to sign the convention without finding ourselves signing a blank cheque. I very much hope that we shall be able to sign, and we are making considerable efforts to achieve that objective.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Is the Secretary of State aware that the agrement on funding mechanisms for a consensus on payment within the biodiversity treaty is similar to agreements contained in other treaties—for instance, the Montreal protocol, to which we have already
852
agreed? Were not the steps taken in the biodiversity agreement intended to answer the points raised by the North countries? Is that not a totally spurious reason for rejecting the treaty, which has been advanced now purely to protect the interests of America, rather than honouring the principles contained in the treaty?
Mr. Howard: I assure the hon. Lady that our position on that question has nothing to do with America's position. The Americans have expressed a number of concerns about the biodiversity treaty which we do not share. They object to a number of clauses which we consider perfectly acceptable. Our position in relation to the treaty is far from identical to that of the United States.
I listened with great interest to the first part of the hon. Lady's question. That may indeed be a possible interpretation of the arrangements that the convention seeks to establish, and if, on examination, it turns out that it really is the better interpretation, we shall sign. We are looking very urgently for a way in which we can do so.
Mr. Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the Secretary of State is an able lawyer. I am not a lawyer, and I realise that intellectual property rights are a legal minefield. Let us take, however, two examples: the Madagascar periwinkle, and the liana plant from Cameroon. It is claimed—and there is some evidence to support the claim—that the liana is a possible antedote for AIDS, while the periwinkle is valued for its fruit.
What intellectual property rights, in the form of money, would accrue to native peoples? They produce the knowledge that has put western scientists on to the possibility that the examples that I have given may have important medicinal properties—knowledge that can be reproduced in the Amazon. Those who have been to Belem and the Goeldi institute, and have seen the work of Elaine Elizabetsky, know of the enormous potential for native peoples to obtain some of the benefits of medicinal plants which are of great benefit to western pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Howard: I hope that I can allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. We are content with the provisions in the convention for dealing with intellectual property rights. That is not our concern; it is the concern of the Americans. Our concerns are different. I have sought to explain them. I very much hope that we can overcome them.
Sir Peter Emery: When we are dealing with the American point, is it not correct to point out that American Congressional opinion, which was made evident when the Earth summit was debated at a meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, does not run in parallel with that of the Administration? Congress has been pressing the Administration to go much further and to sign the agreements arranged for the Earth summit, which at this moment it would appear the Administration are unwilling to do.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows full well that it is usually the case that Congressional opinion does not run in parallel with that of the Administration. I am not sure that I would follow my hon. Friend's speculation as to where the balance of Congressional opinion lies. I do not

853
think that there is unanimity in Congress on these matters, but it is clear that there is a difference of view between Congress and the Administration.
Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me again. We on this side of the House have been listening with great care to what he has been saying about the difficulties, as he sees them, in signing the biodiversity convention, but let me press him on that matter, so as to be sure of his position. Does he say that it is only and solely his concern about the cost commitment that causes the Government difficulty, and that if that were to be resolved to his satisfaction he could sign the agreement? Since the Secretary of State has presumably been very much involved in the drafting of the convention, and since he is well equipped to take a view of its legal meaning, what is his opinion on the matter?
Mr. Howard: I must disclaim any responsibility for the drafting of this document. It emerged during the negotiations in Nairobi. The discussions took place at official level. They were not decided on a vote. They were the outcome of a very protracted series of negotiations. Our officials, who were present at the negotiations, at every stage made clear our reservations in relation lo these particular clauses. As I suggested to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), we are looking very carefully at the text to see whether we can sign.
I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly. That is the primary obstacle to our signing. It is not the only one; there are one or two others. However, I very much hope that we shall be able to overcome all these obstacles and that we shall sign the convention.
The text of the statement of principles, the Rio declaration, is agreed. It contains useful principles for future action. It includes the precautionary principle. It stresses the need to avoid use of the environment as a disguised restriction on trade. It endorses the "polluter pays" principle and the importance of environmental information. We have made much progress in achieving a final form also for Agenda 21, covering some 40 different areas for action. Agreement is in sight on the institutional arrangements to take the Rio process forward after UNCED. I very much hope that we shall be able to reach agreement on that.
In addition to our part in the negotiations—which, as I have indicated, was a very prominent one—the United Kingdom has made a number of other significant contributions to the overall success of UNCED. We have brought forward our own target for reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide. We were the first country to make a specific commitment to make available new and additional resources, provided that others did likewise. We have assisted a number of developing countries with the costs of preparing their contributions to Rio. We have financed the organisation of a vigorous preparatory process for non-governmental bodies within the United Kingdom, and we made available $1 million to lead an international effort to prevent the collapse of the global forum of non-governmental organisations in Rio—and much else besides.
I have set out our contributions to the success of Rio in some detail so as to put into perspective the allegations that are frequently made about this Government's efforts on the environment, but there is another area where our
854
approach has frequently been misunderstood, or consciously misrepresented. That is the area of our financial contribution to sustainable development.
There will undoubtedly be a great deal of debate in Rio on financial issues. The measures needed to protect the environment and to achieve more appropriate patterns of development throughout the world will undoubtedly have substantial costs as well as benefits. The developing countries will need help in achieving the new patterns of sustainable development. The single most important assistance that they need is an improvement in the world trading system.
The recent breakthrough in the common agricultural policy reform opens the door to the possibility of completing the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade reform and of giving real meaning, real hope to the development of the economies of the south. In subsequent rounds there, increasing attention will need to be paid to the linkages between trade policy and the protection of the environment. I have no doubt that the discussions in Rio will emphasise that important message.
When the Indonesian Environment Minister came to see me a couple of weeks ago, he readily acknowledged the fact that trade was far more important than aid, not only in terms of the development needs of his country but in terms of the extent to which they were going to be able to improve their environment. For some of the poorest countries, their burden of debt drastically restricts their capacity to make the necessary economic reforms and to tackle environmental and developmental problems.
Britain has consistently taken a lead in action on debt. Since 1979, we have relieved developing countries of over £1 billion of old aid loans, and all new aid to the poorest countries is given on grant terms. In September 1990, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he proposed to the Paris Club a new set of Trinidad terms for the poorest countries, to relieve some or all of their outstanding debt. The international community must do more. We must build on that excellent start and offer further improvement to the Trinidad terms.
Mr. David Alton: I am sure that the Secretary of State is right to identify the crippling burden of debt as one of the major problems that faces undeveloped nations. Would he care to give figures to illustrate what the burden of that debt now is throughout the world and how countries are likely to be paying back very much more this year both to this country and to other developed nations than they are receiving in aid, such is the scale of the debt burden?
Mr. Howard: I suggested that the initiative that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very important first step and that more needs to be done. I believe that more will be done and that we shall be in the forefront of those efforts. As for the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is to wind up the debate will seek to provide him with the figures for which he has asked. However, I am sure that both he and I are at one in recognising that this is a continuing process. I hope that he welcomes the leading role that the United Kingdom Government have taken.
Mr. John Denham: I understand what has been said about the Trinidad terms, but according

855
to a recent parliamentary answer that I received, the projected official debt payments from the poorest countries to the United Kingdom, far from falling in the coming financial year, are expected to increase. Does not the Secretary of State agree that that is a disappointing position in which to be nearly two years after the Prime Minister launched the Trinidad terms?
Mr. Howard: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is much the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the details when he winds up the debate.
We have also increasingly emphasised environmental concerns in the aid that we give to developing countries. Assistance with population programmes, the protection of forests and reforestation, energy-saving programmes and other environmentally friendly developments feature increasingly strongly.
In the last two years, we have played a leading part in helping the World bank, the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Programme to fashion a new instrument, the global environmental facility, for assisting developing countries with the additional costs of environmental measures taken in those countries to protect the global environment. We have already committed significant resources to this facility and have made it clear that we shall be ready to commit new and additional resources to this fund at the appropriate stage to replenish it. This will enable it to provide resources to support the developing countries in undertaking their commitments under the climate change convention and for biodiversity projects.
In all these ways, we are making a positive and significant contribution to the financial discussions involved in the Rio summit.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: One of the hypocrisies of the Rio summit is that it has taken the destruction of one major rain forest to print all the bumf that has been circulated.
Mr. Howard: There is no doubt that there is an awful lot of bumf—anyone who has had anything to do with the preparations for the conference can hardly fail to agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, Rio
"is the start of a continuing process."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 704.]
The process set in train by the Earth summit will not end on 14 June. It will evolve and lead to further and yet more effective action to deal with the important global problems that we all face. No one should underestimate the importance of evolutionary processes of this sort or minimise their potential for good.
We have experience of the effects that can be achieved. Our White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance", has at its core the argument that environmental management is a continuing process. That White Paper established the mechanisms of green Ministers in every Department, integration of environmental policies across Government, collective target setting and progress chasing. We pursued that process in
856
our first anniversary report and I shall ensure that the second anniversary report builds on and develops the strengths of its predecessors.
This process has taken the United Kingdom to the forefront of the implementation of environmental management of national policies. Rio offers us the chance to begin the same incremental process on a world scale. It is essential that we succeed and I believe that that will be the real achievement of the Earth summit. The right instruments must be forged to ensure effective progress long after all the delegates have left and the conference halls are empty.
The key elements are good and timely science, constant monitoring of the state of the environment, realistic commitments to improvement, practical measures for tracking targets and relentless progress chasing. The Government have the political will to adopt that approach and to pursue it with vigour. We shall be using our substantial international influence to involve other countries in the same process. I intend to do my utmost to ensure that our children look back on the Earth summit in Rio as a critical turning point for the future well-being of our planet.
5.12 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: The Danish referendum on Maastricht has opened up for us a new debate on a future European agenda, for which we might all have good reason to be grateful. It has also provided us with a more immediate opportunity to debate an even more important topic. That topic is nothing short of the very future of our planet—its future as an ecosystem for all species and as a home for our own species and its future generations. Questions of war and peace, poverty and plenty and equity and survival are involved in the issues that will be discussed at the Earth summit in Rio.
The tragedy is that the summit, for which such high hopes were held, now seems destined to be a disappointing failure. It will be all the more disappointing because the early signs, even from the Government, were relatively encouraging. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the Prime Minister was one of the first to pledge his attendance at the Earth summit. He followed that up with a welcome speech at a conference organised by The Sunday Times on 8 July last year. It was a speech full of fine phrases and apparent commitments to an environmental agenda. The reality has turned out to be somewhat different. That early ardour has cooled. The air has been thick with warnings about not expecting too much, about how difficult it will all be and, above all, how much it will cost.
Like his immediate predecessor, our Prime Minister has hastened to show that he is aware of the environmental agenda. He has even made speeches that have put items on to that agenda. However, having done that, he has shown that he does not have the slightest idea what to do about environmental issues. The reason for that is not very difficult to find. One does not need to be a great political philosopher or environmental expert to detect that, like his predecessor, the Prime Minister is fine with the high-sounding phrase, but when he is confronted with the politics of intervening in the free market—that is what we are faced with—he backs off rapidly. There is nothing that equips those on the right in politics to intervene to protect the wider and longer-term interest that we call the environment.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that only a few years ago the Government introduced the Antarctic Minerals Bill—the paramount example of putting free enterprise ahead of the interests of the world environment —and that they were finally forced, unwillingly, to sign a moratorium on minerals exploration in the Antarctic? Should they not now announce, at least as a gesture of goodwill towards the summit, that they will introduce a Bill to cancel what is now the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989?
Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend has pointed to yet another instance. We are seeing an unfortunate repetition of it writ large with the Rio summit. The Government simply do not accept that anything other than market forces will resolve these issues. That was Mrs. Thatcher's view. I am encouraged by the Secretary of State's apparent open disagreement with his former leader on this issue. He is shaking his head and 1 regard that as at least some progress.
Mr. Howard: I had hoped that we could approach this issue on a relatively objective and non-partisan basis. Only yesterday I accused the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), in an entirely different context, of living in a fantasy world. He has confirmed that description far sooner than I had expected. Of course we accept that there are occasions when it is appropriate to intervene in the workings of the market to achieve environmental and other objectives. We accept that regulation has a part to play. We have always accepted that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's predecessor accepted that. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was responsible for putting through this place the Water Act 1989, which contains numerous regulatory provisions. It set up the National Rivers Authority, which is the most effective environmental watchdog we have. The hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills.
Mr. Gould: The Secretary of State hardly chose the happiest instance of his willingness to frustrate the workings of the market when he pointed to the privatisation of the water industry. I do not mean to patronise him, because I know that he is relatively new to this brief. Therefore, he may not recall the former Prime Minister's widely reported speech to the United Nations in which she shocked her audience, and certainly a wider audience, by insisting that market forces were the means by which the environment would be protected. She went further by saying, memorably, that the multinational corporations were the great instruments of environmental protection.
If I understand the Secretary of State correctly, [think that this is a remarkable instance, perhaps the first on record, of his disagreeing with his former leader. We have to say now that the language, if we are to believe it, is welcome, but we want to put him, his Department and the Government to the practical test. We want to see precisely what he will sign when he goes to Rio at the end of the week.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. Of course market forces contribute a tremendous amount to improving the environment, but there are occasions when one needs to intervene. I suppose that there is no better example than using market forces to encourage greater use of lead-free petrol—one intervenes but one does so by working with the grain and by using
858
market forces. It is a measure of how much the Labour party has to learn that it still does not understand such basic lessons.
Mr. Gould: I have no doubt that, given time, the Secretary of State will think of even more instances, but the truth is that what he says is not borne out by the Government's inability over a long period to translate rhetoric into action. The reason is that they fight shy of and stop short of the politics of intervention which come naturally to our side of the political argument— [Interruption.] Yes, and I say it proudly. We are in politics because we know that the community must intervene in the short-term, narrow, selfish and fragmented working of the marketplace if we are to protect the wider and longer-term interests which we have become accustomed to describing as the environment.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
Mr. Gould: I must make a little progress and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
The changed tone or the shift in the debate from the high expectations created by the Prime Minister in July last year is well caught by the opening words of a recent article by the Secretary of State in The House Magazine. It began with the assertion:
"Sustainable development is a fashionable new phrase."
I wonder whether he understands what a dismissive flavour there is in the words "fashionable", "new" and "phrase". They contain no recognition of the fact that the Rio summit itself is the direct consequence of the Brundtland report which established sustainable development, which was already common currency among environmentalists, as a fundamental principle for expressing concern about our environment.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman cared to read on, he would know that I explained what was meant by the phrase and how important it is.
Mr. Gould: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State wrote a substantial article thereafter, but I am entitled to point out that the opening sentence shows that he does not understand that sustainable development is not "fashionable", "new" or merely a "phrase", but that it is at the heart of environmental concern and of the great international efforts now being mounted to make protection real and sustainable.
The new atmosphere was intensified by the fact that in advance of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the junior Minister—the Minister for the Environment and Countryside—was sent to Rio as a sort of advance party. His function was clearly to damp down expectations. At the same time, behind the scenes, a major diplomatic effort had been made to use United States recalcitrance to scale down the aims of the Rio conference and to enable us to shelter behind its very much diminished objectives.
The new Secretary of State has concentrated not on persuading the Americans to recognise their responsibility but on making common cause with them in frustrating the world's environmental agenda. It has been a disreputable collusion which does this country no credit. It has involved us in a complex game plan to wreck the conference and to ensure that it achieves nothing other than hot air—the last thing that the planet now needs.

859
The first element was to shift Rio's agenda. It began as the summit that might help to change the direction of policies that now threaten the future quality of life for millions of people across the globe, but instead the Government and the Americans managed to shift the key question to merely whether George Bush would go. That suited the Government, who had become increasingly concerned about the determination of most of our European partners to do something about the looming environmental crisis.
Rio presented big problems. The Government would either have to change their policies wholesale or break ranks spectacularly with our European partners on an issue of great importance and interest to millions of voters. I believe that that is why the Secretary of State was so happy to seize on the United States position. He presented himself as the honest broker, telling the Europeans that they would have to tone down their expectations and policies if they were to expect the Americans to attend at all, without even having to mention in passing that he would like policies weakened in exactly that way.
Mrs. Gorman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it possible that President Bush was revising his view of the issue on the basis of scientific information being produced by agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in his own country, which has thrown grave doubts on the concept of global warming? On that basis, perhaps President Bush is taking a second look.
Mr. Gould: The hon. Lady will understand if I say that I have heard her express that view before. She claims scientific expertise in order to judge these matters, but I am entitled to say that she is in a tiny minority and she has ranged against her the world's leading experts and the United Nations panel on climatic change.
Mrs. Gorman rose—
Mr. Gould: The hon. Lady has been able to express her views on a number of occasions. She defies the huge preponderance of scientific evidence.
Mrs. Gorman: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a document has been issued at the Rio summit—signed by more than 200 of the world's leading scientists, including 54 Nobel prizewinners—which expresses exactly the view that I have attempted to express in the House?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Lady must accept that the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climatic change, which brought together the world's leading experts, reached the considered view that global warming is a problem which poses a real threat to the world environment. Furthermore, it acted on what I believe to be the only proper principle—the precautionary principle, with which I shall deal in a moment.
We should not have been surprised by the shift of emphasis by the Government. Our reactionary collusion with the United States is exactly matched by the Government's existing environmental policies at home. Why should we be surprised at what will happen in Rio when the Government have ridden roughshod over their commitment to environmental impact assessments in cases
860
such as Twyford down and Oxleas wood and when the promise to legislate for an environmental protection agency made no appearance in the Queen's Speech?
Our role in ensuring that the climatic change convention contains no binding commitments on targets is prefigured by the sorry saga of our role in the European Community's position on that issue. For years, the Secretary of State's predecessors dragged their feet, refusing to join our European partners in agreeing to freeze emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Belatedly, the Secretary of State's immediate predecessor dropped that refusal—which was very welcome—thereby conceding, incidentally, that the target was not impossible or impracticable on technical or financial grounds.
Typically, we demonstrated that what was missing from the equation was the political will to act. We made it clear that we would not act unless others did so. We then ensured that the United States and others would veto any agreement that contained binding commitments and targets. Notwithstanding the hon. Lady's testimony, the result was a tragedy for the world environment and a denial of the basic tenet of environmental concern—the precautionary principle—which dictates that it is the environment which must be given the benefit of any doubt.
I sometimes think that we do not understand the nature of environmental damage and degradation. It can kick forward as though on a ratchet: once it has happened it cannot easily be turned back. That is why the precautionary principle is essential and why it is such a tragedy that it looks like being ignored in Rio.
The picture is drawn even starker in terms of the biodiversity convention. In the speech on 8 July last year to which I referred, the Prime Minister said:
"We may be destroying plants that could help us to adapt to environmental change. We are losing species faster than we can catalogue them. It is as if the owner of a great gallery of pictures were to slash or destroy a Renoir or a Rembrandt every day. Such destruction betrays our future."
Those were fine words; it was a good speech. Now we know that once again those words mean nothing. The United States is jibbing at the cost and, true to form, we now hear the same message from British Ministers—that we, too, will have difficulty, on cost grounds, in signing the convention that we did so much to shape and draft.
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State concede that, although cost grounds were our primary problem, they were not the only one—that there were other difficulties as well. We face the prospect that, whatever happens in Rio, the Secretary of State has prepared a position from which he will be able to say that an objection remains to prevent us from signing.
Those are massive disappointments, but what will really count as the failure of Rio is the refusal of the developed world to change its pattern of consumption, and the consequent condemnation of billions of the world's poor to poverty, disease and death. Again, the only message that we get from Rio is about the refusal of the rich developed world to pay the Bill for change, with the excuse that the recession makes it impossible to afford that bill.
If we rely on the recession as an excuse, how are we to persuade desperately poor countries that the environment must be taken seriously? Their excuses carry rather more urgency, conviction and weight than does our recession. They suffer the crippling burden of debt, the adverse movements in the terms of trade and the pressing problems of poverty, malnutrition and disease.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman, in all honesty, suggest that he, or any Government, should give control over the amount of money to be raised to a majority of the nations which will contribute very little? I should like a direct answer to that question, because it embodies the main difficulty that many people have to solve.
Mr. Gould: It is wrong to assume that the people who suffer the consequences of the unequal pattern of consumption in the world economy are making no contribution. That is their contribution—and they look to us to make a commensurate contribution, which we are too mean to make. That is why we are unable to offer a moral lead, which we should be able to give. Furthermore, we are unable to offer the material help that we should contribute. If we say that the recession makes it impossible to tackle the problems affecting the environment, we must not be surprised if others follow that lead.
Again, the Government have set a sorry example.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has conspicuously failed to answer the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). If the convention required developed countries to make whatever contribution developing countries decided to be appropriate, would the hon. Gentleman sign it?
Mr. Gould: I began by referring to the Maastricht referendum, and I have not noticed any reluctance among Conservative Members to sign up for internationally agreed arrangements under which we must make huge payments, beyond our control, to some of the world's richest countries in the European Community. I am not saying that that is wrong, but one cannot justify it while jibbing at the much smaller contribution demanded of us by some of the poorest countries in the world.
On the question of being prepared to devote resources to help the poorer and developing world, the Government again set a poor example. The Prime Minister may say —as, astonishingly, he did—that on aid we are leading in terms of quality and quantity, but the facts are against him, and those facts are shameful.
Not only have we consistently failed to meet the United Nations target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of GNP, but the share has fallen from 0·51 per cent. in 1979 to 0·27 per cent. last year, which puts us shamefully near the bottom of the international league table. In 1990, the first time, we reached the point of taking more from the developing world in debt repayments than we returned in aid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham) said in an intervention, those debt repayments are set to rise, not to fall. The Government have failed the third world and, as a result, they have failed the environment.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: If my hon. Friend is about to leave the subjects of aid and poverty, may I ask him first to comment on the fact that poverty affects women disproportionately and that it has been clearly shown that resources put into women's hands are used better both for people and for the environment? Will my hon. Friend ask the Government what they intend to do to ensure that aid is used to increase the power and control of women, to the advantage of the environment?
Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which should be enshrined in the work of the Earth
862
summit in Rio. Many people agree that what has often gone wrong with our limited aid effort is that it has often been designed more for the benefit of construction companies in the developed world than to put economic power and opportunity into the hands of those whom we are trying to help.
As a consequence of that failure, we have failed the environment. We cannot expect poor countries to concern themselves with the longer-term future of their natural resources—their forests, rivers and soil—if we force them to exploit those resources commercially in the short term to meet their debt repayments. We must tackle the problem of the debt difficulty.
We need a proper aid programme; altruism is not enough. We need a sustained and comprehensive aid programme from the Government. The impulse to personal generosity, although always welcome, cannot do the job. We need new arrangements through the GATT, which could, as the Secretary of State rightly said, take advantage of the reform of the common agricultural policy. That would be small enough in itself, but it would be a welcome step. The test will be what happens in the GATT talks, which do not even address the problems of third-world trade. We must act to restore some semblance of fairness in world trade.
The Rio conference was planned with sober purpose, but with high hopes. Those hopes are now in the course of being dashed. W. H. Auden said:
"We must love one another or die."
Love is in short supply at Rio. Sadly, it is death which is now on the agenda.
5.37 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We are witnessing one of the most extraordinary events in modern history—a vast jamboree of people going down to Rio, apparently with no less an objective than to save the planet. I cannot think of a more exalted objective for a conference. Enormous numbers of people are going, as in some vast mediaeval crusade. We are all going to Rio apparently riddled with guilt because the industrialised west is consuming more than its fair share of the world's assets, or so we are told. Presumably we are to go through some form of absolution, which will consist mainly of us forking out more money for what is now called the south, but which used to be called the third world, or the poorer nations.
However, the conference is not really about conservation and science at all, but about politics and economics —that is the basis of what will be debated in Rio. More than once in this House I have taken the opportunity to point out that much of the muddled mish-mash of subjects to be dealt with during the conference is rooted in the most bogus and inaccurate kind of science. Today I am gratified to see that a group of more than 200 of the world's leading scientists—including, as I said earlier, 54 Nobel prize winners—have come out with a statement pouring scorn, if not doubt, on much of the science which is apparently undermining the demands being made at the conference.
Of course we are all against pollution. Of course we all want to clean up our act and to see that industry pays, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said so often, for the toxic or unpleasant material that it produces. Of course the question of population troubles all of us. However, I am more concerned today with the ridiculous business of global warming. I assure he-House that it is poppycock.

863
That is not my unscientific view; it is the view of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which observes the Earth's climate from outside Earth. It has monitored the climate for more than two decades, and it insists that there is no significant or appreciable increase in the temperature of the globe over that period.
It also points out that there is no evidence that holes in the ozone layer—which do not exist in any case, because there are merely thin and thick patches—are caused by any chemicals produced on Earth. It asserts that they are probably due to the reaction between the Earth's magnetic force and the activity of the sun, especially the irregular activity of sun spots, which are, of course, vast forces outside the control of us mere mortals and therefore largely ignored by those who seek controls on the industrial activities of man.
I want to put that argument into context. More than 75 per cent. of the globe's surface is water. Of the land mass, less than 15 per cent. is habitable. The rest is polar ice caps, deserts and mountain ranges. We have reduced the area occupied by humanity to a tiny part of the surface of the Earth. Of that area, less than 5 per cent. has industrial activity taking place on it which produces toxic or noxious substances. We must get the issue into proportion. Greenhouse gases consist largely—
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: Not at the moment.
Greenhouse gases consist almost entirely of water vapour, which is a product of the evaporation of the vast surfaces of water. Again, we can do nothing about that. We do not talk about water vapour as a greenhouse gas. We talk only about carbon dioxide, which represents less than 300 parts in I million of the Earth's atmosphere.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: I will not give way.
That tiny amount of gas is greatly welcomed by the plants of the Earth, for which it is a vital raw material in photosynthesis—the more they get of it, the better. Even if we are producing more—some scientists agree that we are —it will do nothing more than stimulate much of the vegetation which we all favour preserving. Although it is unpleasant to live next to a factory—
Ms. Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: I will not give way at this point.
Although it is unpleasant to live near a factory that gives out unpleasant gases, and although we should all like to see that cleaned up, there is no scientific basis for attacking the car industry and our industrial activities if one is condemning them because they give out carbon dioxide.
Dr. Bray: As the hon. Lady knows, I have given her credit in the past for some reading of the background material, which I have also tried to follow. However, she has got somewhat confused on a number of the details. Will she oblige the House by placing in the Library the
864
references to the scientific literature from which she draws her facts? By that I mean the original literature and not just the journalistic write-ups of that literature.
Mrs. Gorman: I shall be pleased to do so, and I will also give the hon. Gentleman the names of a number of scientific journals and of a number of leading scientists in this country who agree with much of what I am saying, but who are not given a hearing because they do not say what the promoters of these ideas want to hear. I will do my best to oblige the hon. Gentleman.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to be extremely cautious about signing something that will involve the west in vast expense to do with alleged global warming which is probably complete nonsense. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will eventually come round to acknowledging that. I do not want to dwell too long on the details, because I have explained them in the House before.
Biodiversity is another issue. Although the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) likes to pour scorn on my association with the subject, I point out that I have been involved in biology for the whole of my working life. I am a qualified scientific biologist and I have spent a great deal of my professional time involved in it.
I appreciate the need to do something to protect species that are endangered. I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend and to Opposition Members that, far from requiring the kind of regulation which my right hon. and learned Friend envisages as necessary to save the attractive features of life on Earth, the opposite is true.
Almost all the countries in which livestock, precious animals and plants are threatened and in which pollution is rife have a large measure of Government intervention. The pollution about which we complain largely comes from eastern Europe, where there was massive intervention. It is a product of state intervention; state intervention is not the solution.
Ethiopia, which faces serious problems, has had its economy and ecology destroyed by interventionist Governments such as Opposition Members would recommend. Ethiopia was once a net exporter of food to other parts of Africa and it had vast forests. When the land in Ethiopia was in the hands of private individuals and was private property, it was protected, preserved, looked after and sensibly used. It was not exploited and destroyed as it has been in recent years.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend in his trip down to Rio to consider biodiversity from the point of view of the marketplace. I suggest that, if one wants to protect something and if one wants it to be preserved and developed, one makes it private property. I support the countries in Africa such as Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia, all of which are pleading with the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species people to make a market in the by-products of endangered species such as elephants. Those countries believe that they can preserve those stocks if they have the money and if there is an incentive for their people to farm those stocks in the same way as they would cattle.
The principle of private ownership can be applied to the world's rain forests and to other desirable areas. Instead of flinging money at Governments with almost no constraint, we should target our aid on the development of private forests on the lines of our national parks—on places where people who have a vested interest can look at the plant material and find ways to turn it to the use of mankind, in

865
which case it will be preserved. It is almost always Governments who allow people to ravage the land and to slash down forests.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on the issue of vested interests and rain forests. The vested interests that operate at present in the Brazilian rain forests are so concerned about those forests that they do nothing but cut them down. What is the hon. Lady's response to that? Private industries, which in many instances have private armies, are involved. Some 18 million hectares of Brazil are owned by 1,000 families. The Government cannot exercise any restraint over the activities of those people. They are destroying not only the rain forests but the indigenous species which live in the rain forests. At the same time, they are destroying our climatic balance.
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady asks me specifically what we can do to stop these tragedies happening. The Governments of the countries in question have sold pieces of land to private exploiters. I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that, if we wish to be involved in preserving those areas, we should ensure that our money goes to buy them and turn them into protected private property. We could then ensure the benign management that we see in national parks all over the world. That is the way to do it.
Ms. Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: No, I am not allowing the hon. Lady to intervene again; she will have to sit down.
That brings me to the green movement. The greens are an extremely odd lot. They appear to hate mankind more than anything else. They seem to be agin humanity They seem to want to make human nature neater and tidier and less greedy than it actually is. They are involved in a zealous crusade of the kind that has cropped up over the centuries among different groups—usually among religious people.
I put it to the House that those people are harmful to the very organisms and systems that they wish to preserve. They seem to have the curious idea that man is big and strong and nature is weak, and that we must intervene to preserve nature. I wish to refute that view entirely. The mechanisms exist already and we in Britain have embraced those mechanisms—market forces—as a means of developing the precious assets that we wish to keep. That is the line that we should follow.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as he goes down to Rio, to bear in mind the object lessons that Britain has learnt: if a country wants to improve people's standard of living, to make life better and to preserve the good things that it has, it should not go in for socialist ideals, with people in green wellies with red linings telling it what to do. Instead, it should apply the capitalist principles that have contributed to the high standard of living that we in Britain enjoy. We should not give in to the idea that we in the west are guilty of creating difficulties for other parts of the world. Those countries have difficulties because they still have the remnants of the kind of socialist regime that the Opposition would claim as the solution to the problems.
5.51 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not going to be tempted to reply to all the details of the speech made by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). To say the least, hers is not the majority view on the subject. When she gets up on that high horse of hers, as she often does, she can perhaps best be described as a few trees short of a rain forest.
On the specific issue of climate change, of course there are always dissenting voices in a scientific community and of course there is no single cause of climate change. But as the Rio conference has made clear, the 300 members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change take a view different from that expressed by the hon. Lady. Of course people will dissent from the panel's view and argue against it, but the world's experts have been brought together to pronounce on the matter and, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, many of us in any event believe that the precautionary principle should govern our policies. I hope, therefore, that it will be not the hon. Lady's view but the much more substantial and considered view of those other experts that prevails when our Government and others debate the issues in Rio.
At last, the Government have been tripped into having a debate on the Rio Earth summit almost by accident and literally at the last moment—indeed, some moments after the opening of the Rio conference. Since the beginning of this Parliament— and, indeed, during the last Parliament —the Government have resisted this debate. The Secretary of State mentioned the subject in his speech on the Loyal Address. The Gracious Speech contained four lines on the environment and Hansard's report of the Secretary of State's speech contained three paragraphs on the subject.
My party has regularly pressed the Leader of the House for a debate on this subject at business questions and senior members of the three largest parties in the House have signed an early-day motion calling for a debate. Eventually, yesterday, my hon. Friends and I were forced to table a motion of no confidence in the Government when still we got no change. At the eleventh hour, today's debate has come by accident. I am glad that we have been given a debate but the Government's previous position was not acceptable and I gather that they are unusual among participating democratic Governments in deeming it sufficient to report back and debate the conference after the event. It is a bit late then. As the Secretary of State knows, the other place debated the matter a few days ago, and it would have been both politic and, I hope, beneficial had the Government taken the attitude that we, too, should have had a debate before the conference.
Having said that, I want to be as constructive as I hope others will be on the subject of what we should do. I share the view of the Secretary of State, expressed by Mr. Maurice Strong, that one could be pessimistic about such a conference but that one should not be. There was great pessimism before the 1972 Stockholm conference, but in the event it was a good conference, resulting in many recommendations. One of the clear consequences was the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme and many Governments round the world who set up environment departments—although, to be fair, our own predates the conference—and started taking the issues more seriously. Sustainable development became

867
part of the language of debate thereafter. We should not write the conference off. We must assume but hope that people will work to attain the best possible results.
In our no confidence motion, we have already highlighted what appear to be the three principal issues that the Secretary of State and his team and the Prime Minister will take to Rio for debate and on which the House, and certainly the Liberal Democrats, look for positive developments and conclusions. The first is finance: everything comes down to finance in the end. The Brandt Commission set the 0·7 per cent. of GNP as the development budget target some 22 years ago. Not only have we not reached that target; arguably the prospect of our doing so is receding. I shall not become involved in technicalities. The figure for Britain has been about 0·35 per cent. and now it has slipped a bit. In recent months, we may have been getting marginally nearer to it or further away—and I read what Baroness Chalker said, answering for the Government, in the other place—but that is a detail. The fact is that, many years after the target was set, we are way short of it and, when Baroness Chalker was asked yesterday what our target timetable was, she said —as the Government have said since 1979—that there is no timetable for achieving the 0·7 per cent. Unless we—one of the wealthiest countries in the world—are willing to make a commitment to reach, and reach soon, the target of contributing that relatively small proportion of our national wealth towards the redistribution of wealth in the world, we are not making a proper contribution to the Rio summit, to addressing the issues or to our partnership with countries far less well off than us.
The second issue is that, although we will sign the climate convention, that convention has been watered down and carries neither the degree of obligation nor the bite that it was originally intended to have and that it could have had. By removing both the commitment to specific targets—targets that the Government have now accepted for their national policy—and by saying that certain things will happen only when other people do the same, we are losing our ability to lead on the issue. Unfortunately, it is too late to do anything fundamental about it because, like the other convention, this convention is a take-it-or-leaveit document. That is to be regretted and the Government are to be criticised—indeed, condemned—for it.
The third issue, to which I shall return, is the wavering and havering about the biodiversity convention, which has already been the subject of exchanges.
We could all cite many examples to illustrate the nature of the global environmental crisis, and the House has debated some of the specifics quite often. I shall cite only two, which were most recently effectively presented on the front page of today's edition of The Independent. There are of course many examples and there is little dispute about some of the statistics. I should add that it is good that the press, radio and television are taking the issue seriously and covering it fully; I certainly do not criticise them for that. There is always a danger with a so-called jamboree, but it is better that the subject is covered and gets into people's living rooms than that it is not covered at all.
The first example relates to the increasing number of people in a world with limited resources. The world's population has increased in 20 years from 3·84 billion to 5·47 billion. So long as the population increases by that
868
dimension, the duty on us to look after our resources grows equally proportionately. Our natural resources cannot increase. Our space is the same and the amount of water, forests and land for plantation on which we depend does not increase.
Secondly, we are, at the same time, losing many of the co-habitants upon which we depend for our lives and livelihood as a human species. We often talk about rain forests. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) regularly reminds us, we all depend on them, and on all the contributors to our biodiversity, not simply in relation to our ethical position as their stewards, but also for the scientific advance of humanity. In 20 years we have increased the amount of rain forest which we lose per year from 100,000 sq kms to 170,000 sq kms—nearly doubling the amount that we lose per year. We are also fishing some of our fish stocks almost to extinction. We are therefore removing many of the components on which a mutually interdependent world depends.
The fundamental issue at Rio is perhaps more one of democracy than of anything else. In this country we argue about democracy, mandates and the entitlements of majorities. We forget that the rich west is a small minority. The world's majority comprises the third and fourth worlds of the poor east and south. The obligation on us is to transfer democratically that which, by good fortune, we have been given unequally and to share it more equitably and democratically around the world.
I accept the propositions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) to the Prime Minister yesterday. The test of our policies is whether we leave the world with more people in poverty or fewer. Although it is a matter of plants, creatures, forests, oceans, climate and atmosphere, we must also consider whether we can sustain the people who are on this planet.
If we increasingly drive more and more people into poverty and death through malnutrition, if people are driven to extend the deserts because of their need to find food to survive and if people chop down rain forests in order to grow something else, we are also damaging our common environment. The unequal distribution in the world means that the poor are driven to act in that way to survive. The Secretary of State understands that argument. That is the essence of the debate. A rich advanced country like Britain must therefore show leadership. We must show that we understand the problems and that we are willing to transfer resources so that the environment of us all is not diminished.
In this context, I repeat a point put to the Prime Minister yesterday by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Although it may be a side issue for the conference at Rio, how we treat human beings in countries like Brazil is no less important than how we consider what grows in Brazil and countries like it.
I hope that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and his colleagues will raise with the authorities in Brazil the need to ensure that the disgrace of abduction and killing of children, who are regarded as vermin in that society by certain people in positions of authority and responsibility, is dealt with. Those who are incapable of defending themselves must be treated justly. I hope that there will be a formal representation that justice should be done to ensure that the guilty people and the perpetrators

869
of that behaviour are dealt with. That should be a by-product of the fact that the heads of so many Governments are going to Rio in the next few days.
With regard to the financial discussions, I understand and welcome the Secretary of State's support for the global environmental facility. However, it has not been made expressly clear whether the Government intend that there should be a commitment as well to increase the amount of aid. Aid can be better targeted but it should also be increased absolutely to the 0·7 per cent. by a targeted deadline. We should also provide funds for the global environmental facility.
The Secretary of State is aware of the figures. As I understand it, the United Nations official estimate is that the developing countries require about $125 billion per year to achieve Agenda 21—
Sir Peter Emery: That is new money.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, indeed, new money. Current Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development aid is about $55 billion a year. That means that there needs to be $70 billion of new money. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is quite right. Unless that money comes not just from us, but from the west as a whole—the affluent parts of the world—it will not be possible to implement the commitments to which I believe that we are asked to agree in principle in Agenda 21 and in other documents at Rio.
There is no excuse for the sticking point about the implementation of Agenda 21 being the unwillingness to provide a proper contribution to that funding operation. That is a matter not of drafting but of understanding that if we are to achieve things there must be an additional commitment of an adequate sum. I hope that, when the Secretary of State returns, he will report a satisfactory conclusion.
I understand that aid moneys may need to be tied and that we should not simply hand out money wastefully. There must be monitoring of expenditure. However, there must first be a commitment to give the money. I do not believe that the British people would object to the principle that this country should contribute more and as a result of the conference.
With regard to the biodiversity convention, there is one point that I do not understand. I believe that there are two potential difficulties about that convention as perceived by the Government. The first relates to the administration of funding. The Government are worried that, if that is left to individual countries, it could be open to abuse. If that is so, we must try to deal with the problem but not resile from signing the convention. That is a practical matter in terms of implementation. It should not prevent the principle of support for the idea of biodiversity being sustained by an international and legal binding agreement.
The second difficulty is more technical and, again, I understand that it is troubling Ministers and is a reason for Ministers wavering. There is a clause in the convention which, if it is interpreted in one way, would probably force western biotechnology companies to pay more for third-world natural resources such as rare plants.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will say that that is not a problem. However, if it is a problem, I believe that the market force argument might work. If a country has a rare species of plant, for example, it is absolutely right that a company should pay the proper market price for it. I do
870
not understand how we can be wavering about this. We played a key part in the drafting—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State has not yet said that he is going to sign the convention. I would willingly give way for clarification. The convention has been in its final form since 9 May.
Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
Mr. Hughes: If I am wrong, I should be happy if the Secretary of State would correct me. I cannot understand how we were so instrumental in the drafting in which our civil servants did a good job—even the non-governmental organisations acknowledge that in general they did a good job—and yet we have delivered a document which Ministers now anticipate that they may have difficulty in signing.
Mr. Howard: I fear that it may take a considerable time to correct all the hon. Gentleman's misapprehensions, if he will forgive my saying so.
The negotiations for the treaty on the climate change convention were completed on 9 May and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right in saying that we played a prominent role in the preparations for that treaty. I discussed the text of the document in Washington, and said this afternoon that we should sign it in Rio.
There are difficulties with the biodiversity convention. Although it is true that we played a prominent role in the preparation of that document, the ultimate text emerged during discussions in Nairobi, and the officials who represented the United Kingdom at that gathering made plain throughout what were our reservations to that text. However, those reservations do not include the matter which is currently exercising the hon. Gentleman. I understand his argument about what should be paid for rare plants which are taken from the developing countries. That troubles other countries, including the United States, but we are content with the provisions affecting those matters in the convention.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful. That is helpful and must mean that the only thing left to trouble the Government is—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Money.
Mr. Hughes: I heard what the Secretary of State said in his speech. I hope that I am not tripping up the Government by quoting one Minister in the same Department against another, but the Minister of State who is in Rio said that the matter of "fundamental concern" was that arrangements on funding negotiated in Nairobi on biodiversity appeared to have departed from the formula agreed for funding the convention on climate change. He then said:
"We must assume that the meaning and the intention has changed."
The principal issue is whether we are willing to put in the funding. The Secretary of State has to bite that bullet and to say that we are.
Mr. Howard indicated assent.
Mr. Hughes: In that case, there is a practical way to deal with how one secures and processes the funding. If the document passes all drafting procedures and ends up practically on all fours with the other convention, which is apparently the case—that is the advice of those non-governmental organisations and others I have talked

871
to who have studied the documentation carefully—there is no good reason of principle why the Government should not sign it in Rio.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is also a political dimension. I am vice-chairman of an NGO, Wildlife Link, which represents 46 wildlife bodies in this country with a membership of between 4 and 5 million people, and have talked to its representatives today. They are clear that, if the Government do not sign the convention, they are unnecessarily setting the most appalling example.
Will the Secretary of State consider the worldwide political aspects of signing, as well as studying the fine print as a lawyer? I hope that he will understand the significance of the important issues of principle at stake and of the Government's position.
Mr. Howard: I agree. We want to sign, as I made clear in my speech, and I hope that we shall be able to do so. I recognise the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. Hopefully, we shall be able to sign. However, he must recognise that, when it comes to taking a final decision on whether to sign such a convention, one cannot do so as a matter of principle. One cannot sign conventions in principle; one has to put one's signature to a text. That is why it is part of the Government's responsibility to examine the text closely and to ensure that it does not lead to difficulties. I hope that we can overcome those difficulties, and we are striving to do so.
Mr. Hughes: I think that the Secretary of State and the Government may be playing a clever game, trying to look as if they are not going to sign and then doing so—like producing a rabbit out of a hat and saying, "Look what we have here; aren't we good girls and boys." I hope that that is not the case. The document got through the drafting of their expert civil servants, who thought that it was satisfactory, as I understand it.
Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
Mr. Hughes: The briefings seem to have changed slightly. The Secretary of State understands the significance. It is a take-it-or-leave-it document, presumably subject to the qualification of some derogation in statements. It is important that the document comes back signed, and I hope that it will do so.
The Government have clearly also said that the follow-up structure is also important. It is no good having a vague commitment to a mechanism for a review. As the Secretary of State knows, one of the possibilities is a sustainable development commission—a body charged with a permanent function, accountable to the Secretary General, the Security Council or the UN General Assembly. That will put a new brick in the UN structure. We should support it.
The Security Council deals with global military security. We need a similar body to deal with global environmental security. Let that be monitored worldwide. Let us support that proposed body and ensure that there is some sort of ombuds-bureau where people can make complaints if things are not being done properly so that there can be a proper follow up.
The Government have played a fairly skilful diplomatic role in the run-up to the summit, despite the fact that they
872
have rightly been criticised for watering down some of the commitments and conventions. When the Prime Minister goes to Camp David and on to Rio, and when the Secretary of State goes to Rio during the next few days, I hope that they will realise that we do not want a Government whose diplomatic skills are directed solely to agreeing to the lowest common denominator. We do not want a Government of the unprincipled consensus; we want one of principled leadership. It is time for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to claim that mantle and opportunity, to get away from any fudging and to stand firm. If they stand firm on some sound environmental principles, the citizens of the globe and the globe will benefit. If they fudge it, it is not merely the Government who will live to regret it.
6.16 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) emphasised the importance of principles, and I certainly do not dissent from that view, but I am afraid that he betrays his party's lack of experience of the realities of government. It is essential for Governments to study the practicalities before putting their signature and this nation's signature to any piece of paper.
I strongly welcome the Rio summit and congratulate the Government on the constructive part that they have played in the preparatory work for it. Clearly, it is necessary for the international community to work together to monitor the development of the world's ecology, to improve it where necessary, to maintain it and also, when necessary, to take remedial action. To that degree, surely no one could challenge or disagree with the idea of a summit.
Inescapable dangers are inevitable with such institutions—I am trying to avoid using the word "jamborees" —and with such events. There is a danger that expectations will be raised far too high. The obverse is that the failure to meet those expectations will result in disappointment and disillusion setting in, and that reaction will be unwelcome and unjustified.
There is a danger that some people will view the summit as a one-off event and that, once Rio is finished, they will think that all is done and nothing else need be set in train. As my right hon. Friend emphasised, Rio can only be the beginning of what will always be continual and steady work to ensure that our ecology is maintained in the way in which we, and future generations, would wish.
The Rio summit contains two other dangers. I do not point them out to be negative, but against a background of my support for the general thrust of the venture. The first is the danger of what is coming to be known as eco-terrorism—the deliberate hyping of global warming and all the other dangers, which is often done on the basis of little or no scientific knowledge. I certainly do not claim any special scientific knowledge, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
The second danger is that the political correctiveness that we have learnt to suspect and to challenge on the Conservative Benches is being accepted too glibly. That tendency is too often manifested by Opposition Members of all parties. That is one of the dangers.
The other danger is that posed by the attempt now being made to divert the Rio exchanges from the necessary and valid exercise of seeking to monitor the ecological

873
situation in the world, to a re-run of the perennial debate between the developed world and the underdeveloped and developing world. The entirely understandable and persistent attempts of the south, or whatever we choose to call it, to extract more and more resources from the north may be a legitimate objective from its point of view, but no good will come to the Rio effort if we allow one debate to be confused with the other.
On the ecological situation, we are wrong to fall for all the glib, doom-laden forebodings that have filled the media for many years. Such predictions are made by politicians from the Green party, who are, happily not in the House, and by many Opposition Members. The facts are not clear and they are debatable. We have had exchanges in the House about whether the Earth is warming. I shall not exchange the names of authorities across the Floor, because none of us is in a position to make a judgment on which authorities are right and which are wrong. The verdict is not proven.
That is also the case with fossil fuels. We are all anxious about the impact of fossil fuel use, but I believe that the fastest growth in the use of such fuels occurred in the generation from 1940 to 1970, when world temperatures fell. We have heard a great deal about how sulphur dioxide is an Earth-warming, greenhouse gas, but the latest research suggests that it acts as a smog mirror that reflects the Sun's rays away, thereby cooling the Earth.
Many examples cannot be accepted at their simple face value, but that is the great danger to which the Rio enterprise is vulnerable—a simple-minded, wholesale acceptance of the predictions of the doomsters, or the Jonathon Porritt syndrome, if I may call it that. One way to reduce pollution would be to give such doomsters less air time than they seem to get at present.
The Secretary of State referred to the interesting intervention at the Rio summit by 200 scientists, which includes 54 Nobel prize-winners. Those scientists said:
"We are worried, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, by the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development".
That statement, coming from such a source, should be treated with extreme seriousness by all Governments and all of us who take an interest in such matters.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am afraid that I have not heard all of my hon. Friend's speech, but I have great respect for his experience in these matters. If he had watched "News at Ten" last night, he would have seen that a special part of the programme was devoted to Kiribati. According to the story and the commentator in Kiribati, the sea level is rising because of global warming, and that coral archipelago and its most delightful people are likely to be flooded as it sinks beneath the sea in two or three decades. Is my hon. Friend concerned about that? Does he believe that that change is being caused by global warming?
Mr. Whitney: I did not see that programme, and I do not think, with all respect to my hon. Friend and the programmes he watches, that we can receive the basic scientific information that we need from such television programmes. Generally speaking, the rise in the sea level is accepted as being nothing like that threatened.
However, my hon. Friend has highlighted the need for a scientific audit of the Earth and its changes. It is surprising that such an audit does not exist in any
874
acceptable form. Of course, a number of studies of all types have been conducted but none of them can be accepted incontrovertibly. One of the summit's aims should be the establishment of funds to set up earth stations and other scientific facilities which are necessary to conduct such a scientific audit. We will then be able to conduct our discussions on a more adequate basis than last night's television programme.
I return to my anxiety that the thrust of the debate in Rio is shifting, from a sensible concern for ecology and the environment to a re-run of the debate about the north's responsibility for and its relationship with the south as a result of international aid. For 10 years of my life, I held various jobs with direct responsibility for and involvement in the operation of Britain's overseas aid programme. That experience strongly reinforced my political instinct that, although the transfer of Government aid can be effective —Britain's programme is one of the most effective in the world—it is far less significant than is usually accepted or believed by most politicians. As the Secretary of State said, trade and good trading conditions are far more important to any developing country than any amount of aid.
The other conclusion to which my experience led, quite unchallengably, was that, unless the political and social conditions are right in the developing countries, no amount of external aid, however well intentioned, will achieve the results that we wish. One can consider example after example, but I shall cite just two.
There is no earthly reason why Taiwan and Hong Kong should be anything like as economically successful as they are, given the natural resources that they enjoy. Although it is true that Taiwan benefited from an American aid programme in the 1950s and 1960s, its success has been based on the success of its people in achieving their own economic miracle. The same is true of Hong Kong.
In contrast, we should consider countries such as Ethiopia, which has been mentioned, and Tanzania. Tanzania has probably received more aid, per capita, than almost any other country on the planet, but, sadly, because of the political mistakes of successive regimes and its long flirtation with socialism, those massive aid resources have not brought anything like prosperity, to put it mildly, to its people. We must watch extremely carefully any suggestion that that can be achieved.
More credit should be given to what Britain achieves in our aid programme in terms of total flows. We always hear about the 0·7 per cent. of GDP, a target never remotely achieved by the Labour Government, incidentally. That is conveniently forgotten—
Mr. Mike Watson rose—
Mr. Whitney: What we have achieved is more than 1 per cent. of total flows. That shows an effective transfer of resources.
Miss Joan Lestor: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government's aid programme is exactly half the level left by the Labour Government in 1979? If he is proud of that, I am not. The recent proposal by the Dutch in Strasbourg—that countries should agree to try to reach the United Nations target by the year 2000 —was also opposed by the British Government.
Mr. Whitney: It is interesting that the hon. Lady did not challenge what I said: neither this Government nor the Labour Government ever came remotely near attaining the 0·7 per cent. target.
Mr. Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Whitney: No.
It is important to remember the facts when we talk about the transfer of resources, and we must always bear in mind the terrifying examples of Ethiopia and Tanzania. There are many more.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that a further 570 billion be transfered, with no apparent checks attached. That would be ludicrous. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), when pressed time and again by Conservative Members to say under what conditions a Labour Government, heaven forfend, would sign the agreement in question, characteristically refused to answer. He left us with the impression that a Labour Government would have signed a blank cheque.
That would not be sensible for this country or for the north in general; nor would it be sensible for countries which have yet to develop. Their development, as 50 years of experience have shown, can be achieved only when the political and social conditions in their countries are right.
There is general agreement about the need for progress on GATT. The transfer of resources issue must be disentangled from environmental issues, and in that disentanglement the achievement of an agreement on the Uruguay round is crucial.
Conservative Members and those on the right of politics have nothing to be ashamed of in this area. We bring clear thinking to it, in stark contrast to the thinking of the hon. Member for Dagenham, who sought to inject a note of party politics into what should not be a fiercely partisan debate. He suggested that right wingers have no regard for ecology, and implied that left wingers have. We, however, will never forget the impact of the socialist regimes of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe and the environmental monstrosities and horrors that they created.
This has been a fortuitous chance to debate Rio. I am confident that the Government will go there with their mind clear about the dangers to which I have referred. I only hope that the British public and media will clear their minds and not fall for cheap eco-terrorism or the attempt to confuse two singularly important but distinct issues—the problems of ecology and the problems of international development.
6.34 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) plays an active and valuable role in the House in relation to Latin American affairs, so I was a little surprised to hear him use the word jamboree. He knows as well as I do that the Brazilians and others have gone to enormous trouble to arrange this conference, which has been difficult to organise.
Mr. Whitney: When the hon. Gentleman reads the record he will find that I apologised in advance for using the word. I am happy to withdraw it; I applaud the summit.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not think it is a jamboree; it is an extremely important conference.
I wish to say a quiet and gentle word to the Secretary of State. As this is an all-party issue, would it not have been sensible to invite representatives of the Opposition to join the delegation—I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are going—along with representatives from the Liberal party and the nationalist parties? The British House of Commons should have been represented jointly on this issue. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will, I think, confirm that the Liberals, like the Opposition, were not invited to join the delegation.
Mr. Simon Hughes indicated assent.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not satisfactory that this should be seen as a partisan issue. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that a Labour Government would have included in the delegation to Rio a Conservative shadow Minister or two.
I should like to ask certain specific questions. Yesterday, prompted by a good question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), the Prime Minister said:
"We are working hard to make sure that we shall be in a position to sign the convention. As the hon. Lady knows, this country leads the world in scientific expertise on biodiversity, not least at Kew, and we play an important international role in attempts to achieve a convention that can be signed generally. A number of countries have financial concerns about the convention, and the particular concern, which I hope we shall be able to overcome, is that the financial articles imply an open-ended commitment to provide developing countries with additional finance, without the necessary corresponding commitments to conserving biodiversity. That is not of any interest to us or to them."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 702.]
This contrasts with a letter that I have received from Lady Chalker, dated 22 May, whom the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) represents in this place. I had written about the biodiversity convention on the first rumours that it might be in difficulty—particularly about the global environment facility. Lady Chalker replied:
"Britain has been a strong supporter of the Global Environment Facility from its outset. We are one of the largest contributors to the pilot phase, providing £40·3 million".
Incidentally, I have given the Minister's civil servants a copy of the letter to aid greater understanding of what I am getting at.
"We see the GEF as having a key role as the multilateral funding mechanism to finance the incremental costs (i.e., those not justified by the benefits to the country in which the activity takes place) of actions developing countries carry out to implement their obligations under the climate change and biological diversity conventions. We have accepted that the GEF will need to evolve to fulfil this role. We were pleased that the participants in the GEF agreed at the April meeting to create a new Participants Assembly which will oversee the GEF implementing agencies (the World Bank, the UN Environment Programme and the UN Development Programme). The Participants Assembly should ensure that there is a voice in the GEF for all the developing countries which are party to either the climate change or the biological diversity conventions, as well as giving due weight to the funding efforts made by developed countries."
That is not the language of a Government who would hesitate to sign the biological diversity treaty. What has happened in the meantime? The letter goes on:
"The assembly will approve work programmes containing the projects under consideration for funding by the GEF."

877
The letter goes on to deal with the April meeting, but I shall spare the House that detail. It concludes:
"Britain is ready, subject to other developed countries joining us, to replenish the GEF with new and additional financial resources to help developing countries implement their obligations under the climate change and biodiversity conventions. This is an issue which I expect to discuss further at the Earth Summit in Rio next month."
Why are the Government reluctant? My colleagues must have heard the Malaysians and others on the radio. What does one say to developing countries which say, "You want us to do something about protecting our rain forests for global reasons but you cannot even sign the biodiversity treaty that was conceived in the first place by Sir Crispin Tickell and other distinguished British civil servants and others"?
Secondly, I should like to return to the question that I asked earlier about intellectual property rights. The Secretary of State is a distinguished lawyer and he knows that patent law is difficult. I agree with him that trade is more important than aid and that his Indonesian colleague was surely right. The Madagascan rosy periwinkle has both vinblastine and vincristine. Those drugs cope with, if anything can, childhood leukaemia and they also cope with Hodgkin's disease. The Madagascans are desperately short of currency and surely they are entitled to some of the benefits that accrue to the great pharmaceutical companies in the west which have used their knowledge. The same reasoning applies in the tackling of AIDS with liana from Cameroon, another desperately poor country.
Only 1 per cent., if that, of plants have been examined for medicinal properties and the other 99 per cent. must have potential. Yet so many species are destroyed, unexamined. I do not get that information only from written scripts because Professor John Dale of the university of Edinburgh, the dean of the faculty of science, put me on to his biological sciences advisory committee and I was able to check with some of Britain's most distinguished botanists.
Thirdly, we are endangering the planet's capacity to sustain life and depleting our ecological capital. The term "possible ecocide" is not too much of an exaggeration. I understand that in 17 of the 42 low-income developing countries the daily calorie intake per capita was lower in 1986 than in 1965. The warnings in the Brandt and Brundtland reports have changed from amber to a red alert. What are my colleagues and 1 to say to people such as George Medley of the World Wide Fund for Nature who yesterday organised a petition on the green outside the House for the tree of life? Many of my colleagues signed it, but I did not because it contained certain matters relating to sustainable timber and sustainable supplies that I could not accept. We must not underestimate the force of public opinion that is represented by the WWF and others. We often talk about the will of the British people. The hon. Member for Wycombe ran down television programmes such as "Fragile Earth" and the programmes transmitted by BBC2 on Sunday evenings. Those programmes are quite perceptibly changing public attitudes.
The Secretary of State spoke about improving the flow of environmental technologies. What did he mean? I would be a little more convinced if I could see examples. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is taking notes. Perhaps in his winding-up speech he will give us some examples.
I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate on the ozone layer on 4 March. The report of the debate
878
starts in column 413 and it was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). When I raised the issue of crop protection and UVB, I was told that a good deal of research was being carried out in the agriculture departments of our universities. Only yesterday morning, Brian Jordan emphasised the importance of this work for crop protection. What will we be able to say to people in Rio about our work against UVB?
The Secretary of State spoke about the network of protected areas. What does that mean? An eco-system must be a certain size in order to be classed as such a system. At what point does destruction cause the cessation of that system? We forsake opportunities for economic growth so that problems caused largely by imprudence and profligacy in rich countries can somehow be ameliorated. I am sure that in Rio the Secretary of State will not try to lecture rain forest countries, as some Americans such as Senator Gore and others do.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke about global warming and said that there was not much in it. The hon. Member is at odds with the former right hon. Member for Finchley, Mrs. Thatcher. One of the things on which I agreed so strongly with the former Prime Minister was her concern for the Maldive islands. Do the Government accept that there will be a 2 to 5 deg C increase over 100 years and a sea level rise of 30 to 100 cm by 2090? What are the Government figures?
The Secretary of State spoke about sustainable development. The air that we breathe is not ours alone and the seas that wash our shores wash other shores as well. Many seas and oceans have become dirty communal ponds. The atmosphere has become a polluted universal sky. What action is to be taken? These are the terrible things that are happening. What is to be the attitude in Rio towards sustainable development? This is linked to the debt burden.
There was a moving broadcast on "The World This Weekend" by Jose Carlos Santana, a Brazilian representing a Sao Paulo newspaper, who said that Brazil had paid its original debt many times over. This attitude to debt is not easy. When I was in Brazil for the Altimeira rally of the Amerindians—for clarification, I should point out that I went of my own initiative, was beholden to nobody and can therefore make my own judgments—it was at the same time as Kit McMahon from the Midland bank.
One problem is the difficulty of one bank, or perhaps two, writing off debt, and others not doing so; this must be done on a western basis as a whole. What is the Secretary of State going to be able to say in Rio about the relinquishment of debt?
I return to a question that I raised earlier today about Mauritius, and to which I shall return tomorrow and bore the House infinitely until I get full answers about it. I had the good fortune to be asked by The Sunday Times to review a remarkable book by Sonny Ramphal and I make no apology for reading his description of the mangrove problem.
"Overfishing is not the only culprit. Fish stocks are being endangered by other human encroachment. A particularly pernicious trend is the destruction of mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass, among the world's most endangered ecosystems. These all shield the coasts and provide vital breeding grounds and habitats for fish. Nearly two-thirds of all fish caught in the world are hatched in mangrove and tidal areas. In my own part of the world, the Caribbean, some 90 per cent. of all commercial species of fish and shellfish depend

879
on mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass at critical stages in their life cycle. Yet everywhere, mangroves are in retreat, coral reefs are being degraded, and sea-grasses are threatened. Mangroves are cut for firewood or to make way for fish ponds, poisoned by pesticides from agricultural fields, or simply smothered by sediment from riverine and coastal development. As mangroves fail, coral reefs become more vulnerable to silt. Reefs are also victims of the construction of hotels or even of tourists themselves. From all this devastation they recover very slowly. Awareness of the serious damage being done to ocean habitats is growing. UNEP has an Oceans and Coastal Areas Program Activity Center in Nairobi whose work demonstrates in an outstanding way what can be done, but resources are scarce and other priorities overwhelm the fate of these often overlooked habitats."
How can we help these overlooked habitats?
I wish the Secretary of State well and I hope that he has a productive conference in Rio. However, I hope that he will keep at the top of his mind the fact that, while habitats are important, to preserve them one has to have the goodwill of the people who live in the rain forests. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) referred to the Brazilians. I recall, when I went for an interview with the then Brazilian Minister for the north, Caesar Fernando Mesquita, he said, "In your constituency, Mr. Dalyell, when anybody builds an airfield or an airstrip, you will know about it. I do not, so huge is this area. The sheer difficulty of implementing environmental policies in a country such as Brazil is an enormous task for me." Brazilians do not appreciate being lectured to by whomsoever comes from Europe or the United States. We must do this in tandem with the people and Governments of those countries. I, for one, look forward to the report that either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State will give to the House, I hope orally, on returning from Rio.
6.54 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose questions are always penetrating and whose careful, thoughtful approach to this issue is recognised in the House.
I warmly welcome the fact that we are having a debate on this issue, although I am sorry that the reason for having it is that the Maastricht treaty has been put in question. I pressed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for this debate, and I am surprised to get it so quickly and at such short notice. However, we must take advantage of the debate and make the best use of our parliamentary time.
I welcome UNCED, the Rio summit. It is a major step forward in world thinking that we can bring together in one place such a large group of experts, leaders, non-governmental organisations and affected and interested people to create what I hope is a new atmosphere in our debates on the future of the planet.
We have talked about raising and lowering expectations. I deplore the attitude of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who opened the debate for the Opposition. He suggested that the conference was a failure before it had begun and that orchestrated comment in some newspapers had written off the concept. I find that difficult to believe. Of course the negotiations will be hard —we are taking a new step. We should be seeking the support of the widest number of people, not just in our
880
country or in Europe, but, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, in the many affected countries. We can bring about the necessary changes only if we have the support of the local communities in the domestic populations as well as the international concept.
I have spent much of my parliamentary time preaching the gospel of an interdependent world. Whether we want one or not, we have a world that is interdependent in terms of its economy and environment. As we see the world contract—we often talk glibly about the global village— we realise that our neighbours are not just the people who live down the road or in the next village or in the immediate vicinity. Today, our neighbours live anywhere in the world because we know about everybody's problems and see them hour by hour and day by day. We cannot turn our backs on our neighbours in need.
We tried, through the "One World" programme in 1988, to foster the concept of an interdependent world. We had a major programme in this country and across Europe which just scratched the surface. In 1990, we followed it with the "One World" broadcasting programme, which I thought was extremely good but which lost out because it did not link with the other organisations that have an interest in carrying through such programmes to the grass roots.
Many have commented on the "One World" programmes this year on television and in other forums, which led up to the Rio summit and which tried to educate and inform many people. The project has involved schoolchildren and many others in local communities. Last Saturday, 30 May, people across Europe took part in activities on "One World" day. I am happy to say that my local authority had a programme in the square of Beeston. If people wanted a sense of what it was all about, they should have seen the way that the young children responded quite spontaneously. They did not know that there would be a show in the centre of the town square. It was organised through the United Nations, and a talented group of young people put on a show about the Earth summit and the consequences of the issues that we are discussing tonight. Before it was possible to say "Jack Robinson", a group of young people were holding up banners and participating in various activities. It was extremely impressive. I was glad that many older people were similarly involved. There is a linkage between what individuals can do in their local communities and what others can be pressed to do in a much wider context.
Much credit is due to those who will work long and hard in the pre-conference deliberations. Apart from the experts from the Overseas Development Administration, the Foreign Office and the Department of the Environment, there are many others from nongovernmental organisations and the World Wide Fund for Nature, for example, with expertise. I find it hard to accept that we should condemn the summit before it has even started, bearing in mind the massive amount of work that has gone into the pre-conference deliberations.
There are 27 chapters in Agenda 21 and they cover virtually every aspect of the environment. There is a chapter on combating poverty, which relates to one of the principal problems of improving the environment. I have already discussed education, training and public awareness. There is also the science of sustainable development. An issue that is close to my heart—I have seen much evidence of the problem—is combating desertification and drought and the role of regional organisations. Many

881
other issues raised in the debate concern the sky, the seas and all the other problems of the environment. A considerable amount of work has been done and there are blueprints within Agenda 21 that, I hope, will help us to introduce the necessary developments in future.
It would seem from the comments that have been made that there has not been top-down organisation. The approach has been to ascertain how we can help local communities and others to pursue solutions to meet their own needs and to protect their own local environments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is especially concerned about population, and I have no doubt that he will speak on that subject if he has the opportunity to do so.
The approach of Agenda 21 to population growth is to take up the education of women and the development of women within their communities. It has not confined itself to family planning, which has often been tried and which often has not worked.
I feel optimistic about the Rio summit. I give special credit to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was the first leader to say that he wanted to go to the summit. He spent much time in Harare, at the Commonwealth conference, persuading others to go. Commonwealth leaders and others have told me that my right hon. Friend's approach was one reason why they thought seriously about attending the summit and decided to go.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had an influence on President Bush. I understand the difficulties that America faces, although I do not necessarily agree with its approach to them. However, we are all politicians and I think that everybody recognises that President Bush is in a difficult electoral year. We have heard his opponents saying on television that not a cent should leave American shores in the form of aid and that all available funds should be put back into American society. It is clear that President Bush has a difficulty, and that should be appreciated. It is significant that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has ensured that the Americans will attend because the conference would have been much weaker without their presence. That must go to my right hon. Friend's credit. I am delighted that he is going to Camp David, and I hope that something even more positive will emerge from the discussions that will take place there.
In spite of everything that occupies the mind of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—my gosh, he has enough on his plate at the moment—I hope that he will go to Rio on the basis that the general election is over and that there is a long period during which we can plan. He is in a position to raise the sights and, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, give a lead to the concept of the Earth summit. It should not be allowed to descend into a haggle between north and south. There should not be an argument about whatever percentage of gross national product we are setting aside for aid at current levels. I would qualify that, however, by saying that I have always argued for a larger aid programme; but that is not what the Rio summit is about. As others have said, it is the beginning of an essential process.
I find it hard to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) when he talks about eco-terrorism. It is a difficult concept. Anyone who has travelled widely in the third world will have been appalled by the changes that have taken place in the countries within it. In west Africa, in the Gambia, society has begun
882
to die during the time that 1 have been a Member of this place. The trees are beginning to die because they cannot reach the water levels. During my political life it was possible to drive from Banjul to Dakar in Senegal and to be under trees throughout. Anyone who undertakes that journey now will be lucky to find a tree. The land has become scrub, and in five years' time it will be desert. The same is true of Mauritania. There has been significant physical change.
That will be appreciated by those who have had the good fortune—at the same time, shocking experience—to see the picture of Africa from space over the past decade. If it is presented quickly quarter by quarter on a screen, it is clear that as each year passes the green areas contract. That is a significant example. We know that desertification is linked with drought, water and weather and weather patterns. I do not accept the concept of eco-terrorism. Instead, there should be eco-practicality and understanding.
The Rio summit presents us with a welcome change of attitude. The World bank is often criticised, but its operational directive on poverty reduction, which was published only this month, is an example of changing attitudes. Many of us have taken part in writing a letter to the new president of the World bank, Lewis Preston. I think that more than half the Members of this place signed the letter, along with about 1,000 parliamentarians from about 30 countries throughout the world. We state in the letter that we want the World bank to change its attitudes, to recognise that there is poverty, and to accept the need for the alleviation of poverty. We want the World bank to consider relevant loan technologies. Members of all parties here and parliamentarians throughout the world can play a part in influencing positive changes of attitude.
There must be a sense of urgency at Rio and an understanding of a realistic time scale within which practical and workable measures can be introduced and implemented. That might present something of a conundrum, but there must be a sense of urgency. These matters cannot be left to future generations. We must not say, "Let us measure the problems for a little longer to see whether they become worse before we take any action." There is enough scientific evidence to show that the problems exist and are serious.
As I have said, the time scale must be realistic. It is no good saying, "If we do not increase our aid programme this year or next year, there will be disaster." We must transfer resources within a realistic time scale so that the measures that will stem from Agenda 21 and from the various conventions can be implemented and given time to work. If we are to have an intelligent pattern for the future, we cannot rely on the international conventions alone. I very much hope, of course, that we shall find it possible to sign the convention on biodiversity on which we have done so much work.
At the same time, we must take a critical view of United Nations operations. It is interesting that even on defence the United States is suggesting that the United Nations should have a greater role in terms of world policing and world peace. There is a tremendous new role for the United Nations in many areas. Those of us who are involved in Angola, Cambodia, or Namibia know of the important role that the United Nations plays in those countries. However, while everyone is prepared to say that the United Nations is the only organisation that can play that role, they are reluctant to provide the funds to meet

883
the cost. That is probably the subject of another debate. A system is needed that will provide the United Nations with resources to undertake the functions that we ask it to perform.
I mentioned the change in attitude among institutions such as the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. We must also examine critically regional policies. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that it is not a question of the north and south and of the developed countries dictating and even financing some of the changes necessary in other parts of the world. We should be encouraging less-developed countries to devise the kind of regional structure that we have in the European Community. Africa desperately needs a regional infrastructure and a way of developing its economy and environmental measures. That applies equally to Latin America and South-East Asia.
We need to consider also our bilateral aid programmes and the way in which we work with non-governmental organisations. Environmental NGOs have a much better public relations system, so they tend to enjoy more public support. The Earth summit is about the environment and development—the two go hand in hand. We need to ensure that the work of the NGOs is more closely integrated.
We must review also our domestic attitudes, in our own homes. A recent weekly television series showed six families in different countries—including London, Norway, America and Japan—trying to lead an environmentally friendly life. It was fascinating to see families suddenly having to think about matters that they had not considered before, in making an environmental contribution without implementing any significant change in their lifestyles.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow felt unable to sign a certain pledge. He obviously took it very seriously. I am not sure of the wording of the pledge or what put him off. Perhaps he will explain. About nine months ago, I signed a pledge that I hope is hanging on that tree in the global forum in Rio, along with many others. It not only pledged me and my family to do something about improving the environment but asked Governments and others to take action.
Mr. Dalyell: I would not sign the pledge because it said, "I will never buy anything made of tropical hardwoods." If we say that in Brazil, the Brazilians will argue that they must repay their debts to the west many times over, and that it is a question of selectivity. I am a trustee of the Scottish hardwood charter that was devised by David Bellamy, David Norman, and Jeremy Bristoe, among others. They are pioneering a way of ensuring genuinely sustainable hardwood imports.
Mr. Lester: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. If such a pledge had been put before me, I would not have signed it either. The pledge that I signed was rather more straitghtforward in terms of the commitment that I made and its request to other Governments to take action.
There lies ahead a massive task of communication at all levels. The most important of all, which Rio needs to reflect, is the task of communicating with the individual. Governments may sign conventions and make statements,
884
but without public commitment they will not necessarily be honoured. I hope that as a result of this debate people in this country and elsewhere will be aware of the concern for, and commitment to, environmental issues that affect us all—which will be advanced at the Rio summit.
7.14 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), whose contribution, as ever, was most thoughtful. It is refreshing and reassuring to hear views such as those he espoused coming from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman's views contrast starkly with the cynicism of the speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), and the banality of the speech by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
The hon. Member for Broxtowe made a good point about the photosequence of Africa. It is not, as the hon. Member for Wycombe suggested, a question of eco-terrorism or of television companies confusing witless morons who watch nature programmes; the evidence of our own eyes tells us that something is badly wrong.
When the hon. Member for Wycombe sneered at the green movement, that was unworthy even of him and his normal standards. I would listen more attentively to the green movement and those who are sympathetic to environmental problems than to the burblings of a cynical old politician.
Many issues could be raised in the context of the Rio summit, and several have already been mentioned. In addressing one point, I should not want anyone to conclude that I am not seized of all the other areas of concern.
In any report on biodiversity, the fate of the great whales and of the small cetaceans—dolphins and porpoises—must be a matter of enormous significance. I draw the attention of the House to two early-day motions signed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Since 1986, when the worldwide ban on commercial whaling was put in place, Japan alone has slaughtered 7,000 whales and more than 100,000 dolphins and porpoises. The Japanese Government's record is abysmal. Their attitude to animal resources is venal. Japan stands condemned as a nation before all civilised people for the way that it treats animal resources—and it does not stop at whales. There is a saying that if it has wings and is other than an aircraft, the Japanese will eat it; and that if it has legs and is other than a chair, they will eat it. That is not a racist comment against the Japanese, but indicates that they have no respect for the welfare of other living creatures that share our planet and no concern for those of us who urge that the Japanese show more regard for the opinions of others.
The Japanese managed to get round the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling by claiming that they were indulging in scientific whaling. That consisted of sending whaling vessels to the Antarctic to slaughter minke whales—after experimenting to see how many were there. I put it to the Japanese that there were always fewer minke whales after they had started killing them. The meat from those whales ended up on plates in Tokyo restaurants.
That was abysmal because the good name of science was being perverted by the Japanese to get round the IWC ban. Minke whales now account for the largest stock of the

885
big whales left in our seas. They number about 750,000. No one knows the correct figure, because whales do not stand around in neat groups waiting for scientists—Japanese or otherwise—to count them. However, we know that there are many fewer whales now than after the mass slaughtering that went on for many decades. The Japanese do not husband the whale. The hon. Member for Billericay spoke of husbanding resources. No one husbands the whales. They are not framed, in the sense of breeding followed by controlled slaughter. Whales, however, belong to every one of us: they belong to every hon. Member, indeed everyone in the country, just as much as they belong to people in Japan, Iceland and Greenland, although we do not do any whaling.
This strikes me as a suitable occasion on which to draw Ministers' attention to the meeting of the International Whaling Commission that is due to take place in Glasgow towards the end of this month. The British Government have taken a good stand so far, and while they continue to do so they will have the wholehearted support of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a good point: when issues unite hon. Members on both sides of the House, we should be able to attend international conventions and speak as a united Parliament, so that no one misunderstands the breadth and depth of feeling—indeed, in some instances, the unanimity of feeling—on some of these great issues. I am sorry that the Government did not seek such an opportunity earlier, but the Glasgow meeting will provide another chance.
At that meeting, a report will be presented to delegates including British delegates—that will undoubtedly lead to a demand for the return of quotas. A revised management procedure will be discussed. I put it to the Government that in no circumstances must that revised procedure be used by countries such as Japan, Iceland and Norway as an excuse to resume any form of commercial whaling.
Human beings have killed far too many of these magnificent, gentle and intelligent mammals. There are only 14,000 blue whales left in our seas. The blue whale is the largest mammal that has ever lived on the planet: it is far larger than the largest dinosaur. The sperm whale has a larger brain than any other mammal on earth. The humpback whale creates music of beauty and mystery. All that should make us want to study the mystery of these creatures in great depth, rather than to kill them and stick them on a plate with the Japanese equivalent of chips. That, surely, is a disrespectful and obscene way in which to treat such wonderful creatures.
Whether we are discussing large whales or small ones, the issue is not management but cruelty. Large whales are killed with a weapon called a Penthrite harpoon—an explosive harpoon whose head has two or four barbs and to which is screwed an explosive grenade. As the harpoon enters the whale's body, the grenade explodes as a result of the delayed-action fuse. Can anyone imagine a humane way of killing any creature with an explosive grenade?
In 1986, a Norwegian whaling inspector provided a detailed account of a whaling trip. On that trip, the 16 whales that were killed took a recorded average of 10 minutes to die. One whale was hit by an explosive Penthrite harpoon, followed by a non-explosive harpoon whose use was banned by the IWC in 1982. Eventually, the whale was killed after the use of a further eight bullets.
886
That whale took 30 minutes to die. Although seven of the others died in less than a minute, the rest took between 11 and 30 minutes to do so. Eight received multiple injuries, and 14 of the 16 that were killed were pregnant at the time. I do not consider that to be husbanding the world's whale resources; I consider it to be utter barbarism —behaviour which should have no place in our so-called civilised world.
This is not a question of a revised management procedure. The issue is not whether enough whales are left for us to go out and kill a few more; it is all about cruelty to a wonderful, magnificent creature. I believe that anyone who wants to kill whales is a barbarian and a savage—and that applies to the Japanese, the Icelanders and, indeed, the Norwegians. I implore the Government to ensure that there is no retreat from a ban on commercial whaling and to stand firm in resisting any demands for such a retreat from any of the countries concerned. In so doing, they will carry with them the full support of the House.
7.24 pm
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but I share his concern for animals of all kinds and his views about their deaths at the hands of man. That, unfortunately, is an experience that all species frequently undergo, for purposes such as the feeding of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
The subject that we are debating contains a conundrum and, in a sense, a hypocrisy. Essentially, we are suggesting that the wealth, as it is called, of the developed world, as it is called, should be transferred to the 80 per cent. of the world that is called underdeveloped, so that that 80 per cent. can develop in the same way and remove poverty. I understand, however, that we are also complaining about the depletion of the world's resources.
It strikes me as a strange and illogical equation to say that we should enable 80 per cent. of the world to do exactly the same as is being done by the 20 per cent. that is the subject of complaint. If we are concerned about the depletion of the world's resources, what contribution can we make by enabling another 80 per cent. of the population to deplete those resources? That conundrum, surely, is at the heart of the argument that forms the basis of the Rio summit.
As I said earlier, the removal of an entire rain forest was required to prepare the bumf for an exotic and magnificent fantasy—jamboree, even—in Rio de Janeiro, a city that I have often visited. I have visited the poorest parts of Rio and Sao Paulo, and other Brazilian cities, and I am not ignorant about the position there.
At 6.30 am the other day, it did not occur to me that we would be given an opportunity to debate this important subject. During the Maastricht debate that was taking place then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—said to me, "One of the difficulties is this: if you once crack a joke and make people think that you are witty, they will never take you seriously." Let me make it clear that I have never had a more serious message to deliver to the House, the country, Rio and the world.
Amazingly, not a word has been said in the debate so far—or, if it has been said, it has featured in a fleeting sentence—about the human population explosion. I

887
declare an interest; indeed, I declare two interests. First, let me say that I will not add to that explosion. Secondly, let me tell the House that, in the face of terrible opposition, I set up the Brook advisory centre in Edinburgh, with the aim of preventing unintended pregnancies in Scotland. I did so on the day that Malcolm Muggeridge gave his sermon on "pot and pill", and the entire medical profession—let alone the Calvinist population—was seriously and vindictively opposed to the move.
Let me give the House, so that they may be on the record, some of the figures—the gunpowder of the human population explosion. If we consider those figures, the chances for the whales are nil. It is said in the Rio documents that 95 per cent. of child deaths are preventable, but what is being done to prevent them? It is said that 80 per cent. of all diseases can be cured, but what is being done to cure them? It is said that drought in sub-Saharan Africa led to 30 million deaths in the past five years, but what did the population of sub-Saharan Africa do in the past five years? It rose by 300 million.
On 11 June 1987, the population of the earth passed 5,000 million. It increases by 1 million people every three days. Every 24 hours, there are I million conceptions on earth, of which a third are aborted. Every year, 80 million people are added to our planet. The Queen was in China for 10 days, during which time the population of China increased by twice the population of Scotland—10 million people. I am informed by those who know that every time we increase a population of any sophistication by one fifth we have to double its infrastructure: schools, roads, universities, water, housing, medical services.
Let us consider the concept. If the present increase in the population of the world had occurred since the birth of Jesus Christ, there would now be 900 people for every square yard of habitable earth. In 1839, we first achieved 1,000 million people on earth. One hundred years later, there were 2,000 million, 30 years later 3,000 million, 15 years later 4,000 million and 11 years later—in 1986—5,000 million. In 25 years' time, there will be 10,000 million people on earth.
It is no good talking in Rio about whales, ecosystems, rain forests and all the other matters. Even at this moment, the food requirement for populations at subsistence level throughout the world has to be doubled every five years. In 10 years' time, it will be every two years. In 20 years' time, it will be every six months. Those are the matters that we should really be discussing in Rio—not how to save the blue insect or the rain forests but how to restrict what is causing, and will increasingly cause, their inevitable destruction.
I am astonished, having read the papers on Rio, that the subject of the population increase of the human species —homo sapiens, so he is called, though I do not see much sapiens about him—is not considered to be the cause of all our problems. We are fiddling with the effects of the human population increase without for one moment attempting to address it.
I have been a member of World Population Crisis for a long time. I do not know whether people realise that, despite the abominable casualties of the first world war and the second world war and the genocides of Stalinist Russia, the populations of Europe and Russia never ceased to rise during those times. I do not know whether
888
people realise that in Ethiopia, which is suffering from famine and civil war, the population has not ceased to rise. Mozambique—seven times the size of France, one of the most prosperous countries in the world and with one of the best climates in the world—says that the fact that 60,000 people are going to die every month will only halve the increase in its population. All the nations of the world must address the issue of population control. That has to be done by education and information. It has to be done sensibly and sensitively.
Let me turn to some of the myths. If a developing country is poor, it is said that people breed in order to provide for the family. That does not explain Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, or Kenya. Kenya is the most developed country of sub-Saharan Africa north of South Africa, yet its population is totally out of control. It enjoys prosperity from its tourist industry. It is self-sufficient in hydro-electricity. Kenya has considerable wealth, compared with the rest of Africa, but its population is flying out of control.
I went to Brazil 10 years ago, when the population was 162 million, of whom 68 million were under nine years old. I wonder what the population is now? I do not know whether the Minister can tell us. When it comes to aid —as though one can sort of buy off poverty—what has happened to the aid that we gave to Brazil? It was spent on a railway line which the then president built from the capital to his constituency in the north of Brazil. That is what has happened to the aid.
Let us consider the idea that development is the best form of population control and contraception. It is not. It demonstrably is not so anywhere on earth.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument closely. How does he explain what is happening in the state of Kerala in southern India? Does that not prove that what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is incorrect?
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No. That is achieved by a simple bribe programme—people are given a radio set. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been through India. It is simply a holding operation—a finger in the dam that lets the water come over the top. It simply is not working. One has only to look at Delhi, Calcutta, Punjab and Kashmir, where the populations are exploding exponentially.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I have to confess that I am not sure what is happening in Kerala, but Indonesia had to have a crash family planning programme before achieving economic success. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that development is not the best contraceptive: it is the other way round.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
I do not wish to shock the House, but it is important for hon. Members to know the facts. If, before the end of the cold war, every nuclear weapon had been fired by both sides, after five years more people would have survived than were alive 20 years ago. There are more people alive now, and have been since 1890, than have ever died.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I can add to my hon. and learned Friend's statistics. Is he aware that all the people who died tragically in the Ethiopian famine were replaced by new births within six months?
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I can give my hon. Friend an even better figure. The people who died in the earthquake at Mexico City were replaced in 16 minutes.
Mr. Tony Banks: If we are all swapping statistics, I can add one. All 5 billion people now living on earth could stand up on the Isle of Wight. It would be like a crowded cocktail party and no doubt they would consume vast quantities of peanuts and crisps. That is the size of it. It is a question of where people are living and under what circumstances, rather than sheer numbers.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is miles out of date. The world's population was able to stand on the Isle of Wight provided that they were shoulder to shoulder, breast to breast and bottom to bottom in 1940, but that is not the case any more. I do not think that 5,000 million people from Newham, North-West standing back to back and bottom to bottom on the Isle of Wight would be an attractive sight, except that we could not feed them, they would all drop dead and that would be a great advantage.
I can give another terrible example. If the population of Egypt increases at the present rate until the year 2000, it will require four more Aswan dams to keep it in water.
It is no good just talking about the protection of the greater green-eyed dragonfly, which I adore, or the whales and all the birds, bees, animals and periwinkles that I love around my home, and it is no good talking about the poor in Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paulo, when what is causing the problems is not world banks or western Governments but the fact that we are frightened to address the question of births.
I guarantee that the majority of items on the news tonight will be about somebody dying. Last Sunday, we heard that 26 people fell off moving trains and died. One tends to die if one falls off a moving train. How many thousand million passenger miles are travelled each year in this country? In fact, how many people are conceived on trains in this country?
It is all about death. Until the media point out to us—"as in my chapel I see"—that death is something natural and should not be unexpected, postponed or wrong but that births can be postponed and prevented, there is no purpose in cutting down a rain forest so that 1 million bureaucrats can descend on Rio and eat themselves stupid on the world's resources.
7.47 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. It is worthy of comment that a debate on UNCED has replaced a debate on Maastricht. There is no doubt that the issues involved in the Maastricht debate are of the heaviest consequence, but the issues involved in the debate on UNCED are vastly more important. What can be more important than the environment—the natural systems and resources that sustain life? I must emphasise the importance of human life so as to scotch the myth that green people are more concerned about creatures and animals than about people. It is the environment that sustains human life and that environment is now seriously at risk.
The summit and the Rio declaration, watered down as it is, are telling us that we have to learn that the present pattern of production and consumption—the economic
890
system that we have in the world today, particularly the northern world—is unsustainable. I accept the importance of the population issue and it is regrettable that it is not being considered satisfactorily in Rio. Nevertheless, at Rio we must address ourselves to the unsustainability of our economic system and our patten of production and consumption.
Maurice Strong recently said:
"Earth Incorporated is literally in liquidation. Much of the income we are producing isn't really income at all: it's running down our capital."
Some would call him an eco-terrorist, but he puts his view as strongly as this: we have an unsustainable ecosystem, certainly in the northern world. It will continue only at terrible cost to future generations who are not too distant and possibly at terrible cost to millions of our fellow human beings now.
The other day I read an article tucked away at the back of The Guardian. It was an analysis of the changes in weather patterns in the Indian ocean and linked them to climate change. It stated starkly:
"The next time you see pictures of starving Africans on your TV screens, it may be directly the result of the profligate use of fossil fuels in the rich world."
That was an informed article and it was talking about now, not a remote future.
The fact that the environment is the most important issue of all is increasingly being recognised by the public at large. That point has already been raised and I wish to emphasise it. Until last summer I was a school teacher and I know that there is intense awareness of environmental questions among young people and children. There is deep anxiety among them and, to be honest, stark fear. Some conceal it with cynicism. I was recently at a function organised by Friends of the Earth in Aberystwyth in my constituency. I was getting copies of the earth pledge signed. Some young people said that there was no point in signing because it was too late to save the planet anyway. Such cynicism exists alongside fear and deep anxiety.
I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members will forgive me if I draw attention to the remarkable election result that led to my taking my seat in the House. I do not wish to labour the point, but the vote of the party that I represent and my own vote doubled. There was a swing of more than 13 per cent. and we moved from fourth and fifth places to first. I take no credit for that—please do not misunderstand me. The remarkable result was an expression of a number of factors including an upsurge in Welsh national consciousness and support for the idea of a Welsh Parliament, but what really made the difference and caused such a dramatic result was the fact that I was standing on an explicitly green programme, had the word "green" on my ballot paper, made environmental sustainability a fundamental theme in the election campaign and made the Earth summit a central issue in our election literature. It was not a central issue in the election campaign in general, but it was in my constituency. People who took part in that campaign can bear witness to the enormous enthusiasm generated among people by the fact that we made that theme central and linked it to the question of Welsh democracy and to a more decentralised system of government and a more decentralised pattern of economic activity.
We must remember that the public at large—I should say "people at large" because I do not like the word "public"—want the environmental crisis to be tackled. I would go as far as to say that they are now eager for

891
radical policies to be implemented in order to tackle it. They want such policies introduced soon enough to minimise the dislocation and changes—many painful—that may be involved in altering the nature of our economic activity and social patterns.
I am convinced that people at large want results from UNCED. Politicians who fail to deliver adequate responses to and policies on this crisis will pay a price. When the time comes, they will pay a high price in terms of electoral support and an even higher price in terms of widespread condemnation. Bearing in mind the grave urgency of the situation, the need for and the people's wish for radical action, I find the events and utterances of the past few days depressing in the extreme. That has already been said, but I say it again.
To his credit, the Prime Minister led the way with his announcement that he would attend the Rio Earth summit. He raised expectations that there would be a radical agenda at Rio, but, having done that, he now warns that some people may be expecting too much and that some expectations are higher than can realistically be achieved. That has been the type of language used in the past few days. One cannot avoid the impression that it is a deliberate attempt to damp down expectations to such an extent that even the slightest step forward will be seen as significant progress. That will not do.
Why the change of tone? Is it because the Prime Minister has not grasped the monumental importance of radical change being initiated at Rio? Several Conservative Members—but not all, I am glad to say—pooh-poohed the idea of an environmental crisis. It is important that the Government distance themselves from that point of view. They must make it clear that they do not accept a minimisation of the seriousness of the problem. I hope that it is not true that the Prime Minister has not grasped the monumental importance of the situation.
We have heard about eco-terrorists. I wonder whether hon. Members would regard Sir Crispin Tickell or Sonny Ramphal as eco-terrorists. Sonny Ramphal wrote about Rio:
"the Earth Summit must represent a point of departure in the direction of sustainable living and it must be the beginning of a more resolute stage in the process of retrieving our heritage of life on earth. Because that effort has been delayed so long, we may not be able to succeed if we let the present opportunity slip."
He is a responsible man and far from being an eco-terrorist.
Does not the Prime Minister realise the monumental importance of the problem or is he prepared to sacrifice that agenda in a desperate attempt to maintain the special relationship with the United States of America? That has been denied tonight and I hope that the denials are true, but the suspicion must remain that the influence of the United States on British policy is too strong.
I challenge the Prime Minister's use of the words "realism" and "realistic" in his statements. We have heard about practicalities and the fact that we are all politicians so we understand that one can achieve only what is practicable. It is time to ask whether it is more realistic to allow disastrous climate changes, the submergence of large areas and the desertification of others. Is it more realistic to allow those things to happen than drastically to reduce CO2 emissions? We need to reconsider that kind of
892
definition of realism, and that kind of idea of practicality. We may now be at a stage where the usual compromises of diplomacy are no longer enough. We may now have to tackle the situation thoroughly enough to meet the need.
Britain's position on the biodiversity convention has been discussed in detail, and that discussion has made it clear that the influence of the United States has been a consideration. We are told that there is concern about possible misuse of funds by irresponsible third world Governments. There is no doubt that such misuse can take place, but if that was a reason for doubt, why was that issue not addressed during the exhaustive drafting process?
On the orders of the short-term self-interest of powerful business we stand to lose for ever priceless riches in the diversity of plant and animal life. To compare those with paintings by Rembrandt minimises their importance.
The compromise that has emerged on climate change is even more disturbing than that. There is now an intention to sign the convention, but that involves only stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Let us accept that the Americans seriously intend to stabilise emissions—they are, of course, the chief culprits, producing 21 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions from 5 per cent. of the world's population. Yet the appalling and frightening fact is that stabilisation is hopelessly inadequate. Stabilisation is already a compromise, and the possibility of having a further compromise on that is disturbing.
Stabilisation is not adequate. Present levels of carbon dioxide emissions have caused the problem perceived by the great majority of responsible scientists to be critical. That is widely recognised by scientific opinion. If there is cause for debate about the details, we have only to call to mind the precautionary principle set out in the Rio declaration itself—unless that has been watered down even further since I last saw a draft. It is present levels of emissions which are causing the crisis.
We all know that the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change said that it was necessary to bring about a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. That necessity exists alongside the need to allow an increase in emissions from some poorer countries to enable them to effect minimal development in their economies.
Greenpeace has presented to the Government proposals for a 25 per cent. reduction of emissions in Britain by the year 2000. Those proposals are practicable and feasible, involving a reduction in energy demands, measures for energy efficiency, the increased use of renewables, and so on. There is no doubt that renewables have great potential, but it is striking that the funds available for research into renewables are hopelessly inadequate.
We need a radical plan of action on a global level. That is what Agenda 21 is supposed to give us. Such a plan must be pursued with the same urgency as is brought to bear at times of military threat and war. Sonny Ramphal made an interesting comparison between the need for a strong response at a time of war and the need for a strong response now. He said that the war against environmental degradation is the only war that we can now afford. That kind of urgency must be brought to bear.
It is clear that we now need to redefine what we mean by security and threat. We need not only a radical plan of action on a global level, but a lead at EC level, and from the British Government. I commend to the Government

893
the excellent list called "Agenda 21 for Scotland" produced by the Scottish National party. It provides a good basis for the kind of radical agenda necessary. I would add only one one factor, because the list omits the need for drastic reductions in armaments spending. The Brandt report, the Brundtland report and, more recently, the Club of Rome report made it clear that they regarded radical reductions in spending on armaments as necessary to tackle the environmental crisis. The Club of Rome report described the conversion of the world economy from a military to a civil basis as a necessary prerequisite.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is a real danger that as the east and the west reduce their vast armouries, there is a temptation to send the surplus and the obsolete to the third world, thus increasing third world debt. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that if the armouries of the advanced nations are to be reduced, that reduction should not lead to an additional burden on the underdeveloped world?
Mr. Dafis: I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful addition to an understanding of the dangers of the situation. Certainly we need an adequate facility for the decommissioning of weaponry. That has implications for my constituency in west Wales, but I shall not pursue that matter now.
I conclude by repeating a call that I made in a letter to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the House, for a whole day's debate on UNCED following the conference. It will be vital to assess the outcome and examine it according to a number of criteria. Whether the conference is a success will have all kinds of implications affecting the need for unilateral policies for Britain and the EC.
I shall suggest what such an assessment of the outcome should involve. It is important to assess UNCED not by comparison with expectations about what it could achieve—either the initial expectations or the more recent, much lower expectations—but by comparison with what is required by the state of the planet and the people. Just making a start is not sufficient now. Making a start is what we should have done in 1972 at Stockholm. Not to make sufficient progress now, and not to do so quickly, must be regarded as a failure.
8.7 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I can certainly agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) when he says that the environment is one of the greatest problems for the future. I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the opportunity of slipping today's debate into an open slot, so that we can deal with some of the problems of Rio. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will not be surprised, however, if I do not pursue all his arguments, as I want to advance some of my own.
The Secretary of State stated with considerable force the Government's position on Rio but I was disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who tried to suggest that Rio was already a disappointing failure—although the conference is starting only today. That was jumping to conclusions and attempting to make a failure. I would have hoped that the debate was an attempt to encourage success, not to run down what might be achieved. The hon. Gentleman went
894
on to say that the Prime Minister is backing off from taking positive action. If we obtain successes at Rio—there is no assurance of that—they will be very much due to the positive action of the Prime Minister as much as to the actions of any other leading politicians and Heads of State.
The House of Commons should consider one factor most fully. During the debate, we have heard more variations in scientific evidence than we have heard for a long time. From one speech, I almost thought that an argument might be made for the Earth being flat. If there is such variation in scientific evidence, there is surely an obvious need to have a Select Committee on science and technology which could consider the problems fully. I have argued that for many years, and I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) supports me fully. We should consider that need yet again.
In Rio, we are just starting with representations from more than 160 nations which are participating in UNCED—the United Nations Conference on environment and development—the conference dubbed the Earth summit. Of all the international conferences since the formation of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1946, this could be the most important. The conference is the culmination of more than two years of effort which has produced a series of conventions, agreements and statements of principle which are intended to address the environmental challenges the world faces today.
The road to Rio has not been smooth. Disagreements have arisen not only in the House, but generally on the scientific basis for action in some areas. Divisions have also occurred as a result of major differences of perception between the developed and the developing nations. I only hope that efforts will be made in Rio to iron out some of the differences, because the Earth summit is supposed to be the meeting at which the international community will set out its strategy for dealing with the world's most pressing environmental problems. All of us are concerned that that may not be the case. The purpose of my speech is to try to explain precisely what is at stake in one area and to analyse the issues concerning biodiversity and the difficulties that will arise if we do not obtain signatures to the convention.
There are two conventions to be signed: the climatic change convention and the biodiversity convention. There was originally a third convention on forest management, but the negotiations proved so difficult that, at best, a declaration of intent is all that is likely to be signed. It may outline general goals and the timetable for future conventions. I hope that the Government will do all that they can to support the advance of those negotiations because they are essential.
Three resolutions are to be negotiated. One will set out the institutional framework for monitoring the environment and holding nations accountable for their actions. It is most important that we should know what is being done and how after Rio, so I hope that the resolution is carried through. A second resolution involves measures to build the necessary scientific and technological capabilities, especially in developing nations, to deal with many of the environmental problems. We all know that such facilities exist infrequently.
The third resolution is concerned with the financial process and mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of clean technology to the poorer countries to enable them to develop economically while minimising harm to the environment. We have not discussed that much in the debate, but it is probably as important as any other aspect.

895
We in the west should be able to ensure that the undeveloped world has the know-how and technology to enable it to meet some of the demands that we are trying to make of it.
The convention on biodiversity is intended to produce a plan of action to preserve the Earth's biological diversity. I do not know how many people understand that man's activities are driving thousands of plant and animal species to extinction each year. The convention will seek to arrest that trend by preserving natural ecosystems and, where necessary, protecting species in managed environments.
It is amazing, but true, that about 1,400,000 species of plants, animals and micro-organisms have been scientifically identified and named, although that represents only a small proportion of the total now believed to exist. In the 1960s, estimates of the total number of species ranged from about 3 million to about 4 million. Today, scientific advances allow that estimate to rise to between 10 million and 100 million. The main reason for the higher figures is the discovery that tropical regions harbour far more species than had been thought. Tropical forests cover only 7 per cent. of the Earth's land surface, but they contain more that half the world's species. Surveys of tropical rain forests suggest that the number of insect species alone could be as high as 30 million and discoveries elsewhere add to that total.
The very deep regions of the ocean were once thought to be almost barren. Having been to Lake Baykal in Russia, I have noticed that surveys now suggest that there could be as many as 1 million uncatalogued species there and one can see some of them in the museum at Lake Baykal. A recent survey in waters 4 km deep off Brittany revealed almost 800 species living in an area only the size of a large living room. Of those, 460 were new to science.
It is terribly important to bring the figures to the House. The scientific consensus is that, even though the number of species known to science increases all the time, the number of species on the planet is declining. The United Nations puts the number of species lost at between 15,000 and 50,000 a year, which is equivalent to between 40 and 100 a day. The number could be as high as 100,000. The majority are insects and plants, most of which have never been named, let alone studied, so it is not possible to say how their loss affects humanity in purely practical terms.
Another reason for concern for the species lost is that the natural ecosystem plays a crucial role in maintaining and regenerating the soil. The complex interactions between plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms, help to break up the rocks and contribute to the nutrients of our soil. Insect populations have natural ecosystems and they are needed to pollinate some of our crops. They can also provide predators which help to control our pests and parasites.
The broad goals of the biodiversity treaty are to establish a common international perspective on the problems that I have tried to enumerate and to agree on the priorities for dealing with them; to analyse the need for national and international national policy reform; to specify how the conservation of biological resources can be better integrated with development and how biodiversity is linked to related issues; and the promotion and further development of regional, national and thematic action plans for the conservation of biodiversity.
896
According to the United Nations, the convention should not infringe the sovereignty of national states over their national resources, and that has been one of the difficulties in the negotiations. Moreover, the convention must protect the interests of the states in which the resources are located. It must also provide incentives for conservation without inhibiting growth or sustainable development.
It is to be hoped that the convention will set out measures for conserving and using biological diversity itself, for the promotion of research, training, education and public awareness and for the conduct of environmental impact assessments. It should deal with methods of providing access to biological diversity, the transfer of technology for the conservation and utilisation of biolgical diversity, technical and financial co-operation with developing countries, to allow them to participate fully in the conservation of biological diversity and the formulation of appropriate national and international institutional arrangements. If those aims can be achieved, we shall have made major steps forward in the preservation of biodiversity on our planet.
There are so many things to which I could refer. I have been concerned with the subject for many months as the rapporteur of the North Atlantic Assembly responsible for dealing with the Earth summit. That is why I want to drive home today—as I tried to say to the Secretary of State—the fact that, in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats supported absolutely a major resolution, passed in Banff only 10 days ago, pressing the 16 nations of NATO to sign both conventions, thus going very much further than the Republican Administration, at that moment, were willing to admit.
One of the greatest difficulties is finance. The United Nations was asked to put costs to the admittedly vague items listed in the draft Agenda 21. The best estimate was that to build environmental concerns into sustainable development programmes would require a doubling of aid and that to finance environmental recovery would require a tripling of aid. The most recent figures produced by the United Nations Environment Programme suggest—as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said—that the developing world would need as much as $175 billion per year to develop without adding to the damage already done to the environment. Aid to the developing world currently stands at $50 billion, so $125 billion of new money would be needed every year. Without the assistance of the Soviet Union's contributions to the United Nations, that figure will be very difficult to attain.
Nations can, and no doubt will, haggle over the amount of new money that should be made available to assist the developing world in implementing whatever goals are agreed at the Earth summit. Clearly, some new money will have to be found, but it is unrealistic for the developing world to expect that money to be made available without specific conditions being attached. Donor nations are already attaching new strings to aid to ensure that it is used effectively. They are rightly increasingly reluctant to provide aid to nations that flout human rights, that have relatively large military budgets, and where there is major mismanagement of economies.
I hope that donor nations will be similarly reluctant to provide aid unless they can be assured that it will be used properly to address the problems that it is intended to address rather than being used elsewhere.

897
The general consensus would appear to be that, unless some billions of dollars of new aid are offered, the developing world will be unlikely to co-operate in formulating measures to address global environmental problems. That is one of the key issues that will have to be thrashed out in the agreement. We must realise that the underdeveloped world expects some of that new money—not all—to be found, and will not co-operate unless it is, but I think it realistic of the Government to make it absolutely clear that we cannot sign treaties whereby the recipients supply the amount of money that they think they should receive with no veto being exercisable by the nations that have to provide the funds. The commitment cannot be open ended. 1 do not believe that any Government of any political colour could possibly agree to such an arrangement.
Considerations of time preclude me from outlining further the problems of deforestation, the way in which barriers to trade influence the environment, the demands by the have-nots for greater technological transfer or the sovereignty rights of each nation to set out its own environmental priorities. The Prime Minister has made it clear above all else that he is massively concerned that Rio 92 should produce agreements—agreements that will not only be welcomed but will set out to save many aspects of the Earth for generations still unborn.
8.27 pm
Mr. John Denham: We are all in favour of saving the environment in general. The problem is whether we are in favour of saving the environment in specific cases and of making specific decisions. The fate of the world depends not on the general statements that we make but on specific actions that we take in specific cases.
Last Sunday my family and I walked up the River Itchen valley in Hampshire. It was a gloriously hot and sunny day, a perfect day on which to walk through the water meadows—many acres of land designated as a site of special scientific interest—by one of Hampshire's chalk streams. I walked up on to the downland, and looked back over the River Itchen valley, a heat haze rising above it. In the far distance, I could see the most prominent buildings in my constituency. It was absolutely beautiful.
Why was I standing on the top of Twyford down that day? If the Government have their way, there will soon be a six-lane motorway in a huge chalk cutting 100 ft below where I stood and the excavated chalk will be dumped across the SSSI. The waterway will be ruined and my family and I will never have the chance to go there again. That road is to be built in defiance of European law to which the Government have signed up. General statements about the environment are fine but, if that is the way in which the Government treat laws that they have already signed, one can only worry about the seriousness with which they will treat any treaties that they sign in Rio. I hope that I am wrong, but the signs are not good.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the importance of trade to developing countries. In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that trade would be much discussed in Rio. I want to know what the Government will be saying in those discussions about global trade. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are right to say that, in terms of its scale, of the resources involved and of the money that it can bring to most developing countries, trade is more important than aid.
898
Over the past 10 years many countries have been forced or encouraged by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to develop more open, more market-oriented and more liberal trading policies and to divert their own domestic resources from domestic production to export production. If we place such emphasis on trade for the developing world, we must ask whether that trade is being carried out in a way that is contributing to sustainable development or whether it is actually undermining sustainable development.
I do not believe that that question has been properly addressed in the UNCED process or in the current GATT talks. The trading system that is evolving is not promoting sustainable development. Instead, it threatens to undermine it in several key ways. One of the most fundamental underpinnings of sustainable development is that the full costs of producing goods and trading them, including the environmental costs and the so-called externalities, is taken fully into account in the price of those goods. The current philosophy in GATT, which is sadly reflected in the UNCED principles which have been published, rules that out.
The GATT philosophy states explicitly that the environmental conditions under which a product is produced must not influence how it is traded in the world market. Put simply, if country A is a rich country with clean environmental laws and country B is a poor country with weak environmental laws, a product produced at a much lower cost in country B must be freely traded in country A. That will lead to a shift in production from countries with high ecological standards of production to countries with weak ecological standards of production. That position will be exploited within the trading system.
Very often it will not be a matter of separate companies operating in different countries. Instead there will be subsidiaries of the same trans-national companies, or companies controlled by licensing arrangements with trans-national companies, exploiting the fact that they can move production to the areas where it is cheapest to pollute and where there are the lowest safety standards.
If hon. Members doubt that prediction, they need only consider the ecological devastation in the border zone of Mexico where many American trans-national companies have located over the past 15 years to exploit the low environmental standards there. Those low environmental standards are now inevitably poisoning people in the United States. We should learn a lesson from that.
Under the new trading system there will be pressure to lower our own environmental standards. Our communities and trade unions will be told by managements that other countries are producing to lower standards and we should not put pressure on for such high pollution and health and safety standards in this country if we want to compete in the global market.
In case hon. Members think that this is scaremongering, a recent document on trade and the environment produced by GATT states:
"It is possible that trade liberalisation could worsen particular environmental problems in the absence of appropriate domestic environmental policies. Conceivably, an expansion of trade could produce negative environmental effects so large that they outweigh the conventional benefits from open markets.… resulting in an overall decline in national welfare."
That point is made by GATT, not by one of the environmental non-governmental organisations. GATT recognises the dangers. The GATT report continues:

899
"This is only possible if a country lacks a domestic environmental policy that reflects its environmental values and priorities."
The problem is that there is no institution in the world trading system or in the multilateral system, like the Bretton Woods system, which is charged with the responsibility for enabling developing countries to develop appropriate environmental values and policies. Nor is there an institution charged specifically with the responsibility of ensuring that developing countries have sufficient resources to put those domestic policies into practice. So long as no global institution exists with that role, the trading system will operate in the way that I have predicted.
The international trading system also represents a danger to the environment in respect of current international pressures to harmonise standards. Companies and countries are beginning to argue that northern countries which want eco-labelling of products so that consumers know what they are buying and how it was produced are providing an unfair technical barrier to trade for developing countries that would like to sell in our markets. Consumers may not be able to have full knowledge about what they are buying because GATT holds that up as a technical barrier to trade.
Trans-national companies are arguing that a high standard in respect of the level of pesticide residues in our food is another barrier to trade. They argue that we should harmonise downwards to the standards of the Codex Alimentaire. Those practices are not in place yet, but that is the way in which the trading system is evolving. They are real dangers.
None of us yet knows whether international treaties like CITES—the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species—which include trade provisions, will still be held to be legal under the terms of the Uruguay round—if that is completed. There has yet to be an explicit statement about that.
I recognise that the issue is complex. I do not side with those who want to take advantage of eco-protectionism. There is a grave danger of countries like the United States of America using environmental arguments simply to exclude competitive exports from third-world countries. I have no illusions that we will change the policies of third-world countries by refusing to import their goods. We need a balance. We must construct a trading system which is not obsessively free market but which is none the less open, equitable and committed to sustainable development.
In the debates on trade that must take place in Rio, I hope that the Government will press for the following. There should be an unequivocal statement that environmental protection and sustainable development are superior objectives to the promotion of trade itself. Let us have increased trade, but only where it promotes sustainable development. Let us not make it an objective in its own right. That is the role that GATT has played for the past 40 years: it has considered it an end and not a means.
There must be an unambiguous statement from Rio, from UNCED, that international treaties which include a trade element like CITES, the Basle convention and the Montreal protocol will be superior to the Uruguay round provisions on trade where there is a conflict.
900
There should be a call to entrench the precautionary principle and the "polluter pays" principle in the GATT discussions. We must also ensure that international standards, for example, on pesticide residues in foods become a floor and not a ceiling for the standards that we want. We must try to evolve a system under which a country with low environmental standards can be accused of using that as an unfair subsidy just as the other unfair subsidies in trade are identified and tackled. We must recognise that it will be more difficult for developing countries to meet those standards. We must therefore ensure that they receive technical and financial assistance.
In particular, I would like to see an institutional arrangement developed that could assist developing countries, and identify their needs and arbitrate where trade policies conflict with environmental policies. There is currently a choice between a new institution and incorporating that concept clearly within the proposed Multilateral Trading Organisation. However, that function must exist somewhere in the international system because it does not exist at the moment.
The Government should press for the adoption of a clear code of conduct for trans-national companies which would prevent them from shifting production to the dirtiest countries in the world and selling their products back to the richest.
Finally, we should ensure that our policies in the north do not push developing countries into unsustainable production, for example, through quite unnecessary levels of protectionism on industrialised goods or by dumping our food surpluses on them and forcing them into other forms of production and activities which are less ecologically sustainable.
I hope that trade is a central issue in Rio. However, I hope that the Government do not go there simply with ideological free-market objectives. Instead, they should have a balance of measures to maintain an open trading system and one which genuinely contributes to sustainable development.
8.39 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am pleased to follow that constructive speech by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). His remarks on GATT could well have come from the Conservative Benches rather than from the Opposition, although I confess that I am not sure whether I follow the logic of the argument that moving corporate locations to poor areas is a bad idea, as it would help development in such areas.
The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned Twyford down, which I know for personal reasons. One of the great mysteries to me is why the present dual carriageway around Winchester has not been upgraded, rather than taking away half the hillside.
One reason for having this debate before the Earth summit began is that it would have allowed us to say what was missing from the agenda at Rio. A debate after the conference would allow us to say what had been left out. I am not sure which way we are going by having a debate during the conference. However, it is constructive for us to speak on the subject.
I welcome the Government's approach to the Rio summit and agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir. P.

901
Emery), who said that it was important for us to get a result out of the conference, rather than leave matters inconclusive or unsettled.
The great forgotten issue at Rio is the impact of world population growth on the environment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) made his point well when he said that the tremendous population growth—currently estimated at 97 million a year—was having a significant impact on the environment. Population growth has doubled since the war, and it is projected to double again by the middle of the 21st century unless something is done about it now.
We have to ask ourselves whether that is a problem—does population growth affect the environment? I have no doubt that it is a cause of environmental decline. We see the evidence all over the place. Population growth leads to deforestation in the third world, as people look for fuel simply to heat their houses and cook their food. Logging has been mentioned several times.
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: It is big business.
Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's remark.
Logging is carried out in the third world for commercial exploitation and to earn hard currency for third world countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) pointed out, desertification is a consequence of deforestation. All over Africa, crops are failing and species are becoming extinct.
All those issues are on Agenda 21 at the summit, yet their root cause—population growth—has not been considered, and I regret that. It affects not merely the local environment but the ozone layer. China, which has the fastest growing and largest population in the world, is estimated to be pumping 17 million tonnes of sulphur a year into the environment and the ozone layer from its coal-fired power stations.
Much of the damage is caused by world poverty, because there is no alternative fuel for the domestic purposes to which I referred. Population growth is causing poverty because it is a vicious circle. If the population grows by 3 per cent., the infrastructure must also grow by 3 per cent. and 3 per cent. more schools and jobs must be provided. That would even be a challenge to a developed nation, let alone one in the undeveloped world.
If population is a problem, do we care? Should we concern ourselves about the fact that the population explosion is having so much impact? There is no doubt that there is widespread concern. That view has been expressed by both Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who pointed out that population growth is a cause of world poverty and of environmental decline.
I distance myself from the Archbishop of Canterbury's criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. To be fair, that Church supports family planning. The method that it advocates is outdated, and is perhaps not effective, but it supports the principle.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Even though it does not work.
Mr. Ottaway: Whether it works or not, it is a purely subjective matter—it is a matter of individual conscience.
902
If the Roman Catholic Church were to support modern methods—I am not saying that it should do so—think of the impact that that would have on public opinion.
Economists may say that we should not be concerned about world population growth and that there is no problem. They may say that the Earth can sustain unlimited population growth, that it can feed unlimited numbers. They may ask why we should he concerned about literacy rates if they are rising. They may say that deaths caused by poverty are falling. One cannot quarrel with those arguments. However, are they right? That is not a reason to ignore population growth, as it is a problem. It devalues human life, affects the quality of life and has an impact on the environment. The sooner that population size is stabilised, the better it will be for the quality of life and for the world's environment.
In an earlier intervention, I mentioned that Indonesia is one of the great economic successes of the far east, and that the economic growth which started there in the 1960s was preceded by a crash family planning programme. Indonesia was not able to have sustained economic development until it was able to stabilise population growth.
If population growth is a problem, the question remains, what are we going to do about it? That is where I feel that the Rio summit is failing. It should be tackling that fundamental issue. It is estimated that about 300 million people are denied access to family planning. To put it mundanely, we want user-friendly family planning services for the third world to enable us to reduce fertility in those areas.
We need not become obsessed with the single issue of family planning. It has been shown that better educated women have smaller numbers of children, which means stable population levels. It all comes down to the need for more cash. I welcome the Overseas Development Administration's increase in funding for family planning programmes. I believe that it has increased by about 28 per cent. However, the amount of money being spent on population policies amounts to only 2 per cent. of the ODA budget. If it is such a fundamental issue, why are we holding back funding for something which could be so effective? The funding contributed is peanuts in terms of overall public expenditure.
Family planning and the education of women are not intellectually challenging issues, but they do more for the environment than almost anything else being debated at Rio.
8.48 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the opportunity to make some comments while the Rio summit is under way and to encourage the Government to press for some much-needed policies in an important international event of this kind. However, the Government must recognise that every member state at the conference must put its own house in order and they must ensure that each of us has a responsibility for dealing with environmental issues in our own country, rather than simply pointing the finger at the more spectacular cases of environmental destruction—especially those in the developing countries, such as the destruction of the rain forests in Latin America.
We have some serious problems in our own country, as has been mentioned, because of the damage and proposed

903
damage to sites of special scientific interest. Every year, many of the sites, which are designated under a Government order, are destroyed and sometimes obliterated. The great weakness in the designation system needs to be examined very closely.
There is also a weakness in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was supposed to introduce management systems for resources and habitats similar to those being discussed at the Rio conference. Many millions of pounds are channelled into management agreements and some of that money is compensation for decisions such as not to plant trees. Some of that money is not being used in the most effective manner. When we consider the cost of environmental protection—there is undoubtedly a cost—some of the resources used in this country could be spent in far better ways than simply paying wealthy landowners large sums of money for not destroying SSSIs.
There has been much talk of the biodiversity treaty and there is no doubt that it is vital. I was sorry to hear some negative comments from some hon. Members about the nature of the scientific evidence of the real risks that are posed by problems such as global warming and biodiversity. Wildlife Link, which represents all the major conservation bodies in this country, worked very closely with the Department of the Environment in preparation for the conference and it supported the Department's intention to sign the treaty. It is of great concern that the Government are apparently back-tracking on that intention because of the United States reluctance to sign because it believes that that may involve the commitment of money or affect organisations such as the drug companies.
The wealthy northern states have a responsibility to channel resources to the developing world. The drug companies will be affected by some of the clauses in the treaty that cover discoveries from plants, mosses and other organisms found in the rain forest which can be used to develop important drugs. The countries in which those species are found are, not unreasonably, asking for a share of the development to help them to protect the forests. Why should not they have a share? Of course, there must be a proper, hammered-out agreement to determine how much money will be spent, where it will go and who will pay. I agree that those matters must be resolved. However, as a general principle, if multinational companies are making profits from developments that originated in developing countries, and particularly in their forests, there is nothing unreasonable in the companies paying a levy on the drugs that are produced. The multinational drug companies are not exactly short of resources or profits, and it is perfectly legitimate to argue that the money is returned to the country from which it derived. That will also help in the protection of the rain forests.
At the moment, when there is pressure on forests, either through a need for farmland or if the people living there think that quick profits can be made by chopping down the wood for logging, the forests will disappear and that process will be encouraged. If it can be shown that forests can be managed in a sustainable way to produce items such as wood, rubber and drugs of the kind to which I referred much more emphasis will be placed on protecting them.
904
Population control has also been mentioned in the debate. It is an important issue which will have to be discussed at the Rio conference. Population, poverty and environmental destruction are connected. We do not want to approach the problem in a patronising manner and insist that developing countries control the growth in population, and we should not pretend that this issue does not affect the developed north. That is not the way to approach the problem. Some of the reasons for over-population are poverty, infant mortality and the fact that many families have many children because the children are needed to ensure that the parents are provided for in old age in countries where there is no social security system and because many of the children will die during their upbringing.
We need to tackle those issues, but it is fair to say that much more could be done towards population control. Mention has been made of the Catholic Church's attitude, and I think that Dr. Carey was right in his criticims of that attitude. However, the Catholic Church has played an important and progressive role in combating poverty and in the work that it does in developing countries. I admire the Catholic Church for what it has done, but it could do so much more if it could shake off the shackles of outdated theological dogma. In fact, that dogma is on shaky theological grounds. Although it is not for me to argue the Catholic Church's position, there are progressive elements within the church who feel that the time has come to review its position on population control. Because of its proud record in combating poverty and promoting overseas development, the church could set a tremendous example and be a force for good in many ways.
We need to play our role. Hon. Members have referred to the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and to CITES, and those agreements must be enforced. One of the problems for the developing world is that much of the environmental destruction has taken place with the encouragement and the collusion of northern-based multinational companies. We, as individual consumers, are also to blame. For example, our taste for large tropical prawns has led to the destruction of much of the coastal forest and mangrove swamps in many Asian countries in order to satisfy wealthy northern consumers. Individuals, as well as Governments, have a responsibility, because we demand goods which are produced in an environmentally destructive way.
Many people are not aware of the way in which food is produced and in which timber is produced and harvested. Ecological labelling on products would be a great help. The banning of the importation of hardwoods which are felled in an unsustainable fashion at the behest of all European countries would also be a great help. Enforcement of the CITES regulations would also have an effect.
One of the current problems which is being widely debated in the European Community is the importation of wild birds. That is an example of what can go wrong when there is uncontrolled exploitation of a natural resource. Importing birds caught in the wild is not only cruel but involves the destruction of forests in order to collect such rare species as wild parrots from their nests. The easiest way to collect them as nestlings is to chop down a tree and remove them from their nest in the trunk. That is being done to satisfy demand in the wealthy northern countries of Europe.

905
We need to bring this trade under control by means of a total ban on the importing of these species. We should then allow a controlled, sustainable trade in species which have been brought in by our aviarists to improve breeding stock. This is a good example of how the Government, through the European Community, can take action to deal with a trade that is both uncontrolled and damaging.
Following criticism, the World bank has reformed itself to a large degree—but it could do a great deal more. It has been responsible for funding a large number of development projects that have damaged the environment and been of doubtful economic value to the countries concerned.
I hope that the Ministers who attend Rio will not be too influenced by the United States. The attitude that the United States has adopted to controlling carbon emissions and to the biodiversity treaty has been very depressing—as has the fact that it has been influenced by American drug companies and multinationals. The attitude that President Bush has adopted seems tailored more to short-term political gain for himself than to the long-term interests of his country, our country and the whole world.
The symbol of the earth conference is a hand holding the globe. The summit is certainly one of the most important milestones in the history of the world, designed as it is not to stop immediately—the situation is far too grim for that—but to start to tackle the continual destruction of much of our planet and many of our rain forests. It will tackle the problems of pollution and of pressure on our natural resources and the way in which they have been squandered for far too long for far too little gain. I hope that the logo of the summit will not come to symbolise an opportunity slipping through the fingers of the conference because delegates to it were motivated not by the interests of the future generations of young people who will inherit the consequences of these decisions but by self-interest.
We must not lose this chance; we must ensure that the treaties are signed and that we begin a process of sustainable development, of harmony and of mutual support between the rich north and the poor south.
9 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: As the clock strikes nine, I come to the House with a message from the city of Chester. It is a message that I had not expected to be able to bring, because I did not receive it until about two and a half hours ago, when I found myself on the telephone speaking to one of my constituents. She was surprised to find that I could speak on the telephone, because yesterday I had assured her that I would not be able to because I had packed my pyjamas, sponge bag and toothbrush in preparation for a long night in Maastricht.
Instead, I find myself having a short evening in Rio. My constituent was delighted when I told her that, finding the fact that the House had turned from the issue of Europe to that of the future of the world encouraging. She said, "You have got your priorities right. Instead of continuing to contemplate your Euro-navel, you are actually coming face to face with the life-or-death issue of the future of the planet."
This was a reminder to me of how passionately people feel about the environment, and of how important they see the summit. I refer particularly to the 20 per cent. of my constituents who, like 20 per cent. of the population in
906
general, are under the age of 18 and do not vote. In conversation with them, the issue that emerges first and foremost is that of the future of our planet.
It heartens me that, in Chester, at least 11 groups are actively involved in the cause of the environment. One of them is a group called RESULTS, and it was a member of that group to whom I spoke on the phone. Its members have urged me to bring a message to the House—that we must welcome the Rio declaration and sign up to the two key conventions, on climate change and on biodiversity.
This country has taken the lead and shown the way in these matters, and environmental groups such as those in my constituency urge us not to lose our nerve. Of course it is unrealistic to sign a blank cheque; we must not allow the issue to exacerbate the so-called north-south divide. None the less, we must go the extra mile: we must give the environment the benefit of the doubt. These conventions, whether modified or allowed to stand, are important markers on the way to a more careful, more caring and more sharing planet.
My constituents urge us not to let our excellent Secretary of State for the Environment or our admirable Prime Minister merely go to Rio to say the right things. They ask us to get them to do the right things and urge them to sign even a weakened convention, because it could lead to a stronger one.
The Rio summit is an enormous enterprise on a quite colossal and ambitious scale. Some 12,000 delegates have made their way there and it is alarming to think of the amount of fuel that has been consumed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) spoke about paperwork. He called it bumf—a Scottish expression with which I am not familiar. However, we know what he means. Whole forests have been used to produce paper for what the hon. and learned Gentleman called "this jamboree". But the summit must be more than that. It is a world gathering to discuss critical issues, and my constituents know that even if some hon. Members do not.
One of my constituents told me that he witnessed the number of hon. Members in the Chamber for the Prime Minister's statement on Europe and asked me to report on how many would be present for this important debate on the future of our planet. I shall not report the figure in full, because it might slightly dishearten my constituents. They wish the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister well in Rio but urge us not to leave it just to them. They want hon. Members to play a part as well.
Hon. Members spoke about the World Wide Fund for Nature and its pledge for the tree of life. Some hon. Members have signed that pledge and we hope that our pledges will hang on a tree in Rio not as an empty gesture but because we want to contribute. Some people have said that they will attempt to use 10 per cent. less oil, gas or electricity and some assured me yesterday that they were pledging to use 10 per cent. less petrol by curtailing the use of their cars. That will be a challenge for some hon. Members, because with our mileage allowance it will be possible to compare last year's consumption with this year's. Perhaps it will be a real sacrifice.
The concept of Rio is not remote. It is not a warm feeling or an opportunity to make the right kind of noises about the environment. It is an opportunity to make a difference and my constituents have challenged us to play our part by conserving energy, by recycling and by remembering that small actions count and can make a

907
difference. In William Blake's famous dictum, he who would do good must do it by minute particulars. We urge those in Rio to take major steps and I hope that the rest of us will make minute but important contributions.
9.7 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am glad that at last we are having a debate on the Earth summit, even though it was unplanned. We have heard many interesting speeches but unfortunately three or four Conservative Members have shown the Government in a poor light. I refer especially to the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). There is a strong consensus that the Government should go to Rio with a positive attitude and should try to bring about some improvement in the global environment.
It has taken a long time to prepare for the Rio summit. I have followed these affairs for the past 20 years from the time of the Stockholm summit. In the 1970s after the OPEC oil price rise there was much talk about a new economic order. There were many meetings of UNCTAD, the UN conference on trade and development, and we had the Brandt report and later the Brundtland report. The only major agreement that has been signed in those 20 years was the Montreal protocol on the protection of the ozone layer. That was a tremendous step and led to international agreement on phasing out CFCs. That has not been done as quickly as perhaps it should have been, given the 20 per cent diminution in the winter concentrations of ozone. The problem is so serious that perhaps we should have a much more rapid phase-out of CFCs.
An enormous amount of groundwork has been done in preparation for the summit, starting with the global warming convention. Some Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Billericay, questioned the scientific evidence on this, but there is an overwhelming consensus that we are faced with a serious, long-term threat of global warming and climatic change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels and the burning of the rain forests. Carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing and the consensus view of the world's leading scientists is that global temperatures will increase by between 0·5 and 3 deg C by 2030 and perhaps by as much as 5 deg C over the next 100 years. We must take steps to prevent that happening, and that means that we must first stabilise and then reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 looks ambitious, but the ways in which we can achieve that make good sense. It could be achieved mainly through energy efficiency and proper insulating of houses, factories and places of work, and by district heating schemes to use waste from power stations and new sources of energy. All those energy efficiency measures make excellent economic sense as well, because they enable us to produce more efficiently and therefore cheaply. It disappoints me that successive Governments in the past 15 or 20 years have not taken the importance of insulation seriously enough.
It is sad, in these latter days of preparation for the convention on global warming, to see Britain dragging its
908
feet because the United States is reluctant to accept it. We have fallen out of line with the rest of the European Community. Germany, Denmark, Holland, France and Italy have been in the forefront of putting the environment on the global political agenda. If Britain were working constructively with them, the European Community would be the leading force for change. We would pull Japan and Canada with us and isolate the United States, shaming it into action on these fronts.
It is a symbol of that problem that the European environment Commissioner, Ripa di Meana, has decided, largely because of Britain's attitude and the lack of consensus in the Community, not to go to Rio. The one person in Europe, perhaps in the world, who has done most to improve the global environment will not be at the Rio summit.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the convention on biodiversity. Tropical rain forests are a precious resource which is being destroyed at the prolific rate of an area the size of Britain every year. Many species are under threat of extinction. About one half of the world's species could be destroyed in the next 50 years if this carries on unchecked. Global warming is an important factor, but so, too, are the precious resources that will be lost. They provide drugs and medicines that we shall desperately need in the future.
I accept that the financial implications of the convention on biodiversity cannot be implemented. We cannot sign huge blank cheques to reach agreement. However, I hope that the noises that we have heard over the past week or 10 days are aimed simply at lowering our expectations and that, by the end of the two weeks of the summit, agreement will be reached. We must not allow further destruction of the rain forests.
A likely and important step forward at Rio will be the setting up of the commission for sustainable development. The House will be aware that part of the Brundtland report is devoted to sustainable development. Every country will be required to produce a full national plan.
Britain's population is static and our land use and food production seem to present no problems. Indeed, we are producing too much rather than too little. There are serious problems, however, with pollution, use of resources and carbon dioxide emissions, and these must be tackled. The framing of national plans will pose major challenges.
Agenda 21 refers to ways of relieving the problems of the third world, such as poverty, ill-health, inadequate water supply and malnutrition. I am disappointed that it contains nothing about population. Two Conservative Members have made major contributions to the major problems that are associated with population growth. We do not, however, tackle the problems simply by providing family planning or contraception on a large scale. The solution is much more complicated than that. We must tackle the problems of infant mortality, poverty, inadequate water supply and primary health care, and that requires finance.
The United Nations estimate of the financial commitment that will stem from the Rio summit is $125 billion. That sounds an enormous figure until we consider the world's gross domestic product. In that context, $125 Nihon is about 0·3 or 0·4 per cent. of the GDP of the advanced countries. In other words, there needs to be a commitment of about one third of 1 per cent., and that fits quite neatly into the aid budget. We have bee asked for

909
decades to aim for the target of 0.7 per cent. of our wealth for overseas development, but Britain's contribution has fallen from 0.5 per cent. to 0.27 per cent. That is a sad commentary on the past 12 years of Conservative government.
The changes that have taken place in Russia and eastern Europe generally mean that the cold war is at an end. For the next five, 10 or 20 years we can look forward to deep cuts in defence expenditure. That is the peace dividend. I have no doubt that the primary call on resources that are now being set free following the changes in east-west relations will be the tackling of the north-south problem. The resources should be used to improving and developing the global environment.
9.19 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: We have had a good debate in which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have made extremely significant contributions which the Government would do well to heed. Over the past few weeks many people have written to me asking if and when we shall have a debate on issues of major importance that are to be discussed at UNCED. It is ironic that, at the eleventh hour and after considerable Opposition pressure, only because the Government found themselves with nothing to debate today did they rush through, as a stop gap, a debate on the Earth summit.
Whatever the outcome of the summit, the issues that it will consider have been widely explored in the press and on television, and that has raised the level of consciousness in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) emphasised the importance of television in bringing home to the public the challenges that confront us in tackling the global environment.
Today, the Secretary of State for the Environment reiterated the Prime Minister's remark that UNCED is the start of the process. We have news for the Government. The process began decades ago. Others understood it well before the Stockholm conference of 20 years ago, when Norway's Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, said:
"The environment is where we live, and development is what we do in that abode. The two are inseparable."
We are in the third decade of a series of environmental and development conferences.
Today, we were lobbied by the University of London Union, whose letter to me is typical of many that I received over the past few weeks:
"We are particularly disappointed at the way in which development issues have not been given priority on the UNCED agenda. We believe that unless the root causes of underdevelopment and poverty are tackled, development in many countries will never be possible, and the desperate struggle for people simply to survive will override only long-term or environmental population considerations. We feel especially strongly about the fact that millions of innocent young children die every year simply through lack of the very basic necessities of life, which in a world of plenty must be the deepest tragedy of all."
I am sure that we all share that sentiment. The letter adds:
"We had been hoping that UNCED would result in real changes to put an end to such injustice—and in our optimism, we hope that can still happen. We believe that Britain is in a particularly unique position to take the lead in putting forward such proposals and to influence other nations to do likewise …We feel that such an important event as UNCED should be more fully discussed and debated in Parliament."
We have felt that for a long time, and we are grateful that the Government, even at the eleventh hour, have chosen to debate the subject.
910
Last year, an interesting report was published by the Global Environment Research Centre in conjunction with the United Nations Association. "Institutions and Sustainable Development: Meeting the Challenge" examines what was done by various Government Departments to prepare for the Rio summit. It concluded:
"Analysis of developments in Whitehall shows lack of effective overall co-ordination. Environmental considerations are still largely peripheral rather than central to policy making in most Departments of State—not least in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose failure to take seriously the long-term threat to national security from global environmental degradation has far broader implications."
The report considered all Government Departments in detail, to establish the extent of their preparations for the Earth summit, and concluded that they amounted to a hotch-potch, and that the task had not been tackled in a systematic or comprehensive way.
Mr. Whitney: Will the hon. Lady expand a little on what she considers to be a long-term threat to what she has described as global environmental degradation?
Mrs. Clwyd: I shall be pleased to do so later in my speech.
Let us look at the Government's record. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed that widespread poverty in the third world was a major cause of damage to the world's environment, and what new action he proposed in Rio to combat that poverty more effectively. The Prime Minister replied:
"We …have dramatically increased in real terms the amount of aid".—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 703.]
That simply is not true. In 1990, Britain spent a mere 0.27 per cent. of gross national product on aid—the lowest figure on record, as the Minister for Overseas Development admitted in the House last year.
On that occasion, the Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours):
"Is it not true that last year, as a proportion of GDP, Britain spent less than it has ever done since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development began keeping records?"
The Minister replied:
"The answer is yes. I do not like it any more than anybody else does".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 18.]
The truth is that the Government have cut by half the amount and value of official development aid to the third world since they came to power in 1979. When we left office in that year, aid stood at 0.51 per cent. of GNP and was rising. That cut in aid has deprived the poor of Africa, Asia and Latin America of more than £10 billion.
I believe that those figures are the best indicator of the importance that a political party or country attaches to overseas development. Given the current claimed rate of growth in aid, it could take the British Government more than 95 years to reach the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. Are we prepared to stand back and let another 1,387 billion children die in the meantime?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is addressing the point at great length and in highly emotive terms, as she always does. Of course this is a serious point, but such observations would come much better from the hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends if only two months ago, at the time of the general election, they had been

911
prepared to include a commitment to increasing aid in one of the two categories of spending to which they were prepared to commit themselves immediately. I hope that the hon. Lady will now confirm that Labour was prepared to increase aid spending only as and when resources allowed it—and we all know that resources would never have allowed it.
Mrs. Clwyd: There is a major difference between the attitudes of Conservative and Labour Members. We said that our aim was to reach the target of 0.7 per cent.of GNP within five years. Only two weeks ago, in the European Community, the British Government refused to reach that target by the year 2000, and blocked other EC countries that wanted to make that commitment. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any right to challenge our commitment when his party clearly has no commitment of any kind to reach that 0.7 per cent. target.
The Government have cut not only the overall aid budget but the percentage of assistance that they give to various United Nations organisations. It is shameful that, when the whole world is talking about the Earth summit and the gap between the rich and the poor on our planet, the British Prime Minister should go to the Dispatch Box and get his figures wrong. Is he trying to dupe people into believing that the British Government really care about the needs of the third world? If the agreements reached at UNCED are to be fully implemented, the United Nations has a critical role to play.
While the Government have continued to pay lip service to the role of the United Nations, they have savaged Britain's support to some of the key United Nations agencies since 1979. They have cut their support for the United Nations children's fund by 44 per cent. in real terms. No one can doubt the effectiveness of an organisation such as UNICEF in the third world. The British Government have cut their support for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities by 65 per cent. It is a bit rich when I hear Conservative Members talk about the importance of population activities in the third world if at the same time they are prepared to sit back and allow the Government to cut their support for that very important fund. The Government have also cut their support for the United Nations Development Fund by 57 per cent.
In the three years that I have been speaking on this brief I have seen for myself the effects on people in Asia, Africa and South America of living in the hopelessness and the grind of daily poverty. In Cambodia, still one of the poorest countries in the world, one finds, more than a decade after Pol Pot, that it is still denied the kind of development aid that it should be receiving from Britain and the United States. When I saw Cambodia's health Minister just two weeks ago and he thanked me for the pressure that I was putting on the Government to increase aid to Cambodia, I thought about what might have happened had we been in government. We should have ensured that one of the poorest countries in the world got the aid to which it was entitled.
I have seen for myself in Ethiopia queues of women waiting to get contraceptive advice through the United Nations Development Programme and through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. I know that in Ethiopia the UNDP and the UNFPA simply do not
912
have the money to do the job. In Iraq I have heard the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees bewail the fact that there are things that they would like to do in northern Iraq to alleviate the plight of the still suffering Kurds. I know that the UNHCR has been told again that money is not available and that in desperation the UNHCR has said, "Give us the money and we can do the job." If Conservative Members are serious about wanting to help the third world, they must give money so that the organisations working there are able to do the job.
Another myth that the Government have sought to spread concerns their record on debt reduction. In 1990 Britain took more money in dept repayments from third world countries than it gave in aid, a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) referred. In more than 40 nations termed by the World bank as severely indebted, debt payments have swallowed up over a third of all their trade earnings in recent years. The Government have made a lot of noise about their proposals for debt reduction—the Trinidad terms. However, it is worth bearing in mind that, even if the initiative had been implemented fully in line with the original proposal, it would have resulted only in 1 per cent. of the total third world debt being written off. Even that very limited proposal has not been fully implemented. What about the other 99 per cent.? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House which countries have benefited from the Trinidad terms and the corresponding amounts of debt which have been written off.
The Government have refused to take any steps to encourage the cancellation of debts owed by poor countries to the commercial banks. They have blocked proposals for reducing debt owed to the European Community. They have refused to take action to reduce debt owed by the poorest countries to other multilateral agencies. And what of trade? My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen asked many questions about trade. One might have expected that a Government who are concerned, as they profess, about the environment and development, in a country which has many historic and continuing links with the Commonwealth, would have been more vigorous in examining the impact of the Single European Act and the current general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations on the poorer countries. It is also worth bearing in mind the issue of aid tied to the purchase of British goods. Why is it that, again, the United Kingdom has the highest percentage of tied aid among members of the development assistance committee of the OECD?
The political tensions at UNCED are not difficult to understand. The poor countries are telling the rich countries that they want action on their pressing environmental priorities. For the Brazilians living in the shanty towns around Rio and for the African peasant farmer, the top environmental issues are dirty drinking water and poor sanitation which kill their children by the thousand. Three million children are said to die every year from diarrhoea caused by drinking dirty water. Another important issue is the daily search for the shrinking supplies of fuel wood that they use to cook their daily food. The World Health Organisation reported recently that 2.5 billion people suffer illnesses resulting from insufficient or contaminated water. Those are the life and death environmental issues that threaten poor countries today. Poverty is a cause of environmental degradation. Meanwhile, the Governments of richer countries, including our own—
Mr. Whitney rose—
Mrs. Clwyd: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and time is short.
Governments have tried to shift attention to the issues of climate change, population, forestry and, until recently, biodiversity. The original climate change convention has been considerably weakened because of the role of the United States and the United Kingdom. Over the past 130 years or more the impacts of industrial development have accelerated and accumulated to the point where the climatic stability of the biosphere is being affected, raising serious questions about the future well-being of our planet. The sources of that pollution have overwhelmed the sink capacity of the planet.
The United States has singlehandedly provided 33 per cent. of accumulated industrial carbon dioxide pollution. To salvage its conscience, it is now prepared to spend a large sum of money on forestry projects in poorer countries, which will act as a further sink for its carbon dioxide emissions. Thanks to the United States and United Kingdom Governments, the climate convention to be discussed at Rio makes no commitment to reducing emissions of global warming gases. The United Kingdom Government have, in effect, been instrumental in facilitating what amounts to polluter sovereignty on behalf of richer countries. In other words, it is business as usual; carry on polluting.
The Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) talked about the importance of ever-increasing population levels, particulary in the south. We accept that it is important to look at population growth, but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other key issues affecting the environment and development, including consumption levels.
According to a report on development and environment prepared for Rio by the World bank, women hold the key to prosperity because they control their fertility and the fertility of the soil. According to a multi-country study a secondary education reduces from seven to three the number of children a woman has. It concluded that educating women was the biggest solution to poverty and environmental destruction. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr Morley).
The Earth summit has been greeted with deep pessimism by the contemptuous words of President Bush —the President who boasted during his election campaign that he would he the "environment president". We now have the grudging words of our own Prime Minister. He is warning us that expectations must not be set too high. For President Bush to pull out of the biodiversity convention, after it had been broadly agreed, on the eve of the Rio summit, and for the United Kingdom, which had apparently taken the lead in urging the convention and been admired for doing so, to wax hot and then cold, yet again apeing the President of the United States, is unbelievable but not unexpected. After all, President Bush has provided a veil for those who want to dodge their own responsibilities.
We must face the fact that the summit cannot merely tackle the symptoms of environmental damage but must deal with the causes. Delegates are grappling not merely with plans to clean up the world but with reaching agreement on a pattern of economic development that will avoid fresh damage in the future. The Earth summit must
914
start us on the road to curing the disease of unsustainable development and global poverty and not indulge in attempts to administer sticking plasters to the world's festering environmental wounds. Forced to live hand to mouth, the poor have no choice but to chop down their trees or to overfarm soils merely to survive. It should now be absolutely clear that we must deal with the economic root causes—and the gulf between the rich and poor nations is one such cause.
I am reminded of our priorities by an interesting supplement. For example, in the United Kingdom the Government spent £55·2 million on military bands in one year. In the developing world, that could pay for 500 trucks and spares to be bought and shipped to Africa, survival kits for 1.1 million Cambodian families with pots, pans, sheeting, mats and food. There is a long list of other priorities which have been chosen by the Government. priorities that I suggest we reconsider.
I shall go to Rio on Friday on behalf of my party and I shall follow the issues with great interest. I shall follow especially the way in which in the global forum the Prime Minister decides his and his Government's priorities. Unless we act, and act conclusively, at Rio, the outcome in the long term will be disaster for us all. The reality is that, whether we live in the poor south or in the rich north, we all share the same planet. Whether it is global warming or the destruction of the rain forests, whether it is disasters such as AIDS which know no boundaries, or whether it is terrorism or religious fanaticism, the truth is that we are all linked together and there is no way we can or should escape those challenges.
9.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We have had a most interesting and fairly full debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to wind up. There is a delicious irony in the fact that the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who opened and closed the debate for the Opposition respectively are bitterly opposed to their party's policy on the European Community. It is a delicious irony that the Danish decision has given rise to this debate.
I am glad that we have been able to listen to interesting contributions on this important subject from hon. Members of all parties. The issue is of the gravest importance to us all. It is of the greatest concern to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as it was to his predecessor, who played such an important part in the late 1980s, and to the Government, who supported the formation of United Nations conference on environment and development. It is my responsibility to comment on the contributions that have been made today. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who opened the debate, gave way many times, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that I will probably not be able to do so, although I have always done so in the past.
UNCED is part of a continuing process. It is in no sense the end of a process or a race. It is probably the most important conference on the environment so far. It follows the Stockholm conference of 20 years ago. In December 1989 the United Nations General Assembly decided to hold this conference to review progress since the

915
Stockholm gathering, but the Earth summit is not merely a follow on—it is part of a process that will continue after the meeting in Rio.
That observation makes me very depressed about the contributions from the hon. Members for Dagenham and for Cynon Valley, because they have prejudged the outcome of UNCED before it has properly started. It has been going for only one day. The hon. Member for Dagenham told us about the "failure" of Rio, and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley gave us a disparaging description of President Bush's remarks. The hon. Member for Dagenham quoted W. H. Auden and told us that death was on the agenda.
I find it depressing, too, that neither of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen showed any recognition of the need for co-ordinated action. They talked about some sort of reactionary collusion between the United States and the United Kingdom, but they did not recognise that for progress to be made there has to be co-ordinated action, and compromises, which do not please all the purists, have to be made. Compromises are an essential part of progress, as we know from all the other matters in life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), in a well-placed intervention, asked the hon. Member for Dagenham whether he would have handed over control of funding to the recipient countries. He failed to obtain a proper answer to that question. Instead, the hon. Gentleman comforted himself with some notion that the contribution that we should have to pay under the convention—which we have not yet signed, but which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, we hope that we shall be able to sign after further discussion and negotiation—would be smaller than what I presume he meant would be the contribution to the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement. The hon. Gentleman should read the text. He is a lawyer, and he should see what the maximalist interpretation of the text in article 21 could amount to. I do not imagine that he has read the text, and that is why he can say such things.
The hon. Member for Dagenham spoke with some pride of his belief in the politics of intervention. He completely overlooked a fact to which I am glad that attention was drawn by some of my hon. Friends—how disastrous intervention has been for the environment in some parts of the world, such as the Soviet Union. The Aral sea and the Caspian sea have been polluted by Governments whose misguided intervention has failed to protect the environment.
I shall now deal with an aspect that was mentioned by the hon. Members for Dagenham and Cynon Valley, by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who made it clear that the conference is not, as the debate should not be, about aid and debt. We recognise that aid and debt have an important part to play, but they are not the central issues of the conference.
Mrs. Clwyd: They are.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let me make my point. I was talking about debt. The Overseas Development Administration has relieved the poorest countries of £1 billion in old aid
916
debt—hon. Members should note that figure. Twenty countries have benefited from the Toronto terms, which resulted from a United Kingdom initiative to reduce the official debts of the poorest countries. In 1990 the Prime Minister, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, launched the Trinidad terms, involving a proposal to write off two thirds of the oldest stock of bilaterial debt of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. In 1991 the Paris club began to implement those terms. [Interruption] I was asked a question about this, and I shall answer it. Five countries—Benin, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Tanzania and Equatorial Guinea—have benefited so far. More are in the pipeline. More important is the fact that the United Kingdom continues to press for full implementation of the Trinidad terms.
The latest OECD figures, for 1990, show that the net flow of all forms of resources towards developing countries amounts to £26 billion—[Interruption.] I am coming to the other figure. The United Nations debt figures appear to show that developing countries are paying more than they receive. I am sure that hon. Members have heard this before, but it has to be repeated every time because they will not accept it. The reason is an accounting convention which shows that debt foregiveness is to be incorporated as a payment. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh and we can all laugh at accounting terms. We all know that accounting terms are sometimes laughable. The fact is that when one writes off debt, it is considered to be a debt payment. That is how accountants do it and that is why the figures look as they do. The important point is that, in reality, developing countries are net recipients of resources from the United Kingdom and the allegations made on the point betray a failure to understand the figures. [HoN. MEMBERS: "They do not want to understand."] They do not want to understand.
Mr. Denham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will not give way, because I have only 11 minutes in which to comment on 11 different speeches. I cannot help that. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley went over her time.
I remind the hon. Member for Dagenham that every major piece of environmental legislation—I include the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990—have been introduced by a Conservative Government. Let us get away from all the nonsense that the hon. Member for Dagenham has spouted.
We have had many contributions from hon. Members of all parties. I did not agree with very much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, but I did agree with some of it. I agree entirely that misguided intervention has destroyed the environment in many parts of the world. On occasions, many people speak of certainties on the subject when science is not so clear. I thoroughly accept her message that the wholesale acceptance of the messages of doom is utterly wrong. That point was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney).
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the convention. The text for the climate change convention was produced by the chairman of the negotiations, not by the United Kingdom or by the United States. The commitment to policies and measures

917
aimed at returning greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000 is a significant movement by the United States. It was, of course, brought about by argument and persuasion, and by hard work by the United Kingdom and the European Community because the United States had previously refused to subscribe to any references to timetables and targets. That is a substantial move forward.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way because I must deal with another 10 contributions. If I make any comment, it will inevitably lead to further comment by hon. Members. I cannot do justice to the debate unless I am given time to do so.
A sustainable development commission needs to be considered carefully. It is a very interesting concept which might work and we are prepared to consider it. However, we must avoid more cumbersome bureaucracy which eats money.
The general aid point is always a subject in aid debates. It seems that it will also be a subject in this debate on the environment and development. Britain maintains a substantial and growing aid programme. It has the sixth largest aid programme in the world. In 1991–92, we spent £1,789 million—3 per cent. more in real terms than in the previous year. It is planned for that figure to grow in real terms to £1,975 million by 1994–95. The important point is that the quality of United Kingdom aid is high, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe commented. It is praised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development assistance committee. It is heavily focused on the poorest countries, which is an important matter.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley also touched on the subject of aid. It is not true that the size of the United Kingdom aid programme has halved. If anything, their view shows more clearly the bad use of lies and damn statistics. I will give the House the figures. In 1978–79, the net aid programme was £727 million In 1991–92, it is estimated at £1,787 million.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are those the figures?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Opposition's arithmetic is not quite the same as mine.
I am afraid that, in the time available, I cannot answer all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I want to say something about the global environmental fund. The important point here is that, in the global environmental fund, the participants' assembly will not determine the total amount of the replenishment by the donors, but, when we come to consider the biodiversity convention, the problem is that, on the most extreme interpretation of the text, the donors may not have the final say over what they contribute—unless there is clarification.
Let me make a further comment about biodiversity, which is important in the context of what we have been doing in the Overseas Development Administration programme. The Government supported the conservation of biodiversity in developing countries while the biodiversity convention was being negotiated. They have done that under the aid programme. More than 33 projects with the main aim of biodiversity conservation have been funded, at a cost of £7 million, with developing country Governments and non-governmental organisations. We
918
are committed to do more. In addition, we are committed to providing £40 million to the global environment facility, which has the conservation of biodiversity as one of its for priority areas. I had some other interesting things that I should have liked to say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but I fear that I do not have the time.
We heard an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. I very much agree with him about the importance of the role of the non-governmental organisations and UNCED. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said that the Government will fully support their role at the summit and the Overseas Development Administration greatly values its collaboration with the NGOs in its aid projects.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to whales. He and I have exchanged plumes on the subject on previous occasions. I am sorry that I did not hear his speech, but I am grateful to him for commenting that the Government have a good stance. I reiterate that the Government will take a very tough position at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow at the end of June.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway) made very interesting comments about the problem of population. We were regaled with some terrible examples by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, who has faced questions that many people dare not face. Population control is most important—my hon. and learned Friend argues that it is more important than aid. I would point out, however, that population control can be, and is, part of our aid programme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon. South commented. The ODA launched a new population strategy in 1991, and its aim is substantially to increase the population programme to ensure that all parents have children by choice and not by chance.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke. North (Mr. Dafis) also made contributions. It was a very full debate.
As I have already said, much media attention has been concentrated on the development side rather than the environmental side of UNCED. It is most regrettable that UNCED is being portrayed in some quarters as a north-south issue and all about aid. There is no question that the Government are going to Rio with anything other than a very positive part to play.
The approach that we take is that the protection of the global environment is now a shared problem—a problem for rich and poor countries alike. That was recognised by all concerned in the negotiations for the convention on climate change which have been brought to a conclusion. As I said, the resulting document is not as strong as some purists would wish, but it is none the less a very important step forward.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed this afternoon, we are working hard to ensure that we will be able to sign the biodiversity convention. Some of the financial provisions, as currently drafted, would mean that the United Kingdom and other countries would not have the final say over how much they would be required to

919
contribute to funding the convention. The Government are giving that problem very urgent consideration, but we want to find a solution.
Much has been said about the relationship between aid and the environment—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Banking (European Community)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
10 pm
Sir Thomas Arnold: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House on the future of the British banking industry within the European Community. I want to remind the House of remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21 May during our debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill when he dealt with the location of the European Monetary Institute and the central bank:
"The priority must be to decide on the location first of the EMI. The United Kingdom was the first to argue for the establishment in stage 2 of an institution like the EMI instead of having a central bank in stage 2. In our view, Britain therefore has undoubtedly a strong claim to be the seat of the EMI. It would be very much in the interests of the Community and the new institutions if they were based in the Community country with the leading financial centre in Europe. London is the leading player in the rapidly growing private ecu market. When the decision is taken to set up the central hank, we believe that Britain—not London alone but other centres—will be the strongest candidate."—[0fficia Report, 21 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 591–2.]
The City of London is a great national and European asset. It brings money into Europe from all over the world. The reasons why London can make that claim can be summarised as follows. London is the world's largest and thus Europe's largest foreign exchange centre. It is responsible for more than a quarter of the recorded global total.
London is the primary centre for ecu business, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 21 May. London has more foreign banks than any other centre. Some 526 foreign banks from 72 different countries are represented in London and 152 stock exchange members are foreign-owned.
London is a major centre for the trading and distribution of domestic and international equities. Its total equity turnover of £322 billion puts it ahead of Frankfurt, with £153 billion, and Paris, with £65 billion. More than 550 foreign companies are listed in London, and that is well above the number for any other European exchange. London's daily turnover in foreign equities exceeds that of New York or Tokyo and activity in European stocks is substantial.
London's markets in short-term domestic instruments are unsurpassed in the rest of Europe. They include inter-hank deposits, certificates of deposit and eligible bank bills and Treasury bills. London's gilt-edged market is one of the largest Government debt markets in Europe, with £125 billion outstanding. The London market is among the most liquid in Europe, with a turnover averaging £4–4 billion a day.
Management and syndication of the majority of Eurodollar and Euroyen bonds is based in London. Around three quarters of the Eurobond secondary market activity is estimated to take place in London. London has substantial non-domestic short-term instrument markets. The majority of Eurocommercial paper-issuing and trading takes place in London. It also has the largest international insurance market, the largest gold market and a substantial fund management industry.

921
Without wishing to glide over the important: issues raised in the current bids for the Midland bank—reduced competition and possible redundancies among Midland employees, matters which are now rightly being considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—it is worth noting that the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation offers the added dimension of invaluable experience and expertise gained in the world's fastest growing region—Asia. A merged Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Midland group headquartered in London would be second only to the Deutschebank as one of the world's largest non-Japanese banks.
At this time of rapidly changing circumstances, and as we approach the decision on the location of the European Monetary Institute, can my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary confirm that a close dialogue is being maintained between the Government, the City and the regulators? Could he spell out some of the mechanisms by which that is being achieved? For example, has the dialogue included discussions about the appropriate structure for the British banking community within the European Community, or do the Government take the view that the shape of the industry in Europe should be left to itself and that Governments should concern themselves solely with regulation and competition? Can he assure the House that the Government will do their utmost to ensure a level playing field in these matters?
I was pleased to receive my hon. Friend's answer earlier today—to my question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking whether he would encourage British banks to compete within the EC—confirming that the United Kingdom has been in the forefront of those arguing in Brussels for measures that will create a single market in banking, that the Government expect the second banking directive to come into force in January 1993, and that that will result in the removal of barriers to cross-border expansion and will improve competitive opportunities for British banks wishing to do business throughout the Community.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary could say some additional words about the directives on capital adequacy and investment services, which I understand are being argued over in the Economic and Finance Council.
Above all, can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will do their utmost to ensure that the case for London, as the location for the European Monetary Institute, will be advanced with vigour and urgency among our European partners?
I remind the House that in the treaty on European union, in the protocol on the statute of the European Monetary Institute, Article 4, which sets out the primary tasks of the institute, says quite specifically that the EMI shall have a duty to
"hold consultations concerning issues falling within the competence of the national central banks and affecting the stability of financial institutions and markets;"
and to
"facilitate the use of the ECU and oversee its development, including the smooth functioning of the ECU clearing system."
The location of the European Monetary Institute could conceivably turn out to be the most important decision affecting London. as the pre-eminent European financial centre, for 50 years. I trust that the Government will energetically support the Lord Mayor's campaign.
922
I would not dream of tempting my hon. Friend to reveal the Government's negotiating stance on the issue, but could he provide the House with some sign of the timetable that the intergovernmental debate is likely to follow? Does he anticipate a decision at Lisbon. or later this year? Does he believe that there will be support for the choice of London from some other Community members?
From what I have already said this evening, it will be clear that I do not believe that the importance of the decision on the location of the European Monetary Institute can be overestimated. With that belief in mind, I have sought leave to address the House this evening.
10.8 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) for raising a most important subject this evening—a subject of immense importance to the foreign earnings of this country, to the City of London, to the employment of many thousands of people in this country and elsewhere, and to the development of our role in Europe and the prosperity that we hope that it will generate.
The debate is timely and, on behalf of the Government, I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's thoughtful and helpful comments. He said that it would be one of the most important decisions for London in nearly 50 years, and I agree with him. It is a key issue and the Government hope to rise to the challenge of arguing the case for the European Monetary Institute and, later, the European central bank to come to London.
It is a very important subject, and I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the City to the British economy. I entirely agree that it is of the first importance that British banks and financial institutions are able to make the most of competitive opportunities within the European Community.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of a decision on the site of the new European Monetary Institute, which would be established by the Maastricht treaty and which would, under that treaty, be replaced by the European central bank. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear this afternoon, although the vote in the Danish referendum made the immediate future with regard to that treaty somewhat cloudy, nevertheless the United Kingdom remains of the view that the treaty is good for Britain and good for Europe. It is therefore sensible that we should continue to discuss its effects.
I was a little bit worried at some stages today that my hon. Friend and I might be dressed up with nowhere to go. The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is of considerable substance and, as the debate evolves and we continue with deliberations on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I think that it will be central to the debate.
The treaty would provide for separate decisions on the site of the EMI and ECB by common accord at the level of Heads of State or Government. In each case it sets a target date for a decision by the end of this year.
My hon. Friend will be familiar with the decision-taking process on the sites of European institutions and will realise that this is a very ambitious target, particularly now. But, logically, the first decision for the Community to

923
take must be on the site of the European Monetary Institute, which under the treaty is due to be operational from January 1994.
My hon. Friend referred in particular to London's bid to host the new EMI. I agree with him that London is, of course, Europe's leading international financial centre and the world's leading centre for ecu business. Against that background, the case is very strong on objective grounds for the new monetary institutions to be in London.
London would undoubtedly be the best place for the EMI to monitor financial developments, it would be the best place for it to develop monetary instruments and by far the best place for it, in the words of the treaty,
"to facilitate the use of the ecu and oversee its development".
Similarly, as and when the time comes for the central bank to be established, the case for location in London is compelling. In short, if the new institutions want to develop their credibility, they would need to be in London.

I am conscious that there have been discussions ranging from whether a central bank or a monetary institute should be in just one location or whether various other formulae might operate whereby a supervisory or central board might be in one location and operational arms in another. That is not up for decision this evening, but it is clear that, wherever the central bank eventually is located —we hope and believe it should be in London—it is absolutely essential that, operationally, it must have a base in London because this is where the action is.
London is, of course, not the only financial centre in the United Kingdom. If for any reason the Community could not agree on placing the EMI in a major centre, there are also excellent smaller United Kingdom candidates in Edinburgh and Manchester, which are both making strong bids.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully seized of the issues he has raised. I am grateful to him for highlighting them, and I can assure him that we shall take careful note of the points he has made.
It has been suggested by some that Britain's so-called opt-out in the Maastricht agreement and treaty might limit or ruin our chances of having the central bank in London. I do not accept that for a moment. It is of course for this House to decide in due course whether to participate in the final stage of economic and monetary union, but participation will also depend on member states fulfilling the necessary conditions for a single currency by reference to the convergence criteria in the treaty. We fully intend to meet the criteria, but at this stage no one can be completely sure which other member states will do so.
It is also worth noting that. if we did not participate, the Bank of England would still be part of the European system of central banks, with the Governor sitting on the wider general council of the central bank. It would therefore be misleading to suggest that uncertainty about the United Kingdom position is an absolute bar to the European Monetary Institute or the European central bank coming to the United Kingdom.
Some have suggested that London's future depends on the central bank being located here. Although I believe that it would be a great advantage if the European Monetary Institute and later the central bank came to London, I do not think that London's future depends solely or mainly on these institutions coming here. London's standing and market position are such that,
924
provided it continues its unrivalled traditions of experience, service and innovation, it has little to fear in the years to come.
I should like to say a little more generally about the prospects for the United Kingdom in Europe, especially as we approach the opening of the single market. It has always been the Government's view that British banks have everything to gain from a genuinely open, liberal and competitive market for banking services in the Community. Of course, many of our banks are already well established in other Community countries. The four largest United Kingdom banks already have branch and subsidiary operations in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. One of them, Barclays, has branch and subsidiary operations in all 11 other member states. The smaller and perhaps more specialist institutions are well represented in the key centres too.
If British banks are to make the most of their strengths, however, this inter-penetration of different national banking markets needs to be recognised by the European regulatory system, and we need to ensure that bureaucratic barriers do not inhibit cross-border business opportunities —an issue to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. There are supervisory benefits to be gained from a rationalisation of responsibilities among different national regulators. For all these reasons, the United Kingdom has been in the forefront of those arguing in Brussels for measures that will genuinely create a single open market in banking.
A word about the second banking directive—one of the measures referred to by my hon. Friend. It is the centrepiece of the single market for banks. It was adopted in 1989 and will come into force in January next year. The directive will enable banks from any member state to provide a wide range of banking and financial services in other member states simply on the basis of the authorisation from their home authority, without requiring separate authorisation from the host country. This has come to be known as the banking passport.
Hand in hand with this framework of mutual recognition go a whole series of directives which set common minimum standards for the prudential supervision of banks, taking into account the different risks they run. This harmonisation of prudential rules is a key element of the whole process; it provides the reassurance that the reduction of bureaucracy is not at the expense of standards of regulation.
Taken together, the effect of this package of directives is that barriers to cross-border expansion will be removed, and there will be improved competitive opportunities for banks wishing to do business abroad. Consumers of banking services may also expect the benefits of greater choice and competition.
Of course. Europe is not the only important overseas market for our banks, and it is vital that the breakdown of barriers in Europe should not be accompanied by the creation of new barriers between Europe and the rest of the world. The Community as a whole, and London in particular, benefits rather than loses by remaining open to institutions from outside the Community. That was one of the principles on which the United Kingdom insisted during negotiations on the second directive—with, I am pleased to say, a great measure of success. I attach special importance to that and was pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter with the Finance Minister of Japan during his recent visit to this country.

925
We benefit from allowing access to Japanese and other international banks and financial organisations, but there must be reciprocity, and our banks and investment firms must be allowed to enter Japanese markets. I am pleased to say that I have had reassurances in writing from that Minister, and I intend to take the matter forward for United Kingdom and European banks. If the Japanese have access to our markets, we must have competitive access to theirs.
My hon. Friend asked about legislation on the second directive. The deadline for implementation of that directive is 1 January 1993. Work is already well under way on the legislation that is required to transpose the directive into United Kingdom law. A consultation document covering the draft regulations will be issued in the near future. My hon. Friend also spoke about the important issue of the investment services directive and asked what it means for banks. That is an important matter in the context of the level playing field to which my hon. Friend refers because there is some concern that, if the second banking directive comes into force without the investment services directive, the playing field will be slanted unfairly against a key sector of the United Kingdom financial services industry.
I can well appreciate those concerns, and it is quite right to recall that the investment services directive was intended to complement the second banking directive, by delivering an analogous single passport for investment firms, and the aim was that it should be adopted in time for simultaneous implementation.
As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, events have turned out rather differently, and the investment services directive negotiations have been stalled for about 18 months following attempts on the part of some other member states to introduce provisions restricting the market rules and organisation that are permitted. As a result, the directive as currently drafted could seriously damage London as a financial centre.
The contentious areas—the requirements concerning publication of prices and volumes of transactions on regulated markets, and the question whether banks should be allowed direct access to stock exchange membership without having to set up subsidiaries in the member countries—are of such importance that it is preferable to accept the possibility of an uneven playing field once the second directive comes into effect than to agree to a bad investment services directive. I emphasise that the Government are negotiating constructively to achieve agreement on the investment services directive in good time for the arrival of the single market at the beginning of next year.
Two measures in particular are currently nearing the top of the Brussels agenda and in them important principles are at stake for British banking. The first measure relates to the important question of the deposit protection arrangements that should back up the new supervisory framework that will be in force from next year. The United Kingdom has long advocated the transfer of responsibility for deposit protection to a home state basis, to parallel responsibility for supervision. The aim is thus that the home state which authorises a bank should also have to ensure that its deposit protection scheme covers deposits in all the EC branches of that bank. Such a move would provide the right incentives to back up the second directive, and is widely supported by other member states.
926
We therefore very much welcome the Commission's recently proposed draft directive on deposit protection, and look forward to discussing this as a priority under the United Kingdom presidency. As well as allocating responsibility for deposit protection coverage to home states, the Commission's draft directive would introduce certain minimum requirements for deposit protection schemes. These include the provision of at least 90 per cent. protection of deposits until the amount reimbursed reaches 15,000 ecu, which is currently equivalent to about £10,500.
The directive also requires deposits in all currencies to be covered. It envisages that branches abroad would be covered by their home state scheme but with the right to join the host state scheme in order to top up the coverage for their depositors. The draft also proposes that deposit protection payments would have to be made within three months of a bank's closure.
The Government welcome the broad thrust and minimalist nature of the draft directive, and it is hoped that we can make significant progress under the United Kingdom presidency, but the Government have concerns about some of the details, not least the practicability of topping-up, on which further negotiations will be necessary. We shall of course be consulting the United Kingdom industry fully about the issues that arise.
I shall deal now with the complex but highly important issue of the capital adequacy directive—another measure of great importance to British banks in Europe and to security houses and other financial services firms. This is under negotiation in the Council of Ministers. This measure aims to set a common framework of capital requirements for securities firms, but will also refine the existing framework of risk measurement for banks.
The issues at stake in this directive are of course highly technical, but underlying the technical requirements are crucial issues of principle, whose importance is not lost on the City, or the Government. That the directive should deliver a prudent capital adequacy is common ground: what this means in practice is more a matter of dispute. The United Kingdom's concern is that the requirements that are agreed should be appropriately tailored to the different kinds of business covered by the directive: a simple blanket application to securities business of requirements that were designed for long-term and illiquid banking risks would do unnecessary and unjustified damage to key players, both in London and elsewhere in the Community, for no corresponding prudential benefit.
The Government take the view that, if we are to build on the successes already achieved in the banking sector, future regulation must be based on the principle of minimum necessary harmonisation, and in particular must not operate in a way that discriminates unfairly against particular types of institutions or national market structures.
Here, too, there is an important international angle. If Europe burdens itself with a regulatory regime that is significantly more constraining than that of our most important third country competitors, then it is their markets that will gain, at our collective expense. Equally, we must be careful that Europe does not, through indecent haste, undermine moves to harmonise prudential rules for securities business in wider international forums. Many of the questions that are being discussed in the capital adequacy directive are being aired simultaneously in other forums, the BIS forum in particular, and in the

927
international securities regulators grouping. If Europe rushes ahead to set its solution in stone, we may find that we damage the wider movement towards international convergence.
I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government are fully seized of the importance of securing an appropriate regulatory regime in this directive. Throughout the negotiations, Ministers and officials have had the benefit of a great deal of constructive and thoughtful input from a wide range of United Kingdom institutions, and we have taken full account of their views. We are determined to secure the best possible outcome we can—always, of course, within the constraints of qualified majority voting.
My hon. Friend referred to cross-border payments. He drew attention to the importance, for consumers and industry, of achieving cheaper and quicker methods of effecting cross-border payments. As he may be aware, the Commission has recently published a report on the ways in which retail cross-border payment systems work at present, and how they can be improved. The Government fully support the intention of improving the speed and
928
efficiency of cross-border payments, but believe that the emphasis--as stressed in the Commission's report—should be very much on the banks introducing their own initiatives in this sector. The industry is already undertaking a good deal of work in this important area, and this should be allowed to develop.
Finally, my hon. Friend made a number of comments on the Lloyds bid and the Hongkong and Shanghai bid for Midland. As he is aware, the former is now before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and in those circumstances it would not be right for me to comment. However, I can assure him that I have taken full note of what he said, in particular about the Hongkong and Shanghai bid. If he has any concerns that he wishes to put to the commission, it is open for him to do so.
This has been a useful debate, which has given the Government an opportunity to put on record their firm intention of bringing the monetary institutions and the central bank to London, and the importance of the wider opportunities, the glittering prizes, that can be delivered for the banking industry in Europe. I hope that it has been helpful to my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tolls on the Severn bridge from its opening till the present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information is as follows:

  Motor cycles

  Cars

  Small goods/buses

  Large goods/buses

  September 1966

  1s.0d

  2s.6d

  2s.6d

  2s.6d

  February 1971

  5p

  12½p

  12½p

  12½p

  March 1973

  5p

  12p

  12p

  12p

  August 1979

  10p

  20p

  20p

  40p

  June 1983

  —

  50p

  50p

  £1·00

  December 19851

  —

  20p

  20p

  40p

  January 19872

  —

  50p

  50p

  £1·00

  December 1989

  —

  £1·00

  £1·00

  £2·00

  April 1992

  —

  3£2·80

  3£5·60

  3£8·40

  1 Reduced to 1979 levels following High Court judgement.

  2 Reinstated toll levels following House of Lords ruling.

  3 One-way toll (westbound)—eastbound is free.

  These toll charges reflect the cost of providing and maintaining the Severn bridge. The increases in April 1992 will additionally help to meet the cost of providing a second crossing, which is due to open in 1996.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department regularly commissions surveys. A list of all surveys is maintained, but it is not possible to identify easily from this list those surveys which include questions of opinion. The answer on 5 November 1991 to the hon. Member referred to 69 surveys of all types reported to the Department's survey control unit in 1991. A further 47 have been reported since and I am sending a list of these to the hon. Member.

  Consultants Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest figures for fees paid by the Department to management consultants are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  250,000

  1985–86

  272,000

  1986–87

  218,000

  542

  £

  1987–88

  371,000

  1988–89

  604,000

  1989–90

  734,000

  1990–91

  814,592

  1991–92

  1 1,228,066

  1992–93

  2 1,373,005

  1 Latest estimate.

  2 Budget.

  This excludes fees for computing consultancies. Information for earlier years could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when it is intended that the draft orders for the M6 to M56 section of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road be issued.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This summer.

  M6, Corley Moor
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive a formal application from British Coal for an extra junction on the M6 near Corley Moor to the west of the Corley service station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It would be for Warwickshire county council as highway authority for local roads to decide to request the Department to include in its programme an extra junction on the M6 near Corley Moor.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the public consultation to take place in respect of(a) the M56 to A580 and (b) the A580 to M66 sections of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I expect public consultation on the M56 to M62 section of the Greater Manchester northern relief road to start later this year. I cannot yet give a date for consultation on the section between the M62 and M66.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private and public sector properties are currently vacant in the city of Liverpool; what incentives he will provide to Liverpool city council to introduce homesteading schemes; what penalties he will impose on private and public sector landlords who fail to let properties; what is the estimated annual rent and community charge lost on empty private and public sector properties(a) throughout the United Kingdom and (b) in Liverpool; if he will meet leaders of Liverpool city council to discuss a plan of action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  At 1 April 1991, the number of vacant properties in Liverpool was 5,733 local authority, 843 housing association and 7,908 privately owned.
  543
  As far as local authority stock is concerned, the housing subsidy rules penalise those councils that have more than 2 per cent. of their stock empty and reward those that do better. To further encourage best use of housing resources the Department will be introducing a pilot scheme to promote homesteading of local authority stock, linked with the estate action programme. For private homes, we do not believe that property owners should be forced to let accommodation against their will, but our policies are geared to creating the conditions to encourage landlords to let their properties.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 221, by the Minister for Energy, what proposals he has for encouragement of combined heat and power schemes in the renewables sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Energy Efficiency Office—EEO—through its best practice programme, continues to promote the wider application of combined heat and power—CHP—schemes in all appropriate sectors of the United Kingdom economy regardless of the fuel used.

  Where a CHP plant uses a fuel such as waste it may also benefit from the Government's programme to promote the development of renewable energy sources. This programme is run by the Department of Trade and Industry, which works in close collaboration with the EEO on CHP schemes using alternative fuels.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his intention that local authorities should have a veto on applications for opencast mining.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. It is for the mineral planning authority as the elected representatives of the local community in the first instance to decide in any particular case whether planning permission should be granted having regard to all the material considerations, including the potential impact of the development on the environment and local residents. However, it is a fundamental of the land use planning system that the applicant has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a mineral planning authority's refusal of an application.

  Environment Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the environmental action programme 1993–2000 launched by Commissioner Ripa di Meana on 18 March.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government played a full part in discussions leading to the adoption, at the Environment Council on 26 May, of preliminary conclusions concerning the environmental action programme "Towards Sustainability". The Council welcomed the presentation by the European Commission of the programme and undertook to ensure that the programme will be discussed so that it can become operative by 1 January 1993 544
  following the adoption of a resolution by the Council. Preparation of the resolution will fall to the United Kingdom presidency of the Council.

  The Government have set out their initial views on the programme in an explanatory memorandum which will be presented to the Select Committee on European Legislation when the Committee is reconstituted. Copies of the explanatory memorandum have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Planning Controls
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action is being taken following the recommendation by the House of Commons Environment Committee concerning the harmonisation of planning control above and below low watermark;

  (2) if he will consider extending local authority planning control to the 12-nautical mile limit of territorial waters.

  Mr. Baldry
  In its second report of last Session, the Environment Select Committee made several recommendations on the issue of harmonising landward planning control and seaward regulations as far as the 12-nautical mile limit of territorial waters. We are considering the report and will respond in due course.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Contaminated Land Registry with particular reference to its timing, its implications on planning and liabilities on owners of land on the register.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 14 May, at column 198.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 26 May.

  Mr. Howard
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 26 May.

  The Council approved a new directive on air pollution by ozone. The directive requires the monitoring of atmospheric concentrations of ozone throughout the Community on a consistent basis; the sharing of selected monitoring information between member states and the Commission; and the issuing of information and of precautionary health warnings to the public in the event of ozone concentrations exceeding specific thresholds. It also requires the Commission, four years after entry into force of the directive, to put a report to the Council on the monitoring data collected by member states, with proposals on the control of air pollition by ozone.

  The Council adopted conclusions on the framework convention on climate change and agreed that the convention constituted a significant first step in tackling this global problem. They urged all countries to sign the convention during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and to ratify it as soon as possible, and agreed that the Community should also sign it. The Council also supported the continuation of the

  545
  climate change negotiations to begin in autumn 1992 and stressed the readiness of the Community to contribute actively to this work.

  The Commission gave a brief presentation on the state of their preparations to present to the Council proposals for a strategy for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, which would include proposals for a carbon/energy tax.

  In advance of UNCED, the Council adopted preliminary conclusions welcoming the presentation by the Commission of the fifth environmental action programme, entitled "Towards Sustainability". It noted the contents of the programme and undertook to accord the highest priority to consideration of the programme in the light of UNCED and the opinions of the European Parliament and the economic and social committee, so that, following the adoption of a resolution by the Council, the programme can become operative by 1 January 1993.

  The Council discussed informally the state of preparations for UNCED.

  The Council discussed at length a draft Council regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. The regulation is intended to update existing Community legislation on the control of transboundary movements of waste and to enable member states to ratify the United Nations Environment Programme convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. Much progress was made towards the achievement of a common position, but owing to continuing differences of view on the question of national self-sufficiency in the disposal of waste, the Council was unable to reach agreement on this occasion.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue guidance to the local government commission and announce its work programme.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today issued to the local authority associations and other organisations with an interest the policy guidance I intend to issue to the new local government commission. It takes account of the comments we received on the draft guidance issued last November. I have also today issued draft procedure guidance for the local government commission. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House and additional copies are available in the Vote Office.

  I intend to direct the local government commission to undertake a rolling programme of reviews of the shire counties of England, area by area. Review will be carried out in five tranches. The areas to be covered in each tranche are:

  First

  Avon

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  Cleveland

  Durham

  Derbyshire

  Humberside

  Lincolnshire

  North Yorkshire

  Isle of Wight

  546
  Second

  Cambridgeshire

  Cumbria

  Lancashire

  Devon

  Hampshire

  Leicestershire

  Nottinghamshire

  Staffordshire

  Third

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Oxfordshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cheshire

  East Sussex

  West Sussex

  Kent

  Northamptonshire

  Fourth

  Dorset

  Essex

  Hereford and Worcester

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Wiltshire

  Fifth

  Cornwall

  Hertfordshire

  Northumberland

  Shropshire

  Surrey

  Warwickshire

  This represents a balanced and manageable programme for the commission and gives priority to those areas where there is a history of dissatisfaction with the existing local government structure. I expect structural changes following the commission's reviews to take effect between 1994 and 1998.

  Contingencies Fund
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to draw advances from the Contingencies Fund in 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. In February my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be providing £55 million of Government support towards Manchester's bid to host the 2000 Olympic games. Most of this funding will be used to provide sports facilities, but £2 million is to be used to help the Manchester Olympics bid committee fund the bid itself. Funding of the work on the bid will form a new service and parliamentary approval to it will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the urban aid and derelict land reclamation vote—class VIII, vote 3. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £900,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  In addition, I shall be taking a further advance from the Contingencies Fund to meet the immediate administration and project development costs of the Birmingham Heartlands urban development corporation. Parliament approved the statutory order establishing this corporation on 10 March 1992 and Parliament's approval of the associated new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate also for the urban aid and derelict land reclamation vote—class VIII, vote 3. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £300,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any changes to the Building Regulations 1991, or the guidance in the associated draft approved documents, which came into force on 1 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Regulations 1991 were laid before Parliament on 10 December 1991 and, subject to certain transitional provisions, came into force on 1 June 1992.

  The main technical changes brought about by the regulations relate to regulation 7 (materials and workmanship), part A (structure), part B (fire safety), part C (site preparation and resistance to moisture), part E (resistance to the passage of sound), part G (hygiene), part K (stairs, ramps and guards) and part M (access and facilities for disabled people) and a new part N (glazing —materials and protection).

  In conjunction with the coming into effect of the new regulations, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has approved, for the purpose of giving practical guidance on ways of meeting the amended technical requirements of the regulations, the "approved documents" which were also published in December. To bring the statutory guidance fully up to date, HMSO has published an amendments document—"The Building Regulations 1991: Amendments 1992"—which contains corrections, clarifications and revisions to both the new approved documents and those existing editions which will remain approved for the purposes of the 1991 regulations —parts 3 (toxic substances), F (ventilation), H (drainage and waste disposal), J (heat producing applications) and L (conservation of fuel and power). A copy of the amendments document will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The new statutory guidance on the requirements for means of escape in case of fire—approved document B (fire safety)—will now have the practical effect of requiring that smoke detectors are fitted in all new and converted dwellings. As a result of this change, the provisions of the Smoke Detectors Act 1991 are unnecessary, and we have therefore decided, on the advice of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, not to bring that Act into force.

  The Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 28 May, make a minor preocedural amendment to regulation 13 of the Building Regulations 1991, which is necessary to remove an unnecessary administrative burden on builders and developers that was inadvertently introduced in those regulations. The amendment ensures that extra copies of fire safety plans are not required to be deposited where the work relates to a dwelling-house or flat, and comes into effect on 26 June 1992.

  The Department has issued a joint circular with the Welsh Office—DOE circular 13/92, Welsh Office circular 29/92—to all building control authorities in England and Wales, and approved inspectors, giving general guidance on the main procedural changes which will arise on the coming into effect of the new regulations, and other administrative matters arising as a consequence. The circular also contains details of all the approved documents. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that all lists of candidates for public appointments contain equal numbers of men and women.

  The Prime Minister
  All appointments to public bodies are made on the basis of aptitude and merit. It is Government policy for all shortlists prepared for Ministers' consideration to include the names of women or for good reasons to be given for the absence of such names.

  Commercial Whaling
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will take to ensure that there is a permanent ban on all commercial whaling in United Kingdom and EC waters.

  The Prime Minister
  Whaling within United Kingdom fishery limits is already banned and the sale and purchase of whale products by EC member states are prohibited through the Community implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species.

  Ministerial Committee on the Environment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister how often the ministerial committee on the environment has met since 10 April; when the next meeting is planned; what will be on the agenda of the next meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 2 June, at column 394.

  Security Files
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy to disclose how many files on(a) individuals and (b) organisations are kept by (i) the Security Service and (ii) the Secret Intelligence Service; what is his policy on the destruction of files held by these services; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the conclusions of the Security Service Commissioner who said in his report for 1991 that he found the Security Service's general policy on retention of records acceptable.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department will be responsible for overseeing the application of nuclear safeguards and the transmission of safeguards data to the Euratom and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards directorates on United Kingdom facilities following the closure of the Department of Energy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Trade and Industry.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise the issue of nuclear warhead testing and the prospects for a global halt during his next meeting with President Bush.
  549
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 12 May, at column 90.

  Bohemian Wood Carvings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions in Prague with President Havel, in relation to the theft of Bohemian ecclesiastical wood carvings, and their subsequent sale in the West.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: I raised this issue with a senior colleague of President Havel. I have instructed our ambassador to follow up that discussion in greater detail.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Cabinet Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The information requested is not available for the years before 1987–88. For the years from 1987–88 the information is as follows:

  Year

  Television £

  Radio £

  Newspaper £

  Other £

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  19,306

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  9,500

  1989–90

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  14,833

  1990–91

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  876

  1 1991–92

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  10,478

  1 1992–93

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1,000

  1 Estimated figures.

  In addition, there was estimated expenditure in 1991–92 on advertising associated with the citizens charter of £811,911 on newspaper advertising and £202,134 on other advertising. Similar expenditure in 1992–93 is provisionally estimated at £165,000 on television advertising, £495,000 on newspaper advertising and £621,000 on other advertising.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received regarding funding and staffing of UKIAS; and if he will make a statement;

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police per 100,000 population

  Offences per 100,000 population

  Offences per 100,000 population, index 1987 = 100

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  7,225

  6,996

  7,087

  8,987

  10,582

  100

  97

  98

  124

  146

  Bedfordshire

  7,814

  7,505

  7,704

  10,110

  10,667

  100

  96

  99

  129

  137

  Cambridgeshire

  5,368

  5,279

  5,668

  6,803

  8,753

  100

  98

  106

  127

  163

  Cheshire

  5,428

  5,152

  5,016

  5,786

  6,913

  100

  95

  92

  107

  127

  Cleveland

  10,803

  10,546

  10,984

  13,363

  14,137

  100

  98

  102

  124

  131

  Cumbria

  5,889

  5,597

  5,762

  6,782

  9,162

  100

  95

  98

  115

  156

  Derbyshire

  5,096

  4,703

  5,284

  6,501

  8,106

  100

  92

  104

  128

  159

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,148

  4,994

  5,196

  6,167

  7,224

  100

  97

  101

  120

  140

  Dorset

  6,058

  5,534

  6,077

  7,294

  7,831

  100

  91

  100

  120

  129

  Durham

  7,509

  7,413

  7,723

  9,114

  10,881

  100

  99

  103

  121

  145

  550
  (2) whether he proposes to make additional financial resources available to UKIAS.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 18 May 1992 at column 10.

  Replica Firearms
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent advice he has received from the Firearms Consultative Committee concerning replica firearms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Firearms Consultative Committee advised the then Home Secretary that neither a ban nor licensing controls on replica firearms would be either feasible or effective. The committee recommended extending the range of offences which apply to the misuse of replicas. This recommendation is under consideration with the prosecuting authorities and the police service. The committee also recommended that warning labels about the heavy penalties which apply to misuse should be incorporated on the packaging of imitation firearms. Consultations have been held with the trade whose views are being carefully considered.

  Dispersal Prisons
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his policy of reducing the number of dispersal prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My predecessor announced in 1989 that the number of disperal prisons would be reduced from eight to six. There are at present no plans to vary this number.

  Police Incidents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of incidents recorded(a) per uniformed officer and (b) per head of population in each police authority area in Britain over the last five years including 1991–92 and an index of the increase in each area with year one as the base.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information relates to the number of offences recorded by the police per officer and per 100,000 population for the years 1987 to 1991 and is contained in the tables.
  551

  Offences per 100,000 population

  Offences per 100,000 population, index 1987 = 100

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Essex

  5,228

  4,975

  5,299

  6,552

  7,399

  100

  95

  101

  125

  142

  Gloucestershire

  6,574

  6,513

  6,671

  8,007

  10,535

  100

  99

  101

  122

  160

  Greater Manchester

  12,362

  11,386

  11,414

  13,112

  14,700

  100

  92

  92

  106

  119

  Hampshire

  6,031

  5,619

  5,942

  7,178

  8,582

  100

  93

  99

  119

  142

  Hertfordshire

  5,094

  4,836

  4,975

  5,513

  6,594

  100

  95

  98

  108

  129

  Humberside

  10,438

  10,054

  10,742

  12,201

  13,831

  100

  96

  103

  117

  133

  Kent

  5,239

  5,223

  5,501

  6,780

  9,075

  100

  100

  105

  129

  173

  Lancashire

  6,816

  6,986

  6,507

  7,785

  8,778

  100

  102

  95

  114

  129

  Leicestershire

  5,817

  5,712

  6,185

  8,160

  9,999

  100

  98

  106

  140

  172

  Lincolnshire

  6,122

  5,642

  6,102

  6,677

  7,587

  100

  92

  100

  109

  124

  London, City of

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  1 —

  Merseyside

  11,346

  9,882

  9,381

  9,614

  10,309

  100

  87

  83

  85

  91

  Metropolitan Police

  10,173

  9,942

  10,503

  11,551

  12,757

  100

  98

  103

  114

  125

  Norfolk

  5,712

  5,698

  5,995

  7,298

  8,541

  100

  100

  105

  128

  150

  Northamptonshire

  7,201

  6,749

  6,837

  8,353

  10,079

  100

  94

  95

  116

  140

  Northumbria

  11,977

  11,190

  12,684

  14,236

  15,798

  100

  93

  106

  119

  132

  North Yorkshire

  5,358

  4,915

  5,017

  6,403

  7,086

  100

  92

  94

  120

  132

  Nottinghamshire

  9,733

  9,591

  10,484

  13,122

  14,810

  100

  99

  108

  135

  152

  South Yorkshire

  7,348

  6,892

  7,305

  8,286

  9,687

  100

  94

  99

  113

  132

  Staffordshire

  5,658

  5,514

  5,748

  6,979

  8,291

  100

  97

  102

  123

  147

  Suffolk

  5,036

  4,746

  5,016

  5,888

  6,201

  100

  94

  100

  117

  123

  Surrey

  4,390

  4,331

  4,542

  5,724

  6,704

  100

  99

  103

  130

  153

  Sussex

  4,838

  4,813

  5,330

  6,700

  7,918

  100

  99

  110

  138

  164

  Thames Valley

  6,131

  5,631

  6,180

  7,551

  9,437

  100

  92

  101

  123

  154

  Warwickshire

  5,245

  4,773

  5,234

  6,811

  8,386

  100

  91

  100

  130

  160

  West Mercia

  5,029

  4,714

  4,903

  5,386

  6,861

  100

  94

  97

  107

  136

  West Midlands

  10,136

  9,014

  8,749

  10,123

  11,584

  100

  89

  86

  100

  114

  West Yorkshire

  8,964

  8,567

  9,178

  11,420

  14,273

  100

  96

  102

  127

  159

  Wiltshire

  5,038

  4,854

  4,978

  6,013

  6,998

  100

  96

  99

  119

  139

  Dyfed-Powys

  4,133

  4,321

  3,817

  4,427

  5,508

  100

  105

  92

  107

  133

  Gwent

  6,132

  5,513

  5,672

  7,084

  8,642

  100

  90

  92

  116

  141

  North Wales

  5,900

  5,525

  5,370

  5,805

  6,804

  100

  94

  91

  98

  115

  South Wales

  8,630

  9,017

  9,079

  10,649

  12,368

  100

  104

  105

  123

  143

  1 Not applicable.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police per police officer

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per police officer, index 1987 = 100

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  32

  31

  31

  40

  48

  100

  97

  97

  125

  150

  Bedfordshire

  39

  37

  38

  48

  51

  100

  95

  97

  123

  131

  Cambridgeshire

  28

  28

  30

  36

  45

  100

  100

  107

  129

  161

  Cheshire

  26

  24

  23

  27

  32

  100

  92

  88

  104

  123

  Cleveland

  38

  37

  38

  47

  49

  100

  97

  100

  124

  129

  Cumbria

  23

  22

  23

  26

  35

  100

  96

  100

  113

  152

  Derbyshire

  24

  22

  25

  32

  41

  100

  92

  104

  133

  171

  Devon and Cornwall

  25

  25

  26

  31

  37

  100

  100

  104

  124

  148

  Dorset

  30

  28

  30

  36

  39

  100

  93

  100

  120

  130

  Durham

  30

  29

  30

  36

  43

  100

  97

  100

  120

  143

  Essex

  26

  25

  26

  32

  36

  100

  96

  100

  123

  138

  Gloucestershire

  28

  28

  29

  35

  46

  100

  100

  104

  125

  164

  Greater Manchester

  41

  39

  38

  44

  50

  100

  95

  93

  107

  122

  Hampshire

  30

  28

  30

  36

  43

  100

  93

  100

  120

  143

  Hertfordshire

  25

  24

  24

  27

  32

  100

  96

  96

  108

  128

  Humberside

  43

  41

  43

  50

  57

  100

  95

  100

  116

  133

  Kent

  25

  25

  26

  32

  43

  100

  100

  104

  128

  172

  Lancashire

  25

  26

  24

  29

  33

  100

  104

  96

  116

  132

  Leicestershire

  28

  28

  30

  40

  48

  100

  100

  107

  143

  171

  Lincolnshire

  28

  26

  28

  31

  36

  100

  93

  100

  111

  129

  London, City of

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  100

  89

  100

  100

  100

  Merseyside

  33

  29

  27

  27

  31

  100

  88

  82

  82

  94

  Metropolitan Police

  26

  25

  26

  29

  31

  100

  96

  100

  112

  119

  Norfolk

  30

  30

  32

  38

  44

  100

  100

  107

  127

  147

  552 553

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per police officer, index 1987 = 100

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northamptonshire

  36

  33

  34

  41

  49

  100

  92

  94

  114

  136

  Northumbria

  47

  43

  48

  53

  59

  100

  91

  102

  113

  126

  North Yorkshire

  25

  24

  24

  32

  35

  100

  96

  96

  128

  140

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  39

  43

  54

  61

  100

  98

  108

  135

  152

  South Yorkshire

  31

  28

  30

  34

  39

  100

  90

  97

  110

  126

  Staffordshire

  25

  25

  26

  32

  38

  100

  100

  104

  128

  152

  Suffolk

  25

  24

  26

  30

  32

  100

  96

  104

  120

  128

  Surrey

  19

  19

  20

  25

  29

  100

  100

  105

  132

  153

  Sussex

  22

  22

  25

  31

  37

  100

  100

  114

  141

  168

  Thames Valley

  32

  29

  32

  39

  49

  100

  91

  100

  122

  153

  Warwickshire

  25

  23

  25

  31

  39

  100

  92

  100

  124

  156

  West Mercia

  24

  23

  24

  29

  35

  100

  96

  100

  121

  146

  West Midlands

  38

  33

  32

  37

  42

  100

  87

  84

  97

  111

  West Yorkshire

  33

  31

  34

  42

  55

  100

  94

  103

  127

  167

  Wiltshire

  23

  22

  23

  27

  31

  100

  96

  100

  117

  135

  Dyfed-Powys

  18

  19

  17

  20

  25

  100

  106

  94

  111

  139

  Gwent

  26

  23

  23

  29

  36

  100

  88

  88

  112

  138

  North Wales

  27

  25

  25

  27

  31

  100

  93

  93

  100

  115

  South Wales

  33

  35

  35

  42

  49

  100

  106

  106

  127

  148

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms and shotgun certificates have been issued on Merseyside in each of the years 1986 to 1991; and what information he has about the numbers of firearms and shotguns stolen in the county during the same period.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of applications for new firearm and shotgun certificates granted and the number of certificates renewed by the Merseyside police force in each year from 1986 to 1990, are shown in tables 2 and 4 of Home Office statistical bulletin Nos. 2/88, 33/88, 18/89, 26/90 and 23/91. Copies of these bulletins are in the Library.

  The total number of offences of burglary and theft recorded by Merseyside police force in which one or more firearms were reported as stolen and the number of these in which the principal weapon stolen was a shotgun is shown in the table for each year between 1986 and 1990.

  Burglaries and thefts reported by the police in which firearms were reported to have been stolen

  Merseyside police force area

  Number of offences1

  Year

  Total

  Number where shotgun the principal weapon

  1986

  104

  13

  1987

  103

  10

  1988

  71

  7

  1989

  64

  11

  1990

  59

  7

  1 More than one firearm may have been stolen in each offence.

  Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the desirability of amending the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in the light of the recent acquittal in the case involving the death of a 36-week unborn child.
  554
  Mr. Jack
  I understand that the acquittal referred to by the hon. Member concerned a charge of manslaughter, of which a person may be convicted if it can be proved that the victim was born alive and subsequently died as the result of injuries received whilst in the womb. Neither the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it an offence intentionally to destroy the life of an unborn child capable of being born alive, nor the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which disapplied the 1929 Act from abortions carried out in accordance with the conditions of the Abortion Act 1967, is therefore directly relevant to this case.

  Criminal Appeals
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were referred to the Court of Appeal criminal division on a point of law under section 17(1) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 by his predecessors in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Jack
  Two: one in 1990 and one in 1992.

  Visas
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the requirement for visas for Polish nationals who visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since the beginning of last year, about 160 representations have been received from right hon. and hon. Members and about 75 letters from members of the public.

  After a further review of the need for a visa requirement for Polish nationals, the Prime Minister decided to lift it with effect from 1 July.

  The position will be reviewed after two years in the light of experience of the effects of this change.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels in England and Wales have been sited in villages.

  Mr. Jack
  There are currently 28 bail and 81 probation/bail hostels in England and Wales. Of these, three bail and 12 probation/bail hostels are located in smaller communities outside urban areas.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set out the statutory procedures, step by step, which are required prior to a decision for siting a bail hostel being made.

  Mr. Jack
  Hostels are established under powers given by section 49 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. The procedure is for the relevant area probation or voluntary management committee to decide upon the exact location of a hostel and to obtain the necessary planning consent locally.

  Apart from obtaining planning permission from the relevant planning authority, there are no statutory procedures laid down for the siting of bail hostels.

  The Home Office is now producing guidance on developing new hostels which will include matters concerning local consultation when a particular site is being considered. In future probation and voluntary committees will have to follow this guidance.

  John Kamara
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of John Kamara, details of whom have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

  Mr. Jack
  Representations about Mr. Kamara's case have been considered in the light of inquiries made, but we have concluded that the information currently available does not provide sufficient grounds to justify any intervention in this conviction.

  I have written to the hon. Member in more detail about the case.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the criminal law relating to the possession or use of offensive weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has no plans to amend the law in this area.

  Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence in England and Wales to possess in public a bladed or sharply pointed article with the onus on the carrier to show that he has good reason. This measure supplemented the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which makes it an offence for a person to have an offensive weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse or lawful authority.

  The courts have available and use severe penalties to deal with offenders whose crimes involve the use of offensive weapons. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 will enhance the power of the courts to protect the public from serious harm from a violent offender.

  Irish Whiskey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the revenues which have accrued to the Exchequer through domestic sales of Irish whiskey in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The only available information is in respect of VAT and excise duty accruing from domestic sales of all whisky produced in the United Kingdom for which I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 20 May 1992, at column 181.

  Gender Impact Statements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to include a gender impact statement as an integral part of future Budget and Financial Statements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Banks
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will encourage British banks to compete within the EC.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom has been in the forefront of those arguing in Brussels for measures that will create a single market in banking in the EC. The second banking directive, together with a series of directives harmonising prudential rules across the EC, will come into force in January 1993. This will result in the removal of barriers to cross-border expansion and improved competitive opportunities for British banks wishing to do business throughout the Community.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to implement the EC money laundering directive.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has issued a consultation paper on the implementation of this directive. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Single Market
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the method of calculating and presenting Britain's balance of payments figures will be altered after the establishment of the European single market in January 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  Yes. The changes stem from the abolition of most Customs controls on intra-Community trade. Customs declarations, the current source of the statistics of visible trade, will no longer be available. Instead, a new system of monthly returns, linked to VAT returns, has been devised. Known as Intrastat, it is governed by Council regulation (EEC) No. 3330/91 of 7 November 1991. Further details have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.
  557
  The presentation of the monthly visible trade statistics will be affected. There will be a transitional period before the new system becomes fully established, affecting all member states to a greater or lesser extent depending on the speed and accuracy with which traders supply data. In United Kingdom, complete visible trade figures and, hence, the current account balance for the early months of 1993 are unlikely to be published before the middle of the year, although extra-EC trade statistics will continue to be made available in line with the current timetable. Announcements on the timing and format of the publications will be made nearer the time.

  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he expects in the role and duties of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise after the establishment of a European single market in January 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  With the creation of the single market, fiscal frontiers between member states will disappear. As from 1 January 1993, there will be no routine or systematic customs formalities and goods will move freely across internal EC frontiers. The collection of VAT, excise duty and statistics on intra-EC trade at the frontier will be replaced by arrangements based on the provision of periodic returns by companies controlled at their own premises and linked to the domestic VAT and excise systems. As a result there will be a major shift of resource and effort from frontier to inland locations.

  There will be no restrictions on tax and duty-paid goods purchased for personal use in the single market. The use of the red and green channels will also cease. Although duty-free allowances will continue for the time being, control will be exercised on the vendor rather than passengers at the point of entry into the United Kingdom.

  Customs currently operate a wide range of controls at the frontier which are carried out on behalf of other Government Departments, for example health checks on intra-EC traffic in animals and plants. The single market will mean that routine regulatory controls of this kind at internal EC borders will cease. The restrictions that remain will be controlled inland, with any documentary checks divorced from the physical movement of the goods.

  However, anti-smuggling spot checks will continue particularly to combat illicit drug trafficking in respect of traffic from inside as well as outside the EC after 1 January 1993. Customs are creating a more flexible, mobile, better targeted and highly selective system of checks for this purpose, operating on the basis of risk assessment, intelligence and profiling which will result in far less obtrusive controls. Customs activity at the frontier will continue to form part of a national integrated law enforcement effort against illicit goods.

  European Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what documents, in addition to the formal draft statute, he will base his formal consultation exercise in regard to the draft European co-operative statute; and if he will place copies of all such documents and any circulars on the topic in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  The combined consultative document will be based on all three draft "social economy" statutes, along with the accompanying employee participation directives. In drafting this consultative document, due 558
  notice will be taken of the consultation exercise carried out by the DTI in January 1992, in respect of the European company statute, on which many of the provisions of the "social economy" statutes are based. Copies of the draft statutes and directives are already in the Library and a copy of the consultative document will be placed there in due course.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bank of England will respond to the second report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1991–92, "Banking Supervision and BCCI: The Role of Local Authorities and Money Brokers".

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that the Bank of England has now responded to the second report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in Session 1991–92, "Banking Supervision and BCCI: The Role of Local Authorities and Money Brokers". A copy of this response has been placed in the Library, together with the revised edition of the London code of conduct for principals and broking firms in the wholesale markets, which was issued by the bank on 29 May.

  Rouble
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditionality has been applied over the funding of a stabilisation fund for the Russian rouble; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the communiqués issued by the G7 and G10 on 26 and 27 April 1992 respectively, which are being placed in the Library of the House.

  At meetings in Washington on 26 and 27 April, the G7 and G10 supported the intention to establish a rouble stabilisation fund provided appropriate conditions were met. The fund, which would operate in conjunction with a comprehensive IMF programme, would be intended to help stabilise the rouble, facilitate convertibility of the currency, and promote confidence in the Russian reform effort.

  The exact conditions that will need to be satisfied before funding is made available for a stabilisation fund will be determined by the IMF and G10 in consultation with the Russian authorities. These conditions will include the implementation of an agreed IMF programme. It is clear that a stabilisation fund would be effective only once a significant tightening of monetary policies had taken place, an appropriate exchange rate regime had, in the opinion of the IMF, been established, and an effective agreement had been reached on the management of monetary policy across the rouble area.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent the individual policies of economic management pursued by each of the CIS republics will be able to influence the success of a rouble stabilisation fund for Russia.

  Mr. Nelson
  A rouble stabilisation fund could be successful only once effective agreements had been reached on the management of monetary policy across the rouble area. Before a rouble stabilisation fund is put in place the
  559
  IMF will need to satisfy itself that appropriately tight monetary policies are being followed in Russia and all other states which use the rouble.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if moneys being allocated for a rouble stabilisation fund, if drawn on, will be subject to repayment by any of those countries that comprise the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Mr. Nelson
  G10 Finance Ministers, meeting in Washington on 27 April, agreed that a rouble stabilisation fund could be financed by the IMF which would provide Russia with enhanced access to its resources, which in turn would be replenished through lending to the IMF by participating countries under the general arrangements to borrow—GAB. Such a stabilisation fund would be put in place only if Russia agreed a programme with the IMF. National contributions to the IMF under the GAB would be matched by the acquisition of claims on the IMF. All funds made available by the IMF to Russia, either through an IMF standby arrangement or a rouble stabilisation fund, would be fully repaid in accordance with criteria established by the IMF.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the nature of the G7 package of support for the Commonwealth of Independent States as a whole and each of its constituent republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the communiqués issued by the G7 and G10 on 26 and 27 April 1992 respectively, which are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The G7 has expressed its commitment to support Russia's reform effort during the difficult period of transition by providing the recently announced !24 billion multilateral financial assistance package within the context of an agreed IMF programme. To this end, the G7 is prepared to provide up to !18 billion through substantial bilateral assistance, together with other countries, and through supporting significant financial resources from the international financial institutions. In addition, the G10 has supported the intention to establish a !6 billion rouble stabilisation fund.

  No similar package has been announced for the other states of the former Soviet Union.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury—excluding the BT share offer—on advertising and other promotional material is as follows.

  The expenditure for 1988–89 was £49,310, that for 1989–90 was £52,486, that for 1990–91 £43,581 and that for 1991–92 was £104,602—none of which was on television or
  560
  radio. The estimate for 1992–93 is £72,500. Comparable figures for earlier years are unavailable because of machinery of government changes and could only be given at disproportionate cost.

  BT share offer advertising costs were £20,000,000 for 1991–92.

  Consultants' Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury, excluding the BT share offer, on fees for management consultants is as follows:

  The expenditure for 1990–91 was £2,715,831, that for 1991–92 was £3,203,727 and estimate for 1992–93 is £3,697,304. For figures for earlier years I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 May 1991, at column 209.

  The cost of advisers for the BT share offer was given in the answer of 5 March, at column 244.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The following public opinion surveys have been carried out on behalf of the Treasury since 1 November:

  January—February NOP Share Ownership Survey.

  The following surveys were also carried out on behalf of the Treasury but in relation to the BT share offer:

  Market research into public awareness of the BT Share Offer.

  Share information office registrants Survey.

  Capital Adequacy Directive
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress was made at ECOFIN on 19 May with discussions on the draft capital adequacy directive; and when he expects the directive next to be discussed and a common position to be reached.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: I refer my hon. Friend to the report by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the ECOFIN on 19 May, at columns 279–82. The next meeting of the ECOFIN takes place on 9 June when the CAD is likely to be discussed further.

HEALTH

  Tattoo Removal
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to public funds for a tattoo to be removed.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The cost will vary according to such factors as the size and type of tattoo to be removed.
  561
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tattoos have been removed under the national health service for each of the most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue advice to tattooists on the advice to give potential customers about the ease with which tattoos can be removed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The decision to have a tattoo is a matter for individual freedom of choice. We would expect that tattooists inform customers of the ease of removal as part of normal good practice. The Department has issued model byelaws which enable local authorities to satisfy themselves that any premises offering skin piercing procedures are safe.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each health authority in England and Wales the number of patients waiting for operations; and of those how many are waiting for the removal of tattoos.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional figures for the number of patients waiting in England at 31 March 1992, are given in the table. Waiting time information on those waiting for tattoo removal, as with other specific conditions, is not collected centrally. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Patients waiting at 31 March 19921 In-patients and day cases

  Number

  Northern

  57,285

  Yorkshire

  69,634

  Trent

  85,514

  East Anglia

  41,055

  North West Thames

  55,727

  North East Thames

  78,158

  South East Thames

  76,261

  South West Thames

  46,361

  Wessex

  56,375

  Oxford

  46,201

  South Western

  65,692

  West Midlands

  90,002

  Mersey

  50,081

  North Western

  83,795

  SHAs

  13,456

  ENGLAND

  915,607

  1 Based on provisional figures from regional health authorities.

  Rabies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health what information she has about the number of emergency vaccinations for suspected rabies in each country of the EC in 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest figures available for Europe are for 1988 and contained in the World Health Organisation's "World Survey of Rabies 24", a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for England and Wales for 1990 show that 598 people received emergency courses of rabies vaccine.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many people will face marginal tax rates above 50 per cent. as a result of the introduction of the council tax; and if he will break this down into those with families and children and those without.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible to provide estimates of marginal deduction rates for 1993–94 as council tax levels have yet to be set. However, an estimated 395,000 heads of benefit units working more than 24 hours a week and receiving income-related benefits, would face marginal deduction rates of above 50 per cent. had the council tax replaced the community charge in 1991–92. Of this total, 325,000 would head families with children.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1987 and 1988 Family Expenditure Surveys at 1991–92 prices and benefit levels: estimates not comparable with those published in the Departmental Report (Cm 1914), which are based on Family Expenditure Surveys for 1986, 1987 and 1988.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Television Sets
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of(a) imports and (b) exports of television sets in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1991, United Kingdom exports of television sets amounted to £685·4 million, compared with imports of £245£1 million.

  Beer and Cider
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the proposed implementation of section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The President of the Board of Trade has received only three letters about section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, none of which relate specifically to Scotland. The Government have considered these representations and have concluded that the section should be brought into force on 1 April 1994 in accordance with the terms of the order made on 5 March.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a report from the Securities and Investments Board on the exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A copy of the board's report, made in accordance with s117 of the Act, was laid before Parliament today. The report covers the period from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991. Copies are available in the Library.

  Markham Gas Field
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what stage netogiations have reached with the Netherlands Government on the transboundary Markham gas field.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am pleased to be able to inform the House that negotiation of a treaty with the Netherlands Government covering the exploitation of the Markham gas field has been concluded and that the treaty was signed in The Hague on 26 May by the British ambassador to the Netherlands Sir Michael Jenkins KCMG and by the Netherlands Minister of Economic Affairs Dr. J. E. Andriessen. The treaty, which is the United Kingdom's fourth transboundary field treaty although the first with the Netherlands, will enable the field to be developed as an integrated unit. It provides for co-operation between the two Governments on matters like safety, inspection, measurement, appointment of a single operator, approval of the field's development plan, abandonment, exchange of information and for the determination and apportionment of reserves. The treaty will in due course be laid before the House. In the meantime I will place a copy of the treaty in the Library of the House.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1990.

  Mr. Leigh
  The 18th annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1991. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  South Africa
  Mr. Haves
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will report on how British companies have complied with the European Community code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa during the 12-month period to 30 June 1991.

  Mr. Heseltine
  By 28 February 1992, a total of 101 companies had submitted reports to the DTI under the code of conduct. Copies of the reports and of the Department's analysis and summary have, as in previous years, been placed in the Library of each House. These documents may also be inspected at the Department's export market information centre, at the British embassy in Pretoria, at the British consulate-general in Johannesburg, and at the British consulates in Cape Town and Durban.

  The analysis and summary is the sixth since the adoption of the revised code of conduct by EC Foreign Ministers in November 1985. Reports were received from all British companies, except two, whose interests are known or believed to warrant a full report under the code. The two companies not reporting were reminded of the existence of the code, and of the importance the Government attach to it.

  The reporting period under review has seen a decrease in the number of black employees of British subsidiaries being paid below the code's recommended minimum level. Companies' reports indicated that over 98 per cent. of employees were paid above this level.
  564
  Companies' reports indicated that the level of their involvement with trades unions representing black workers increased, with the majority of companies reporting formal involvement with the trades unions. Many companies have taken steps to alleviate the particular hardships experienced by their migrant workers.

  As in previous years, all companies provide on-the-job training and many provided additional training facilities. Companies continued to report impressive levels of involvement in projects benefiting not only their employees and their families but also the wider communities from which their work forces were drawn. Companies also continued to encourage the growth of black business.

  The period covered by the report has been a time of rapid political change in South Africa. But, these encouraging developments have taken place against a backdrop of economic recession. Unemployment has continued to increase. This illustrates the pressing need to restore growth to the South African economy, so that all sides there may show their supporters that peaceful reform brings concrete benefits.

  The Government are once more grateful to companies for their continued co-operation in providing reports, and urges them to maintain this performance and to comply fully with the code.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on issues discussed and decisions taken at the European Energy Council meeting on 21 May.

  Mr. Eggar
  I attended the Council.

  The main item on the agenda was the Commission's proposal, in continuation of its internal energy market programme, for two directives on the liberalisation of the electricity and gas markets. Those measures have the full support of the United Kingdom, which regards the completion of the internal energy market as a high priority. Some other member states do not support the Commission's proposals. No conclusionis were agreed following the Council discussion and the draft directives will go forward for further negotiation.

  The Council adopted the directive on hot water boilers and reached a common position on the proposal for a directive on energy consumption labelling of domestic appliances, both of which come under the SAVE initiative on energy efficiency. The Commission outlined a proposal for a further SAVE directive, which would require member states to take action on building certification, heat metering, third party financing, buildings insulation, inspection of heating equipment, inspection of vehicles, and energy audits. The Commission related that proposal and other programmes, THERMIE and ALTENER, to stabilisation of CO2 emissions and announced its intention to propose a CO2/energy tax soon.

  A mandate for the Commisson to open negotiations for Community accession to the IEA was deferred pending detailed examination of the proposed directive on oil crisis measures. The Commission presented a communication on oil markets and the refining industry and also a proposal for a directive on the conditions for granting and exercising authorisation for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons.

  Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to implement the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce that I made a commencement order on 29 May which will bring into force the substantive sections of the Act. Section 37 was brought into force on 30 May. This is an enabling power for the Secretary of State to reduce—by order—the gas monopoly threshold.

  On 1 July, the sections of the Act will come into force to provide the utility regulators with statutory powers to set and monitor standards for the utility companies, and to facilitate greater competition in the provision of water and sewerage services. Changes to the water mergers regime will ensure that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission can take into account the number of companies in separate ownership in their consideration of all mergers of water enterprises referred to them.

  At the same time, there will come into force the sections granting the Secretary of State powers to make orders designating the telecommunication operators to which the Act will apply, and to make regulations to enable the Director General of Telecommunications to resolve telecoms billing disputes.

  The sections of the Act giving the utility regulators power to resolve disputes between customers and the utilities will come into force on 1 September. The regulators will use the period before then to set up the necessary procedures.

  Copies of the order have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Director General of Telecommunications
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the successor to Sir Bryan Carsberg as Director General of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have appointed Mr. W. R. B. Wigglesworth as acting Director General of Telecommunications at the Office of Telecommunications with effect from 13 June 1992. The general election made it necessary to make an interim appointment. It has not proved possible to complete the process of appointing a long-term successor to Sir Bryan Carsberg before he moves to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Wigglesworth has done an excellent job as deputy director and has carried out the duties of director in Sir Bryan's absences. I have complete confidence that he will carry out those responsibilities equally effectively until a long-term successor is found. Work on that is well in hand.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of
  566
  payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their sub-contractors, all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the sub-contractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Labelling and Packaging
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has been invited to participate in(a) the conference on the practical implications of the New European Commission eco-labelling scheme, to be held in London on 18 June and (b) the conference on packaging and the environment and the implications for the British Retail Consortium, to be held in London on 15 June.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: My Department is in contact with the organisers of these conferences. Speakers at the conferences will include experts who have been advising and assisting my Department on the development of the EC eco-labelling scheme. Dr. Elizabeth Nelson, the recently appointed chairman of the non-departmental public body which is being established by my Department and the Department of the Environment to administer the eco-labelling scheme in the United Kingdom will address the conference on 18 June. A member of the National Advisory Group on Eco-labelling—NAGEL—will also address the Conference. Participants in the British Retail Consortium conference on 15 June will include a member of NAGEL and an official of the Department of the Environment.

  Life Cycle Analysis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Ministers or officials have been invited to participate in or contribute to the conference on the use of life cycle analysis as a cost-effective management tool, to be held in London on 16 June.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: A deputy director of my Department's environment unit will attend the conference and give a presentation on the use of life-cycle analysis within the EC eco-labelling scheme.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ban the import of spent nuclear fuel into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cost Limits
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the 1992–93 running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departments.

  Mr. Mates
  The running cost limit for 1992–93 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland departments is £712·3 million. Details of the provision for individual Northern Ireland departments are set out in the Northern Ireland estimates which were laid before the House on 2 June.

EDUCATION

  Religious Advisers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will list the names and religious denomination of those outside his Department who advise him on religious matters on an occasional or standing basis; and whether he intends appointing any additional special advisers.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no such religious advisers, but he greatly values his contacts with religious leaders whom he and his ministerial colleagues see from time to time.

  Student Support
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information the Government will provide about support for students for the coming year.

  Mr. Forman
  We have today published the 1992–93 edition of our guide "Student Grants and Loans". Secondary schools and colleges in England and Wales will receive copies; so will higher education institutions throughout the United Kingdom. Further copies are available on request. We have also placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This guide contains good news for students. It shows the effect of the 4·5 per cent. increase in average resources that we are providing this autumn. Full year support from grant and loan will then be nearly 40 per cent. higher than the grant in 1989–90.

  The guide gives students the facts about grants and loans in plain English. The citizens charter says that public services should publish simple and accurate information. Record numbers of students are entering higher education. They need to know what financial support they can get and how to apply for it. I am delighted that the guide bears the crystal mark of the Plain English Campaign.

  Voluntary-Aided Schools
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to accept applications for voluntary-aided status from Muslim schools on the same criteria as applications from Anglican, Catholic and Jewish schools.

  Mr. Forth
  It has always been my right hon. Friend's policy to consider each proposal for voluntary-aided status, put forward by any persons or voluntary body of any religious persuasion, on its individual merits.

  Lip Reading
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to ensure that lip-reading classes are available as a right to all who need them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Act 1981 places the responsibility for making appropriate educational provision for children with special educational needs on each local education authority. It is not for the Government to prescribe which form of communication should be employed in schools where there are pupils with hearing impairments, nor the level of support they require. Such decisions are best made in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the number of students in full-time higher education who have not completed their course of studies in each of the past five years and the reasons, in so far as these are known, for their withdrawal from their courses.

  Mr. Forman
  Details of non-completion of higher education courses can he found in: (a) "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK" and (b) "Leaving rates among First Year Students in English Polytechnics and Colleges", a Department for Education statistical bulletin to be published in June.

  Publication (a) is in the Library; publication (b) will be placed in the Library when available and a copy will be sent to the hon. Member.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what amount of borrowing approval per pupil he has provided to grant-maintained schools in each local education authority area for 1992–93; and what amounts of borrowing approval per pupil he has given to each local education authority to provide for the schools remaining within their remit.

  Mr. Forth
  Grant-maintained—GM—schools are prohibited from borrowing under section 57(4) of the Education Act 1988. GM schools receive capital grant direct from the Secretary of State. It is not possible to give a figure representing the average capital allocation per pupil for each LEA because the pupil numbers rise during the course of the year as more schools become incorporated.

  Information on allocations per pupil for LEA-maintained schools is not immediately available in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member with this information when it is.

DEFENCE

  Royal Navy (Redundancies)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a second phase of redundancies is planned for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I announced on 21 November 1991,0fficial Report, column 305–6, a total reduction of

  569
  8,000 in Royal Navy numbers planned by 1995. In the initial phase of the exercise in 1992–93, 80 officers and 320 ratings were selected. I can now say that, in the second phase, approximately 450 officers and 700 ratings will be made redundant.

  It is intended that personnel will be selected from categories in surplus, bearing in mind the need to maintain a balance of skills and experience. So far as possible the target will be achieved by voluntary means, but some compulsory redundancies cannot be ruled out if the correct seniority spread within the ranks and specialisations is to be achieved.

  Detailed terms will be promulgated to the Navy and applications will be invited, to take effect between April and November 1993.

  Gulf Conflict
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 19 May,Official Report, columns 147–48, what information he has about the use of air recognition systems by United States ground forces during the recent conflict in the Gulf;

  (2) what consideration was given to using air recognition systems by British ground forces during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the Gulf conflict, a secure and effective electronic identification system for ground forces did not exist. The coalition nevertheless took such practical steps as were possible to assist identification of friendly vehicles from both the ground and the air. These included fluorescent panels and inverted "V" markings. I understand that the United States was also developing infra-red beacons and lights to complement these markings, and that a number of these were sent to the Gulf towards the end of hostilities.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he plans to have with his United States counterpart about the recent verdict of the coroner's inquest in Oxford relating to the deaths of nine British service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the matter briefly with Secretary Cheney in the margins of the Defence Planning Committee in Brussels last week. He has no plans to discuss the inquest verdict further.

  Information Release
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change his policy relating to the release of official information on defence matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Policy in this area is kept under review to ensure that only information that is sensitive is withheld. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the debate on the address on 6 May regarding the need to sweep away needless secrecy is particularly relevant.

  War Graves, Thailand
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the physical security of British war graves in Thailand; and if he will make a statement.
  570
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are British and Commonwealth war graves at Kanchanaburi and Chungkai in Thailand which are maintained by the Commonwealth Graves Commission. We have no reason to believe that the physical security of the graves is in any way threatened.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We expect to publish the 1992 Statement on the Defence Estimates before the summer recess.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since his predecessor's announcement on 18th February.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since the announcement of my right hon. Friend, the former Minister for the Arts on 18 February 1992,Official Report, column 72, I am pleased to inform the House of the acceptance of a further three items: a collection of silver and nine sporting paintings in lieu of £233,250 tax; a picture "Surface Substitution" in lieu of £64,400 tax and chattels from Upton house in lieu of £484,820 tax.

  The chattels are to remain at Upton house, and the painting "Surface Substitution" has been allocated to the Tate gallery. No decision has yet been taken on the allocation of the collection of silver and sporting pictures.

  Radio
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes there have been in audience figures for Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4 since the decision was taken to change their broadcasting frequency from medium wave and long wave to FM only.

  Mr. Mellor
  In January 1988, the Government announced that the medium wave frequencies used by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 3 would be made available for new services licensed by the Radio Authority. Radio 3 began broadcasting on FM only on 29 February 1992. Radio 1 and Radio 4 continue on AM and FM. The BBC decided to introduce BBC Radio 5, on the AM frequencies previously used by Radio 2, in August 1990.

  I understand from the BBC that the average weekly reach for their national radio services were:

  Percentages

  1987

  11992

  Radio 1

  30

  28

  Radio 2

  22

  13

  Radio 3

  5

  4

  Radio 4

  15

  15

  Radio 5

  —

  5

  1 1st quarter.

  Since 1987, many new independent radio services have been opened.
  571
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will allow the BBC to recommence simultaneous broadcasting on the FM and medium wave frequencies.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. In general, broadcasting the same programme in one area on two frequencies is a wasteful use of the radio spectrum. The BBC decided to keep its FM frequencies, which are suitable for stereo sound broadcasting. The Radio Authority is using AM frequencies to extend listener choice.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the quality of reception of Radios 1, 2, 3, and 4.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received three letters from Members of Parliament and four letters from members of the public about the quality of reception for BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, and 4. This is, of course, primarily a matter for the BBC.

  Consultants' Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give an estimate for the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1992–93.

  Mr. Mellor
  I estimate that the total sum paid out, or committed to be paid out, in fees by my Department to management consultants in 1992–93 is £878,400. Further fees may be paid out as and when the need to engage management consultants arises.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the United Nations team in Iraq in identifying and destroying weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Despite Iraqi obstruction and deception, United Nations inspectors have made considerable progress. Ambassador Ekeus, executive chairman of the special commission, reported his findings to the Security Council on 27 May; that report will be placed in the Library.

  Destruction is well under way, and 1 refer my hon. Friend to the list of equipment destroyed contained in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in column 259.

  The international community is determined to keep up the pressure; there is no question of Iraq once more becoming a threat to its neighbours.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the Turkish ambassador to discuss the situation in Cyprus.

  Mr. Garet-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans for such a meeting. However my right hon. Friend has on several occasions this year had the opportunity to discuss 572
  Cyprus with Turkish Ministers. These meetings have been encouraging, and their tone is reflected in the current prospects for progress in the United Nations-led talks.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the continued occupation of part of Cyprus by Turkish troops.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The continued presence in Cyprus of large numbers of foreign troops is not helpful to prospects for a settlement.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to visit Cyprus to discuss the situtation regarding the border dispute.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We give full support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to bring about a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. There are current grounds for optimism; all sides have accepted the ideas endorsed in Security Council resolution 750, and the recent round of talks by United Nations envoys went well. We have frequent contact with Cypriot Ministers and all other parties to the dispute. However, we believe it important not to undertake initiatives that could in any way cut across the delicate negotiations by United Nations envoys in Cyprus itself.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Turkish Government as to the numbers of settlers from Turkey now living in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not discussed this matter with the Government of Turkey.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to speed up the working of the joint liaison group in discussions on Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend raised the need for a faster pace of work in the Sino-British Liaison Group in his last meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister here in March. We shall continue our efforts to achieve that at the next meeting of the group in Peking in June.

  It is also important to achieve the right agreements for Hong Kong, and to take the time necessary to secure them.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to prevent the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina whose independence he has recognised being removed by force of arms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support United Nations Security Council resolution 752 of 15 May, which called for the immediate withdrawal or disbandment of the JNA and of elements of the Croatian army currently operating in Bosnia.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans any new initiatives to help the people of Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzogovina.
  573
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are working closely with our EC partners to find the most effective way to respond to the tragedy in Sarajevo. We fully support the efforts of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross which are doing their utmost to cope with a very difficult situation.

  Middle East
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The fifth round of bilateral negotiations between the parties took place in Washington on 27 to 30 April. Although progress towards resolution of the difficult issues involved has inevitably been slow, substantive discussions are now under way. The momentum of the peace process has been maintained in the five multilateral regional working groups which have taken place in various capitals over the last three weeks.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the announcement made by the French Government on 8 April of a moratorium on nuclear testing until the end of 1992.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government's policy on nuclear testing remains unchanged. We have a continuing requirement to sustain a minimum programme of tests to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the South African Government to end the visa restrictions placed upon British citizens who have taken part in anti-apartheid activities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I understand that the South African Government are prepared to consider lifting visa restrictions on receipt of requests by the individuals concerned. The British Government have in the past made individual representations to the South African Government where visas have been refused.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech I made during the debate on the Queen's Speech on 8 May at columns 283–4.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with the constituent parts of the former Yugoslavia.
  574
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom and its EC partners recognised Slovenia and Croatia as independent sovereign states on 15 January, and Bosnia-Herzegovina on 7 April. Recognition of Macedonia has been delayed on account of Greek concerns. We reserve our position of the status of the recently self-proclaimed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Brazil
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Brazilian Government about human rights.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are in regular touch with the Brazilian authorities regarding the human rights situation in Brazil.

  We are in touch with the President of the (federal) parliamentary commission on the extermination of street children and with the responsible co-ordinator in the state prosecutor's office.

  We recently invited the President of the Rio state commission on street children to visit the United Kingdom to discuss the problem.

  We have monitored the situation of rural workers and have made arrangements with the Brazilian authorities to be represented at legal proceedings where possible.

  The Brazilians have demarcated a Yanomami reserve partly as the result of international pressure, including ours.

  There will be a further opportunity to raise human rights questions when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets President Collor in Rio de Janeiro later this month.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the British presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Her Majesty's Government will have two main priorities for the United Kingdom presidency: completion of the single market, with emphasis on public procurement, insurance and transport and energy liberalisation; and preparation for enlargement negotiations.

  The Government will also take forward the future finance negotiations and develop relations with eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Baltic states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have good relations with the three Baltic states. We are giving them practical help towards consolidating their independence: so far, we have committed over £1 million to various projects through he know-how fund. We support Baltic demands for the complete withdrawal of former Soviet forces. We have concluded agreements with Estonia and Lithuania to settle gold and other claims questions, and hope to reach final settlement with Latvia soon.

  Israel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Israel to discuss the peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Israel. We are in frequent contact with the present Israeli Government on the peace process. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Levy, in Brussels on 11 May. I had a useful meeting with Mr. Levy in London on 1 May.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the United Nations Secretary-General to discuss the position of the Kurds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our permanent representative in New York is in frequent touch with the Secretary-General on this subject. Together with the Americans and the French, we have made it clear to the Iraqis that they must end repression of their own people, including the Kurds in the north and the shi'a in the south.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals there are for Gibraltar to become a separate state within the European Community; and if he will make a statement on negotiations with Spain about the future of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I am not aware of any such proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to meet his Spanish counterpart to discuss Gibraltar later in the year, in one of the regular bilateral meetings under the Brussels negotiating process.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alexander Zaslaysky and his family of Kiev.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Ukrainian authorities the case of refusenik Alexander Zaslaysky and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alexander Klebanov and his family of Kuibishev.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Alexander Klebanov and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Danil Levitan and his family of St. Petersburg.
  576
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made various representations to the Russian authorities on behalf of Mr. Levitan. In Moscow in March, I raised human rights issues with the Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister, including the case of Mr. Levitan.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Sylvia Turkova and her family in St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Sylvia Turkova and her family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alexander Segal and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Alexander Segal and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Yakov Sverdlov and his family of Gorky.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Yakov Sverdlov and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Arkady Hordon and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Arkady Hordon and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Boris Metrick and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Boris Metrick and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alexander Shaknovich and his family of Kiev.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Ukrainian authorities the case of refusenik Alexander Shaknovich and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Boma Mikhanovsky and his family of St. Petersburg.
  577
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Boma Mikhanovsky and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Valentin Perelstein and his family in Moscow.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Valentin Perelstein and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Vladimir Sluchak and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can raise with the Russian authorities the case of refusenik Vladimir Sluchak and his family, but to make effective representations we shall need further details.

  Antarctica
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 and ratify the Antarctica environmental protocol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on 15 May at column 239.

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

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Education Council met on 1 June. The Tourism Council will meet on 4 June. Ministers will discuss the tourism action plan and a report on the effects of Community policies and programmes on tourism.

  The Telecommunications Council will meet on 5 June and Ministers will discuss the EC Green Paper on postal services and the action plan for the introduction of advanced TV services.

  The ECOFIN Council will meet on 9 June. The Council will discuss the Spanish economic convergence as part of its continuing exercise of multilateral surveillance and the Commission's proposals for the future financing of the Community—Delors II. The abolition of fiscal frontiers will also be discussed. Draft directives for the harmonisation of the rates and structures of excise duty on alcohol, mineral oils and tobacco products are also scheduled for discussion as are the draft VAT rates directive and the draft seventh VAT directive which relates to the sale of second-hand goods, works of art, antiques and collectors items. The proposed capital adequacy directive may also be considered.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 9 June. Ministers will discuss a proposal for the Council regulation laying down common marketing standards for preserved tuna and bouita. It will also discuss the progress report on the establishment of a fisheries regime in the Mediterranean and consider the Commission report on discards.
  578
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 15 and 16 June and will discuss the Commission's proposal for the Future Financing of the Community—"Delors II package". Ministers will also discuss the necessary preparation for entry into force of the Maastricht treaty on European union. Ministers will consider preparations for the European Council and possibly progress towards establishing a European drug monitoring centre.

  Ministers are likely to discuss a range of issues on EC relations with the former Soviet Union, including follow-up to the recent conference at Lisbon on aid, and progress on new trade and co-operation agreements with the principal Commonwealth of Independent States republics. Ministers will consider communications from the Commission about the Community's relations with Iran, Japan and Maghreb; aids for Poseidom, Poseican and Poseima; developments in the negotiations on the GATT Uruguay round; and the handling of the Swiss application for EC membership. Community trade and co-operation agreements with Brazil, Mongolia and Macao may be signed.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 15 and 16 June. It will discuss wild game meat and milk products. Ministers may also discuss animal health, amendments to directives 90/425 and 89/662 and reform of the common agricultural policy.

  The Internal Market Council will meet on 18 and 19 June and will discuss extraction solvents. The Council may also consider contaminants in foodstuffs; colours in foodstuffs; sweeteners; European company statute, the second company law directive; procurement of services by the utilities; public procurement of services; consolidation of works directive; future system for free circulation of medicinal products; homeopathic and veterinary homeopathic medicinal products; medical devices; data protection; rental and lending directives; trademark regulations; second diplomas directive; two and three-wheel vehicles type approval; external projections; hallmarking; trans-European networks, and frontiers.

  The Industry Council will meet on 17 June and will discuss the financial arrangements for the European Coal and Steel Community between now and 2002. Commission communications on the automobile, aerospace and textile industries are also likely to be considered. There may also be discussion on industrial co-operation with third countries; German proposals to give aid for the restructuring of the shipbuilding industry in the former East Germany; electronics; small and medium-sized enterprises; progress of work on maritime and on non-energy mining policy and steel carbon tax.

  The Transport Council will meet on 22 and 23 June and will discuss road haulage cabotage; passenger transport cabotage; maritime cabotage and the third aviation package. Ministers may also discuss inland waterway external relations.

  The Social Affairs Council will meet on 24 June. The proposed directives on working time and the protection of pregnant workers are likely to be discussed and the proposed directive on health and safety in mines and quarries may also be discussed. The Council will discuss the directives on health and safety signs and safety on construction sites. Ministers may also consider the recommendations on financial participation; amendments to regulations 1612/68 and directive 68/360 on the free movement of workers and the convergence of social protection and sufficient resources.
  579
  The Consumer Council will meet on 29 June. It will discuss general product safety; unfair contract terms; comparative advertising; EHLASS; liability of the suppliers of services and a resolution on future priorities for consumer protection policy. Ministers may also discuss distance selling, timeshare and a rapid information exchange system.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Afghanistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A visiting mission of British officials will be in Kabul from 2 to 5 June. Its purpose will be to establish formal and friendly contact on behalf of the British Government with the interim Government now in authority there. It expects to have meetings with leading members of the interim Government. It will also look into the question of a possible reopening of our embassy in Kabul.

WALES

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by district council the number of(a) owner occupiers and private tenants and (b) council tenants who have applied in each of the last two years for the disabled facilities grant; in each category by district council, how many adaptations were carried out; what was the average time taken to complete adaptations from the time the request for adaptation was made; and what was the average amount paid by (i) applicants, (ii) district councils and (iii) central Government.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: Table 1 gives the numbers of disabled facilities grants paid to owner occupiers and types of tenants in each of the last two years. The information for 1990 contains only two quarters' data as the disabled facilities grants, paid under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, were only introduced in July 1990.

  The average value of grants and the average contribution from the applicant towards the cost of works is given in table 2. The figures are not held centrally by tenure. The Department provides a 75 per cent. Exchequer contribution towards local authorities' expenditure in Wales on disabled facilities grants for owner-occupiers and private tenants. Expenditure on these grants for council tenants is eligible for 100 per cent. subsidy from the housing revenue account.

  The information on the numbers of applications for grants and the average length of time from application to completion of grant is not centrally available.

  Table 1

  Numbers of completed disabled facilities grants

  Owner occupier and tenants of private sector or housing association

  Tenants of local authority, new town or the Crown

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  3

  25

  —

  8

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Arfon

  —

  5

  —

  —

  580

  Owner occupier and tenants of private sector or housing association

  Tenants of local authority, new town or the Crown

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  24

  —

  —

  Brecknock

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  1

  91

  —

  3

  Carmarthen

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Ceredigion

  —

  8

  —

  —

  Colwyn

  3

  16

  —

  —

  Cynon Valley

  —

  11

  —

  —

  Delyn

  —

  6

  —

  1

  Dinefwr

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Dwyfor

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Glyndwr

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Islwyn

  5

  107

  4

  185

  Llanelli

  1

  32

  —

  —

  Lliw Valley

  —

  38

  —

  —

  Meirionnydd

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  4

  28

  —

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Neath

  —

  31

  —

  —

  Newport

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Ogwr

  2

  27

  —

  —

  Port Talbot

  —

  18

  —

  —-

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  —

  22

  —

  29

  Radnorshire

  —

  7

  —

  3

  Rhondda

  —

  55

  —

  —

  Rhuddlan

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  1

  69

  —

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  1

  25

  —

  —

  Swansea

  2

  90

  —

  6

  Taff-Ely

  —

  46

  —

  —

  Torfaen

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  31

  —

  7

  Wrexham Maelor

  —

  5

  —

  1

  Ynys Mon

  —

  9

  —

  2

  WALES

  23

  906

  4

  245

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Table 2

  Disabled Facilities Grants paid under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Average Amount Paid by Applicant(£'s)

  Average Amount of Grant (£'s)

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  —

  347

  2,200

  4,874

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  1,181

  —

  6,514

  Arfon

  —

  —

  —

  5,378

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  99

  —

  6,215

  Brecknock

  —

  2,890

  —

  9,767

  Cardiff

  43

  374

  2,055

  10,672

  Carmarthen

  —

  —

  —

  13,559

  Ceredigion

  —

  713

  —

  9,346

  Colwyn

  2,036

  111

  830

  1,618

  Cynon Valley

  —

  427

  —

  1,947

  Delyn

  —

  —

  —

  838

  Dinefwr

  —

  505

  —

  2,107

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  —

  6,972

  Glyndwr

  —

  52

  —

  5,701

  Islwyn

  —

  60

  1,231

  1,877

  Llanelli

  —

  183

  8,204

  3,439

  Lliw Valley

  —

  98

  —

  5,710

  Meirionnydd

  —

  196

  —

  1,532

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  20

  —

  3,303

  Monmouth

  —

  —

  2,473

  2,061

  Montgomeryshire

  —

  —

  —

  8,940

  Neath

  —

  379

  —

  4,829

  Newport

  —

  148

  —

  4,743

  Ogwr

  —

  183

  1,883

  3,954

  Port Talbot

  —

  298

  —

  2,358

  581

  Average Amount Paid by Applicant (£'s)

  Average Amount of Grant(£'s)

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  —

  330

  —

  3,489

  Radnorshire

  —

  —

  —

  4,640

  Rhondda

  —

  92

  —

  2,227

  Rhuddlan

  —

  77

  —

  5,277

  Rhymney Valley

  —

  231

  —

  1,804

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  311

  3,855

  5,136

  Swansea

  958

  102

  2,142

  3,461

  Taff-Ely

  —

  131

  —

  2,864

  Torfaen

  —

  112

  —

  8,396

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  221

  —

  3,510

  Wrexham Maelor

  —

  341

  —

  4,155

  Ynys Mon

  —

  —

  —

  5,440

  Wales

  2,988

  185

  1,979

  3,837

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by district council, the number of applications made for adaptations to the homes of disabled people in each of the last five years; how many adaptations were carried out in each year; and what was the average length of time to complete adaptations from the request for an adaptation to be made to its conclusion.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The numbers of grants completed for disabled people under the Housing Act 1985 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, introduced in April 1990, are given in table 1. Local authorities also perform adaptations on their own stock to provide dwellings suitable for the disabled. Table 2 contains this information.

  Information on the numbers of applications for grants and the average length of time from application to completion of grant is not centrally available.

  Table 1

  Numbers of grants paid to disabled people under the Housing Act 1985 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  13

  76

  38

  54

  40

  Alyn and Deeside

  31

  54

  26

  33

  17

  Arfon

  54

  64

  61

  35

  15

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  15

  26

  76

  29

  Brecknock

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Cardiff

  288

  395

  361

  334

  245

  Carmarthen

  44

  33

  37

  33

  9

  Ceredigion

  40

  39

  49

  55

  28

  Colwyn

  24

  93

  146

  222

  19

  Cynon Valley

  53

  43

  29

  22

  19

  Delyn

  25

  31

  29

  22

  11

  Dinefwr

  26

  20

  19

  28

  26

  Dwyfor

  6

  10

  11

  14

  4

  Glyndwr

  20

  19

  20

  27

  14

  Islwyn

  442

  555

  622

  507

  328

  Llanelli

  23

  81

  39

  135

  45

  Lliw Valley

  105

  85

  112

  128

  61

  Meirionnydd

  19

  12

  15

  18

  7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12

  14

  10

  6

  9

  Monmouth

  21

  70

  57

  47

  32

  Montgomeryshire

  13

  25

  35

  27

  2

  Neath

  —

  27

  69

  62

  35

  Newport

  123

  156

  109

  149

  38

  Ogwr

  96

  96

  95

  161

  54

  Port Talbot

  21

  33

  22

  86

  31

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  68

  108

  212

  246

  87

  Radnorshire

  1

  —

  1

  2

  10

  Rhondda

  40

  26

  32

  12

  55

  Rhuddlan

  31

  16

  17

  9

  7

  Rhymney Valley

  59

  43

  88

  114

  81

  South Pembrokeshire

  34

  24

  68

  68

  31

  Swansea

  213

  175

  252

  307

  154

  582

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Taff-Ely

  73

  70

  76

  99

  51

  Torfaen

  176

  61

  74

  95

  41

  Vale of Glamorgan

  84

  69

  79

  109

  66

  Wrexham Maelor

  1

  1

  2

  —

  6

  Ynys Mon

  46

  48

  55

  41

  19

  Wales

  2,325

  2,687

  2,993

  3,385

  1,731

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Table 2

  Adaptations by local authorities for disabled people

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  5

  9

  19

  21

  39

  Alyn and Deeside

  28

  11

  —

  7

  8

  Arfon

  1

  1

  5

  —

  3

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Brecknock

  23

  26

  12

  41

  49

  Cardiff

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  83

  50

  44

  54

  47

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Colwyn

  60

  74

  75

  56

  153

  Cynon Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Delyn

  55

  45

  10

  —

  14

  Dinefwr

  38

  37

  1

  —

  14

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Glyndwr

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islwyn

  —

  —

  —

  195

  296

  Llanelli

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lliw Valley

  131

  137

  105

  169

  155

  Meirionnydd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  —

  —

  —

  33

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  1

  28

  18

  12

  90

  Neath

  28

  43

  59

  121

  103

  Newport

  340

  396

  320

  161

  192

  Ogwr

  9

  27

  35

  34

  18

  Port Talbot

  132

  38

  265

  157

  91

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  36

  20

  32

  27

  61

  Radnorshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhondda

  180

  261

  242

  221

  343

  Rhuddlan

  —

  —

  11

  2

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  —

  —

  —

  230

  521

  South Pembrokeshire

  109

  122

  109

  103

  96

  Swansea

  983

  939

  378

  309

  505

  Taff-Ely

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Torfaen

  501

  590

  729

  699

  487

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  Wrexham Maelor

  68

  39

  31

  55

  101

  Ynys Mon

  9

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  2,820

  2,898

  2,501

  2,708

  3,438

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by district council, the amount of money spent on adaptations to the homes of disabled people in each of the last five years; and what contribution was made towards these costs from central Government funds.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The amounts of grant paid to disabled people under the Housing Act 1985 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, introduced in April 1990, are given in the table. In addition to expenditure through grants, local authorities and social services spend money adapting dwellings for disabled people. This information is not centrally available.

  Because the support arrangements in Wales and England are similar, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the

  583
  reply given to him on 2 June by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Amounts of Grants Paid to Disabled People under the Housing Act 1985 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Amounts (£000's)

  1985 Act

  1989 Act

  Totals

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  24

  108

  84

  57

  5

  7

  166

  63

  170

  Alyn and Deeside

  67

  94

  52

  69

  27

  —

  46

  69

  72

  Arfon

  200

  227

  230

  157

  65

  —

  27

  157

  91

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  24

  34

  220

  13

  —

  149

  220

  162

  Brecknock

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  49

  8

  49

  Cardiff

  527

  848

  822

  982

  458

  2

  1,014

  984

  1,471

  Carmarthen

  115

  82

  113

  81

  28

  —

  41

  81

  69

  Ceredigion

  94

  98

  147

  172

  104

  —

  75

  172

  178

  Colwyn

  83

  111

  127

  162

  4

  2

  26

  164

  30

  Cynon Valley

  68

  90

  497

  48

  10

  —

  21

  48

  32

  Delyn

  54

  79

  65

  62

  28

  —

  6

  62

  33

  Dinefwr

  48

  27

  35

  86

  83

  —

  15

  86

  98

  Dwyfor

  14

  44

  38

  57

  1

  —

  21

  57

  22

  Glyndwr

  36

  40

  32

  93

  17

  —

  46

  93

  63

  Islwyn

  552

  740

  826

  642

  42

  11

  572

  654

  615

  Llanelli

  35

  133

  57

  200

  38

  8

  110

  209

  148

  Lliw Valley

  212

  190

  247

  339

  117

  —

  217

  339

  334

  Meirionnydd

  19

  14

  18

  52

  21

  —

  3

  52

  24

  Merthyr Tydfil

  24

  38

  40

  28

  22

  —

  23

  28

  46

  Monmouth

  41

  71

  77

  73

  9

  10

  58

  83

  67

  Montgomeryshire

  27

  53

  101

  39

  —

  —

  18

  39

  18

  Neath

  —

  58

  115

  109

  15

  —

  150

  109

  164

  Newport

  215

  334

  110

  224

  65

  —

  119

  224

  184

  Ogwr

  123

  116

  154

  364

  118

  4

  107

  368

  225

  Port Talbot

  26

  45

  34

  115

  19

  —

  42

  115

  62

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  227

  290

  412

  560

  155

  —

  178

  560

  333

  Radnorshire

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  46

  2

  46

  Rhondda

  100

  99

  95

  48

  —

  —

  123

  48

  123

  Rhuddlan

  37

  35

  42

  16

  —

  —

  37

  16

  37

  Rhymney Valley

  75

  51

  135

  169

  36

  1

  125

  170

  161

  South Pembrokeshire

  81

  51

  184

  113

  25

  4

  128

  117

  153

  Swansea

  880

  797

  1,334

  1,494

  307

  4

  332

  1,498

  639

  Taff-Ely

  68

  64

  58

  109

  19

  —

  132

  109

  151

  Torfaen

  335

  190

  193

  319

  181

  —

  42

  319

  223

  Vale of Glamorgan

  218

  134

  223

  336

  84

  —

  154

  336

  239

  Wrexham Maelor

  1

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  25

  Ynys Mon

  153

  112

  141

  139

  35

  —

  60

  139

  95

  Wales

  4,778

  5,488

  6,878

  7,747

  2,150

  53

  4,501

  7,800

  6,651

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Photo-Indentity Passes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list each type of parliamentary photo-identity pass and the number currently issued of each type.

  Mr. Beith
  It is not considered desirable to publish detailed information about the security pass system. If the hon. Member has any matter of specific concern he should consult the Serjeant at Arms.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission (1) what percentage of the total work force employed by the House of Commons Commission is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within the House; and if he will make a statement;
  584
  (2) if he has any plans to implement additional measures to encourage the employment of disabled people in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  The number of registered disabled persons employed by the Commission represents 0·7 per cent. of the total House of Commons staff. That figure does not include registered disabled persons employed by Members or by organisations in the House for which the Commission does not at present have responsibility.

  The Commission's policy on the employment of disabled persons is based on the policy set out in the Commission's fourth annual report for 1981–82 (HC 418, Session 1981–82). The Commission has appointed a disabled persons officer who is responsible for promulgating the Commission's policy on the employment of disabled people and for advising management and staff on matters concerning disablement. He keeps up to date with civil service policy on disablement and from time to time arranges seminars for departmental management with organisations concerned with disabled people.

  Implementation of the Commission's policy is effected through a number of practical measures:

  585

  (1) All press advertisements for vacancies in the House of Commons Service bear the legend "Applications from Registered Disabled Persons are welcomed".

  (2) information is given to applicants for House of Commons vacancies which makes it clear that disablement in itself is not a bar to employment provided the disability does not prevent the postholder from satisfactorily carrying out the duties of the post.

  (3) Management will provide special equipment, appliances, etc. to assist disabled staff in carrying out their duties.

  (4) Provided registered disabled applicants for House of Commons posts have the qualifications and experience called for in recruitment literature, they will be called to interview unless it is clear from their application form that their disability would prevent them from satisfactorily carrying out the duties of the post.

  (5) An unestablished (health) appointment may be offered in cases where there is a doubt as to whether a candidate can meet the House of Commons Service health standard. This provides a period of employment for up to five years in which a candidate's health can he reviewed prior to a final decision being taken on whether he/she satisfies the health standard required for permanent appointments.

  (6) Registered disabled persons who do not possess the academic qualifications specified for certain clerical posts may opt to take the clerical tests as a means of providing evidence that their general level of education is adequate to meet the needs of the post.

SCOTLAND

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure that the housing co-operative sector is fully consulted on matters which concern it; and if he wil make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Housing co-operatives are represented by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Confederation of Scottish Housing Co-operatives, a forum within the federation. Scottish Homes consults regularly with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to expand the number of housing co-operatives and other tenant-led initiatives in Scotland and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is committed to supporting housing co-operatives and other tenant-led initiatives since they give tenants a greater say in the management of their housing. This commitment has been demonstrated through the substantial resources devoted to the finance of housing associations and housing co-operatives since 1979, particularly since the establishment of Scottish Homes in 1989. Since 1 April 1989, housing co-operatives have totalled 40 per cent. of new housing association registrations and now represent 16 per cent. of registered housing associations compared to 11 per cent. in 1989.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that the housing co-operative sector is represented on the board of Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All members of the Scottish Homes board are appointed for their potential personal contribution and not as representatives of 586
  particular sectional, geographical or political interests. The present board has a mix of expertise and, in considering future appointments, my right hon. Friend's aim will be to achieve the mix appropriate to Scottish Homes' needs at the time. The housing co-operative sector may well contain potential candidates for the board but they will be considered on their merits as individuals, not as representatives of that sector.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of programmes and projects receiving urban aid in the current financial year, the capital and annual revenue value of each, the sponsoring organisation and the date that each commenced and is due to terminate.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am arranging for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of urban aid finance, both in terms of capital and revenue expenditure, awarded to each area of priority treatment in Strathclyde on a per capita basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Information is not held in the form requested. Inquiries are being made as to whether it can be produced without disproportionate cost and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of persons registered in Scotland on(a) an electoral register and (b) community charge register.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  OPCS Monitor (EL 92/1) published on 2 April 1992 shows the total number of parliamentary electors in Scotland, including attainers, service voters and voluntary patients, on the 1992 electoral registers as 3,929,112. The publication date for the registers is 16 February 1992. The total number of persons on the community charge register in Scotland, as at 1 June 1991 was 3,834,276.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will mount a major campaign to promote electoral registration in conjunction with local authorities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the significant sums currently spent on publicity for electoral registration purposes represent good value for money. For 1992–93 the campaign budget for electoral registration publicity is £48,000.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will announce the membership of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what guidance he intends to issue to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council on the exercise of its functions.
  587
  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to confirm that Professor John C. Shaw CBE, deputy governor of the Bank of Scotland has accepted formal appointment as part-time chairman of the council with immediate effect. I am grateful to Professor Shaw for the considerable efforts he has already made in his capacity as chairman designate. I have today sent a letter of guidance to Professor Shaw setting out how I expect the council to approach its responsibilities. The letter covers the council's functions and organisation, aspects of Government policy of particular relevance to the council, and the framework through which the council will account for their activities. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  I am also delighted to announce that Professor John Sizer CBE, the head of the business school and professor of financial management at Loughborough university, has agreed to serve as the council's chief executive. Professor Sizer will also sit on the council in an ex officio capacity.

  In addition to Professor Shaw and Professor Sizer, the following have agreed to accept appointment to the council:

  Professor Michael Bond, vice-principal and administrative dean of the faculty of medicine, university of Glasgow.

  Dr. Christopher Carter, vice-principal, Duncan of Jordanstone college of art.

  Professor John Darby, Assistant principal, Napier polytechnic.

  Professor Robert Jack CBE, senior partner, McGrigor Donald, solicitors, and professor of mercantile law, university of Glasgow.

  Mr. John McClelland, UK director of manufacturing and hardware at IBM.

  Mr. Ronald Miller CBE, executive chairman of Dawson International.

  Miss Eileen Murdoch OBE, headmistress, St. Augustine's school, Edinburgh.

  Professor Janet Sprent, professor of plant biology, university of Dundee.

  Mr. Ian Wood CBE, chairman and managing director of the John Wood Group plc.

  Mr. James Wright, vice chancellor, university of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  I am confident we have achieved an excellent blend of academic, industrial and professional experience which will serve the new council well in the exciting and important tasks which lie ahead.

SCOTLAND

  Management Agreements
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the management agreements entered into under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in each year since 1982; and if he will give, in each case, the types of development which have been proposed by the landowner, and are prohibited under the agreement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The information is not held by the Scottish Office environment department. I shall ask Scottish Natural Heritage to write to the hon. Member.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the criteria used by the Forestry Commission when choosing plantation and plantable land for sale; whether particular land has been designated which will not be sold; and if he will make a statement.
  588
  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission follows the guidelines on the selection of areas for disposal set out by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. George Younger, in a letter to the Forestry Commission chairman dated 28 May 1981. This letter was reproduced at appendix V of the commission's 1981–82 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites where(a) access agreements have been reached and (b) are being negotiated following the sale of Forestry Commission land in each county or Scottish region in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: Where access agreements are negotiated and agreed, this is done before the sale of the woodland.

  One access agreement has been agreed for land at Steam Mills in Gloucestershire.

  Fourteen access agreements are currently being negotiated in Devon, East Sussex, Humberside, North Yorkshire. Somerset (two), West Sussex, Dyfed (five), Gwent and West Glamorgan. It would not be appropriate to list the particular sites while these negotiations are in progress.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount has been received by Her Majesty's Government from sale of Forestry Commission land; what is his current estimate of total receipts from the disposal of Forestry Commission land; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: A total of f1615 million was raised from the sale of Forestry Commission land and property between 1981 and 3I March 1992. Estimates of receipts from such sales for the three years to 31 March 1995 have been published in the Government's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95 (Cm 1915), as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  15·0

  1993–94

  16·0

  1994–95

  16·0

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The running costs of the Scottish Office information directorate for each year from 1985–86 are as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·9

  1986–87

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·1

  1988–89

  1·2

  1989–90

  1·4

  1990–91

  1·7

  1991–92

  1·9

  1992–93

  12·0

  1 Estimate.

  589
  These figures exclude expenditure on information campaigns

  Directly comparable figures for years prior to the introduction of new Scottish Office budgetary arrangements in 1985–86 are not available.

  Consultants' Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 7 May 1991 at column 421. Additional information for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 is as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  11,235,070

  1992–93

  2956,669

  1 Outturn

  2 Estimated figure

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of birds of prey that have been killed by persons in each year since 1987.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The numbers of birds of prey recorded as having been poisoned in Scotland are:

  Number

  1987

  11

  1988

  12

  1989

  16

  1990

  17

  1991

  12

  Information about numbers of birds of prey killed in other ways is not available centrally.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: I shall place a list of surveys in the Library as soon as possible.

  Urban Aid Grants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he applies when considering applications for urban aid grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Following a review of the urban programme new guidelines were published on 20 February 1992 aimed at strengthening its impact. These included the revised eligibility and priority criteria which will apply to future
  590
  applications for funding under the urban programme. A copy of the guidelines has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Service Trusts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consultations he intends to carry out with local people regarding applications by hospitals and services for trust status within the Argyll and Clyde health board; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he plans to consider any formal expressions of interest in trust status from hospitals or services with Argyll and Clyde health board; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many formal expressions of interest in applying for trust status have been received from hospitals or services within the Argyll and Clyde health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: A formal expression of interest in NHS trust status has been made on behalf of staff at the Royal Alexandra hospital, Paisley. Any application which results will be subject to the statutory three months' public consultation.

  Community Policing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chief constable of Strathclyde to discuss community policing; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Deployment of police officers is a matter for the chief constable within the overall resources available to him. I am sure that the chief constable will have noted the comment of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, in his recent report on Strathclyde police, commending the steps taken by the force to promote community policing, and underlining the need for every effort to be made to maintain and expand such policing. What can be achieved depends in part on the resources made available by the police authority.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was granted to farmers in Scotland through the ESA scheme in 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Approximately £967,000 was paid in 1990–91 to farmers and crofters in connection with the ESA scheme in Scotland.

  Industrial and Commercial Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are in place to assist the development of industrial and commercial co-operatives; what plans he has to amend these; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: About £200,000 per annum is paid currently from the urban programme to five workers' co-operative development projects in deprived urban areas of

  591
  Strathclyde and Fife regions. Under the new urban programme guidelines issued in February, applications for funding other such projects can still be made.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Renfrewshire Enterprise's 1992–93 budget for(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure was legally committed on 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 2 March 1992, Official Report, column 69.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the Scottish Office contribution to(a) the capital and (b) the revenue budgets of each Scottish Enterprise company for 1991 to 1993 on a per capita basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The allocation of resources to local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Trees
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those species of tree which currently provide a significant proportion of tree cover in the United Kingdom, estimating for each species what proportion of tree cover is provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The proportion of each tree species in United Kingdom woodlands are as follows:

  Species

  Tree cover percentage

  Broadleaves

  Oak

  8

  Birch

  6

  Ash

  3

  Beech

  3

  Sycamore

  3

  Other broadleaves

  9

  Conifers

  Sitka spruce

  33

  Scots pine

  10

  Lodgepole pine

  7

  Larch

  7

  Norway spruce

  4

  Other conifers

  7

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage area of Britain is covered by forest and woodland currently; and what is his forecast for the year 2000.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Some 10·3 per cent. of Britain is currently covered by forest and woodland. This is expected to increase to about 11 per cent. by the year 2000.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total acreage in each county of evergreen forest and deciduous forest for each of the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement.
  592
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The latest year for which information is available on areas of woodland by county is 1980. This is given in Forestry Commission Bulletin 63, Census of Woodlands and Trees 1979–82, a copy of which is in the Library.

  This information is not available for any other period in the last 15 years, but the total areas of woodland by country, divided between conifers and broadleaves, has been published each year by the Forestry Commission in "Forestry Facts and Figures". These figures are given in the table.

  Thousand hectares

  Conifers

  Broadleaves

  Other woodland1

  Total

  England

  1977

  401

  324

  180

  905

  1978

  404

  323

  173

  900

  1979

  405

  323

  172

  900

  1980

  407

  322

  171

  900

  1981

  408

  322

  170

  900

  1982

  407

  324

  169

  900

  21983

  395

  458

  91

  944

  1984

  397

  458

  90

  945

  1985

  395

  460

  90

  945

  1986

  395

  461

  90

  946

  1987

  396

  464

  90

  950

  1988

  393

  467

  90

  950

  1989

  395

  468

  90

  953

  31990

  386

  469

  103

  958

  1991

  385

  471

  102

  958

  Scotland

  1977

  728

  39

  92

  859

  1978

  743

  39

  85

  867

  1979

  760

  39

  84

  883

  1980

  781

  39

  84

  904

  1981

  798

  39

  84

  921

  1982

  818

  39

  83

  940

  21983

  831

  76

  71

  978

  1984

  853

  76

  71

  1,000

  1985

  871

  76

  70

  1,017

  1986

  891

  77

  70

  1,038

  1987

  918

  78

  71

  1,067

  1988

  937

  78

  72

  1,087

  1989

  956

  79

  72

  1,107

  31990

  956

  83

  81

  1,120

  1991

  962

  87

  82

  1,131

  Wales

  1977

  164

  33

  33

  230

  1978

  165

  33

  32

  230

  1979

  166

  33

  32

  231

  1980

  167

  33

  32

  232

  1981

  169

  33

  31

  233

  1982

  170

  33

  32

  235

  21983

  172

  61

  10

  243

  1984

  173

  61

  10

  244

  1985

  174

  61

  10

  245

  1986

  175

  61

  10

  246

  1987

  176

  62

  10

  248

  1988

  175

  62

  11

  248

  1989

  175

  62

  10

  247

  31990

  173

  63

  12

  248

  1991

  172

  63

  12

  247

  1 Other woodland consists of scrub, felled woodland and other areas managed chiefly for amenity and public recreation.

  2 The figures for 1983 and subsequent years are based on the Census of Woodlands and Trees, 1979–82. This resulted in a significant reclassification of forest land.

  1 In 1990, 25,000 hectares of Forestry Commission woodland were reclassified as other woodland.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of(a) deciduous and

  593
  (b) evergreen trees planted in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years; and if he will give his estimate of the number felled.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: No record is kept of the number of trees planted, although an estimate can be made from the areas of conifers and broadleaves planted or grant-aided by the Forestry Commission over the last 10 years. These are as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area planted (thousands hectares)

  Estimated numbers planted (millions)

  conifers

  broadleaves

  conifers

  broadleaves

  1982

  31

  1

  78

  1

  1983

  29

  2

  73

  2

  1984

  33

  2

  83

  2

  1985

  28

  2

  70

  2

  1986

  32

  3

  80

  3

  1987

  33

  4

  83

  5

  1988

  36

  6

  90

  7

  1989

  37

  6

  91

  7

  1990

  24

  10

  59

  11

  1991

  22

  11

  56

  12

  Information is available on the volume of timber felled each year, but it is not possible to convert this into an estimate of the number of trees felled. However, when granting permission for tree felling the Forestry Commission normally requires that the trees are replaced.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to use market instruments to encourage preservation and planting of native wildwoods in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: In accordance with the Government's policy, the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme offers grants to private owners for the management and extension of native woodlands. Management grants were introduced from 1 April this year and include a special rate for ancient and semi-natural woodlands.

  Johnstone Clinic
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the new Johnstone clinic to open; what services it will provide to the local community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The position remains as set out in replies to the hon. Member of 13 February and 22 October 1991. The clinic will open this summer and will provide the following services.

  Audiology

  Family planning

  Ante natal

  Family psychology

  Child health

  Hearing tests

  Child physiotherapy

  Menopause clinic

  Adult physiotherapy

  Mother craft

  Chiropody

  Orthoptics

  Coronary screening

  Psychiatry

  Cytology

  Speech therapy

  Dental

  Ear, nose and throat

  Housing Revenue Account Allocations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to announce supplementary housing revenue account allocations or additional capital consent for district councils within the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.
  594
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Yes. Supplementary housing capital allocations will be made later in the year to authorities incurring expenditure under the provisions for assistance to owners of defective housing in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Other supplementary housing capital allocations will be considered if resources become available. In addition, councils in former coal-mining areas eligible to receive RECHAR grants have been advised that non-housing supplementary consents will be issued matching RECHAR receipts from the European Commission.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to develop the role of housing associations and housing co-operatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: My right hon. Friend's commitment to the development of housing associations as the main provider of new social rented housing has been demonstrated through the substantial resources allocated to Scottish Homes and, before 1989, to one of its predecessor bodies, the Housing Corporation in Scotland. As a result of this commitment it was recently possible to celebrate the opening of the 50,000th grant-aided housing association unit in Scotland.

  My right hon. Friend is committed to giving tenants a greater say in the management of their own housing. The continued development of housing associations and co-operatives will play an important role in achieving that objective. Over £200 million of Scottish Homes' total programme of £333 million will go to housing associations and co-operatives in 1992–93.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of Argyll and Clyde health board to discuss the provision of health services in that area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: My noble and learned Friend Lord Fraser meets health board chairmen on a regular basis to discuss the provision of health services in Scotland. The next meeting is scheduled for 10 July 1992.

  Court Administration
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review court administration procedures with a view to improving the utilisation of court time and police resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The programming of business in the courts is a responsibility of the judicial heads of these courts and not of the Executive. Programming in the sheriff courts is at present being reviewed by groups under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC and Sheriff Graham Cox, and we await the outcome with interest.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local enterprise company area, or other feasible sub-regional classification, in Scotland, and for Scotland and Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, the number and proportion of

  Employment training leavers: August 1990 to July 19911Current activity 3 months after leaving

  Local enterprise company

  (A) Self-employed(including EAS)

  (B) Jobclub

  (C) Unemployed claiming benefit

  (D) Unemployed not claiming benefit

  Enterprise Ayrshire Ltd.

  3

  2

  59

  5

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise

  6

  2

  47

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  9

  3

  47

  6

  Glasgow Development Agency

  2

  4

  59

  3

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  4

  3

  54

  5

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  1

  4

  51

  5

  Scotland

  5

  3

  52

  5

  Great Britain2

  6

  3

  51

  6

  (E) Other

  Local enterprise company

  Full time job: work experience provider

  Full time job: other employer

  Voluntary work

  Part time job (under 30 HPW)

  Other government training programme

  Full time education/training

  Something else

  Enterprise Ayrshire Ltd.

  7

  12

  2

  6

  1

  2

  2

  Dunhartonshire Enterprise

  7

  17

  2

  6

  1

  1

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  8

  10

  3

  7

  —

  3

  4

  Glasgow Development Agency

  7

  12

  2

  4

  2

  2

  2

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  8

  12

  4

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  12

  14

  2

  5

  1

  2

  3

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Scotland

  9

  12

  3

  6

  1

  3

  3

  Great Britain=

  7

  12

  3

  7

  1

  2

  3

  All figures are percentages; and totals may not sum to 100 because of roundings.

  1 August-December 1990 leavers followed up after 3 months, January-July 1991 after 6 months.

  2Includes records not identified to a particular area.

  Training
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local enterprise company area in Scotland and for Scotland and Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, the qualifications gained by employment training trainees, and any credits towards qualifications.

  Vocational qualification and level achieved

  March 1992

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Local enterprise company

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  Argyll and Islands Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness and Nairn Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  8

  5

  —

  Orkney Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Western Isles Enterprise

  1

  —

  —

  —

  26

  24

  7

  —

  Enterprise Ayrshire Ltd.

  43

  7

  —

  —

  227

  79

  35

  0

  Forth Valley Enterprise

  8

  16

  2

  —

  83

  163

  20

  25

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise

  3

  1

  —

  —

  117

  26

  —

  10

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  7

  —

  —

  —

  82

  12

  —

  —

  Fife Enterprise

  —

  4

  —

  —

  20

  25

  9

  —

  Glasgow Development Agency

  158

  62

  5

  —

  755

  258

  67

  —

  Grampian Enterprise

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  4

  8

  —

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  30

  —

  —

  —

  405

  44

  36

  —

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise

  6

  15

  1

  —

  90

  105

  71

  —

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  38

  23

  —

  —

  397

  124

  4

  —

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside

  3

  —

  —

  —

  138

  36

  34

  —

  Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  19

  1

  —

  596
  employment training ex-trainees who were (a) self-employed, (b) in a job club, (c) unemployed and claiming benefit, (d) unemployed and not claiming benefit, and (e) other.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The information, disaggregated by local enterprise company area in those cases where sufficient information is available, is set out in the table.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The figures shown in the table list the full vocational qualifications gained by employment training trainees within each local enterprise company area and for Scotland as a whole both during March 1992 and over the full year (1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992). Information is not collected in this form on credits gained towards vocational qualifications.
  597

  March 1992

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Local enterprise company

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  Scotland

  302

  128

  10

  —

  2,385

  936

  297

  35

  The most reliable information for Great Britain as a whole is available on a different basis. The relevant figures, expressed in percentage terms, are:

  Per cent.

  Worked for qualification or credit

  45

  Gained qualification or credit

  30

  Not gained qualification or credit

  12

  Awaiting results

  3

  Completed agreed training

  49

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of the payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firm issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual position or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment. whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their sub-contractors all
  598
  Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the sub-contractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  A7
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to commence the study he recently undertook to conduct into the potential economic impact on local retailers of the proposal to re-route the A7 through the town of Hawick avoiding North Bridge street; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: 1 expect the commission to be awarded and the assessment to begin before the end of June.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now authorise the Borders road authority to undertake the necessary preparatory work to enable the Colterscleuch stretch of the A7 to be improved along the existing line of the road at the earliest possible date; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Borders regional council has already been commissioned to prepare an appropriate scheme to improve the A7 at Colterscleuch. The brief involves comparative analyses of potential improvements both along the existing alignment and on a new alignment so that the optimum scheme can be identified. Design work is proceeding on both these options in parallel and good progress is being made. It is anticipated that a preferred scheme can be chosen and fully designed by spring next year.

  Completion of statutory procedures, including resolution or determination of any objections, and the availability of finance, will, of course, influence when construction can start.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The figures for 1988–89 to 1991–92 were:
  599

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Television advertising

  576,000

  974,000

  741,000

  556,000

  Radio advertising

  40,000

  85,000

  188,000

  141,000

  Newspaper advertising

  378,000

  1,022,000

  613,000

  853,000

  Other promotional material

  933,000

  1,001,000

  1,098,000

  799,000

  An analysis for 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure by media for 1992–93 have not yet been taken.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of three and four-year-old children were receiving nursery education at local authority maintained nursery schools in each education authority area in Scotland during the present academic year, or at the latest date for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  Regional education authority

  No. of three and four-year-olds receiving nursery education1

  Percentage of three and four-year-olds population in region2

  Borders

  484

  20·1

  Central

  2,733

  41·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  825

  23·3

  Fife

  4,552

  49·4

  Grampian

  3,867

  29·8

  Highland

  835

  15·5

  Lothian

  8,709

  47·3

  Strathclyde

  18,799

  30·7

  Tayside

  3,357

  34·6

  Orkney

  89

  17·8

  Shetland

  238

  35·7

  Western Isels

  —

  —

  Scotland total

  44,488

  33·9

  1 As at September 1991.

  2Based On the latest available estimates of the three and four-year-old population at mid-1990.

  A1
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for improvements to the A I trunk road in East Lothian, giving the timetable, route and cost for dualling the sections between Bankton and Amisfield and onwards to Dunbar.
  600
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: I am pleased to announce that the draft enabling orders and scheme for reclassifying, as a special road, the section of existing dual carriageway between old Craighall roundabout and Tranent and for extending the special road by dualling the A1 between Tranent and east of Haddington were published last Friday, 29 May 1992. A public exhibition of the proposals is being held locally from today until Thursday. The alignment of the route is defined in the draft instruments, copies of which have been deposited in several public buildings along the route for public inspection. The proposed route of the new road follows a line to the north of Gladsmuir and to the north of Haddington. The estimated cost of the scheme is £36 million.

  Although the route proposed has been carefully selected the reaction to it may influence the timetable for concluding the necessary statutory procedures. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 March 1992, subject to good progress with these procedures, development of the design should enable a start to works in the period 1993–94 to 1994–95 as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 March 1992.

  Preparation work for the more easterly section from east of Haddington to Dunbar is also under way, following the published section by approximately 12 months. No decisions have yet been taken on a proposed alignment of that section.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to assist the fish farming industry following the expiry of the EC minimum import price regulations on 31 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: My officials have had discussions with the two salmon farmers' associations about ideas to restore stability to the EC market for salmon, including the establishment of producer organisations. We expect detailed proposals from the industry very shortly.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Several Lords Several Lords— Took the Oath or Affirmed.

NHS Prescriptions: Rural Dispensing
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that applications by pharmacists to dispense National Health Service prescriptions in rural areas already served by dispensing doctors should be approved when the local community objects to the change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the present arrangements for rural dispensing are designed to ensure that people have access to a comprehensive range of both medical and pharmaceutical services. It would therefore be wrong to reject an application from a pharmacist to dispense simply because there is already a dispensing doctor in the area.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is it the case that if a pharmacist gets a licence to dispense, patients living within one mile of that pharmacist are bound to take their prescriptions to that pharmacist even if it means, as it often does, that they are no longer able to use the facilities of the surgery dispensary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in that assumption. When the family health service authorities make a decision on an application they have to bear in mind the crucial policy of separating diagnosis and prescribing from dispensing because that reduces the conflict of interest which potentially exists when one person both prescribes and dispenses.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that under the Clothier regulations a doctor can be compelled to dispense? Does she also agree that when a patient signs on with a dispensing doctor he has to sign a form? If he agrees to have his prescriptions dispensed by the doctor he can also ask that doctor for a prescription to take to a chemist. However, once he has said that he does not want the doctor to dispense for him he can only go to a pharmacy, despite the fact that the doctor is dispensing on the premises. Can the noble Baroness say what has happened to freedom of choice in these circumstances, or is it simply a matter of protecting the pharmacist?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when we have both doctors and pharmacists prescribing it is important that we have an integrated service. Primary
888
care is often criticised for not being integrated. This question is taken carefully into account when the family health services authorities make their decisions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will my noble friend resist any campaign organised by dispensing doctors to keep a pharmacist out of any area into which that pharmacist wishes to go? Does she recall that the reason why we have dispensing doctors in this country is to cover those areas which are without a pharmacy service? Will she therefore resist the temptation to agree to keeping doctors dispensing in a community which could in fact get a pharmacy which would give a far wider range of services than any dispensing doctor could ever give?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend, as a former Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, is correct in the views that he expresses. I should like to make the position clear. In the past year three-quarters of the population received advice on medication from pharmacists. The pharmacist is often the first port of call.
Lord Desai: My Lords, leaving aside the possibility of the conflict of interest, will the noble Baroness confirm that the pharmacist not only gives a wider range of service but also performs it more economically? Is it not better that we get value for money as well as choice in the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much agree with those views.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the position of the pharmacy in relation to the doctor's surgery taken into account? If a patient in a rural area goes to the surgery and then has to travel a mile or two to go to the pharmacy he faces enormous difficulties because of a lack of transport.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, geography and proximity as well as choice are very much considered by the authorities when reaching their decisions. They also try to ensure that people using the NHS have available the widest range of facilities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wish to press the issue of choice that was raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Even if a pharmacy is given a licence to dispense, is not choice maintained only by removing this prohibition on patients still getting their prescriptions from the doctor's surgery? I am concerned in particular about old people and mothers with children who at present may well make one visit to the doctor and get the prescription at the surgery but under the new circumstances will have to make two visits—one to the doctor and one to the pharmacist. Could not this prohibition be removed in the light of the need for choice?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is important that the pharmacy is made viable. It is also in the interests of the National Health Service to reduce the conflict of interest which potentially exists when one person both prescribes and dispenses.

New Zealand War Widows' Pensions
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will top up the value of the New Zealand war widow's pension received by some British war widows resident in the United Kingdom to a level which would give parity with the British war widow's pension.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the pensions paid to the widows of men who died as a result of service in the New Zealand armed forces are a matter for the New Zealand Government.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his sadly disappointing reply. Is he aware that these ladies are all British; that they all choose to be resident in their own country, although if they lived in New Zealand they would have more benefits; and that there are only about 30 of them, a number that is unlikely to go much higher? Does he agree that a caring Government, such as we have, should be mindful of the plight of even very small minorities such as these unfortunate ladies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend says that there are something of the order of 30 of these ladies. However, my advice is that there are possibly only 20 of them. Nevertheless, it would create a precedent to award pensions to those whose entitlement to pension is as a result of service in another power's armed forces. One should stress that New Zealand was an independent country at the time of the last war and its armed forces were under its own control. Therefore, it must be a matter for each individual and independent country to provide pensions for those who have very sadly been widowed or disabled through service in those armed forces.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, how much would it cost to put right this injustice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the second part of the noble Lord's question; I do not see that there has been an injustice. As regards cost, to top up the war widow's pension for these ladies and to include the Ministry of Defence special payment would cost something of the order of £100,000 per annum. But, as I stressed, that would create a precedent. We do not see it as right to start paying pensions for those whose service was in another country's armed forces.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that, when these schemes were considered, anyone joining the UK forces in the United Kingdom was entitled to what is known as a Crown pension and that anyone joining the forces of a country abroad would be entitled to the provisions of that pension overseas?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are talking now about war pensions and not Crown pensions. Service that has resulted in disability or death in the United Kingdom's armed forces will give entitlement to a
890
United Kingdom war pension or war widow's pension. Service in another independent country's armed forces will, similarly, give a right to a war pension or a war widow's pension under that country's scheme.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much the sum of £100,000 might be widened if the precedent was set and there were other widows of other countries in the same position as these New Zealanders?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's question. It would depend very much on how many other widows or disabled former servicemen there were who had served in the armed forces of other countries during the last war and since that time. It would also depend on the level of pension paid by those countries and what that pension was translated into, after passing through different exchange rates, when it was paid to the individual in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that war widows of the old Commonwealth countries have pensions in line with, or more generous than, those of the UK—as I understand it, New Zealand is the only exception—and that, therefore, the question of a precedent which has been much mooted does not arise? Is it not the case that the sums of money mentioned by the Minister in answer to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi are not very great so that the question of cost does not arise? Further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, given the fact that in some cases we are talking about war widows of British men who happened to be in New Zealand at the outbreak of the war and who selflessly enlisted there, would it not be right as well as compassionate to bring their pensions up to the level of British war widows?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, I believe that this should be a matter for the New Zealand Government. It is not the case that it is only New Zealand that has a lower war widow's pension than the pensions that exist in this country. For example, if one takes into account the special Ministry of Defence payment which was introduced some years ago, the Canadian war widow's pension is certainly lower than the war widow's pension available to war widows in this country. It is difficult to compare the different pension provisions in different countries.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, while I accept that New Zealand forces were under separate command from British forces, is it not a fact that those forces came to the aid of British forces?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lady is obviously right. Indeed, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all those who gave their lives or suffered dreadful injuries in the cause of freedom. But, as I said, we believe that it must be a matter in all these cases for each individual and independent country. One must stress that at the time New Zealand was an independent country and should therefore make its own provision for its war wounded and disabled.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend and kinsman say what discussions there have been with the New Zealand Government on this matter? Is he aware that for many years the integration between New Zealand and Great Britain in defence matters has been considerable? While only a small number of people are involved this would be an opportunity to enhance relations between this country and New Zealand, which are already very good.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular discussions with the New Zealand authorities on this issue. We do have fairly regular meetings with our opposite numbers in New Zealand on all social security matters.

Lorry Weights
2.51 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of any EC proposals to raise the harmonised weight of lorries from 40 to 44 tonnes, and what their response to such a proposal would be.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the EC directive on lorry weights, from which the UK has a derogation until 1999, prescribed a 40-tonne weight limit for articulated vehicles in international haulage or 44 tonnes for vehicles in combined transport. We are not aware of any proposal to raise these limits. EC officials are known to be considering the possibility of harmonising weight limits for lorries on domestic journeys.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that almost totally incomprehensible Answer. Is he aware that I am aware that he does not understand it either? Is the noble Viscount further aware that there is considerable concern in this country that very heavy lorries coming onto our minor roads can cause an enormous amount of damage? What steps would the Government take were weights to be pushed up again to ensure that such lorries were kept to main roads and to motorways?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry if my Answer was not clear to the noble Lord. I thought it was absolutely clear. I should say to him that local highway authorities have wide powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act to make orders to restrict or prohibit certain classes of vehicle from using certain stretches of road. For instance, the Act gives authorities power to specify through-routes for lorries or to prohibit or restrict their use in particular zones or roads. These lorries do by and large stick to motorways and trunk roads and we are building by-passes so that they can keep to trunk roads.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the pellucidly clear Answer which he originally gave, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government are opposed to any increase in the weight of vehicles admitted to this country and operating on British roads? Is he aware that many of us feel that the present limit is already too high?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. As he will no doubt know, road wear is determined by axle rather than gross weight. Road wear is proportional to the weight of an axle raised to its fourth power and it is that which is important. We have no proposals from the EC and we do not know what they are. Therefore I cannot make any comment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to send a request to the Commission that it takes a rest from these harmonising efforts it is making from time to time, to mind its own business and to get on with something intellectually constructive and of benefit to the members of the Community?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is having quite a busy day today anyway. But if there is a moment that I can bring this matter to his attention I am sure that I shall try to do so.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer to my noble friend was not as clear as it ought to have been? Are the Government satisfied that we have now reached the maximum of weight that should be allowed bearing in mind the condition of our roads? I sat on the Transport Committee of the European Parliament and this was always a contentious issue. It wants it to be higher. We have satisfied it until recently that our roads did not justify any increase. Is that the view of the Government or not?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, under the agreement that we have for a derogation until January 1999 our weight limits will not rise. As I said, what is important is axle weight. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has found that compared with a four-axle 32-tonne vehicle, the heaviest allowed until 1984, a 44-tonne vehicle allowed for combined transport with six axles could be expected to cause 11 per cent. less road wear per vehicle and 37 per cent. less road wear per tonne of goods carried. That is what is important —axle weight.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that these are not the only criteria? Although it is perfectly well understood that axle weight has a relationship to the wear on roads, the actual bulk of the vehicle itself injures the environment of the people through whose area these lorries proceed. Is not that what people are worried about —the environmental damage that is being done to people, not necessarily only to roads?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot really accept what the noble Lord says. Most lorries are already a certain size; it is just a matter of what they can carry. I should tell noble Lords that it has been estimated that but for the increase in maximum permitted gross weights from 32 tonnes to 38 tonnes in 1983, some 12,000 extra lorries would now be needed on our roads, covering about 640 million miles annually.

893
These vehicles would consume approximately an extra 100 million gallons of diesel, with all that that implies for CO2 and global warming.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount happen to know whether the individual states of the United States, the individual provinces of Canada and the individual states of Australia have the power to fix their own maximum axle weights? If any of them do, why should not the same freedoms be granted to the nation states of Europe?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we do have the power to fix our own domestic axle weights.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, following on from what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, can it not always become a fact when governments give these figures that axle weights are put in as something of just as much importance, if not more, than the total weight?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend. The rules concern axle weights as well as the total amount of weight. They both go together.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, do not the questions that have been posed indicate that what the Government really ought to be doing is to pay urgent attention to shifting more freight from road to rail? What has the Minister to say about supporting the concept that dedicated lorry routes avoiding residential areas should be planned as rapidly as possible so that it would be possible to have local distribution points at railway terminals brought within easy access?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are committed to increasing the role of the railways. In particular, we have plans to open up the railway network to private freight operators. We also will enhance the terms of the Section 8 grant scheme for rail freight facilities. In addition, the Channel Tunnel will provide tremendous opportunity for rail freight in international traffic.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain to the House what is the difference between a harmonised weight and the various other kinds of weight that we have been flinging around during the course of Question Time?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an interesting question. It should not be for me to tell someone like the noble Earl with such a distinguished academic career what it is. I have to leave it to him.

Marsham Street: Staff Relocations
2.58 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to accommodate civil servants presently employed in Marsham Street in the event of the demolition of the existing premises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde):
894
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport is at present considering his department's long-term accommodation needs. In the case of the Department of the Environment, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday that he had decided to move the majority of his department's HQ posts to Docklands.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, before these decisions were made to move thousands of civil servants to an already congested South-East, any evaluations were made in financial and social terms of the possibilities of moving civil servants out of London and to the regions? Does this indicate a complete abandonment of the Government's commitment to any regional policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course careful evaluation is always done to move the maximum number of civil servants away from the congested South-East. Perhaps I can tell the noble Lord that in fact 40 per cent. of DoE staff are already based out of London, with a thousand staff now placed in Bristol.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as we are discussing the use of government property, will the Minister tell us whether the substantial building at this end of Victoria Street which was the former Department of Trade and Industry and which has lain dormant and empty for some months will be brought into use for the benefit of the taxpayer or will it be allowed to rot away as it is at present?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, different departments are evaluating their requirements in central London. The DoE, the Department of Transport and the DTI are all looking at alternatives around London.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, what is the number of the 60 per cent. of staff remaining in London, and how many are being sent to the Isle of Dogs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not have the exact figure, but it is our intention to relocate some 2,000 DoE staff in Docklands.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, was the decision to transfer the civil servants to Docklands taken before or after the collapse of Olympia & York?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he was looking at alternative sites for DoE staff when he announced that Marsham Street was to be demolished. That decision was taken before the change of administration of Olympia & York.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh? When was the decision taken to send the civil servants to Docklands? Was it before or after the collapse?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment

895
confirmed yesterday in a Statement in another place that he would move staff to Docklands, but Dock lands does not necessarily mean Canary Wharf.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those civil servants are not like pawns on a chessboard? They cannot be moved without consultation. Will he give the House an assurance that full consultation is taking place with their representative trade unions?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will the Minister tell us what representations the Government have received on the subject from the Association of First Division Civil Servants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it too will be consulted fully so that we can make the move from central London to Docklands as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible, with the full support of all the civil servants who will be required to make the move.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in supporting the Prime Minister's proposal of opening up government to the public, that unless there are compelling and substantive reasons in the national interest to withhold information, then the information should be freely given? If that is still government policy, will they now change their mind about the publication of the report which calls for the demolition of Marsham Street?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the decision not to publish the report is because it includes commercially sensitive information on the commercial value of the property in question.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister believe that commercially sensitive information is a compelling and substantive reason of national interest? If he does, no one else does.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not curious that of all departments it should be the departments of Environment and Transport which are now being moved to a part of London to which there is no adequate transport access? Is that not evidence of the fact that the transport infrastructure should have been put in place before public money was put in to the private developments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the reasons for it being the departments of Transport and Environment are plain: it is because those departments are the ones in Marsham Street which it is not commercially viable to repair or refurbish.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister has assured the House that evaluations of alternatives and of the disposal of civil servants to the regions have been made. Is it possible for the House to have sight
896
of those evaluations so that it can measure the economic as well as the social justification of rehousing in Docklands as against dispersal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are not a profligate government. I should have thought that it would have been obvious to the noble Lord that we would be seeking the most cost-effective solution, and that is what we have done. I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that we were not publishing the appraisal because of the commercially sensitive information it contained. The same answer goes for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.

Business
3.6 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 5.30 p.m. my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Maastricht Treaty.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to radioactive substances with corrections and minor improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
River Humber (Upper Pyewipe Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, be appointed a member of the Select Committee. That appointment arises from the noble Lord accepting the chairmanship of the Refreshment Department Sub-Committee.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear‡
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would wish to thank the noble Lord, as it has indicated, for taking on that task and wish him well, even if that be out of self-interest.

897
Moved, That the Lord Peston be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with any Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to
898
subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instrument Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

L. Airedale,

V. Bridgeman,

L. Brooks of Tremorfa,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Skelmersdale.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with any Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by any Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with any Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee or the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee do meet with any Committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 9th June at half-past four o'clock. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to seek their agreement thereto.

Committee Work of the House
3.9 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House (1991–92 HL Paper 35).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to invite the House to take note of our committee's report, perhaps I may first say what a great privilege it was to chair the inquiry. I wish to thank not only my fellow members for their unstinting support during the nine months it took to give birth to our report, but all those noble Lords who gave their views. I predicated on another occasion, if I remember correctly, that our report was likely to prove a sure cure for insomnia. However, given a fair sprinkling of what I take to be mainly non-equestrian Peers who are down to speak on this Derby Day, it would seem that I was perhaps wrong.
First, I shall say a word about the background. Our inquiry arose from a specific difficulty over staff resources: the inability to support a proposed ad hoc committee—an ad hoc committee in which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was interested. It was therefore very much an inward-looking inquiry into a particular aspect of our domestic affairs. One or two pundits have criticised us for not taking a more radical look at the role and work of the House; for not considering, for example, the sort of committee structure which might emerge in a reformed House. I happen to remain, in my innocent hereditary way, as I was back in 1968, a reformer at heart. But the reform of your Lordships' House and the kind of committee structure appropriate for a reformed House were not what we were asked to consider. Ours was a much more humdrum task.
However, we took a wide-ranging look at many different aspects of our committee work. It was the first full dress review since committees, as we now know them, were first appointed in those dim and distant days—that dark age—when I was Leader of your Lordships' House.
In 1971, supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—I am glad to see that he is to speak—I rather tentatively asked the House to appoint our first investigative committee on sport and leisure. It was a spar, I suggest, at the time which could be rescued from the White Paper on Lords reform. We have come a long way since then. Today, our Select Committees make a vital contribution to the work of the House. But just as they have grown and developed over the past 20 years, so too have the labours of the House itself. We now sit more often and for longer hours than any other chamber in the world, with the exception, of course, of another place. That is a rather ghastly Guinness record.
A further relevant development is that brainchild of my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley—the establishment, when he was Leader elsewhere, of the
900
new and comprehensive departmental Select Committee structure in another place, now shadowing all government departments.
Our committee approached its task with these important developments very much in mind. We quickly formed the view that a thorough review was well worth while. As we say in the report, Select Committees are,
"a precious resource, but they are a resource which from time to time must adapt to the needs of the House and reflect the interest and support of the House as a whole".
We began with some general observations. We felt strongly that our committees should continue to complement and not duplicate the work of Commons committees; we saw merit in further co-ordination between the two Houses. We were supported in that by senior committee chairmen from another place. We also took the view that the number of Lords available to give freely of their time precluded any great net increase in our committee activity.
We felt too that the very high standards to which our committees have come to work occasionally lead them to be at times just a trifle too ambitious. I am sure noble Lords will agree that there is much to be said for at least some reports which are short, sharp and timely. Others, of course, have necessarily to be full and comprehensive.
Above all perhaps, we concluded that there was a case for some widening of the scope of Select Committee activity beyond the European Community and science and technology. We considered first whether the House might appoint further sessional —that is to say more or less permanent—Select Committees. Several attractive suggestions were put to us: for example, committees on relations between central and local government, on the whole subject of justice and—not least on foreign affairs—all matters on which the House can bring much wisdom, experience and expertise to bear. At the end of the day we came down against those interesting suggestions, not because they lacked merit—they do not—but because we saw real danger in duplicating the work of the Commons departmental committees and in tying up the limited resources of this House on a permanent basis. We see no reason, however—and I underline this—why aspects of these important subjects should not be considered by ad hoc committees. Indeed, I should like to express the hope they will be.
What about ad hoc committees? Relatively few have been appointed in the past two decades—and none since 1988. However, virtually all the evidence we received pointed to their value and bite. For example, we heard from two former Leaders, my noble friends Lord Whitelaw—unfortunately a Derby Day absentee today—and Lord Waddington just how uncomfortable governments had found respectively the report from the Committee on Overseas Trade, that bestseller of 1985, chaired by my noble friend Lord Aldington, and also that on murder and life imprisonment, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. But our two former Leaders readily agreed that these ad hoc Select Committee reports were impressive, persuasive and influential. We were struck, too, by the impact of the narrower inquiries conducted by other ad hoc committees into specific legislative

901
proposals. Thus, that on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, clearly made its parental mark on the subsequent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Accordingly, we have had no hesitation in proposing that the House should be able to appoint at least one ad hoc committee per session.
The other area where we saw a strong case for additional committee work was, of course, the consideration of legislation. We were made very well aware that many noble Lords greatly value the Committee of the Whole House procedure. Thus, under our proposals all main programme Bills—indeed the great majority of Bills—would continue to be taken on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, that granted, we feel that the time has undoubtedly come to experiment further in taking some legislation off the Floor—both to save time and, as I think could be the case, to improve the quality of legislation.
We have made three specific proposals for experiments which I now sketch in outline. The first is on Public Bill Committees. Fortified by the experience of the Charities Bill last Session, we believe that there is a case for the occasional use of such committees for suitable Bills. By occasional I do not mean one every four or five years as at present, but perhaps once or twice a Session. This would permit the procedures to become a little more familiar to us all.
Secondly, we propose special standing committees able to take a limited amount of evidence from interested parties and later to consider the Bill concerned clause by clause. We believe that this procedure would be particularly suitable for certain Bills, largely devoid of party political controversy, initially at least introduced in this House—that is, legal and technical Bills but nonetheless important ones such as those embodying Law Commission recommendations or dealing with intricate matters like company law. We were encouraged by the response which we received from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and I am particularly glad that he will be answering our debate later this evening. My personal belief is that this House has an important, albeit perhaps unspectacular, role to play in this rather special area.
Thirdly, we recommend the appointment of a delegated powers scrutiny committee, able to give more systematic consideration to the delegated powers sought by government in Bills. We believe this would fit well with the revising function of this House and meet the very considerable disquiet about the wide and sometimes ill-defined order-making powers—Henry VIII clauses and so on—increasingly embodied in legislation these days. For this proposal we were indebted to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham in the first instance. He is very sorry that business duties have called him abroad at this time. He was supported by many others, not least by one of the members of our committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who visited the Australian Senate on our behalf. He was able to study closely the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in that House—a committee now 10 years old and generally considered
902
successful and influential. The then Leader of the House was really quite encouraging about this proposal; and we have sought to meet a number of the provisos which he put to us. I look forward with eager anticipation to hearing the views of his successor.
What now of our two particularly distinguished existing committees? In their different ways they have done a great deal to enhance, at least among the cognoscenti, the reputation of your Lordships' House. Here I should like to pay a very special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota—our committee member, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, will have an exceedingly formidable act to follow—and also to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, the present chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. I am not sucking up when I say that the noble Baroness and the scientific noble Lord have both done quite splendid jobs.
The praise from all our witnesses and in all the evidence we received for the expert and painstaking work of the European Communities Committee was unstinted. It came from many quarters. It came also from those really in the know, for example, the right honourable Tristan Garel-Jones, the Minister for Europe, to give him his shorthand title, Sir John Kerr, the UK Permanent Representative in Brussels, and last and far from least, from M. Jacques Delors himself. I have no hesitation in saying—I know that this is the view of all members of our Select Committee —that the standing of the European Communities Committee, be it in its often detailed work of scrutiny or be it through its longer, forward-looking and more strategic inquiries, for example that on the enlargement of the Community with which the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is now heavily pregnant, is without a rival in any other House in any other parliament in the Community.
Accordingly our recommendation that this valuable, indeed invaluable, committee should be reappointed is clear and unequivocal. At the same time we did not feel that its existing structure and working methods were necessarily sacrosanct. Thus we stressed the need for speed and selectivity given the accelerating legislative process in the Community. We emphasised the need for closer and more regular links with the increasingly influential European Parliament and perhaps for some greater promotion of the committee's reports within the Commission. We emphasised this following our visit to Brussels and what we learnt there. We also suggested that the committee structure might itself provide for an ad hoc sub-committee because many of the great issues facing the Community are not necessarily well suited to subject-related sub-committees.
Then there is the vexatious question of resources. At present this invaluable committee takes up the lion's share of our available committee resources both in Peer and Clerk time. Indeed, no fewer than 80 plus of your Lordships are involved in its work. If therefore, as I and our committee believe is right, this House is to widen the scope of its committee activity then it is inevitable that the share of resources taken by our admirable European Communities Committee must somewhat decrease. We accordingly recommend

903
some reduction in the number of sub-committees, perhaps by some astute amalgamation and in the number of noble Lords involved. At the same time we are quite clear that in the future each sub-committee must have the exclusive attention of a single clerk.
My committee was also greatly impressed by the high standing, authority and influence which our Science and Technology Select Committee has won for itself, and not only within the select confines of the science community. Although another place has sought to establish a small science and technology sub-committee we have no hesitation in recommending the reappointment of our committee. Indeed, given the fact that a Cabinet Minister now has a special responsibility for science and for the research councils, the committee's role may become even more influential in the future. In my personal view this increases the relevance of our recommendation that the Science and Technology Committee should seek to concentrate on really, vital matters—not too recondite—likely to interest both Parliament and the nation as a whole. As with the European Communities Committee, we do not think that their existing working methods and sub-committee structure are necessarily sacrosanct.
This then is the framework for committees, albeit a loosely structured and flexible framework—I stress this—which we propose: the re-appointment of the two existing well-proven committees on Europe and on science and technology; the ability to mount and man at least one ad hoc Select Committee a Session; the recourse from time to time to Public Bill Committees on legislation judged appropriate; an experiment with the special standing committee procedure on some legal and technical Bills starting in this House; and likewise, a trial experiment with a delegated powers scrutiny committee.
If it is to operate properly, this structure will need a degree of oversight and co-ordination and we propose, with the endorsement of most of our witnesses, a steering committee. The terms of reference which we suggest are to be found in paragraph 157 of our report. A key role for the proposed committee will be to take decisions on proposals for ad hoc committees, but more generally it will continue the sort of review which we in our committee have begun. It will not, I hope, need to meet frequently, save perhaps to begin with, and it will certainly not seek to intervene in matters which are properly the concern of the committees themselves, let alone dictate how they should go about their work or vet their reports. Our committee attaches the highest importance to this proposal and I hope that it will receive full support today so that the steering committee can be appointed without delay. We thought in our innocent way that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees should perhaps take the chair but this is a matter on which we particularly welcome the views of the House.
We also made a range of other recommendations on the operation of our committee system. It is my hope and expectation that these will be carefully
904
considered by the appropriate committees of the House in the coming months. I shall now only single out one or two of the recommendations.
We considered that there was still room for improvement—I put it no stronger than that—in the way and speed with which Her Majesty's Government respond to our reports. My noble friend gave us a fairly positive and conciliatory reply. I trust that his distinguished successor can follow suit. Likewise, we urged the usual channels to bear more in mind committee reports when arranging Wednesday debates and to set aside two Wednesdays at busy times in the Session for debates on committee reports. Perhaps a bit more controversially we recommended that the rotation rule, as it is known, should be reduced from five Sessions to three, and strictly applied, so as to encourage turnover and to introduce new blood in committee membership. I have a suspicion that there may be some reservations in your Lordships' House about this proposal. If so, I look forward to hearing them.
I wish to reserve my final word for staffing. I make no apology for this. We could not have operated without our wholly admirable Clerk. But he is no exception. We were deeply impressed throughout our whole inquiry by the quality of the staff who man and service our whole committee structure. These Clerks and those who help them are the linchpin of the system and I pay tribute to them. It is a principal reason why the committees of this House represent such good value for money.
I speak of quality. There is also the little matter of quantity. There is already strain in the system and if your Lordships accept our proposals, at least in the main, there is a clear case for a modest increase in staff to ensure that our recommendations are given proper effect to. We are not calling for any major reinforcements. We do not envisage a great array of expert advisers. Nevertheless this is a matter to which our committee attaches great importance and on which I look with confidence today for encouragement from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. On that perhaps over-optimistic note I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House (1991–92 HL Paper 35).—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in this important debate on his committee's report on the Select Committee work of this House. I feel considerable trepidation in speaking on this issue as I am only too well aware of the vast experience of committee work held by those around me. On behalf of the House I wish to pay tribute to my noble friend and his committee for such a comprehensive, probing and provocative look at some aspects of our committee work. It is probably the first time that many, if not all, of the subjects have been examined in such depth. I am sure that your Lordships wish me to congratulate him equally on the manner in which he introduced the report today in his speech.

905
I rise to speak in a dual capacity, as Leader of the House and on behalf of the Government as a whole. My comments are very much my, and the Government's, first thoughts on the various issues. I hope that it may be helpful for your Lordships to have some indication of our initial thinking at this stage, but I should emphasise that we are here to listen to your Lordships' views. I shall wish to reflect on what is said here today before finalising my own views and reporting back to colleagues. Thereafter, I hope that with the support of the House arrangements can be made through the Procedure Committee to give effect to the Select Committee's recommendations in the autumn.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I speak to the conclusions and recommendations in the order they appear in the report. I shall not try to cover all of them. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will speak later on the recommendations for the experimental use of special standing committees and the appointment of a delegated powers scrutiny committee, on the latter of which, I should warn your Lordships, the Government have some reservations.
It will not be a surprise to your Lordships that I agree with the committee's conclusions as to the great contribution Select Committees have made to the work of this House, and the need to develop, without any great net increase in activity, the structure of the committee work which extends activity to areas other than the two main Select Committees. I welcome the support the report gives the view of my predecessor that there must be a clear link between committee work and the Chamber, and that committees must not become, or be perceived as representing, special interest groups. Extending the range of committee work will require effective liaison with the other place in order to avoid duplication. In my view that would be best achieved through contact between the Commons' Liaison Committee and the proposed steering committee.
I welcome the committee's endorsement of the proposal for the appointment of a steering committee. As the report points out, such a committee would be able to continue to review the committee work of the House on a permanent basis, so providing a forum to discuss the further evolution of committee activity. I also agree, in general, with the suggested terms of reference for the steering committee. In particular, I see considerable benefit in the proposed function of adjudicating between competing claims for members, staff and resources.
I am aware that some of your Lordships have concerns about the steering committee proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, expressed some of them in his evidence to the committee. I should therefore like to echo what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said in opening. It is not my intention, nor that of the Government, that the steering committee should influence the activities of the sessional Select Committees or their agendas. The steering committee would, as I see it, have a role at one remove from that detailed work. Nor should the steering committee be
906
seen as a means of imposing solutions on the House: it would instead be an impartial vehicle in which discussion of initiatives—such as for the establishment of ad hoc committees—can be discussed. The existence of such a formal committee would represent a marked improvement on present informal channels of discussion and make more transparent the process of consultation and deliberation. Moreover, the House would still have the opportunity of reviewing the recommendations of the steering committee.
As to the composition of the steering committee, I again broadly accept the recommendations of the report. I agree that the chairmen of the European Communities and the Science and Technology Committees should receive the committee's papers, but on reflection I think that they should not be members, since one function of the committee will be to determine the appropriate resources for those committees. I note the view that the Chairman of Committees should chair the steering committee. However, in view of the composition of the committee, I believe that there is a case for the Leader of the House to take the chair—a view that was also put forward in evidence by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I should welcome the views of other noble Lords on that proposal.
My noble friend described to the House why the committee reject the idea of establishing a third sessional committee. I agree that the case for the establishment of a third sessional committee does not seem strong enough to justify the large and ongoing allocation of resources necessary. As the report recognises, the creation of a new sessional committee would also run the risk of reducing the ability of the House to respond to new demands for committee activity as they arise.
On the other hand, I accept the case in principle for the establishment of more ad hoc committees. I note the recommendation that the House should be able to appoint at least one such committee per Session, with the prospect of three committees every two Sessions. I acknowledge that, in the past, the work of such committees has been highly influential and popular among your Lordships. But, while in principle, I do not dissent from the target of an ad hoc committee every year, I do not think that your Lordships would be well advised to be too prescriptive about the amount of ad hoc committee work. This must inevitably depend on the emergence of suitable subjects for inquiry and, indeed, on the degree of enthusiasm of your Lordships for an inquiry on a particular subject. It will not, in general, be easy to find resources to run two or more ad hoc committees concurrently. It would, of course, be a major function of the steering committee to determine subjects appropriate to be recommended to your Lordships for an ad hoc inquiry.
The use of Public Bill Committees is, if not foreign, at least rather exotic in your Lordships' House. I note that the committee see some advantage in the occasional use of Public Bill Committees to relieve the pressure of business on the floor of the House. As the committee points out, the procedures of such committees remain largely unfamiliar. I am also

907
conscious that there has been a general reluctance for Committee stages of Bills to be taken elsewhere than on the Floor of the House. However, your Lordships may agree that the most recent experience of a Public Bill Committee, on the Charities Bill, was generally deemed to be a success. Moreover, I recognise that the House must try to develop new methods of dealing with legislation if we are to reduce what, on occasions, can be considerable pressure on your Lordships. I believe that, subject to certain safeguards, increased use of Public Bill Committees for some categories of Bills may well repay further examination, and I should be interested to hear your Lordships' views on that subject.
The committee did not recommend the appointment of a committee to assess the environmental impact of Bills—a conclusion the Government welcome. We shall, however, consider the practicality of providing some form of definitive document or statement which would be both concise and informative, which would be available when a Bill is being considered. Any such innovation would, of course, also apply to Bills introduced in the other place.
The Government share the committee's opinion that the European Communities Committee has been at the forefront of the scrutiny of European legislation by a national parliament. But, as the report itself recognises, much has changed since the committee was established in 1974. The range of decision-making in the Community has increased and may increase further. Those developments undoubtedly affect the activities of that committee, and your Lordships will no doubt welcome the present opportunity to take stock of its future mode of operation.
The recommendations are largely intended to make the working of the committee more flexible. The Government welcome that, both in terms of the committee's own activities and in view of the prospect of establishing new ad hoc and legislative committees which will place additional calls on your Lordships' time and energies and the resources of the House. It would be wrong to expect that that new activity could be placed on top of that which already exists, and the report rightly recognises that the activities of the ECC will therefore need to be adjusted to reflect the new demands. I believe that a reduction in the number of sub-committees is appropriate, and I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views on how that can best be achieved.
I should also, personally, support the suggestion of an ad hoc sub-committee within the ECC and the development of closer ties between the committee and the Community institutions, subject to resource constraints. I am also pleased to report that my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will be happy to accept the committee's recommendation that she should provide regular briefing to the the ECC. She will be in touch shortly with the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, to discuss details.
Similar considerations apply to the Science and Technology Committee which has, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, provided a valuable forum for scrutiny of scientific and technical issues since its
908
inception in 1979. Again, the recommendations suggest more flexible methods that should enable the steering committee to allocate resources elsewhere when justified. I believe that these recommendations are sensible and I commend them to your Lordships.
The Government have already agreed to respond in writing to all reports of the European Communities Committee if possible within two months of their publication. We also accept that responses to reports of other committees should, in general, be made within six months of publication.
I note with interest the report's comments on the arrangement of debates on committee reports. We shall, of course, do all we can to ensure that reports are debated at times which meet the convenience of both the committee concerned and the House. But your Lordships will not, I imagine, be surprised if I say that I am a little reticent about giving any firm commitment to the arrangement of debates sought by the committee. At busy times of the year rigid arrangements could increase the pressures on your Lordships' House as Select Committee reports would displace other business from the Order Paper.
All the recommendations, taken together, would represent a significant increase in Select Committee activity in your Lordships' House. This will have two resource consequences.
First, and most importantly, it will place more pressures on your Lordships' time. I pay tribute to the many Members of your Lordships' House who devote so much time and energy to the existing work of Select Committees. But we should recognise that those resources are not infinite. It will, I believe, be an important function of the steering committee to assess the demands on your Lordships of the proposed reforms and to assess the availability of your Lordships to serve on committees.
I am glad to see this point reflected in the report. The report also recommends that, in general, membership of sub-committees of the two main committees should be limited to 12 and that for those committees the rotation rule should be reduced to three years, as it is generally for other committees of this House. While the precise numbers and term of service may be open to adjustment—and I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views on these points—I believe that the committee's proposals are very much to be supported.
Secondly, there will be more pressure on the staff of the House, accommodation and support facilities. We shall, of course, be prepared to play our part to ensure that the reforms envisaged are not frustrated because of lack of resources.
I end by once again thanking my noble friend and the stalwarts of his committee for the sterling work they have done in preparing this report. I look forward very much to hearing what other noble Lords now have to say.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like first to join the Leader of the House in thanking the noble Earl and his committee for the extremely thorough and well researched report that they have produced. It

909
is quite clear that a great deal of trouble has been taken by the noble Earl, members of the committee and the staff. The results are very impressive.
Secondly, I should like to make the point that we do not regard the report, or indeed today's debate, as a party matter. We are dealing with the procedure of the House. Therefore all that I say and all that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will say later reflects our own views and should be understood as such. We have gone to some lengths to consult our noble friends but, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, there are differing views and it is only right that they should be freely expressed. In short, there is no party line, nor indeed can there be.
Thirdly, in view of the number of speakers in the debate, I propose to keep my remarks as short as possible. I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to hear that. In doing so it may sound as though I disagree with the report's conclusions more than in fact I do and I hope that the noble Earl will not take offence. I see no point in going through the areas in which I agree with what is said. I shall set out only points of difference.
So at the outset I should like to say that in general I and the noble friends whom I consulted agree with the general conclusion of the report that the committee work of this House is of the greatest value and should be extended. I simply add—perhaps this is a slightly discordant note on what was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House—that we feel that if the committee work were to be extended, it should be as a supplement to the existing work and not at the expense of it.
Having made that general statement of agreement, perhaps I may turn to some of the points on which I have doubts. First, with regard to the proposed steering committee, there is no doubt that the report is right in recommending that there should be a more formalised system of co-ordination and control of committee work. But the proposed composition of the steering committee looks to me suspiciously like the usual channels wearing a different hat. Since the job of the steering committee will, in the words of the report, be to:
"allocate resources between different Select Committees … [and] monitor the overall Select Committee work,"
as well as to consider requests for ad hoc committees, there must be a worry that the effect will be that those matters will become matters to be determined by the usual channels. Consequently the House will be presented with a series of faits accomplish without any realistic opportunity for debate and challenge. In other words, there is a danger that Back-Bench influence may be stifled. I should regret that.
In the light of that worry, my own preference—I shall be honest about it—would be for a liaison committee of committee chairmen, as suggested in the written evidence from the Clerk of the Parliaments. Its job would be to avoid overlap between committees in this House or committees of the other place; but it is important that the allocation of resources between committees and selection of the subjects to be studied by ad hoc committees should be a matter to be decided
910
by the whole House on the recommendation of the Leader of the House. It should be the Leader of the House who puts forward suggestions which could then be debated. If we have a steering committee between the usual channels, it becomes extremely difficult for the Opposition from either the Front or the Back Benches to challenge the decision. It goes through without the whole House having had the opportunity to express an opinion.
I turn to the issue of whether or not there should be a third sessional committee. To my mind that is linked to the thoughts put forth in the report on the subject of ad hoc committees. I am not as hostile as the report to the idea of a third sessional committee. As the noble Earl said, a number of suggestions came up in evidence but I rather suspect that if there is to be a third sessional committee it will grow out of the result of an ad hoc committee. In other words, we should have an ad hoc committee on a topic; it would then decide and recommend to the House that the matter and its conclusions on it were so important that the committee should be put on a semi-permanent basis.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two admittedly hypothetical examples. The noble Earl mentioned that one of the subjects for study that had been suggested (which incidentally I would support) was the general relationship between central and local government. An ad hoc committee might easily be set up for that purpose but that committee might decide that the matter was so important and so continuing that it should turn into a third sessional committee.
As an another example, which fits well with the revising role of the House, an ad hoc committee might be set up to study how a particular piece of legislation has worked in practice—not in political terms but in practice—what effect it has had, if any, and whether such effect had been intended when the Bill came before your Lordships. The results would be exceedingly interesting. It might well be as a result that a sessional committee might be set up to conduct further investigations along the same lines. I do not therefore rule out the idea of a third sessional committee. But I accept the report's view that at present there is no case for anyone saying that we should have a third sessional committee on this or that. I believe that it would evolve naturally out of an ad hoc committee. I wholeheartedly endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House said about the work of both sessional committees. There is no doubt about the respect and admiration in which they are held not only in this country but abroad—and that is important.
On the European Communities Committee, obviously after the result in Denmark yesterday it is difficult to see exactly where we shall go with the amount of paper coming from Brussels. I do not envisage that the amount of paper from Brussels will diminish. The Maastricht proposals may or may not be revived. We do not know; we shall have to wait and see. But the recommendation in the report that resources devoted to the European Communities Committee should be reduced to allow for more committee activity elsewhere makes sense only if the amount of paper coming from Brussels is reduced or

911
if someone else does the work that the EC Committee presently undertakes. I do not know who that someone might be.
There is no doubt that the Science and Technology Committee does valuable work. The noble Lord the Leader of the House raised the more general point about the availability of Peers to serve on committees. I rather suspect that the catchment area for, say, science and technology versus European Communities versus murder and life imprisonment versus overseas trade may be somewhat different. In other words, there will be Peers in this House who would be happy to serve on one but not on another. They would be happy to serve on an ad hoc committee but not happy to serve on a sessional committee. That makes the calculation of availability of Peers more than a matter of numbers. It is more a question of who is interested in what. To my mind that renders the whole calculation extremely complex.
While on the subject of availability of Peers for committee work, I ought to make it clear that we - and I believe that I can say "we" with confidence—are unhappy about the proposal that the rotation period should be reduced from five to three years. It takes time for a newly appointed Peer to run himself or herself into committee work and to reduce the total period of service on a committee to the three years that is suggested would in our view reduce the effectiveness of the committees. Furthermore—it is the only party point that I shall make—we on these Benches believe that we have not been equitably treated over the past few years in the creation of new Peers. I believe that that is generally recognised. I doubt whether my noble friends could be persuaded to accept the proposed rotation rule unless our numbers were substantially increased to correct the imbalance that has grown in recent times.
Having said that, I move swiftly to a non-party point. It is that the process of appointing Peers to committees seems to be shrouded in a certain amount of mystery and could do with a serious injection of de-mystification.
I turn now to the results of committee work: the reports, how they are published, where they go and how they are debated. I remain to be convinced that the proposal to engage a full-time Clerk whose sole responsibility would be to publicise the work of committees is sensible. Some of that work is liable to attract media attention. I have in mind the 1985 report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which was rubbished on the nine o'clock news before it was even published. That report attracted immediate media attention. On the other hand, a report on the design of ships, if I may say so, such as was debated in your Lordships' House recently, will not attract great media attention.
No one can force the media to give coverage where there is little or no intrinsic interest in their judgment. On the other hand, it is important that committee reports should reach people or institutions who are or should be interested in their findings. That should be possible under the existing machinery. I believe that it would be sensible for a press release to be issued with each report and for the chairman of the relevant
912
committee to conduct a press conference. But I make the point again that the press and broadcasters will take an interest only in what they believe is news. One cannot force them to accept something as news when they do not believe it is.
When your Lordships debate a report, I say with the greatest respect—and I speak as an Opposition spokesman who has had on many occasions to respond from this Dispatch Box—the quality of debate on those reports is to say the least somewhat variable. I am not sure that it is a good idea for Peers who were members of the committee, other than the chairman, to feel that automatically they have to speak in a debate on a report. The chairman has to set out the nature of the report and to move the Motion. Furthermore, I see no good reason why such debates should not be time limited. I am sympathetic to the arrangement whereby debates on committee reports can be merged with Wednesday party debates, as occurred recently.
Lastly, I wish to say a word about staffing, accommodation and expenses. I agree with the report, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House in praising the work of the Clerks and those who assist them in servicing our committees. It is desperately important to put that on the record from this side of the House. I also agree that an extra Clerk, or possibly more than one, will be needed to service the extra committee work envisaged by the report. As I hope that I have made clear, I hope that that would be a Clerk who could service committees rather than just a publicity Clerk.
Accommodation is always a vexed matter. It seems to me that thought should be given not just generally to rooms in which committees may do their work but also to those Peers who serve on the committees. Peers who serve on committees often have an enormous amount of paper to read. In my experience there are plenty of people who do not have desks or lockers; they have nowhere to read the papers. It is important to ensure that Peers who take the trouble to do that very hard work on committees, as the noble Earl said, should have proper facilities.
The same comment applies to subsistence and day travel allowances. Many Peers on committees work extremely hard, as indeed do a number of Peers in the Chamber. It has always seemed odd to me that there is no distinction between hard-working active Peers and Peers who attend only for a short time. Having said that, I shall pass on quickly to my next point.
Your Lordships will be aware that I have said nothing about committee procedures for Public Bills. That is not because I believe the subject to be unimportant. In the light of the Jopling Committee and the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure in the House of Commons it is of the highest importance. However, I have spent what I believe is my proper time and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will deal with the subject when he winds up. Your Lordships will not therefore be deprived of the views from this Dispatch Box.
In finishing I begin where I started. We welcome the report that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has introduced with efficiency, eloquence, thoroughness

913
and dispatch, as we would all expect. If I have offered some difference of opinion on certain matters, I hope that your Lordships will accept that any and all suggestions that I have made are made in a spirit that its wholly constructive. It is in that spirit that I not only welcome the report but look forward to the remainder of the debate.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by expressing, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, our gratitude to the noble Earl and his committee for the thoughtful and constructive report which they have produced. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that there are no party points involved in our debate today. I agree with him on one further point. It is on the reduction of the rotation period. What he said in relation to the creation of new Peers on the Benches that he occupies could be emphasised even more strongly from the Benches on which I sit. I hope that that particular matter will be taken into account by the Government.
I speak today largely for myself although I am aware that on a number of issues I probably have the agreement of my noble friends. However, on one issue certainly I do not have the agreement of all my noble friends. It relates to my views on the European Communities Committee.
I am sure that today there will be agreement on at least one proposition; that few of us would wish to create a situation in which debates on the Floor of the House become secondary to the work of our committees. Such criticism has been directed at the new procedures in the House of Commons and certainly we do not want that here. It would fatally undermine our position as a revising Chamber. That is particularly important given the fact that a great deal of legislation that we have each year has been guillotined in the House of Commons and therefore the only debates of substance on many important issues take place on the Floor of this House.
However, the proposals put forward by the noble Earl and his colleagues do not remotely create such a risk. They are fairly modest and none the worse for being so—far more modest, for instance, than those put forward by the Practice and Procedure Committee in 1977. It recommended seven or eight committees to cover particularly areas of policy and to examine all Bills, all White Papers, and all Green Papers.
But while the report which we are debating is more modest than the 1977 report it proposes a number of important changes concerning the work of the House and its committees. I propose to discuss those now. First I shall deal with the investigative Select Committees; namely, those relating to Europe and to science and technology. No one would question for one moment the quality of the work of the European Communities Committee. It has won a formidable reputation within government and Whitehall generally and also in Brussels and Strasbourg. As the report states, more detailed attention is paid to reports of that committee than to those arising from any other legislature in the Community.
914
However, it creates heavy demands on resources, absorbing the work of 80 Members of the House and a substantial number of the staff of the Clerk of the Parliaments. While the committee's work will increase in importance I believe that the noble Earl and his colleagues are right to ask whether it is now desirable to modify its structure in some degree, appointing fewer sub-committees and avoiding the repetition of a situation in which, due to the pressure of work facing the committee, some reports are produced far too late to be influential.
We must also face the reality that unless there is some redistribution of work within the European Communities Committee we shall find it difficult to free the necessary resources to establish more ad hoc committees as recommended in the report which we are debating. I strongly favour the appointment of at least one ad hoc committee each year and arguably at least three during a period of two years. I find it disappointing that there has been no ad hoc committee since the appointment of the Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment in 1988. I had the good fortune to be a member of that committee. We were unanimous on our two most important recommendations and on a third we had only a single dissentient. Our recommendations were unusually supported by every quality newspaper in this country. Furthermore, when the amendments incorporating our recommendations were put to the House during its debates on the Criminal Justice Bill we were supported in the Chamber by the then Lord Chief Justice and in the Division Lobbies by significant majorities. I understand that the general view of the committee is supported by the new Lord Chief Justice.
Subsequently, the Government used their majority in the Commons to overturn those decisions. However, one of the most important was retained in the Bill and few of us doubt the inevitability of the incorporation of our other proposals in a future Criminal Justice Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gave evidence to the noble Earl's committee. That was relevant because he was Home Secretary at the time of the argument between the two Chambers. In relation to the work of the Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment he said that it excited the interests of the whole of the House. And, I believe, many outside too. Therefore, let us have more of such Select Committees. I make a personal plea that I hope we shall have at least one on criminal justice policy. There is a formidable amount of expertise on that subject in this House.
I turn to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. It is for a scrutiny of Bills committee to examine all Bills and to report on any provisions which appear to seek inappropriate delegated powers. The noble Lord the Leader of the House said that the Government had some hesitation about the matter and I understand the reasons for that reluctance, although I hope only at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has spoken in this House on the matter on a number of occasions and in our view has done so most persuasively. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gave evidence when he was Leader of the House and indicated that he was minded to

915
agree, subject to some form of limited experiment, to see whether such a committee would work effectively. I hope that that will be the Government's final decision. I believe that given the amount of anxiety expressed in all parts of the House it is most important that we should have such an experiment.
I now turn to the question of Public Bill Committees and special standing committees. I favour both. Of course it would be absurd to send highly controversial Bills to Public Bill Committees. However, as the report before us indicates, a clear majority of those of us who served on the committee on the Charities Bill believe that the experiment was successful. In political terms the Bill was almost wholly non-controversial. It is true that the Government were defeated on five occasions. However, the issues related primarily to detailed questions of administration. All Members wanted the Bill and wished it to pass as speedily as possible. On only one issue of some importance did the Government at Report ask the House to reject the view of the Committee.
Despite the fact that the Charities Bill contained more than 70 clauses it occupied only one and a half days of parliamentary time when the House discussed the matter on Report. That appeared to indicate that the experiment had been a considerable success. Furthermore, it was clear that if the Bill had not been considered by a Public Bill Committee it would not now be on the statute book. Therefore, it is highly desirable to see whether we should move in that direction, subject always to the fact that highly controversial Bills are inappropriate for such procedures.
Similar questions have been raised about the appointment of special standing committees. Given the composition of the House the Government would not have a majority and therefore it would be inappropriate for controversial legislation to be considered by that means. However, there are immense disadvantages in such a procedure. I believe that the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as expressed to the noble Earl's committee, is right and that a free exchange of views at the evidence-taking stage would in most cases allow a consensus to emerge from the committee.
The most obvious candidates for such a procedure are Bills arising from recommendations of the Law Commission. It seems to me deplorable that there remain 39 unimplemented reports from the commission, most, although not all, with draft Bills attached. The commission is an independent body, so of course not all its reports have secured the approval of the Government. But the overwhelming majority have. It seems a great pity that many worthwhile Bills on law reform have been gathering dust in Whitehall pigeonholes solely because it has not been possible to secure parliamentary time in which to deal with them. If we agree to establish special standing committees, that problem may be removed. I hope that this reform of our procedures will be agreed.
There is only one other recommendation as regards committees; that is, the appointment of a steering committee. The case for that is self-evident and we
916
support it, although, with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I should like to have another look at the proposed membership of such a committee.
Finally, there is the question of accommodation and staff. As we are all aware, many of us daily, our space in this House is severely limited. If there are to be more committees, there will have to be more accommodation. I am aware that some staff from the Lord Chancellor's Department will be moving from the Palace of Westminster. Given our shortage of space, I welcome that. I should be most grateful if we could be told later in the debate when we may be able to obtain the additional accommodation which the proposed changes in our committee system will undoubtedly involve.
There is then the question of staff which was touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he spoke earlier. Even with some possible redistribution of staff in the European Communities Committee, it is clear that the workload on the staff of the Clerk of the House would increase significantly if the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, were finally approved by the House. I hope that Ministers accept that it would be quite wrong simply to load a still heavier burden of work on to the shoulders of the existing staff. It would be unacceptable to allow a situation to arise, as it undoubtedly has in some government departments, of major new responsibilities being piled on to the desks of officials without any anxiety for, or even understanding of, the serious situation being created.
Therefore, if those important changes are to be made, let us ensure that adequate resources are made available to the authorities of the House. With that, I conclude. As I have made clear, I regard the report as excellent and I hope that its recommendations will be supported by the House.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am extremely happy and privileged from these Benches to give a sincere welcome to the splendid report which is now before the House. Unfortunately, although faithfully and dutifully in my place at 3.45 this afternoon, I shall be unable to stay for the rest of the debate on account of an engagement. I hope that the noble Earl will accept my apologies.
The report deals with many topics which are of great interest to all of us. I should have liked to speak on three of those: those which relate to the European Communities Committee; delegated legislation as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham; and the suggestion that there should be an ad hoc justice committee. All those matters are of great interest but I shall leave those to other speakers. I shall concentrate for a short time on one subject on which perhaps I made a modest input into the committee's discussions and on which it was good enough to accept some of my views.
A year ago, on the debate on the Address, I ventured to draw attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just reminded us, to the very great lack of progress on Law Commission reports. Not only have they not figured in the legislation

917
brought before the House, they have not even been mentioned in the Queen's Speech or any proposed programme. I hope that some procedure might be found for dealing more expeditiously and simply not only with Law Commission reports but generally with reports or proposals relating to law reform coming from whatever source.
I ventured to comment also at that time on the unsatisfactory procedure which now exists in this House for consideration of legal Bills in Committee on the Floor of the House. They often involve discussions late at night when it is impossible for amendments to be moved and when, in effect, the revising edge of this House is somewhat blunted.
I need not labour that because those points have been taken up by more powerful voices. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, took up that matter in his speech on the Address, and other witnesses before the committee have endorsed the point. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as is recorded in the report, expressed a qualified approval of some procedure for dealing with Law Commission reports, company law reports and financial services reports. At paragraph 132 the committee gave a somewhat cautious endorsement to the proposal for special standing committees and used the formula: a few Bills of a technical character by way of experiment. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate he may be able to reiterate his support for a special procedure and perhaps with somewhat less caution attached to it than we find in the body of the report.
Where do we go from now? I should like to make a preliminary point; that is, we are not concerned here only with saving legislative time or, to take up an expression from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, reducing the pressure on business. Of course that is an important consideration, particularly for the business managers. However, a parallel objective must be to improve both the quality and the quantity of legislation. Indeed, if the proposal for a special mechanism is accepted, the result should be—I hope it will be—that it will allow more Bills to be presented. That would be a kind of Parkinson's Law in reverse —the more time there is, the more Bills. Time will not be saved, but it will be used more profitably for the production of a better product.
The second point is really in the form of a question: how do we proceed to select the Bills for the special standing committee procedure? That is not an easy task at all. Your Lordships will find in the report an extremely intelligent analysis of the kinds of legislation which might come up in the evidence given by Professor Philip Norton of the University of Hull. One puts aside immediately party political Bills or what have been called main programme Bills. Nobody suggests that they should be dealt with other than as we deal with them now—by Committee on the Floor of the House. Even when you have disposed of them, there are considerable differences. Not all Law Commission reports, by any means, or law reform measures are uncontroversial. I give some obvious examples: marriage and divorce, fertilisation and
918
embryology. Those and many other subjects are such that the House as a whole would wish to have an opportunity to discuss them.
In the report the committee refers to,
"one or two bills … of a technical nature".
That again invites distinction. There are some Bills of a technical character which require discussion on the Floor of the House. One thinks instantly of the Bill on data protection—brilliantly handled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—and the subject of copyright, which is of immense complexity and does not admit of any simplified procedure. On the other hand, if we confine ourselves to simple, easy, technical Bills, there will not be many to deal with. One must accept a mixed system.
There are many Bills, such as the Charities Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, are basically uncontroversial but contain in them elements of controversy. It then becomes a matter of nice judgment whether they are treated as matters for the Floor of the House or whether they can be safely remitted to a special standing committee. In the words of Professor Norton, the answer is not to put the Bills into a straitjacket. We must exercise a certain amount of flexibility and take a certain amount of risk. We must risk making mistakes, as in the case of the pilotage Bill. The House thought it perfectly all right to send the Bill upstairs, but it then became involved in immense controversy and difficulty and the House regretted what it had done.
How does one select the candidates for that procedure? At one time I was thinking in terms of waiting until Second Reading when one could see from the speeches made the likely degree of controversy—whether it was the kind of controversy which would have to be dealt with on the Floor of the House or the kind that could safely be left to a committee. However, the committee's report and the evidence before it convinced me that that is not a practical solution. Why not? Because one must plan one's legislative programme in advance, at the beginning of a Session. Indeed, though I am a novice in these matters I believe that one would not be able to secure a place in the legislative programme unless, at that stage, the Minister concerned is able to give an assurance that this or that Bill is suitable for special standing committee treatment. One must therefore deal with it in advance. Only then is one able to select the noble Lords who are willing and able to sit on whatever committee is set up.
In the end, though there are obvious objections to it, I see no alternative to the committee's suggestion in paragraph 132(iii), that the Leader of the House should propose a certain Bill or Bills at the beginning of a Session for special standing committee treatment. It sounds rather like the "usual channels" as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said in his evidence that at the end of the day it comes to the usual channels, with a nudge from here and a nudge from there. Very pragmatic; very British. It may be the way that things work.
Whatever procedure is admitted, I do not believe that from these Benches I should make suggestions on the composition of the steering committee. Something

919
of that kind is obviously necessary. We shall no doubt find out how it is to be set up with recommendations from the Leader of the House. I would hope and expect that there will be a direct input into that committee, in the case of the Law Commission reports, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or, in the case of suggested legislation coming from the Home Office or Department of Trade and Industry, from those departments. Otherwise, the committee will be groping in the dark and will not be likely to reach a sensible conclusion.
In the end it will be a matter for consensus. We shall not get the procedure working unless, broadly, everybody agrees. I hope that the sieve will not be too fine and that we do not limit ourselves to just one or two Bills. I hope that the committee's report will be given a fair wind and I wish it every success.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and his committee for this comprehensive and thorough report. They looked at the whole of the present committee structure of the House which, like Topsy, has just grown into today's position. In saying that, I would be the first to acknowledge the enormous importance of the committee work of the House, its contribution to political thinking and to the way in which the House of Lords is perceived in the country at large as well as in the European Community. I should like also to thank the staff of the House. On many occasions I have had reason to be grateful for their help. I am pleased that a warm acknowledgment of their work is given in the report.
There are so many speakers listed today that I am immediately reminded of the committee's suggestion in paragraph 29 that Peers should exercise restraint in speaking. Therefore, if I do not comment on all aspects of the report, it is not that I have not read it or indeed thought about all the issues in it, but because time really does not allow. I shall therefore choose a number of issues which are central and important.
That said, I believe that the report is timely and that we should discuss these matters at the start of a new Parliament. In another sense it is necessary now that another place is looking at its procedures which will inevitably affect our own. Central to the report is the proposal that there should be a steering committee. Paragraph 157 sets out its terms of reference. I wish to say at the beginning that I agree with that proposal. I have no doubt that there will be debate both with regard to its terms of reference and specifically to its composition, as we have heard today, and the whole question of its chairman.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend the Leader of the House had to say on the matter. I can see that there is merit in having the Leader of the House as chairman of that specific committee, which would be central to the affairs of the House. But I have no doubt that there will be much discussion. To have a committee with the opportunity of reviewing the work of the House will give the House what the report says is necessary; that is, much more flexibility in the programme of committee work.
920
I welcome the proposals on ad hoc committees. It was certainly my experience when I was Leader of the House that there were demands for a great many ad hoc committees. Perhaps I should say in parenthesis that I shall not forget that in 1981 the ad hoc committee was concerned with unemployment. Governments of the day may not always like the outcome of the deliberations of ad hoc committees. Nevertheless, they are an important aspect of the work of the House and one that is greatly valued.
It is right that the House should have more opportunity to address issues of topical interest. The proposals in paragraph 125 should give it the flexibility to do so. Such an arrangement as suggested by the report should meet the wishes of all those who want more sessional committees. Indeed, there has already been some discussion in the debate on that matter. It will enable the House to address issues without duplicating the work of another place. For example, if one looks at the proposed subject of the economics of sustainable development, that is an issue which the House has the expertise and the time to consider in depth. It will be something that is important and topical with the Rio conference just starting. It seems that the proposals on the ad hoc committees would give the flexibility that the House has wanted and make it possible for more consideration to be given to topical issues. I recognise that although that is possible it is now very unlikely to happen. The matter is well worth pursuing.
I turn to what I believe will prove to be the most contentious part of the report—the proposals on the two Select Committees, the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. I am very conscious of the importance of the work of the European Communities Committee, first because I have the honour of being a member of it, and secondly, because when I was a Foreign Office Minister I knew only too well of the high regard for its reports both in this country and in Europe. I do not by any means go along with all the proposals that the report makes out. I share the view of those who say that three years is too short a time to serve on a committee. I believe that one would get into a position where all its members would either be coming or going. The five-year rule makes much more sense. A committee of 15 would not be too large.
The much more difficult aspect of the proposals is the reduction in the number of sub-committees of the European Communities Committee. I can quite see that there is a balance to be struck between having more ad hoc committees and considering the accommodation, staff and the number of Peers who are available to take part, notwithstanding the very interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Therefore we have to consider how the balance will fall. I can understand why the committee would feel that the European Communities Committee should perhaps give up some of its sub-committees.
One thing is certain: it is a very moving and changing world in the European Community as the news received last night made only too plain. That

921
may help us because it shows that things are going to change and that perhaps we should review what we do in the light of that change.
I certainly support the proposals in paragraph 144 on links with the European Parliament. I am sure that it is right to look at new ways of keeping our Parliament informed of what is happening in the Community. In many ways I believe that the most important part of the whole report is concerned with committees on legislation. I recognise that the experience of taking Bills at Committee stage off the Floor of the House has produced mixed results. Much depends on the Bill chosen and the real commitment of the House that all the arguments will not be repeated at Report stage. That said, I do not believe that it should prevent the House from looking very seriously at taking suitable Bills off the Floor at Committee stage.
I welcome the suggestion about the special standing committee. I listened carefully to what my noble friend the Leader of the House said and support what the committee says about a delegated powers committee. That has been a contentious issue in your Lordships' House, as recent experience on a number of Bills has shown. Our experience with the Charities Bill suggests that it is possible to make the system work well. It may be that in that instance there was much agreement on all sides of the House about the need for the Bill and perhaps the imminence of the general election concentrated everybody's mind. That said, I still believe that we should look further at suitable Bills. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble and learned friend has to say on this matter and on the prospect of taking Bills of a rather technical nature off the Floor of the House to a committee.
At the end of the day what is important is that the House should be able to continue to regulate itself. We must be able to take politically contentious Bills on the Floor of the House and give them adequate time for debate. We need to look realistically at the best way to use the hours that we sit. It would surely be a most bizarre situation were another place to manage to reduce the number of hours it sits while we only manage to extend ours. That is something which we should think through very carefully.
My noble friend Baroness Faithfull, who regrets that she cannot be present today, has asked me to say that before the introduction of the Children Bill into this House a number of contentious issues were settled by cross-party meetings with the civil servants involved, and also with the great help of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It may well be that that practice is something which could usefully be employed again. It seems to be one which is well worth looking at.
I am conscious that I have not commented on very many aspects of this wide-ranging report. For example, I support the proposal to have someone responsible for relations between committees and the media. I hope very much that as regards debates on reports we can consider looking yet again at more time-limited debates. Those are some of the most effective debates that this House conducts. As it is, it
922
is right that we should take an overview of the present committee structure. It is right to seek more flexibility, bearing in mind the time available in the House and the time of its Members. We should look at the way in which we deal with our legislation in that context. As others have said, I very much hope that this excellent report will commend itself to the House and that its proposals will be implemented.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I shall follow the example of the noble Baroness and confine myself to a few specific points. I see that the first injunction to myself written in large letters is "Keep it brief". I intend to do just that. I compliment the committee on the quality of the report and the chairman on the clarity with which he introduced it. Those of us who have been serving on committees for a number of years have begun to realise that the machinery is getting a little creaky and that it is high time that we had a new blueprint.
Like every other speaker so far, I support the recommendation for a steering committee. It is the best way to achieve a balance in the allocation of resources. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, it would provide a channel for Peers who wish to have investigated a subject which is outside the areas of the present sessional committees; for example, foreign affairs, trade and industry or the environment. An examination of the concept of sustainable development would be most useful, but there is no obvious way to get it on the agenda. As we have heard, the present system is haphazard and important subjects are overlooked because of the lack of consultation. That could not happen if we had a steering committee.
I take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. With ad hoc committees we have to be careful that they do not become the creatures of the various departments. When we have them they and the subjects they examine will have to stand in their own right. If in order to operate a steering committee there has to be some rationalisation of the work of the existing committees, that, to coin a phrase, is a price worth paying. The recommendations in paragraphs 195 and 196 should not cause any difficulty to the Science and Technology Committee. As I understand it, the composition of the steering committee is in question. At this point I wish to urge that its membership should include the Deputy Chairman of Committees because his or her knowledge of the workload of the European Communities Committee would be very valuable in allocating resources.
I support the use of ad hoc committees as against the setting up of a third sessional committee. It makes better use of resources and avoids the main hazard of sessional committees—that is to say, at times when there is a gap in the queue of subjects needing attention the committee will search around for work in order to justify its existence. I am not suggesting that that happens at the moment but it is a danger with sessional committees.

923
Ad hoc committees would also allow flexibility in the use of the expertise available in the House, especially in the case of Peers who cannot make a three or five-year commitment. At this point I should mention that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in that I hope that the suggestion of three-year appointments to committees will not be adopted. It takes at least a year for a new member of a committee to become accustomed to the ways of that committee. I believe that the committees should be smaller. I disagree with the noble Baroness on that point. I believe that a committee of 12 is quite big enough; and therefore there is an even greater reason for having a slightly longer period of service for each member. Four years might be a useful compromise. It is, after all, most of the period for which a Parliament runs.
When committee members are being appointed, it is not unreasonable for whoever makes the appointment to find out whether it is the intention of that member to attend regularly. Some committees suffer a little from the fact that some of their members appear only rarely. The report gave one example of a committee member who had not appeared at all. It is not unreasonable therefore to seek a commitment from the incoming member.
The value of the European Communities Committee is unquestioned and it well deserves its high reputation nationally and internationally. I agree with the suggestion that it should examine its sub-committee structure. Of course it is for the committee to decide how it will arrange its affairs. I merely point out that during my service on the environment sub-committee and the agriculture sub-committee there were times when it was impossible to separate the two subjects. I felt then, and I still feel, that perhaps a single sub-committee might be more effective. But I bow to the authority of the committee in making its own allocations in that regard.
My biggest disappointment in the report was the rejection of a committee to assess the environmental impact of proposed legislation. The present fragmented use of environmental impact assessments is not satisfactory, even where they are provided, and they are not always provided. The quality of the information is variable and is often suspect. One frequently finds that the information in the environmental impact assessment is tailored to achieve the objective of the piece of legislation. That simply will not do. We must face up to the need to look at legislation against the background of environmental protection. I hope that the Government will agree to think again about this issue. I note that the Leader of the House made a suggestion about a definitive document. I do not quite know what that means and I look forward to hearing more about it. But at least it means that the Government are not entirely satisfied with the present situation.
Underpinning all our aspirations for good organisation, as other speakers have said, is the availability of suitable staff. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, paid his tribute, and so do I. We enjoy support of the highest quality. All committee members would agree that a large part of the production of an
924
effective report is due to the dedication and expertise of the Clerk and his supporters. They are shamefully overworked at the moment. I have heard tales of weekend working, which I think is entirely unfair and should not be supported. We cannot allow it to continue. We must therefore expand this resource, but it must be done in a way that does not jeopardise the prospects for career advancement. It would be disastrous for all our hopes if we were unable to recruit or to retain staff of the right calibre. I hope therefore that when discussions are taking place about expanding staff resources some regard will be paid to methods of achieving continuing career prospects for them. Perhaps there could be a system of secondment or something of that kind.
I have just about run out of the time that I allowed for my speech. I shall therefore conclude by saying that I hope that the report will not be shelved. I get the impression from the speeches I have heard today that it is being taken seriously and that the Government intend to do something about it. It behoves all of us to see that it does not go on to a shelf to be forgotten. We can work at changing those parts which need to be changed but there are large parts of the report which are acceptable as they stand. I hope that they can be implemented as soon as possible.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whom I have had the honour of knowing for many years, and the members of his committee on their valuable report. It represents, as other noble Lords have said, a very timely and positive examination of the committee work of the House. I intend to restrict my remarks to a few of the general issues raised but to comment in particular on what is said about the European Communities Committee, with which I have been associated for a number of years.
I support in principle the concept of a steering committee but I would prefer it to be called something which appears to be less obtrusive. Perhaps it could be called a co-ordinating committee. We need to keep away from the prospect of an overall committee intervening in the affairs of the other committees. I believe that that is not the intention of the noble Earl's committee. It is right that the committee work of the House should be kept under continuous review and that there should be evolutionary change. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the proposed membership of the committee. It seems likely to be overweighted by the usual channels. I should like to see many more Back-Bench Peers involved. I do not believe that the chairmen of the two sessional committees should be excluded. They could make a large contribution to the deliberations of the committee. I hope that on reconsideration they will be included as members.
I support the prudent approach of the committee on the subject of the Committee stage of Bills. I am among those, I believe a majority of respondents to the committee's questionnaire, in favour of the Committee stage of Bills being conducted on the Floor

925
of the House. I believe that this makes for greater continuity in the consideration of Bills and enables the House to discharge its revising function more effectively. The committee has not given a definitive view on how it would like this matter to be dealt with so far as concerns Public Bill Committees but it feels that there might be scope for occasional references to such committees. I trust that the Bills submitted for this treatment will be selected with great care. It would be wrong, as is generally recognised, if they were Bills of a controversial nature. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred to the special standing committee procedure and also raised the problem of the selection of Bills to be referred to these special committees.
I am glad that the proposal for a delegated powers scrutiny committee put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has been recommended by the committee. There is much concern at the growth in delegated legislation which in some cases can materially affect the substance of a Bill and thereby unduly diminish the role of Parliament. I am glad too that the committee supports the reappointment of the two sessional committees—the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. I was among those who suggested that there might be a third sessional committee to deal with economic and social affairs. It seems to me that, while there is much legislation on these matters and many debates on them, there are from time to time broad underlying issues which could best be considered in depth by a specially appointed Committee—issues such as the economics of sustain-able growth, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I trust that the proposal for the more regular appointment of ad hoc committees will fill that gap.
As I said earlier, I wish to make particular comment about the recommendations in relation to the European Communities Committee. I should like to join with other speakers in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for the most effective manner in which she chaired that committee. In my personal experience, much of the value of the work undertaken by the various sub-committees has been due to the skilful guidance received from her. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, every success in taking over as chairman. I am glad that the important function of scrutiny of European Community developments has been recognised and that it is accepted that it is likely to increase in importance in the future. The role of the European Communities Committee, as possibly reorganised in the light of the recommendations, will, in my opinion, undoubtedly grow in the years ahead.
The problems now arising from the Maastricht conference and the possible enlargement of the Community will raise a whole range of new issues which will require to be carefully scrutinised and deliberated upon. Therefore, I was more than a little surprised to read in the report that it is proposed that the resources made available to the European Communities Committee should be reduced. It seems to me that that is the reverse of what we should now
926
be doing. In taking up that view, I demonstrate that this is a non-party debate by taking a different view from that of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, who spoke a few moments ago. I recognise that the Select Committee recommended that we should undertake additional committee work. I fully applaud many of the proposals made for that additional work. However, I fail to see why this should be subjected to a Procrustean-bed technique; in other words, that we should start form a limited resource and then fit everything we want to do into it.
In following that up, I was interested to see what is the estimate of expenditure on our committee work. I recall to your Lordships that we represent a major legislative assembly in a major democratic country, deliberating on matters of substance and strategic interest to the country. The net cost of our committee work in the year 1991 (at page 207 of the report) was less than £500,000. Half a million pounds is nothing when compared with what a major industrial concern spends on its public relations alone. Therefore, I beg your Lordships to consider first what are the priorities for our committee work and then decide how we should meet that expenditure. I was much heartened by what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said in his concluding remarks. He said that he hoped that the committee work of this House would not he frustrated by lack of resources.
I was also somewhat surprised at another recommendation in relation to the European Communities Committee; namely, that the committee should not seek to consider Commission proposals before they are finalised. The whole purpose of scrutiny is to consider proposals before they are finalised. Indeed, the whole object of this House is to consider Bills proposed by government before they are finalised in statutory form. Therefore, I found that a little surprising. It was contended that the time taken by us to consider such matters was so long that the result of our deliberations did not have much impact. Well, we can always alter the situation and speed up our process. However, I ask your Lordships to reconsider the recommendation that we should not consider proposals put forward by the Commission. If we follow that recommendation, what will scrutiny be about? I fully accept that we should also discuss broader issues; but our scrutiny in these Houses of Parliament—whether in this or in another place—must refer to proposals put forward by the Commission in Brussels, especially when they are of a major nature.
The Select Committee made a number of other recommendations about changes in the subcommittee structure, in the number of Peers who should participate and in the rotation. I hope that those recommendations are very carefully considered before they are implemented. I trust that they are guidance and that as a result of our debate today they are not likely to be laid down as something that we must do without further consideration. There are many doubts in my mind about the detailed proposals that have been made. I am not necessarily in favour of reducing the number of Peers who participate in debates and in discussions on European matters;

927
indeed, I should like to see more and not fewer involved. Europe will become a much more important issue. Therefore, why should we reduce the number of Peers participating in these affairs from 80 to 60? What is the magic about 60? How was that figure derived? I should like to see the figure 80 increased to 100 or more because such matters are of great importance. I very much hope that we shall be able to look at all the recommendations in greater depth before they are adopted.
I should like now to draw attention to a particular aspect in which I am personally involved. At present, I am chairman of Sub-Committee B which covers energy among other issues. There is much of a fundamental nature affecting energy which is currently being deliberated within the Community; for example, the role that energy will play in the single market, free access to energy sources, and so on, and of course the environmental implications in the use of energy. I believe that it would be important under the revised sub-committee structure for energy to be included. I say that all the more so as there is a likelihood in another place—the noble Lord the Leader of the House will know all about this from his previous activities—that there will no longer be a Select Committee on Energy in view of the merger of the function of the Department of Energy into other departments. Therefore, the question of energy in the environment is one which should continue to exercise our interest in regard to the European Communities Committee.
I welcome the Report. I believe that it has stimulated much thought. However, I hope that we will have the opportunity of further deliberating among ourselves about how we implement a number of its recommendations before we adopt them.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for introducing the debate and for the care with which he and his colleagues have studied and reported upon a most important part of the business of the House. If I may say so, the ensuing report was clearly written, fair and, for the most part, helpful to all concerned—although I say those things without prejudice to what I shall say later.
I am particularly glad that it was decided to give the report prime time for debate today and not to rush unduly our consideration of it. As Voltaire once remarked:
"There ought to be moments of tranquillity in great works".
I also welcome the decision to keep before us in the Minutes of Proceedings the reports of Select Committees which have yet to be debated. That will undoubtedly encourage us to debate them.
In view of the number of speakers, I shall comment only on the recommendations affecting the Science and Technology Committee, which are in any case enough for me to think about for the moment. I am of course delighted to find that our activities have met with such warm approval and that the broad applicability of our work has been recognised. The
928
noble Earl was most generous in what he said about us, as were other noble Lords. Nevertheless, there is an implied criticism; namely, that the committee sometimes undertakes inquiries that are not of the widest interest. That is true. Although the committee has broad terms of reference to consider science and technology and that is all, we do have three main themes of very wide interest. They are the organisation of government for dealing with science and technology; the contribution of research and development to the renewal of British industry; and, finally, the continuing health of basic scientific research.
However, in order to grapple with those broad themes we find it essential to examine a number of particular cases in greater depth than is likely to command the widest interest. We must continue to do so in order to avoid superficiality. But we shall do whatever we can to relate our specific findings to matters of wider interest. For example, on 9th July we shall invite your Lordships to consider our report on systematic biology in the more general context of bio-diversity.
The noble Earl is in favour of shorter and sharper reports; so am I. But I suspect that his committee rather had in mind shorter and sharper inquiries. Of course, a study should be focused, if it is to be useful, and as short as possible. But focused too finely and it again becomes superficial, or is biased towards a particular outcome, or is a matter for the executive rather than for the House anyway.
Most of our work is concerned with sorting out confusions between policy objectives for science and technology. We find that these confusions are usually long and blunt, their treatment requiring sustained attention.
There is a suggestion, although not a recommendation, that our general purposes sub-committee should be wound up. Although my distinguished predecessors, especially the noble Lords, Lord Sherfield and Lord Shackleton, found it a useful vehicle for settling policy issues, I am happy to part with it, and we did so voluntarily in our meeting yesterday.
On the other hand our inquiries are almost all conducted by sub-committees, of which there are two. I am not at all happy with the suggestion that we should from time to time have to operate with only one. A fearsome list of pressing topics is before us. We are already engaged in a major inquiry into the recent misfortunes of forensic science; while preliminary studies are just beginning—if it does not stretch the formidable abilities of our staff too far—with a view to one or more becoming major inquiries later in the year, of intellectual property rights and the water shortage (in so far as these two subjects lie within our terms of reference) and of the criteria to be applied to the support of basic research now that the research councils have just been transferred to the Cabinet Office. I am grateful for the noble Earl's encouragement there. All of these are topics in which there is a great deal of interest and experience in this House and much concern outside.
Of course it is a matter of setting priorities, and it may occasionally be decided that there are even more

929
pressing issues outside the remit of the sessional committees for which ad hoc committees are the usual vehicle. I am conscious that it was in part a suggestion of my own for an ad hoc committee that led to the appointment of the noble Earl's committee, as he himself reminded us.
May I say with respect, however, that I was disappointed to find that the list of proposed topics for ad hoc committees was in general unconvincing, showing, I thought, considerable overlap with established activities of the Commons or of other statutory bodies. It did not suggest to me—and I regret this—that there would in practice be great competition for resources, and I agreed with the noble Lord the Leader of the House in this respect.
Be that as it may, I do not think that it should automatically follow that these occasional studies, however important, should be at the expense of the sessional committees. The committee work of the House has steadily grown in public esteem and, I believe, in its usefulness to others. It represents excellent value for money in the opinion of the noble Earl, and perhaps one should therefore be prepared to pay a little more for it. Is it clear, for example, that the committees of the Commons always achieve as much as the committees of the Lords? I doubt it. It is also possible that other recommendations we are considering today will lead to matching economies in our legislative activities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I think that in any case we are not a lavish Parliament.
I am also concerned at the recommendation that the rotation period for committee membership be reduced from five years to three. Five years loosely applied is too much; five years strictly applied is acceptable. Three years is simply too short a time to become acquainted with the nature of the work, at least in science and technology, and it simply could not be strictly applied without creating havoc.
I have already explained that the most important issues may emerge only after a number of particular cases have been studied in depth. That argues for a certain degree of continuity. With great respect to the noble Earl's committee, I think that this particular recommendation was ill-conceived and should be rejected.
My chief concern, however, although I speak personally, is with the proposal that there should be a steering committee. It commonly happens that a review body recommends that its work should continue on a permanent basis, but that does not make it right. The Leader of the House, with the usual channels, and the Clerk of the Parliaments, with his staff, do an excellent job between them. Why should we reduce their powers? Why should we interject another level of administration? An adjustment here or there to their job description by an offspring of Jellicoe about every decade is all that is needed. If a steering committee is appointed, no matter what its terms of reference, in due course it will begin to steer, whatever the initial intentions may have been. The most powerful steering wheel is the power of the purse. Faced with a proposal that two studies are called for, one costing more than the other, the steering
930
committee merely has to agree to the less expensive of the two and it has pre-empted a decision that it is the duty of the sessional committees to take for themselves.
If the steering committee is to monitor the work of the committees, including the setting up of ad hoc committees, possibly at the expense of the work of existing sessional committees, how can it do that except by examining the work they do and forming judgments about its worth? We need none of that, in my opinion; that is for the House itself—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Let the usual channels have confidence that we have confidence in them and all will be well.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, I find myself in this debate sandwiched between the speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who until the dissolution of Parliament was the distinguished chairman of the European Communities Committee. They both produced very powerful and valuable evidence for the Select Committee. Obviously their contributions to the debate this afternoon will be extremely important.
I shall not detain the House long as I was privileged to be a Member of the Select Committee. Like all my colleagues, I appreciated enormously the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the leadership that he gave us. I certainly endorse all he said about the Clerks and the staff and the way in which our committee was serviced.
I should like to say too that I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for the broadly favourable reception he gave to the great majority of our recommendations.
The setting up of the committee arose from the limitations of existing staff resources and there was felt to be a need to take a fresh look at the committee work of the House as a whole. As has been said, that committee work is an extremely valuable and scarce resource. In recent years it has been devoted almost exclusively to the business of the European Community and the field of science and technology.
Both those sessional committees do an excellent job and, as we discovered more and more as we took evidence and travelled, their work is universally admired and respected worldwide. It enhances, in a remarkable way, the reputation of the House. But the question is: is the concentration on those two areas the best or the right use of the scarce resources of the House? The answer we gave was a qualified no. No one had the slightest hesitation in saying that that work must continue. Whether or not everyone likes it, the European Community will become ever more significant for all of us, and the development of science and technology is the driving force of the massive changes taking place worldwide that affect the lives of all peoples everywhere.
Clearly those committees must continue, but they should not do so to the exclusion of almost all else. As has been said, the European Communities Committee

931
already takes the great preponderance of the resources available to the House. In fact of course each of those committees could greatly increase its work, and that would be valuable; but if that were to happen many other areas of policy and activity which would benefit equally from attention would be neglected, and that does not seem to be right. In the evidence which noble Lords will have read, all sorts of suggestions were made for additional sessional committees and for the examination of other subjects.
As the House will be aware, we came down against more sessional committees because resources are limited and we do not want to lock up more of them in that way. Also, there seemed to us to be a real need for a more flexible approach to the committee work of the House—an approach that can take account of new issues and new situations as they arise, as they always do and perhaps more frequently than ever—and can respond to them appropriately. Hence the committee's view that ad hoc committees should become a regular and permanent feature of the committee work of the House.
As there will never be any shortage of candidates for consideration, the concept of a steering committee emerged. We were not too happy with the name either, I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, but it is extremely difficult to find one with which everyone is happy. That committee would maintain an overview of the committee work of the House, allocating available resources as it judged best, of course, in consultation with the chairman concerned, and make recommendations to the House as to the selection of subjects for ad hoc committees. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it would be better done by the Leader of the House. If preparation and consideration were given by the steering committee beforehand, I do not believe that that would inhibit any noble Lord from raising a query or putting forward an alternative proposition as to what subjects might be discussed.
The concept of that committee seems to us the most efficient way in which to provide a structural framework for Select Committees and to maximise the effectiveness of their work. I believe that to be the right aim for the House. We also see the steering committee keeping in close touch with its equivalent in another place (the Liaison Committee). There is of course already much close liaison, but we in this House cannot be too careful to avoid duplication and to see that our committee work is complementary to that of another place.
Our recommendations on the handling of legislation are modest. Of themselves they will save virtually no time on the Floor, although they would facilitate the consideration of Law Commission reports and law reform Bills for which now there is often no time; but before any substantial changes in procedure are made it is wise to experiment. I hope that the House will find ways of taking much of the scrutiny of legislation off the Floor. I know that many —perhaps most —noble Lords prefer the present system, but no one can deny that it wastes a great deal of time for many of your Lordships. In any case, we shall soon have to consider that question especially
932
carefully in the light of whatever changes another place makes in its present procedures. I understand that the Jopling Committee proposals will be considered soon.
As my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said, that other place is the most time-consuming assembly of its kind in the world. Clearly it wants to cut its hours and find less wasteful ways of fulfilling its legislative functions. This House is the second most time-consuming assembly of its kind in the world. It would seem pretty odd if we too did not cut our hours. Evidently I feel the same as my noble friend Lady Young on that point. A rethink of our legislative procedures seems to me desirable, indeed necessary anyway. We are about to be provided with a tailor-made opportunity to do so. I hope that we shall make the most of it.
On delegated powers, I hope that the House will decide to set up the scrutiny committee proposed in the report. Such scrutiny is a wholly appropriate role for the House, where, as we know from recent debates, there is widespread support for it, including from some of our most experienced colleagues. Ministers and departments may be reluctant to agree because it has been so easy and so convenient for them to put those powers into Bills. If they are reluctant—if they have reservations, as my noble friend the Leader of the House expressed it—to set up such a committee, it can be only because they realise they may not be able to justify all the delegated powers that they seek, which is of course the precise reason for establishing the committee. If the powers sought can be justified, there is no problem, and everyone is content; but if they cannot be justified, then they should not be granted. Surely that is how it should be —a very proper function of scrutiny.
There are just two other points I would mention. All on the committee thought that the rotation rule of five years' service was too long. From the point of view of harnessing the available talent to best effect and creating opportunities for Peers to serve on a variety of committees, a shorter turnaround seemed to us desirable. Difficulties about that have been raised this afternoon; so perhaps it should be thought about again, but we were unanimous that five years was too long. On reflection, noble Lords may feel that it is a long time to go without change.
Finally on publicity, we all also thought that more positive action is needed because we live in an age when publicity matters far more than it ever used to. If a product is not presented professionally and sold positively, no one will buy it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out that the media are interested only in what they are interested in. That is true, but it helps to keep them in touch with what debates are going on and what subjects are being tackled and to make more contact with them because our Select Committees should present results and conclusions of most of their deliberations to a far wider public. They are certainly worthy of that. That requires expertise and a great deal of time in establishing the right relationship with the media. It would be a full-time job for someone, and such expenditure would be worth while and justified from the point of view of this House and Parliament as a whole.

933
Having had the privilege of serving on the committee, I am as interested as anyone in the views of noble Lords on our report. I can say only that I hope that it will point the way and lead to some acceptable and worthwhile changes.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, I, too, must first join with all other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his colleagues on the committee on their comprehensive review of the committee work of the House. It was undoubtedly a time-consuming exercise and, as he indicated in his opening remarks this afternoon, perhaps rather longer and deeper than originally envisaged.
I join in the tribute he paid to the Principal Clerk of the Committee Office who assisted the committee in its task so soon after taking up his new responsibilities. I must also thank the noble Earl for the generous recognition in the report and in his speech of the standing of the work of the European Communities Committee and for his courtesy to me when I appeared before the inquiry.
In view of the marathon debate in which we are now engaged, I shall try to concentrate my remarks on the recommendations of the report affecting the role and structure of the European Communities Committee. I should have liked, with other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, to support, for example, the suggested appointment on an experimental basis of a delegated powers scrutiny committee, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. I should also have wished to support the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and several other noble Lords to facilitate the introduction of the law reform and Law Commission measures on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, spoke so effectively this afternoon.
I also welcome the committee's recommendations in paragraph 80 that the House should be able to appoint, at least in the first instance, one ad hoc committee per session. The experience of ad hoc previous inquiries, notably those on unemployment and overseas trade, is that they have received much interest throughout the country and have made a major public impact. They have done so in a way which I believe the House would wish to see continued in the future on the lines of the suggestion made by the committee. I believe that there would be no shortage of Peers to take part in such time-limited inquiries provided the topics were worth while.
However, I must try to impose a self-denying ordinance this afternoon in discussing these and the other important proposals in the report and concentrate on the recommendations affecting the work of the European Communities Committee. They were examined by the committee of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in considerable detail, both in oral and written evidence.
As I explained to the committee in my letter of 12th June, published in the report and enclosing the report of the working group of the European Communities
934
Select Committee on its working methods, and again in oral evidence, the Select Committee's working group was set up in October 1990. This was after one of the heaviest sessions in 1989–90, even compared with the previous peak under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies in 1985–86.
It was a session in which 28 reports were produced, including the major inquiry into economic, monetary and political union under the chairmanship of, I think I can call him, my noble friend Lord Aldington, which was produced before the intergovernmental conferences at Maastricht after 21 meetings between May and October that year. The causes of the increased activity —namely, the speeding up of decision-making in the Community following the passing of the Single European Act, the avalanche of proposals required to complete the single market by the end of this year and the series of important constitutional proposals in the run-up to the Maastricht conferences—are now well known to Members of the House. The Select Committee also sought to identify whether any changes were needed in the light of external developments, notably potential changes in the structure and decision-making procedures of the Community following the intergovernmental conferences and the recent changes in scrutiny procedures in another place.
But one of the greatest factors in the minds of the Select Committee, and especially of the sub-committee chairman and myself, in deciding to set up the working group was the strain of a continuous heavy workload, especially on the staff of the committee office. Fortunately, the strain seems to have eased a little this last year in terms of the number of reports that have been produced. These dropped to 17 in 1990–91 and will probably reach only 14 in the current year due to the hiatus caused by Dissolution.
Thus the starting point both of the Select Committee's inquiry into working methods and of the Select Committee of the noble Earl was the same; namely, the pressures of work on the staff of the House whom we all hold in such high regard. I can assure the House that the members of the Select Committee are not complacent about their working methods unless they have changed in the new Parliament. That was certainly true in the last Parliament and I am sure it will be equally true in this. Indeed, they have had to operate flexibly over the many years of their existence within the broad terms of reference which the House so wisely set some 17 years ago and which the Jellicoe Committee does not now seek to change.
However, I find it difficult to accept the suggestion in paragraph 139 of the report that the Select Committee should now adjust its working levels and sub-committee structure because of the recent changes in the developments within the Community—which I quite understand—including the Maastricht agreement and,
"because of our belief that the House should undertake some limited committee work in other areas".
This seems to me a strange moment of time to recommend a reduction of European Community scrutiny when the Community's activities are

935
expanding, with a long list of policy objectives far wider than the present competences, coupled with the proposed three-pillar structure to include intergovernmental co-operation on a common foreign and security policy and on judicial and home affairs. Moreover, the need for improved scrutiny by national parliaments and the closer working relationships with the European Parliament were fully recognised in the Declaration to the Maastricht agreement. It was an inclusion which to our great credit was successfully initiated by the British Government.
I submit that it does not necessarily follow that any decision that the House should do committee work in other areas—which I have already indicated I favour—must inevitably lead to a major reduction in the systematic scrutiny of European Community proposals. I was encouraged to find a similar view clearly expressed by a number of senior Members of this House in oral evidence, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
The committee also recommended that the scrutiny function should be exercised with greater speed and selection, concentrating on wider areas of Community policy. We all accept that timing is the essence of scrutiny. The weekly sift is completed every Monday by one o'clock when the House is sitting on the basis of the possible legal, financial or policy implications of the proposals. It is then for the sub-committees to decide whether to undertake further scrutiny of the proposals referred to them on that basis and to decide in what depth scrutiny should operate.
It is true that there are times when a busy sub-committee either has to give time at the end of an evidence session or leave scrutiny to the end of its current inquiry. This can cause delays. However, I believe that the sub-committee chairmen are well alerted by their efficient Clerks to any urgent matters for scrutiny. Timing is always an element in the decision on whether or not the scrutiny function should proceed further according to the current workload.
The introduction of letters to Ministers, which was mentioned in the noble Earl's report—the letters are published every six months—was intended to help with timing difficulty and to deal with specific points of practice. It has been used to good effect, for example, by Sub-committee E on legal points and when the treaty basis of proposals is being called into question.
I understand the attraction of concentrating committee work on the wider areas of Community policy. We all find it easier to discuss broad policy issues, but the distinction between broad-ranging inquiries and specific and highly focused inquiries is not always easy to draw. For example, subcommittees will examine the broad lines of a framework directive or an action programme and then will need to follow up and examine the specific nitty-gritty legislative proposals which will affect the work of industry or commerce or the daily lives of individuals or consumers.
936
The recommended reduction of scrutiny would undoubtedly also affect Peer involvement as well as staff. The present size of the Select Committee—namely, 24 members—is rather large. It is not a self-perpetuating oligarchy but is appointed by the House every Session on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. I had always assumed that the size of the Select Committee was designed originally to reflect as broad a range as possible of opinion within the House. It is also desirable for at least two members, one of whom is the chairman of the sub-committee, to serve on the subject sub-committees.
There are already some Members who for various reasons do not serve on sub-committees, so the concern of the Jellicoe Committee expressed in paragraph 146 that non-members of sub-committees would bring a more critical approach to reports is already met. It would certainly be perfectly possible to reduce the number of Peers on the Select Committee and the sub-committees, although I submit that this does not necessarily mean that they would be available or attracted to other work in the House. In my experience, it is the subjects under consideration that attract Peers, and Europe has understandably been high on the public agenda in recent years.
We have to remember that Peers are volunteers. I hesitate to think what it would cost to recognise the services of so many experienced and expert Members at current market values. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us of the value we receive from the work of our Select Committees and of how relatively small the overall costs were. I was interested to note in the report that Peers' expenses amount to only 6 per cent. of the total cost of Select Committee work. I also suspect that if we had to recruit our staff from the private sector the costs would be even higher.
In my view, continuity as well as timing is an important element in scrutiny and it seems to take even the most distinguished and experienced Peers, even ex-Ministers and ex-Permanent Secretaries, for example, just a little time to become accustomed to the form and nature of the work of our committees. I believe that every noble Lord who has spoken so far, possibly with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Pym, has objected to the reduction of the rotation rule from five to three years. I liked the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she referred to Members constantly coming and going if the rotation rule was reduced to three sessions. For my part, if the rule has to be reduced at all, I would certainly not reduce it by more than one year.
Finally, I welcome the Select Committee's acceptance of the working group's recommendation that the nature and the volume of sub-committee work is now such that each sub-committee requires the services of one Clerk. However, my main concern is the suggested reduction of the present number of sub-committees from six to three, plus possibly one ad hoc, and a consequential reduction in the committees' resources.
The question of how to deal with the proposed two new pillars was left, perhaps wisely in the present circumstances, to the longer term. However, such a

937
major reduction in sub-committee structure would undoubtedly cause a consequential increase in the workload of our Clerks, who would presumably be responsible for constantly monitoring a large number of proposals on behalf of the sub-committees. We would thus really be back to square one, because if one reduces the number of sub-committees from six to three the terms of reference of each sub-committee would be vast. The subjects will not go away however we seek to deal with them.
While there may well be a case for holding an ad hoc cross-border inquiry from time to time, a standing ad hoc committee, which is perhaps a contradiction in terms, would lack the continuity which is such a valuable element in scrutiny. I was also surprised to find no specific provision in the report to cover the existing terms of reference of Sub-committee E on law and institutions which up until now has always been chaired by a Law Lord and which has examined UK law and questions of vires and treaty base.
Article 3b of the proposed Maastricht Treaty was for the first time to have enshrined the general principle of subsidiarity in Community legislation. That proposal was welcomed widely on all sides of the House when we debated the Maastricht agreement last December. Subject to what eventually emerges—we are now all waiting patiently for the Statement—subsidiarity will undoubtedly become an important element in scrutiny alongside the present legal, financial and policy implications of proposals—in my view the present three criteria would grow to four—and I believe it will require constant vigilance of the kind that Sub-committee E has until now so effectively exercised with the expert advice of our legal adviser, Mrs. Denza.
I recognise that some of the points I have made are only suggestions at this stage but they come before the House with the weight of a Select Committee behind them, so I hope that when they and the other contributions to this long debate are considered by the proposed steering committee or by the liaison committee—like my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, I would greatly prefer the latter form of committee—great care will be taken not to reduce drastically a structure and a set of well tried working relationships which have stood the test of time and have brought great credit on the House and which I believe are still needed in a rapidly developing situation. As the Select Committee has pointed out, the European Communities Committee is continuing to review its working methods in the light of major developments in the Community. I suspect that that committee may prefer to maintain its need for an additional Clerk rather than the suggested specialist assistant which the Jellicoe Committee recommended.
I hope therefore that the House will share my belief that it would be extremely regrettable to take any decisions now which would reduce the quality of the inquiries and the reports the Select Committee produces which are apparently so highly regarded both in this country and in the wider Community.

Maastricht Treaty: Danish Referendum
5.36 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the implications of the Danish Referendum. All 12 members of the European Community agreed and subsequently signed the Treaty of Maastricht. The treaty amends the Treaty of Rome, which can only be changed by unanimity. To come into effect, the Maastricht Treaty needs to be ratified by all 12 member states. As the House knows, the Danish people voted against the treaty by a narrow majority yesterday. The Danish Government are now considering how to respond to this vote. One option is to resubmit the matter to a further referendum.
"The Maastricht Treaty began to build the kind of European Community we wish to see. It introduced the concept of intergovernmental co-operation outside the Treaty of Rome. It established the principle of subsidiarity rather than centralism. It established financial and other controls over the Commission. This House has three times endorsed our policy. It did so before the final negotiation and, again, after it. Following the general election, the House gave a Second Reading to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill by a large majority.
"The Government continue to believe that the deal we secured at Maastricht is in the best interests of this country. In the expectation that Denmark will in due course be able to join them our partners propose to complete the ratification procedures. We share that judgment and intend to continue with the passage of the Bill.
"However, it is clearly necessary to consider further the legal and practical implications of the Danish referendum result before we can sensibly invite the House to proceed with the Committee stage. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will make a Business Statement later this afternoon to change the Business for this week. We shall of course consult widely with our European partners. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will attend a meeting of the Twelve in Oslo tomorrow. He will report to the House on his return.
"Madam Speaker, the Maastricht Treaty provided the mechanisms for more broadly based development of the Community and introduced procedures to reverse the trend towards centralism. These developments create a sound basis for co-operation and open the way for the future enlargement of the Community. We hope that enlargement will include the EFTA countries and the countries of eastern and central Europe. The ratification and implementation of the treaty is in

939
our national interest and we shall continue during our Presidency to work for the Community we secured in that negotiation".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is no doubt that the result of the referendum in Denmark has come as a surprise and shock to most people in the Community. It inevitably raises some fundamental questions about the Maastricht treaty, and possibly the whole direction of the European Community.
We noted that the Government decided not to proceed with the Committee stage of the treaty in another place. In the light of the referendum result that was sensible because all the 12 governments will have to consider the new situation which has been created. As the Statement makes clear, the treaty amends the Treaty of Rome, which can only be changed by unanimity. In other words, all the 12 members must agree.
We made it clear on this side of the House that we believe in closer European integration and that we give our support to most of the treaty. The question which concerns us now is whether the referendum has brought the process to a halt. It is a helpful coincidence that, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, the Community Foreign Ministers will be meeting in Oslo tomorrow. Can the noble Lord confirm that this issue will now be at the top of the agenda? Can he say whether the Government will advise a return to a negotiating position on the treaty or whether, during this country's presidency, an intergovernmental conference will be called to discuss the whole matter?
The Statement says that the treaty,
"established the principle of subsidiarity rather than centralism".
Does not the result in Denmark show that many people have not grasped that, or indeed do not understand what subsidiarity means?
The Statement goes on to say that,
"our partners propose to complete the ratification procedures",
and that the Government intend to continue with the passage of the Bill. On the other hand, we know that unanimity is essential and we must agree that a careful consideration of the legal implications of the referendum result is essential before Parliament can proceed with the Bill.
The Statement does not say a great deal, save that the applecart has been upset and that is regrettable. It seems clear that a much more detailed examination of the consequences of the crisis is now necessary. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that a debate in both Houses must take place once we have more information at our disposal about the legal implications and when we know the reactions of the other 11 governments.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Through him I congratulate the Prime Minister on the steadiness of the note he struck in the Statement.
940
There is not much other basis for congratulation today, although the setback—which it undoubtedly is —needs to be put into perspective. I have been amazed that there has been no earlier severe check to the remarkable momentum of the past six years, particularly as the post-war history of the European idea has been one of frequent severe setbacks overcome with a mixture of resolution and ingenuity. There was the European Defence Community setback in 1954; there was the De Gaulle-Hallstein quarrel of 1965–66; and there was the rupture of the negotiations for British, Danish and Irish entry in 1963 and in 1967.
The Danes have a history of being somewhat lukewarm towards the Community, at the same time intermingled with a good deal of constructive European statesmanship. They have always been loath to go beyond the concept of a purely economic community. The rather cruel early joke at the time when Jens Otto Krag was Danish Prime Minister at the time of their first negotiations for entry was: "Mr. Krag does not want to join Europe but he does want to sell cheese".
Combined with that, however, the Danes have contributed considerable quiet, constructive statesmanship to the Community. They have produced some considerable figures. Finn Gundelach was an outstanding Commissioner under my presidency, and I believe that Henning Christopherson is a considerable Commissioner today. Niels Ersbøll has been a distinguished Secretary General of the Council. The Danes were early supporters of the EMS and well placed to take part in a common currency. Europe would therefore lose much without Denmark, as I believe Denmark would from anything approaching isolation.
The referendum result also gives pause for thought about the admission of Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, the other neutral ex-EFTA countries, let alone Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. I have always been a considerable advocate of early and substantial enlargement, but if approximately 30,000 votes in one of 12 countries can produce stultification, how much more vulnerable would be a Community of 20 or 25 countries?
Nonetheless, in view of the Community's history of recovery from setback, I do not believe that the resources of civilisation are by any means exhausted. There are some, including a few noble Lords in this House, who hope that they are in this context. I do not share that view. I believe that what one might call the cool Europeans, of whom there are many on the Government Front Bench in this House and in another place, would be unwise to do so. If one looks at the present disintegrating state of large parts of Europe—not the Community so far—the last thing that would be desirable is a position in which things fall apart and the centre cannot hold. Otherwise we may find ourselves in a more unstable and dangerous Europe than that which was split down the middle by the Cold War.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the points he made and also to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

941
The essence of the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place was that there would be a pause for reflection. The noble Lord agreed that that was right. I can confirm to him that the present position will be high on the agenda at the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Oslo tomorrow.
The Government believe that the Maastricht Treaty is a good treaty for Britain. It contains clear recognition of the value of intergovernmental co-operation, subsidiarity, the reinforced rule of law, co-operation on justice and home affairs, improved foreign policy co-ordination and stronger budgetary discipline. We must try to follow through what we have agreed. Therefore, it is too early for any suggestion of renegotiation. The treaty is a careful balance between differing views and renegotiation would re-open a delicate and complex package. I hope that we do not reach that stage.
I also made a clear note of the noble Lord's suggestion of a debate. I am sure that that can be arranged in the way that we arrange these things, although I am not familiar with the phrase to use. I know that these things can be done and if that is the will of the House it will be done.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his kind words about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which will be much appreciated, speaking as he does with particular authority on the subject. Indeed, the noble Lord's remarks generally, putting what none of us can deny is a setback into proper perspective, were helpful.
The noble Lord referred to the position of Denmark. We understand some of the Danish concerns. Some of Denmark's concerns are also those of other countries. We ourselves fought hard at Maastricht against a centralised Europe. We believe that the Maastricht treaty was an important watershed in making sure that Europe did not develop into too centralised an institution. I should also make just one comment on the noble Lord's remarks about enlargement. It is too soon to say what the effect will be on enlargement. Obviously we are consulting our partners on the way forward. The case for enlargement stands on its own merit. The Community must remain open. The Government are committed to making progress under the UK presidency in preparing early accession negotiations with the EFTA applicants.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any possibility of a referendum or vote being requested or taking place in any of the other Community countries? The action in Denmark came as a surprise to many people. I should be interested to know whether there is a possibility of similar action in any other country. Perhaps I may add my warm support to the request by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that your Lordships' House should have an opportunity to debate these immensely important issues in the very near future.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend raised the question of referenda. I understand the position is that Ireland will hold a referendum on 18th June, as
942
required by the Irish Constitution. The French Constitution provides that constitutional changes can be approved either by a two-thirds majority of both chambers combined or by a referendum. I understand that France has decided on a referendum. So far as I know, all other member states at present plan treaty approval by parliamentary procedure alone.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I commend the Government on the relaxed attitude that they have taken towards the decision of the Danish people. I include in that commendation the observations made by my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is no question of a crisis. The world and Europe will not come to an end purely because the Danish people have spoken in their customarily democratic fashion. I submit to the House that it affords an opportunity for some reflection.
Does the noble Lord agree that we should try to understand exactly why the Danish people have come to their decision? Does he understand that, whether or not—possibly with the aid of Commission funds—the Danish people are persuaded to change their minds, the Government must bear in mind that the people by and large want the Council of Ministers to tell the Commission what is to be done rather than have that unelected body tell the Council of Ministers and the people of the various countries what to do? Quite clearly this is a matter that has to be reconsidered.
I sincerely hope that in the course of the inevitable intergovernmental conference that is bound to take place whatever happens there may be some endeavour made by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the original concepts of the Common Market, the enlargement of the trading area and all the acquis communautaires that go with it are carried out constructively and serve the broad general purposes of the people of Europe rather than advance the bureaucratic fortunes and ambitions of those who occupy positions of power in the Commission at the moment.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, when the noble Lord started his Question, I thought for one minute that I might be going to agree with him. Fortunately he went on long enough not to put me entirely off my stroke. I recognise and understand his views. We are right to pause for reflection. There is no point in getting in a great paddy about it. That is the proper thing to do and we must act calmly. But do not let that delude anybody. The position of the Government and, I believe, of the British people—certainly of this House and the other place (we have had a general election at which that was an issue)—is that the Maastricht Treaty is a good treaty for Britain. It is idle to pretend that other member states will agree that it should just fall away. We must try to follow through what we have agreed to do.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware—as I believe he must be—that the issue of the sovereignty of Britain was not debated at the general election, since the three parties had a common policy? There was never a proper opportunity to discuss the matter.

943
I should like to say to him that a small majority—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to this point —is not to my mind important when there is a referendum. If there had been a small majority the other way, people would have said that the argument was carried and the issue would have been resolved. Nobody would complain if they had won by a small majority.
Secondly, will the Government bear in mind that when the Danish people say no it is just as important as when the French or German people say no? Otherwise we may fall into the trap of suggesting that a small country is less important than the bigger countries of Europe. That would be a grievous blunder.
Thirdly, I am sure the noble Lord will have gathered that, like others, I have my own prejudices and beliefs and that on this issue they are not exactly those held by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it was a pleasure to hear what my noble friend—if I may call him that after so many years—had to say to us. First, of course—with the greatest possible respect —he certainly understands what the general election was all about, sitting as he does these days on the Cross Benches. I have to say, sitting as I did during the campaign in the bowels of central office, Conservative Central Office, if there is any doubt about it—I felt that some of the issues were of some importance. Nevertheless we have a time to pause for reflection. I can agree with the noble Viscount to the extent that the treaty can come into effect only if ratified by all 12 member states. Denmark is not in a position to ratify it at the moment, hence the problem and hence the need for a little reflection.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have not checked the information, but can the noble Lord confirm what I have been told; namely that the Social Democrats in Denmark voted against the treaty because they did not think that it went far enough? If that is the position, does it not make the result of the referendum rather curious, to say the least?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, according to my information the noble Baroness is correct. The point she makes is a valid one.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I should like to support very much one aspect of the noble Viscount's point of view. He reinforced the fact that this was not an issue in the sense that the country gave a view on it in the general election. It is not fair to produce the result of the election as an argument in favour of supporting or being against the Maastricht Treaty or anything to do with it. There was a common policy, so it could not carry with it the considered view of the country.
The one part of the Prime Minister's statement that disturbs me more than a little is where it virtually suggests that there ought to be another referendum in Denmark. Shall we suggest that we have referenda until the result is achieved that we would like? I believe that the bias that seems to be in the words used by the Prime Minister today is rather disturbing. We shall
944
take on the responsibility of the presidency for six months or more. To reflect any bias against the considered view of any nation would be detrimental to the full use of our powers during that six months.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government will not believe that they have an obligation to continue to move towards the merging of all countries under the aegis of the Community against any evidence that may be produced. Now is the time to give serious thought to the real feelings of people in every country concerned, and to show no bias one way or another.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall, so to speak, do a verbal deal with my friend this far: I agree that what happens in Denmark is a matter for the Danish people and the Danish Government. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did not tell the Danish people what to do. I have the statement in front of me. It contains one option: to resubmit the matter to a further referendum. That is a statement of fact. It is for the Danish people and the Danish Government to decide what they do. It is not for us to tell them; and we have not told them.
I find it difficult to accept the proposition that in some way the British Government do not have proper democratic authority to do what they are doing. I state this with absolute clarity. There have been three major votes in the House of Commons in recent months. One was before the Maastricht Treaty, establishing our negotiating position, which was approved. Another was post the Maastricht Treaty, which was approved. There was the Second Reading of the Bill. We have had a general election which may or may not have been significant; it is for everyone to make up their minds about that. I understand that before I was in this House there were two significant votes in this Chamber, which also approved the position. Therefore I believe that by our institutions the Government are proceeding in a proper and democratic fashion; and I believe that no one can question our constitutional position.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the vote of the Danes against the Maastricht Treaty is probably representative of the views of millions of other people both in this country and throughout the Community? Does that not show that they did not believe that the treaty was a decentralising treaty, but the reverse: that it was a centralising treaty that would lead to a European superstate controlled by bureaucrats?
Will the noble Lord confirm that the Danish Prime Minister has already stated that it would show disrespect to the Danish people to have another referendum? I hope that we shall not try to persuade the Danish Prime Minister to do other than what he believes is correct.
Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House also comment on the attitude of M. Delors and the Portuguese Foreign Minister who have already said that, despite the democratic vote of the Danish people, the other Eleven should go ahead without them? Is that not the negation of democracy?
Finally, with regard to a referendum in this country, my noble friend Lord Tonypandy is

945
absolutely right. This matter was not discussed during the general election. Article 8 of the treaty will make every single citizen of this country, including Her Majesty, a citizen of a new state called the European Union owing a duty to that union. Would it not be correct for the Government to allow a consultative referendum so that the people could say whether they wished to cease to be British citizens but citizens of this great new European Union?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not pretend to know the mind of the Danish people who voted in this referendum. The noble Lord probably knows it better than I do. However, there was clearly a decision. If the decision was made, as he suggests, on the basis that the people of Denmark believe that the Maastricht Treaty was a centralising treaty, then I believe that they got it wrong and misunderstood the nature of the Maastricht Treaty. What the Danes do in the future is a matter for them. We cannot ratify the treaty under the Treaty of Rome unless they agree to it.
I do not suggest this as a way forward, but in the light of what the noble Lord said, it is right to point out that the other eleven members also have democratic rights. If they were to decide to enter into some other type of agreement—it might be technically possible to enter into intergovernmental co-operation to deal with a number of the issues; but I do not suggest that that is the best way forward—there is nothing undemocratic about nations doing that if they wish.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one danger of this set-back is that it could delay Europe's economic recovery? He may have seen, as I did, that the reaction of Morgan Stanley, for example, is that European assets are now less attractive than they were. The noble Lord will know that the pound has come under pressure and has fallen significantly against the deutschmark. We do not want to have high interest rates again on the agenda.
Does the noble Lord agree with me that through this very marginal result the excellent Maastricht agreement has to some extent been affected by what many of us see as the arrogance and hubris of a civil servant whose reappointment to his post must now be open to question? Indeed, one might say that a period of silence on M. Delors part might now be rather welcome. Is not the real danger that decisions are made, or thought to be made, by a body which is totally unaccountable to any electorate?
If there has to be a renegotiation—and I hope that there will not—is that not a dimension which should be further addressed?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not wish to say much about M. Delors except to say that he is a distinguished civil servant with whom we disagree quite frequently. However, there is not necessarily too much harm in that. Reappointment is a matter that is likely to be taken at the Lisbon European Council. It is not a matter on which we should speculate now.
On the more general point, I agree with my noble friend this far. This set-back, which I believe has to be
946
sorted out, will obviously take the time and energy of all the leaders of the European Community. There are a number of other matters that need to be undertaken on which those people's time and energy could have been better spent rather than on this renegotiation. I mention two issues. The first is the common agricultural policy reforms on which progress needs to be made. Perhaps more importantly are the GATT negotiations. Therefore the set-back causes some problems. But we have to get on with them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Leader of the House told my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that he thought it was premature to talk about renegotiation. I am a little puzzled. Perhaps the Leader of the House will help me. There is no doubt that the endorsement of the Maastricht Treaty has to be unanimous. One country has made it clear that it does not accept that. Surely there must be renegotiation.
Talk about the Danes having a second referendum is appalling. If a second referendum went against the Act, would there be a third or a fourth referendum? Surely that must be out of the question.
Finally, I wish to endorse what was said by a number of my noble friends and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. There are a large number of issues which require further and deeper consideration. Many of us are called Euro-sceptics but there is justification in being so. Perhaps the Leader of the House will comment on my first point.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is a matter for Denmark to decide whether to have a second referendum; it is not for us to say. The Government believe that the Maastricht Treaty is a good treaty for Britain. Therefore, it is sensible for the British Government to take the necessary steps so that we are not found wanting if, as one of 12 nations, we are in a position to endorse the treaty. We can get on with our side of the job and hope that others can too.
Perhaps after 20 minutes on the Statement we can have the final question from the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that this House ought to congratulate the Danish people on the uniquely thorough and conscientious way in which they have examined the fine print of the Maastricht Treaty, according to all independent observers, which enabled them to reach their conclusion?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord may well be right but that would be in contradiction to the noble Lord opposite who said that the Danes examined the treaty and as far as he could see came to the wrong conclusions.

Committee Work of the House
6.12 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, coming on stage at the end of a high drama one is tempted to say that,

947
"the eyes of man …
After a well-grac'd actor leaves the stage
Are idly bent on him that enters next".
However, having listened I am encouraged to think it possible that the business of today's debate will be with us when the business of the Statement is concluded and behind us, for procedure is always with us.
In common with all noble Lords I offer my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to his committee for a distinguished report with which I am much in sympathy. I have one small note of misgiving on which I wish to touch briefly. It is about the procedure for taking Public Bills in Committee off the Floor of the House. I listened carefully to the noble Earl and did not disagree with anything that he said. My slight misgiving related to the word "occasional"; one's view about that word depends on how many occasions. Many things have been said to be occasional. Income tax was said to be occasional when the House of Commons first voted it in 1436. Indeed, Members were so anxious about the issue that they refused to enter it in the records for fear that it might be taken as a precedent—I may say to the great dismay of historians.
I also listened to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. He said that as a result of the composition of this House such a committee would not necessarily have a government majority. If that were the accepted view the type of Bills which would go to Committee upstairs would be only those which one could happily see go there. Therefore, with the rider that my noble friend put on the proposal I should he happy to go as far as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has gone today.
I refer also to the committee for the scrutiny of legislation, especially the inappropriate delegation of powers. The proposal originated from a debate held on 14th February 1990, referred to in a footnote of the report. I re-read that debate during the weekend. It was most impressive. The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, was supported warmly and ably from every corner of the House. Some good speeches were made during the debate. I shall repeat only a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. He pointed out that similar committees also exist in New Zealand and Canada, and therefore we are not being asked to follow a single example.
I like very much the terms of reference for the Australian committee. The noble Earl and his committee have come down in favour of something a little narrower. I admit that I should have preferred the Australian terms but, like Winnie the Pooh, I do not want to be greedy. If we could have the terms proposed by the noble Earl's committee I should welcome them most warmly.
Consideration could be given to matters which might be appropriate for delegation. The mere existence of such a committee would cause that issue to be discussed. There is a great deal of room for discussion. The Donoughmore Committee suggested that delegated legislation should be reserved for minor matters. I am not sure that that is always the case. If it is not it causes particular difficulties in this House where always there are procedural difficulties in the
948
way of voting on provisions in a regulation. There are ways in which those difficulties might be tackled but they are cumbersome and not always the best way of proceeding. A great deal of trouble could be saved if at an early stage discussions could take place behind the scenes.
If such a committee were set up it would be concerned largely, but by no means exclusively, with what have come to be known as Henry VIII clauses. That is a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has made many distinguished contributions to our debates. This is not the occasion for a long discussion of the issues raised in those debates. However, I must say that those who have the least misgivings about such clauses might perhaps agree that in recent times they have tended to get out of hand. I shall instance the clause in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. It was defeated and to my great pleasure another place agreed to its removal from the Bill. Under a Henry VIII clause it had authorised the imposition of a charge. From any point of view that would have to be held as "getting out of hand".
I have thought about how such a committee would work. As far as I can follow the proposals in the report it would work well. It would ask the Minister to explain why such a clause was felt to be necessary. That would achieve one of the aims of the Donoughmore Committee; that where such a clause is thought to be necessary a statement shall be provided to explain why. Such a procedure is capable of saving a great deal of trouble.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, speaking on 31st January 1990, asked in regard to legislation, "Is your journey really necessary?". He was talking about the bulk of legislation brought forward, which is an issue that underlies much of our debate. I do not know how deeply we can go into that matter today. Similarly, one can ask, "Is your Henry VIII clause really necessary?". The answers to that question, if they are made available to us, deserve a great deal of scrutiny and they will save a great deal of parliamentary time.
The saving of parliamentary time is sometimes invoked as a reason for using Henry VIII clauses. I do not know whether the desired effect is achieved because almost always someone tables an amendment either to delete the provision or to make it subject to affirmative resolution. That tends to lead to lengthy debate. Speaking purely for myself, if I were to read a Minister's explanation of why such a clause is necessary there are likely to be at least some occasions on which I should find that explanation convincing. Indeed, I would have tabled an amendment in order to obtain such an explanation. Therefore, in that way the time of the House could be saved. Moreover, perhaps it is not too much to hope that the existence of such a committee might, on some occasions, make Ministers refrain from using such a clause when they otherwise might have done so.
Speaking immediately before the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I shall not dwell at length on Appendix 4 of the report, which I read with great pleasure, but I was struck by one point; namely, that the Australians found that the existence of the committee had changed the culture of some government departments. That

949
could happen here. I can recall one occasion when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, tabled an amendment to delete a Henry VIII clause. At first the department seemed to have absolutely no idea as to what was the noble Lord's objection. It did not even realise whether he was concerned about a drafting or constitutional point. It took a little time to get that debate on the rails. With such a committee in place, we could avoid that type of misunderstanding.
The Government have expressed certain reservations. I am not entirely surprised; indeed, I am not entirely out of sympathy with the points which the Government are making. They make the point that one could not normally expect a committee to see draft instruments. It is nice when one can see them in draft and in that context I thank my noble kinsman Lord Henley for the last occasion on which he was able to do that. We all understand that that cannot always happen because it is not always known what kind of regulations are proposed.
The Government suggested also that the committee should be experimental, and I have no problem with that. That is necessarily the case whether or not it is so spelled out. Therefore, I have no objection to the Government wishing to spell it out.
The Government suggested also that we should move towards a consensus on the appropriate use of those powers. My response to that is, "Yes, please." I have been asking for that for quite a long time. I have never argued—and most noble Lords who have opposed such clauses have also never argued—that they are always illegitimate. Clearly there is a place for them; for example, in a statute where a figure is included which is eligible for annual up-rating because it cannot be up-rated without the existence of a Henry VIII clause. We are all prepared to admit that there are such cases. We are willing and eager to take part in discussions about what they might be.
There was an extremely interesting debate about this during our debates on the Further and Higher Education Bill. I listened with particular interest to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. They all said things which are true and which should go into the evolution of consensus. Therefore, I have no problem with that.
However, I am not quite sure about how that should be done. The suggestion in the minutes of evidence that we should establish a consensus before setting up the committee is rather like putting the cart before the horse. After all, is that not what one sets up a committee for? The consensus evolves from the proceedings of the committee and, indeed, from the evolution of a body of case law. Anyone likely to be appointed to such a committee would go into it hoping to achieve consensus. I am extremely glad to hear the Government talking about consensus. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, deserves a great deal of credit for that. His committee has already achieved something.
On the other hand, I am not quite so happy about the Government's suggestion that vigilance might, in
950
some circumstances, be difficult to distinguish from political opposition to the underlying policy. That is a slightly and ungenerous objection to a proposal which originated from their own side of the House and which has been supported by every quarter of the House. Most of us would like to think that we can distinguish between form and substance. Most of us know that we are not always right. Most of us are prepared to listen when people point out that we are failing to make such a distinction. In this House at least I cannot see anyone being appointed to such a committee who is likely to use it simply for the pursuit of party objectives. Any such person would not be particularly happy serving on such a committee and would probably not choose to remain there for long. This proposal could do a great deal of good and I hope that it will be accepted.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, as your Lordships are going to be contained within these four walls for many hours yet, perhaps I may be permitted to open a window beyond the Chamber for a few minutes and invite your Lordships to accompany me to Australia. As no other member of the committee was free to go on its behalf to get a first hand impression of how the experience of 10 years of a delegated scrutiny committee had worked out and as we thought we should get that first hand impression, I made the trip. I know that some of your Lordships, in particular the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, have long been familiar with the Australian experience, but the committee wanted a first-hand look. It so happened that in Canberra a special meeting was convened to celebrate the tenth year of the working of the committee. Therefore, it seemed to be a suitable and good opportunity to draw on that experience.
I was packed up in brown paper with one of our very distinguished senior Clerks, Mr. Sleath, and we spent three days in Canberra. They were extremely intensive days. On the first day we sat through an interesting reviewing seminar attended by distinguished academics, journalists, officials and others seeking to evaluate their experience. We then had a day of intensive discussion at all levels in the Senate, from the president of the Senate to the chairman of the scrutiny committee, officials and journalists. On the third day I attended a meeting of the scrutiny committee to see it actually work.
I should like to say a few words about how the Australian committee works because that may be relevant if it is decided to establish a delegated scrutiny committee here, even though conditions there are, as your Lordships will be well aware, different both as to how parliamentary proceedings are conducted and in other ways.
The system provides for careful scrutiny. Every week all the Bills which have come forward in the past week are gathered and looked at by an extremely eminent legal adviser who produces a note of comments of points to be considered which is circulated and drawn to the attention of the

951
departments concerned. In turn, they have an opportunity to reply before the scrutiny committee compiles and presents a report to the Senate.
There was a general consensus among those I met in Canberra that the committee had been a useful influence on Australian legislation. The effect is reflected directly in the amendment of Bills in the Chamber in accordance with the committee's recommendations. As a self-denying ordinance the committee does not propose specific amendments. The main influence seems to be indirect. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, it has effected a culture change in the departments in Canberra causing them to take more care in the drafting of Bills to avoid unnecessary, ill-considered or indeed mischievous encroachment on parliamentary control.
No one I met wished to exaggerate the influence of the committee. The committee itself was modest in its claims. The departments naturally have the last word and some departments ignore the recommendations of the committee altogether. The influence and the effectiveness, such as they exist, are largely the result of the extremely high quality of the contribution of the legal adviser. With great dedication he has worked for the scrutiny committee for the whole 10 years and has built up a network of relations with the departments, the legal draftsmen and others which is of the greatest possible value.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, in Australia the terms of reference of the committee are much wider than those our committee recommends. The committee is 10 years old. It took several years to establish. Inevitably in any country the Executive is likely to seek to delay the appointment of a scrutiny committee. That is in the nature of things. In Australia the motivation was mainly to increase the protection of the rights of the citizen. In this country our conclusion was that there is a much wider and more deeply based set of arrangements by which rights can be protected. For experimental purposes it seemed desirable to confine the terms of reference to the specific area which troubled your Lordships in the impressive debates that we had on the subject.
The Senate committee in Canberra has a self-denying tradition in which it does not recommend specific amendments. We, for our part, felt that with more limited terms of reference a scrutiny committee might be disposed to take a rather stronger line and perhaps propose amendments. That would be a matter for the committee to decide.
In Australia the timetable of the committee is breathless. The Australian legislature sits for such a short period of time each year that an enormous quantity of Bills must be squeezed into a small number of weeks. That creates great difficulty for those who want to keep track of them. We believe that in the much longer Sessions that we have in this country, it would not create such a rush. Those concerned in the scrutiny committee—the legal adviser, the Clerk and the committee itself—would not be under such pressure.
I would not wish to exaggerate the opportunity for change as a result of the work of a scrutiny committee. The vast mass of orders, regulations and secondary
952
legislation does not call for comment or serious concern. The enormous rise in secondary legislation over the past 50 years is due partly to the changes in the world in which we live and must be accepted. But there are bound to be a certain number of orders and regulations which profit by a parliamentary look.
With great respect, I should like to endorse the view the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack expressed to the committee that it would he difficult for any scrutiny committee to get on top of the work and make much impact on it. So much secondary legislation is concerned with complex and detailed subjects which only the departments themselves can he expected to see right through. Nevertheless, the lesson from the Canberra experience is that it is possible to overcome such difficulties. The extent to which they are overcome depends, as I suggested, mainly on the qualifications and skill of the legal adviser appointed to help the committee.
We received the greatest help from all sides in the Senate. In three days it would have been impossible to have carried out such an in-depth investigation without the programme which had been prepared in advance. Wherever we went we received the fullest help. As a personal aside I might mention the contrast between visiting on behalf of your Lordships' House and receiving such a reception and the experience that I had many years ago. I led a financial delegation to Australia at a time of the utmost danger of a run on sterling. It was necessary to obtain the agreement of the major sterling area governments to a set of secret conditions to protect sterling—known later as the Basle Agreement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England were like cats on hot bricks because it was so urgent to obtain the agreement of the Australian Government. Just to take the mickey out of this country, the Australian Treasurer kept us waiting for three weeks before he saw us. That is all past history: we now have a quite different relationship. However, I should like to place on record my warmest thanks for all the help and facilities we received.
As the only member of the European Communities Committee who was also on the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I have much sympathy with the views expressed from several quarters in the House about some of our specific suggestions for possible means of introducing greater flexibility. I would like to impress on those who expressed doubts that the main motivation for the establishment of our committee, although we went wider as we progressed with our work, was the problem of the resources of Clerks and Peers.
Perhaps we were wrong, but we were operating from the assumption that these resources, especially the number of Peers available for committee work, are finite. It may be that there are a good many more than 100 or so Peers able to take on the work and to contribute to it. I hope that they will come forward. Perhaps if we make a collective effort to induce Peers to do so we may increase the resource of Peers. We were proceeding on the conservative assumption that there is probably a more or less finite resource of your Lordships for this work which is onerous.

953
On the equally important issue of the limitation of resources of Clerks, I hope that we were also wrong about that. We felt that if the House were to be in a position to ask for a significant increase—we do not have very many Clerks anyway—of perhaps one or two Clerks, we could then make a gesture by economising in our own use of them. I share many of the doubts which have been expressed about the opportunity for making economies. If we cannot, I hope that the House, with the advice of the Procedure Committee and the steering committee, will be able to make a more powerful impact on the Government to make more resources available.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I too would like to join with all noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating most warmly my noble friend Lord Jellicoe both on the report and on his introductory speech which contained all his splendid insight and understanding of the way in which we work in this House and for a great deal of his happy-making wit which I have known since he and I were at school together.
This report contains a number of issues of real importance to the House. Its committee work is part of the work of the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to utter a bleat that in a report as important as this, here am I, the 14th speaker, speaking at 6.45 p.m. There are 24 more speakers on the list before we reach the three noble Lords who are to wind up. All this is taking place in connection with a matter of real importance to the House and on which every Member of it believes, like I do, that he has something useful to say, drawing on his experience. When we look at the Order Paper we do not see any pressing reason which is apparent to a small, ignorant, bleating man like I am, who has been here a mere 30 years, why we cannot have a debate on a subject of importance such as this over two days rather than one.
Having delivered myself of that bleat I will now make some points as quickly as I can. I would like to make twice as many points as I know I shall have time to make.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before the noble Lord makes his points, would the Government care to comment on the suggestion that has been made?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I move into uncharted waters in response to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is worth remembering that it was thought within the context of the usual channels that for your Lordships' House it would be a happy resolution to the debate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should respond for the Government. At the time when that decision was made there was not a great number of speakers.
In order to put the matter into context it may be worth remembering that on Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill the number of speakers was greatly in excess of those speaking today—that is to say, 53. During the four days of the Queen's Speech debate which has just taken place in your Lordships' House the number of speakers was 30, 24, 33 and 28. Today
954
we have a list of speakers which I believe has already been reduced by two before I came into the Chamber in comparison with the number of speakers mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aldington.
Within the context of all of those features I suggest that the usual channels tried to achieve a satisfactory result for your Lordships. If it is not satisfactory I take the blame, but I believe that we tried to present a set of arrangements that would provide the results that your Lordships would desire.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, my noble friend always makes his case in such a charming way that we accede to him. I shall now try not to take up too long. It is a little unfair that I have had four minutes taken up already.
I am not a new participator in Select Committees either in this House or in another place. I began my experience of Select Committees in 1948 when I learnt a great deal about the system from the late Sir Ralph Glyn. I was chairman of the Select Committee on nationalised industries during my last five years there. The other place did not seem to have a dislike of people carrying on for five years doing the same thing because they would know about the issues.
I say bluntly to your Lordships that a rotation rule of three years for the members of Select Committees seems to be absolutely nonsensical and wrong. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lady Young, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and others, make these points. I do not see how a rotation rule of three years is going to increase the number of Peers available from which members can be drawn. It seems that every time one rotates a person off a committee it reduces by one the numbers available. I do not understand the reasoning. Perhaps a feeling has got around that the Science and Technology Committee and the European Communities Committee are self-perpetuating. But that is rubbish and I am surprised that anyone has taken notice of it. I have found both in another place and in the Select Committees of your Lordships' House that continuity is of enormous value to the chairman, just as getting new blood involved is also of enormous value.
In upholding his recommendation of three years, my noble friend Lord Pym said that five years is a long time to go before any change. But what we are talking about is the rotation period of each individual Member of the House, not the rotation period of the whole committee. It does not all change at once. It should change year by year. I hope that this matter will be reconsidered.
I can tell your Lordships that the advantage to Sub-committee A of the European Communities Committee, which I have the honour to chair for the time being, of having the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord O'Brien, who have served for a period and carry experience through everything they have learnt and made recommendations on, is very great. Anyone who has served on Select Committees knows the advantage of working with the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who, unhappily, is not well today. We should make a great mistake if we made that type of continued service impossible. I see the noble Lord,

955
Lord Shepherd, sitting opposite. The continued service he has given to that committee is of enormous value.
Before I come on to the European Communities Committee I wish to make one or two points in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I am wholly in favour of the proposal to have ad hoc committees again. I am sure that that is right. I regretted it very much when the ad hoc committee which I chaired in 1984–85 came to an end and was not succeeded by another committee to tackle a subject of that importance. I am also pleased that we are likely to adopt what I call the "Rippon committee" on the scrutiny of delegated legislation.
I am pleased with all the other proposals. I just have to be sad that they should lead to a serious diminution in the resources available to the European Communities Committee. I hope that the diminution, if it has to be, will not be serious. I hope too that that diminution of resources will not affect the Science and Technology Committee, whose reports, long before I joined the European Communities Committee, had been of enormous value to me and must have been of enormous value to those in the House and outside. That committee, like our committee, has been splendidly led. It is now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and before that was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is to speak after me, and by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who will speak later.
I am coming to the end of my period as chairman of the European Communities Committee so I think I can say one or two things without being accused of pushing my own boat. First, I hope the House listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. She has been a splendid chairman, she has unrivalled experience and has a way of getting her colleagues here and in other countries of the Community to work with her. We are told that it is important to review certain procedures. The noble Baroness told the House earlier that she had begun a review of those procedures. They were already flexible, as we are advised they should be. We already had the ad hoc committee idea, as we are advised we should have. The question now facing us is what we should do if our resources are cut and the number of sub-committees is reduced.
I heard my noble friend the Leader of the House saying that he would be interested to hear what noble Lords thought should be done about the reduction in the number of sub-committees that will be forced upon us. I too shall be interested to hear that, but I hope that he will observe the principle of subsidiarity that he has championed in Europe and will allow the European Communities Committee to make that decision for itself, bearing in mind, as we always do, the points which are made in the report and which will be made in the House.
I should like to make one other point which was touched on briefly by the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota. It relates to the emphasis on the value of our broad issue reports. It has fallen to me to prepare a good many of them. I have to tell your Lordships that, on the day when my noble friend the Leader of the
956
House and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have made their statement, we are in the process of finalising a report on the enlargement of the Community. They will realise that we do not have an easy task. I should like to say this to the House. Please do not go away with a belief that one can serve usefully the purpose of the European Communities Committee by concentrating on broad issues without going through the scrutiny processes and without understanding all the practicalities of the way in which the Commission, the Council, the Court of Justice and the Parliament work. It is that discipline of scrutiny and going through the papers which makes it possible for us to analyse subjects and produce a good report.
My noble friend's excellent report refers to the hard work both of members and the chairman. He uses one remarkable expression when he says that all this work is "largely unrewarded". I have to tell him that it is completely unrewarded. We do it because we like it. We are able to do it because we have excellent Clerks. We are able to do it too because in your Lordships' name we are able to attract to our discussions first-class witnesses, whether they be Ministers, senior civil servants, members of the Commission, academics, or whatever. I cannot try to persuade the House that I do not like the great hard work that we do. I enjoy it and so I think do we all. That is what keeps us together.
There are two points that are connected with the working of the committee on which I wish to comment. The first is the proposal for a steering committee. The logic of the proposals that there should be a committee of the House which will, as it were, co-ordinate the workings of the committee, allocate the resources and see that we do not duplicate our work is impeccable. However, I strongly agree with those who say that we should not call it a steering committee and that we should call it a co-ordination committee or a liaison committee. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, is right. A steering committee, however well it starts—my goodness it has started well, both with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and my noble friend the Leader of the House saying that on no account will it interfere in anything we do—will finish up by steering. I hope that we will not do that. I like the part of its terms of reference which says that it will monitor us. I hope that that part will be deleted.
The second point concerns its composition. As proposed, it will be the usual channels dressed up. It is quite possible that that is the right way to do this. If it is the right way, I am surprised that we have to set up a committee to do it. I have a suggestion to make. It would be right for the usual channels to be associated with the liaison committee, but it should in fact be drawn from non-Front Bench Members of the House who can take an interest in this matter and do the job that is recommended. I hope that that suggestion will be considered.
Finally, the report spends a little time, with some slight mischievous hints that we are not doing our job very well, pointing out that we should receive more publicity for our reports. I can tell the House that the best way of obtaining publicity for our reports is to attack the government of the day; that will bring

957
publicity. However, that is not the purpose which your Lordships have in mind either when setting up such committees or when carrying out the work. We cannot expect great column inches of coverage in the press for many of the things about which we report. Noble Lords are aware that we do not receive many column inches for our daily proceedings in the House. However, when I first came here 30 years ago the proceedings were always fully reported. Indeed, any speech—even my worst —was nicely covered. But that does not happen any more; it has all changed.
We sometimes get column inches in the press in connection with our reports regarding matters which we do not consider to be of the slightest importance. For example, a whole column in the Independent based on our regional development report was written about a chance remark by Mr. Peter Lilley who appeared to be accusing me of being a corporatist. That made very good reading but it had absolutely nothing to do with the report.
The value of our reports is to those who read them. That is what we want to achieve. We do not need a dedicated Clerk to do that for us. The chairman and the Clerk of the committee should do that, as, indeed, we used to do in another place when I was chairman of a Select Committee. Therefore, I hope that we shall not waste Clerk resources on this new unnecessary job. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friend reminded us that the report before us stems from the need to examine the resources and to do something about the shortage of them. It is very droll indeed that it should propose an additional Clerk for something which is quite unnecessary.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: Before I begin my speech I have a comment to make. I note that the average time of speeches is now about 20 minutes, whereas it was about 3 minutes earlier in the afternoon. I want to make a protest, which I have already made to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that he does not want anyone to steer us. But, my goodness, we need someone to steer us today! I realise that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is in a difficult position. However, even at this late hour, will he consider whether there is some way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can be given an opportunity to say something on the matter? If not, we shall be here until 2 o'clock in the morning. Surely that is not a very good sign of a well-organised working House. I realise that the Chief Whip has done his best and that the Opposition Chief Whip has co-operated—indeed, we have all been thoroughly decent—but will the noble Lord now use some of the skill that he is bringing to Canary Wharf to the needs of this House?
I do not propose to make a very long speech. I am in favour of a steering committee. I realise that it is quite likely that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will play a big part in the matter. However, I want a number of what one might call regular Members of the House to be included. For example, I have in mind someone like the noble Lord, Lord
958
Renton, who knows much about procedure. He is the sort of person who could give advice and would be a good member of such a committee. There is also the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. After all, he has had much experience in such work and that is why he is very good with procedure. He and I worked together for several months in an effort to reform this House, although without total success. He is quite right to limit the area that he is covering.
Many important issues have been raised during the debate. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, on the Australian experiment. It is surprising that, as a country, we never look at the procedures in Australia and Canada. I had the opportunity to do so in Australia and found great advantages in it. There are procedures in Cabinet which are rather valuable; for example, the science advisory body is told in advance about the issues coming before the Cabinet. I believe that the visit of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was a very valuable one and that it is a precedent which we should follow.
I accept that the five-year rotation rule is right. The House of Lords has made it very clear that that is what it wants. I think that we shall probably also adopt the proposed delegated powers scrutiny committee which we have already discussed today. However, I believe that the steering committee would be a crucial body. I do not think that it is fair to expect the Leader of the House to do all the work. The steering committee must sit down and study it. In fact, it could even be the committee of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that considers the matter. Although I do not know whether he will be willing to continue—in fact, I doubt it.
As regards Select Committees, we had a general purposes committee as part of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I do not think that it was a very good committee. I think such matters are a job for the steering committee. It may be of interest to the House to know how the Select Committee on Science and Technology was established. It was due to the fact that the House of Commons had just abolished its committee. I thought that it would be rather fun to have such a committee in the House of Lords. I talked to my noble friend Lord Sherfield—another Wykehamist—and he agreed with me. We then put in a paper and it was accepted. It has been a great success.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the key figure in all of this: the Clerk of the committee. I refer to Mr. Paul Hayter. He was absolutely invaluable. We must realise how valuable all the various officers in your Lordships' House are in committee work, especially on occasions when members of the committee do not turn up for weeks on end. I was not very well during the last committee meetings and therefore I read the whole report. My goodness, what a lot of paper there was! If I had attended the committee meetings, I would not have had to read it. It is necessary for us to have good Clerks from the House for this work; and, indeed, we do have good Clerks. That is very helpful.
There is a case for looking at fairly regular intervals at our reports to see what has been done about them. I remember one of the first committee reports that I

959
chaired which dealt with digital mapping and remote sensing. We followed that up fairly steadily. We obtained some results, although we had a Minister who got hold of the wrong end of the stick and thought that we were advocating Europeans in space, which was exactly the opposite of our intentions. However, we put forward several useful proposals and some action was taken.
I shall conclude by saying that I would accept "Jellicoe" as it stands. I think that the Jellicoe proposals are very good. I think that we will be making a mistake if we mess around too much. Let us push hard for the Jellicoe proposals and then later on, if necessary, we can amend them.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, as there are 20 speakers to follow me, I shall be as brief as I possibly can. Apart from the Appellate Committee, my own experience of committee work has been confined to ad hoc Select Committees. I have never served on a sessional committee. But the experience which I have gained has given me some insight into what is capable of being achieved in the field of legislation by an ad hoc Select Committee, with a minimum expenditure of man hours and maximum effect. It may be helpful if I give your Lordships two examples.
The first is the ad hoc committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, which was set up in 1983 to consider two Private Members' Bills to amend the law relating to parochial and small charities. There were 10 Peers on that committee, which met on 15 half-days. The committee got off to a contentious start but ultimately unanimity was reached. The committee rejected both Bills and with the help of parliamentary draftsmen produced its own Bill. This was passed by both Houses without significant amendment. The resultant Act, the Charities Act 1985, was a success. All the main provisions were repeated in Sections 43 and 44 of the Charities Act 1992.
The other example is the ad hoc Select Committee which was set up to consider the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill that has already been mentioned. The committee consisted of only nine members, who met on 16 days. The subject matter—abortion—was of course highly controversial. It is no secret that the committee began with very differing views on this immensely difficult problem. However, at the end of the day the committee made unanimous recommendations which, after debate on the Floor of the House, were adopted in toto by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
I venture to think that the track record of ad hoc Select Committees set up to consider legislation is good. What seems to me to be clear is that in a suitable case a small committee of some nine or 10 Peers, receiving, where appropriate, written and oral evidence and committing their conclusions to a written report, is capable of giving advice upon a Bill, or intended Bill, that, after full debate, is acceptable to the House so that the Bill proceeds to the statute book with little or no amendment. That can be done even where the subject matter is controversial.
960
This leads me strongly to support the recommendations in paragraphs 183 and 184 of the report that more use should be made of committees off the Floor of the House in the field of legislation. In particular, I should like to underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce with regard to law reform Bills.
The Law Commission was set up in 1965 to promote law reform and to draft Bills for that purpose. As your Lordships have been told, there are some 39 Law Commission reports extending back to 1969, the recommendations of which have not yet been implemented. All the reports except three have Bills attached, drafted by parliamentary draftsmen, all ready to proceed. Only three reports have been rejected by government. There is no reason known to me, except lack of parliamentary time, why the remainder—or at least those which have not been overtaken by the lapse of time—should not proceed to the statute book.
There was an impressive start to the implementation of Law Commission reports. During the first seven-and-a-half years of the Law Commission's life 27 Bills were drafted and 24 reached the statute book within that period. Thereafter the situation deteriorated except for a short burst of enthusiasm in the mid-1980s. Then came the year 1991. That year was the worst ever for inactivity on this front. In that year not a single law reform Bill put forward by the commission reached the statute book. The cost of the Law Commission in 1991 was approximately £3 million. If the commission's recommendations cannot be implemented for lack of parliamentary time, what is the justification for that expenditure?
The commission produces an average of four to five law reform Bills a year. It follows that unless the implementation record matches that number, the backlog is certain to grow. It seems to me that as a matter of urgency a suitable selection of Law Commission Bills at present lying in limbo should be sent to committees off the Floor of the House to the maximum extent that manpower and accommodation can be made available.
Whether the committee off the Floor of the House should be an ad hoc Select Committee or a special standing committee, as advocated by the Jellicoe Committee, will be a matter for consideration. I tend to favour an ad hoc Select Committee because no alteration to standing orders would be needed. The process could start at once.
In addition to the Law Commission based in London of which I have so far been speaking, there is the equally important Scottish Law Commission. I have not had the opportunity to consult the Scottish Law Commission but I have had the advantage of reading the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna delivered on 1st July last year on the Second Reading of a Scottish law reform Bill. It is one more persuasive appeal that something should be done to assist the implementation of law reform Bills recommended and drafted by the two commissions and approved by government.

961
I quote a brief passage from the noble and learned Lord's speech which encapsulates exactly what I have been trying to say this evening:
"Surely, it is a complete waste of time to have what is in effect two Royal Commissions sitting permanently, considering matters that are referred to them by governments and other bodies, only for the Government in the majority of cases to forget all about the results. It is also a waste of the time of judges, law societies, consumer bodies and others who respond to consultation papers and believe the measure they are considering is serious as the Government have referred the matter to them if nothing then happens".—[Official Report, 1/7/91; col. 873.]
I do plead that something should be done to get rid of this backlog of law reform Bills. That is all that I wish to say except to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his committee and to wish their valuable report well.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, many scientists, industrialists and technologists in this country will be as grateful as I am to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his committee for their recommendation that the Select Committee on Science and Technology be reappointed as a sessional committee. That is far more important than the procedural details.
Although I have been privileged to serve on the committee for the past year, I speak today—and I shall do so very briefly—not in that capacity but rather as one of those scientists who have benefited enormously from the work of the committee and have seen it as a vital link between science and government. If sometimes the committee seems to be a voice for science, so be it; that is all to the good. Most of those working in the professions of science and technology are somewhat disappointed by the rather limited interest that seems to be taken in their work in the Palace of Westminster. But there is one notable exception and that is your Select Committee on Science and Technology.
If we ask ourselves in what area of human endeavour Britain has most excelled compared with other countries over the past century and more, the case for science and technology would be a very strong one. The wealth of the nation and its defence in time of war have always been linked closely to our talents for discovery and innovation. Even today, for example, our development of new drugs by research scientists like Sir James Black and Sir John Vane have helped to lift our chemical and pharmaceutical companies to the top of the Financial Times index. Those are things which, if not proclaimed from the rooftops, at least deserve notice on the Floor of this House.
There have been encouraging signs since the election that science is to be given more serious attention at ministerial level. That follows closely the recommendations that were made by your Lordships' Select Committee six years ago. I am also encouraged by the setting up of the the new Office of Science and Technology in the Cabinet Office because that might help to end the dismal era that we have seen of direction of research by committees from above, and
962
it may ensure that once again policy decisions are made from the bottom up, with scientists rather than politicians having the main say in deciding priorities.
Many changes are now afoot and that, as the noble Earl has said, is all the more reason why a Select Committee on Science and Technology is necessary at this time. At this moment decisions are being made about the long-term planning of research and about the funding of the science base. There is much concern about forensic science. There is a proposal to copy Germany's way of doing research in FraunhOffer institutes by setting up our own "Faraday" institutes. The prospect of a worthy memorial to that greatest of all experimental scientists warms my heart, but it is by no means established that the German way is better than the way we and the United States do research in our universities. Perhaps that is a matter that your Lordships' Select Committee should consider urgently before irrevocable decisions are made.
Debates on scientific affairs, important though they are, cannot occupy the business of your Lordships' House itself for very long; but there are in the House a significant number of noble Lords who are well qualified to advise on such matters. There are, for example, 20 Peers who are fellows of the Royal Society; 10 fellows of engineering, as well as fellows of the Royal Colleges and leaders of industry. That is why the Select Committee on Science and Technology is in its right place here in your Lordships' House and is listened to with respect. That Select Committee has had a succession of wise and knowledgeable chairmen. It has provided those in government and in this House with reports of the highest quality and clarity on matters which are generally of great importance, often highly technical and far too complex to be discussed in detail in the House.
With so much to be done, I hope that the suggestion contained in paragraph 196 of the report that the work of the Select Committee might be limited to a single sub-committee will not be adopted, at least at present. Your Lordships' Select Committee is good value for money, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has shown, and should be limited in its activities only by the amount of time that noble Lords can give to it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, one of the points the Select Committee made was that we have a number of generalists. We regard the many fellows of the Royal Society, like our present chairman, as valuable, but we believe it possible for people who are not scientists to be aware of some of the scientific issues. That is why I believe that the Select Committee has a particular importance.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. I was merely saying that it is good to have some specialists.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am mindful of the long list of speakers and I shall try to keep my remarks short. I welcome the report that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his fellow committee members produced.

963
While I agree with some of its recommendations, there are others at which we need to look more closely. I intend to confine my remarks to the role of the House, the resources involved, and the structures and procedures.
First, I wish to place on record my view, which I hope is shared by other Members, that the House operates best in an advisory capacity. We provide advice to the Government and the other place, and in some cases—dare I say it—we provide advice to the nation. Our strength is the advice that we can offer rather than the bureaucratic role of revision—as it is described in the report—that we fulfil.
This House has broadly the same powers, structures and responsibilities as the other place, but we wield those powers, exercise those responsibilities and operate the procedures differently from the other place, and that is one of our great strengths.
I shall now deal with the subject of resources. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 175 under the section entitled "Conclusions and Recommendations" which states:
"There is a finite limit on the number of Lords available for select committee work. This precludes any great net increase in select committee activity".
The first sentence is correct: there is a finite limit on the number of Peers. It just happens to be somewhere in the order of 1,300. That large number of Peers potentially available for Select Committee work makes a nonsense of the second sentence. We must recognise that there is that potential to contribute to the work of the House and its committees. There are two ways in which we could increase the number of Members of the House who are able and prepared to serve on Select Committees. The first relates to the work that the committees do. If we were to look at particular subjects, I am sure that we should find some which would attract the interest of a wider group of Peers than is currently involved in Select Committee activity.
The second way in which we can try to increase the number of Peers active in Select Committee work is by looking at the recompense for Peers when taking part in the business of the House. There are probably three broad categories of Members of the House. There are those who have what I would describe as independent means (wealthy people); there are those who have retired and who are in receipt of a pension; and there are those who have neither independent resources nor a pension from previous activities. The level of expenses that can be claimed for activities in relation to the House is so low that it prevents many Peers becoming involved in Select Committee activity. That is an area which we should consider.
While on the subject of resources, we must recognise—as a number of speakers have—that we need to increase the number of committee Clerks to enable the House, through its committees, to carry out an even more effective job than it does already.
I wish to point out a significant difference between the operations of this House and the other place. What gives us immense authority, in proffering advice to the Government or to the House of Commons, is the fact that that we consider all Bills at Committee stage on the Floor of the House. It is an immense
964
strength; it enables all Members of the House to contribute and all aspects of the Bill to be considered. That is extremely important.
The report refers to two experiments in recent years where consideration of Bills in Committee has been taken off the Floor of the House. If we were to carry on down the road of increasing the number of Bills considered off the Floor of the House at Committee stage, we should do the House a grave disservice.
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because he has obviously set his heart—as have other noble and learned Lords—on getting Law Commission reports through, if I dare say it, on the nod as part of the change in procedure. However, it is important that the laws of the land are seen by the public to be determined in an open manner and debated in Parliament. One of the strengths of the legal system is the acceptance of the laws of the land by the vast majority of the population.
If we go down the road of stifling debate and open contributions from all Members of this House and detailed scrutiny of all parts of legislation, we shall not only do the House a grave disservice but I suspect that we shall chip away at the respect that British people have for the laws of our country.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I shall be brief, not simply in deference to the general exhortations to brevity which have been so delicately phrased in paragraph 129 of the report, but because I consider that the committee has produced many valuable and practical recommendations which I hope will be accepted. Therefore, I wish to congratulate the noble Earl and his colleagues and also to say how cogent I found the arguments in those areas of which I have direct experience.
The time was certainly ripe for a thorough review of our Select Committee system. Some objections have been raised to the proposal that there should be a permanent steering committee, but I believe that it is basically sound to have a forum which will try to achieve consistency of policy in the matter of establishing Select Committees. It will also try to secure a place for ad hoc committees on matters of special timeliness and importance. It should further serve to adjudicate on competing proposals and resource allocation.
I understand the anxieties of some noble Lords that the steering committee proposal has within it the potential to become too powerful a body and perhaps to usurp and exercise powers it should not have. But I have faith that the cumulative wisdom of the House will not allow that to happen. In this context, I was much reassured by the words of the Leader of the House when he spoke immediately after the noble Earl. They showed that the Leader is clearly alive to these dangers, and he promised to be prompt in their avoidance.
I confess that I am less happy about the proposed three-year rotation rule. I recognise that it is a matter of fine judgment where the balance should be drawn with, on the one hand, a period of years which is so long as to attract the charge that the committee, as the

965
noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, is self-perpetuating, failing to renew itself with more than a minute injection of new blood. On the other hand, the period must be long enough to ensure the benefit of continuity of experience, about which noble Lords spoke so eloquently. In my judgment, five years may be too long; but three years is certainly too short.
I have heard other expressions of anxiety about the three-year period; but I also believe that to make a change from five to three years in one jump is too great. I consider that it would be wiser to move to four years in the first instance and learn by experience what effect that has. It seems to me that this pragmatic approach has much to recommend it.
Although I have no direct experience of Public Bill Committees not being taken on the Floor of the House, it seemed to me when I read paragraph 132 on special standing committees that there is great merit in an arrangement which permits, even at the lowest level, the taking of evidence from knowledgeable and interested parties before deliberation on individual clauses. I therefore hope that recommendations 183 to 185 will be accepted. I could and would have said more on this subject, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has already made the points with greater clarity, eloquence and authority than I could ever command. Therefore, I shall not dwell on it.
Finally, I comment that the recommendations on timing of debates seem to me to be long overdue. I do not know with what funereal intent those who arrange these matters provided for debate in some committees on a Thursday morning; but if anything were the kiss of death, that is it.
I should have made other comments endorsing other parts of the committee's proposals; but since they have been made by other speakers I shall refrain. I simply end as I began by expressing a warm welcome to the report and the hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too, like the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, wish to deal briefly with the special standing committees which are recommended in the report. I wish to deal mainly with those parts of this admirable report which affect our important task of revising legislation, whether it comes to us from another place or direct from the Government.
As to Public Bill Committees, I had the experience of serving on the committee on the Charities Bill which was considered in great depth. Thanks to the expertise of most members of the committee, the Bill was improved far more, in my opinion, in committee than it would have been if it had been taken on the Floor of the House. I therefore hope that we shall refer many technical Bills and law reform Bills to Public Bill Committees from now on. As to special standing committees, which include the power to take evidence from interested parties, I see less scope for using them; but I agree that that should be tried experimentally.
For the past 12 years this procedure has been available in another place, but it has been used very little. I believe it was used on only four Bills in 12
966
years. I do not say that that would prevent our using it much more; but as regards Law Commission Bills, we have to bear in mind that the Law Commission generally consults interested parties and we would probably not gain much from having such parties before one of our committees as well.
I strongly support, as other noble Lords have done, the appointment of a delegated powers scrutiny committee—as paragraph 185 points out—to,
"give closer and more systematic scrutiny to the delegated powers sought in bills".
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Rippon, who has been a great initiator of controversy on this interesting matter, I invite your Lordships' attention to the most interesting evidence in Volume II of the report which he gave. On page 136 of Volume II the Government suggest in their evidence that there is a need for a consensus between both Houses of Parliament as to what should be reserved to primary legislation and what should be in secondary legislation. The Government suggest that this should be a precondition to the setting up of a delegated powers scrutiny committee. I am sorry to have to say that I do not find that acceptable. It would be very rash to generalise about the distinction between primary and secondary legislation and when the one or the other should be used. I say that because circumstances vary so much with the type of legislation.
There is a real dilemma to be faced when choosing between primary and secondary legislation. For some years past our Bills have been too lengthy, too detailed and too complex and have at the same time, in spite of their length, contained far-reaching powers to make delegated legislation. The Child Support Act of the last Session is a prime example of that and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out that there were 90 references to the opportunity to make secondary legislation. Really this vast use of delegated powers has become something to which informed opinion is totally opposed.
However, to say when there should be primary legislation and secondary legislation is much more difficult. The dilemma arises in the following way. If those Bills which are very lengthy had not contained some delegated powers, those Bills would have been even longer. That is the dilemma. In my opinion, that dilemma can only be resolved—I hope I am in order in saying this although there is no reference to this matter in this excellent report—by avoiding the putting into legislation of matters which need not be there.
For example, the Government should ensure that largely administrative matters and provisions regulating the proceedings of various public bodies are excluded altogether from primary legislation. Indeed, I say that many such provisions could be excluded even from secondary legislation by allowing public bodies to be more self-governing and, if necessary, by letting them be given guidance in departmental circulars from the government departments to which they are responsible. This is relevant I suggest to the work of a delegated powers scrutiny committee, and it makes it difficult to generalise. As I have said, it is

967
quite unacceptable for the Government to insist that there should be a consensus between the two Houses of Parliament defining the sphere of primary and secondary legislation before such powers are considered. I therefore suggest we should go ahead and appoint a scrutiny committee without waiting for any such consensus. Paradoxically, I think a consensus is more likely to emerge from the discussions of such a scrutiny committee than from any formal consultation between the two Houses.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealt with Henry VIII clauses in a way that would have pleased my noble friend Lord Rippon. I agree with the antipathy towards Henry VIII clauses generally speaking, but just occasionally they can be justified as when provisions are rightly included in primary legislation to amend relatively minor detail. If there were not the power to amend the primary legislation in minor detail, Parliament would be burdened with an amending Bill of a somewhat trivial character. On just those occasions Henry VIII clauses are justifiable. However the ones we have had in recent years have gone much further than that. Therefore we are right to have that matter scrutinised.
The report states in paragraph 187 that the new committee activity proposed which affects legislation should be given priority. I hope the Government would agree that we should give that priority. A scrutiny committee, for example, would need only seven Peers, a Clerk and a lawyer to advise them. In conclusion, I must say I am glad that the Government accept there should be a steering committee so as to ensure the better use of the vast and varied array of experience, expertise and talent which is to be found among your Lordships.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, like other noble Lords I warmly welcome the report which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, presented to the House and congratulate him and his colleagues on the report which is before the House.
Like many other noble Lords, I have some anxieties in regard to some of the detailed proposals. However, taking the broad view, I have always believed that because of the composition of this House, and unlike the other place, through the procedure of committees we could make a greater contribution than we do at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, complained, with some justification, about the time factor, but perhaps the Chief Whip will be proved wrong because we are now moving more rapidly. Most of the major points on the report have been made. I fully support the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee, particularly in respect of a special standing committee. The report has a smack of the 1977 report. We were perhaps too adventurous and radical, but it is interesting that that report has been largely implemented in another place, with the establishment of the policy committees and, under Standing Order
968
No. 91, standing committees having the power to call for evidence, persons and reports and to take oral evidence.
My contribution tonight will be very short. First, how do we handle the report when it comes from the Procedure Committee? No doubt the Procedure Committee will take note of what has been said in this debate and we shall have a report. Normally we have a Motion to take note or to approve the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. I am not sure whether that would be the right formula in this particular instance. I think that there should be at least 10 days between publication of the report and the Motion coming before this House to approve it. In other words, Members of this House should have a full opportunity to consider what the procedure committee recommended. In addition, although it is unusual, perhaps they should have the opportunity to put down amendments to the report. Such amendments could be debated, not as part of the general report but in terms of the specific details contained within the report. I hope that the Whip who is sitting on the Government Front Bench will take note and draw that suggestion to the attention of the Leader of the House. I believe that the House would welcome a reasonable period between the publication of the report and its consideration by this House so that it could be fully considered.
Much has been said about the steering committee. I share the anxieties of many noble Lords. It appears to be the usual channels in a more formal context. I have anxieties about that. I am a traditionalist. When I was Leader of the House I sought to follow the example of Lord Salisbury, regarding the interests of the House as the predominant discipline of the Leader of the House. I wonder whether a steering committee with the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the representative of the CrossBenchers, with perhaps two tame Back-Benchers, is good enough for this House.
I fully accept that there is a need for a committee or a body to co-ordinate activities between this House and another place. However, unlike the recommendation, I should like to see that as very much an advisory committee or a liaison committee. It should be a committee appointed by the Leader of the House. It is quite wrong for the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, and others, to be part of that decision making. The Leader of the Opposition has the same responsibility as the Leader of the House to the House as a whole. If he is to be part of the decision making, in terms of the way in which resources are allocated or judgments made, that precludes him from raising on behalf of Members of the House matters which may worry them.
Therefore, I strongly recommend that instead of a steering committee there should be an advisory committee or a liaison committee of Back-Benchers who would consult from time to time with the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House can always consult the Leader of the Opposition and other leaders within the House, as they always do in an informal way, so I do not see why that particular aspect needs

969
to be formalised. I would much prefer to see a committee advising the Leader of the House. I am quite happy that he should appoint it.
The other question that I wish to raise is this. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and others, spoke very strongly about rotation and bringing new faces into committees. I am sure that that is to be welcomed. However, I wonder whether this House has ever considered how those committees are appointed. They are appointed by the usual channels. If one looks at the appointments which are made from one committee to another one finds a degree of commonality—to use the Community phrase. I know a number of noble Lords who would be willing to serve on committees if they knew of their existence and something about what they do. How do they find out about the Committees and where do they go, other than to their Whips, to have their names considered?
I wonder whether there is a case for having a system by which noble Lords who wish to serve on committees could put down their names so that the Committee of Selection would have those names in front of it. Perhaps that could be done at the end of a Session, taking a view for the next Session. In other words, we would open the whole procedure by which committees are appointed. Having been a Chief Whip, both in government and in opposition, and having been Leader of the House, I know how the Committee of Selection works. I am not terribly happy with it now, sitting on the Back Benches. Therefore, I think that there is a case for the opening up of opportunities for noble Lords to put their names forward for consideration in appointments to committees.
I conclude with this thought. I am being slightly mischievous in saying that I am an entrepreneurial businessman-cum-socialist. I always work on one basis: always invest in success. The European Communities Committee without question has achieved great things, not only in terms of this House but in terms of Parliament and the Community. At this moment none of us knows what burdens are likely to be placed on the scrutiny procedures required. As the committee of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, we are unique. In fact, we do a great deal for the Community as a whole. We do it for relatively small sums of money.
It would be tragic if the aspirations of the Jellicoe Committee in the enlargement of the committee procedure were to be fulfilled at the expense of one of the most vital parts of parliamentary procedure; namely, the prior consideration of Community proposals. We should say to the Leader of the House that this House wishes to see the development of the committee procedures and structures for the benefit of the parliamentary procedures of this Parliament, and more widely. It is not only money that is involved but also the manpower and resources of the very bright young men and women who serve our committees. It would be tragic if an essential part of the work of the British Parliament—a unique operation—were in any way to be curtailed in order that this House could undertake other matters which in themselves are of
970
interest and importance to Parliament as a whole. That would be tragic considering the sums of money that are involved.
I hope that the Procedure Committee will read this debate and in particular the very powerful speeches that have been made, and that it will come to a considered judgment. When it makes its report I hope that the House will have adequate time to consider it and the way in which the report should be received in this House.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is far from the first time that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has put your Lordships' House deeply in his debt. Today we are doubly indebted to him and his committee. In the first place his well considered and cautious proposals are designed to improve your Lordships' House as a parliamentary chamber. In the second place, and equally important, they emphasise the standing of your Lordships' House in the constitution.
Before I come to the recommendations themselves, I wish to associate myself with the protests made by the noble Lords, Lord Aldington and Lord Shackleton, that a matter of such grave parliamentary importance should be allocated a one-day debate. I am number 22 in a list of 41 speakers. It is now nearly five minutes past eight o'clock. With all respect, it is idle for the noble Lord the Chief Whip to pretend that this is an isolated occasion for which he can express an apology and it will then be expunged. It happens time after time and week after week.
Your Lordships' House, like most second chambers, is on the whole an elderly chamber. Unlike most second chambers, your Lordships are unsalaried. Nevertheless, your Lordships are treated as though this were a legislative sausage machine churning out government business late at night and often early in the morning. The most egregious occasion was undoubtedly the debate on the Green Paper which led to the Courts and Legal Services Act. Such Green Papers arouse widespread constitutional apprehension and many noble Lords wish to speak on them. It would have been very inconvenient for the Government, so the business was tabled for a Friday at 11 o'clock. As more and more names were added to the list of speakers, rather than give a second day to it, the business was brought forward to 9.30 in the morning. As I said, what has happened today is not an isolated case. It bodes ill that this report should be so treated parliamentarily and it bodes ill for its implementation so far as the Government have any hand in it.
I intend to deal almost entirely with what I regard as the most important recommendation; namely, that for a delegated legislation scrutiny committee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who gave the reasons for it so cogently, I believe that the proposal ranks first. However, I want to deal also with the proposal as regards a Public Bill Committee. I felt chary about that, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; namely, that examination by a

971
Committee of the whole of your Lordships' House is to my mind an incomparable method of committee examination.
Nevertheless, I am persuaded by the committee's report that within the limited terms and in the special conditions which it identified, in view of the success of the Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill, we ought to make some further experiment. I did not sit on that committee, although I took part in every other stage of the Charities Bill. However, I have no doubt that it was as great a success as the one on the Pilotage Bill was a failure.
I agree that there is very much a role for the special standing committee in the area identified by the Jellicoe Committee, principally if not entirely dealing with the backlog of Law Commission reports. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman slightly exaggerated in regarding all the backlog as non-contentious. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is rightly sitting firmly on a couple of reports, one of which was also sat on by his predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. The special standing committee will take evidence and consider clause by clause and line by line largely technical Bills. That is so much akin to the procedure of the Joint Consolidation Committee that I hope that once your Lordships' special standing committee is set up consideration will be given to making it a joint committee with another place.
I turn now to what I consider to be the most important recommendation: that relating to delegated legislation. It is most important because it is an area in which, as noble Lords have indicated, matters have been going very seriously wrong. I need mention only the disregard of two important committee recommendations which had been accepted by your Lordships' House. The first relates to the Donoughmore Committee which reported in 1932. Its recommendations, recently endorsed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, were particularly important as to Henry VIII clauses. They have been persistently flouted in recent times. The other committee was the Joint Select Committee on delegated legislation chaired by Lord Brooke in 1973. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was Leader of the House at the time and accepted the report. That is important when dealing with the criteria for affirmative or negative resolution procedure on the one hand and the hybrid instrument procedure on the other. Again, those have been persistently flouted in recent years. Such flouting is an example of the bureaucratic aggrandisement from which we have been suffering.
In view of that, it was with considerable foreboding that I heard the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal express reservations about the committee's recommendation as regards the delegated legislation scrutiny committee. His remarks were all the more disappointing in view of the much more forthcoming evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as Leader of the House, to the Jellicoe Committee. I hope that when my noble and learned friend replies, he will be considerably more forthcoming.
In particular, the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pym, require answer. What are the
972
Government afraid of if their proposals as to delegated legislation are quite innocuous? What are they frightened of? Why do they fear any scrutiny? Those questions demand an answer.
I stated that matters seem to be going seriously wrong. I ought not to leave the issue so generalised. I give three examples only. The first is one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton: the Child Support Act. He slightly minimised the impact. He stated, rightly, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had identified 97 regulation-making powers. But that was only at the introduction of the Bill in your Lordships' House. By the time the Government had finished with it, there were over 100. Of those, only about 15 were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is one respect in which matters have been going badly wrong.
The second example is the Statutory Sick Pay Act. That Act amended an earlier Act whereby employers had to pay statutory sick pay. They were to be reimbursed 100 per cent. by the Government. The amending Act changed that 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. but then went on to inscribe a most extraordinary Henry VIII clause. The Minister could alter that proportion by ministerial order which was in effect a charge on public funds and a charge on the individual employer. That provision was introduced into the other place. At that time it was subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
The first question is this. How did that provision escape the Government's scrutiny? Those instructions for a Henry VIII clause dealing with finance subject only to the negative procedure must have been a subject of specific instructions by an official to the draftsman. It was not spotted by any Minister. In another place, grave objections were taken to the negative resolution procedure and the Government promised to amend that to "affirmative" in your Lordships' House. However, your Lordships, rightly, would not accept the provision and expunged the Henry VIII clause entirely. In the end that was accepted by the Government.
My third example—I simply mention it—is the obviation of the hybrid instruments procedure. That is a procedure peculiar to your Lordships' House. It does not exist in the other place. It is for the safeguard of individual interests. That is not to say that those interests shall triumph in every case but that they will be considered. That no doubt is an irritation to the clumsier administrator. In two recent Acts, the power has been taken to avoid the hybrid instruments procedure in your Lordships' House. I hope that I am justified in identifying myself with the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Pym, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and many others. But the matter is absolutely vital.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal expressed reservation. However, it is not for the Government to say what shall be done. It is for your Lordships' House. If the Government show signs of dragging their feet, making trouble, and huffing and puffing, your Lordships are entirely entitled to go ahead and set up that committee. I very much hope that your Lordships will do so.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this rather protracted debate, I agree that the Jellicoe Committee has made a forceful case for extending the committee work of this House. That is beyond dispute. We have not agreed in what respect the work should be extended, but we recognise that the case has been made strongly. I agree with many noble Lords who have said that a delegated powers scrutiny committee would be a great asset to this House. I support the case for at least one ad hoc committee. Therefore, I have an immediate commitment to try to reconcile that statement with the competing claims of the existing Select Committees.
My problem, like so many speakers—in particular those who like myself are involved in Select Committees—is that under the terms of reference I find it almost impossible to achieve a reconciliation. For a short time I served on one of the sub-committees of the Science and Technology Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that the committee has done this House proud and will continue to do so. However, I accept that in future it must compete for scarce resources as must the agriculture subcommittee of the European Communities Committee which I chair.
Looking at the likely increase in the role of EC legislation in our affairs, I am dubious about whether it is consistent with good sense to reduce the sub-committees to three plus one ad hoc committee and at the same time to require yet greater scrutiny of more legislation. That appears to be totally incompatible. However, I accept that a committee—a steering committee or the like—must try to determine whether legislation coming from Europe requires the quality of scrutiny that it has previously received and why that can be done faster and perhaps less thoroughly in future. I have my doubts about that.
In attempting to try to reconcile those two rather irreconcilable concepts, the Jellicoe Committee points to opportunities within the European Communities Committee to rationalise the sub-committee structure. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that, as chairman of the agriculture sub-committee, I read carefully paragraph 147(ii) which hints at a case for putting agriculture with environment and that the case will be strengthened in future years. That is not a recommendation so much as an aside. I am puzzled about the suggestion. It might be a beguiling thought and I wish it were the case. Will environment become a less serious problem? Do we really believe that the impact of environmental legislation from Europe will impinge on us less in the future? I rather doubt that. Indeed, as regards global issues, I am sure that it will increase.
As regards agriculture, the report was written when there were very hopeful thoughts about a reform of the common agricultural policy. We know that the reform of the CAP has led to increased expenditure with vastly increased opportunities for fraud. That problem has caused the Court of Auditors enormous anxiety, and I am sure that the Select Committee will wish to look at it with particular care. It may well be that within the committee the sub-committee structure
974
can be changed and that sub-committee A, finance and agriculture, should be looking at the problem together. I am certain that there will be a great deal to examine as regards the woeful loss of opportunities for environmental enhancement from the prodigious cost of the CAP, which is to continue. Therefore, I am sure that the case for bringing together the environmental and agricultural sub-committees will be good. I suggest, however, that the matter is best left to the Select Committee to determine. How does it use its resources? What are the issues? Will they increase or decline in importance?
Although I have difficulty in trying to reconcile those conflicting claims, I must accept the case for a steering committee. However, please do not call it a steering committee because I agree with those who say that a steering committee does steer. It could be called a liaison committee or a resources committee—I do not mind what. I believe that the way in which it will reconcile the problem will be to take an obvious alternative. It is to test the premise that the resources are totally finite in all respects. I do not believe that only a limited number of Peers are able to serve on the committees. Other speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Monkswell, have made that point. I should wish to challenge the claim more thoroughly. Are we short of resources in terms of staff? Certainly we are, but there is one way of resolving that and it may not be such a silly use of resources. It would be a sensible use of resources to increase the number of staff available to this House for that purpose and to increase the amount of facilities in terms of office space and committee rooms. The organisation of that should not be beyond the wit of this House. I am sure that no one will cavil at what is a remarkably small cost for a sensible extension of the successful facilities which the Jellicoe Committee has praised.
Under Appendix 4 I looked wistfully at the report on Australia of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He was able to say that there was an example of no lack of resources for what was clearly a successful committee structure.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I was grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for assuring us that the report, valuable and impressive as it is, is not the last word on the subject. Surely those who will be responsible for implementing its recommendations cannot fail to be persuaded by the devastating criticism advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, among others, on the concept of the form and composition of the steering committee. They are views which I wholly share and can leave at that.
I also found most persuasive the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Serota and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on the criticisms of the proposed changes in the sub-committee structure of the European Communities Committee. The House is deeply indebted to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their persuasive arguments and for

975
their ability to persuade reluctant Peers such as me to share in the responsibility of serving on some of those sub-committees.
In that context, an issue that has not received the attention that it might have is the establishment of an additional ad hoc committee on European matters. I believe that to be entirely mistaken. It is referred to as a proposal to deal with some of the most important issues likely to face the Community. After careful reading of the report, the proposal appears to be based on casual comments made by Sir Christopher Prout and by the Leader of the House. The proposals are not argued nor thought out and I find them most unpersuasive. I believe that such an ad hoc committee would lack the expertise, depth of judgment and sensitivity which comes from looking continuously at related subjects. I believe that the existing subcommittees have demonstrated their competence to undertake wide-ranging studies as well as to engage in meticulous attention to the detail of proposals.
It is plain that the real reason for the proposals relating to the structure of the European Communities Committee sub-committees are to save resources, money and staff. That is the real weakness of the report. It takes for granted the finiteness of the resources in terms of staff and money, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. The report pays tribute to the staff, as have your Lordships. I am in favour of keeping the staffing system lean, but I disapprove of exploiting unduly committed people, as we most certainly do in this House. In passing, I wish to know why we drag clerks away from their offices or keep them here late at night to cross off our names in Division Lobbies. At the peril of stumbling into a demarcation minefield, I ask whether the job can be done by clerical workers or by our attendants in order to free clerks to do what they do best and do well.
The committee calls for shorter and sharper reports. I agree with that entirely. However, shorter and sharper reports require not fewer staff but more; and more careful preparation and editing. Perhaps there may be a case for taking on an experienced sub-editor or perhaps even a competent proof reader to support the existing clerks to free them to do well what they do best.
Finally, as regards publicity and publications, anyone who wishes to read this splendid report and look through the evidence must pay £42 for it. That is an impossible way to approach the job of spreading information and providing guidance to people who must make decisions in industry, government or EC and foreign institutions. With great respect, I thought the committee was extremely defeatist on that matter. Figures given in the HMSO evidence are quite inadequate. HMSO referred to low demand leading to sales revenue falling well short of costs. That is not surprising at that sort of price. Rather, it is surprising that any copies of the report have been sold at all. Surely we should look to HMSO to examine ways of making the product look more attractive and livening up the marketing as well as looking at more direct ways of reducing costs. Perhaps we shall see an improvement under the new arrangements which are due to come into operation in April.
976
If we find at the end of the road that the reports are not paying their way or perhaps, by their nature, cannot pay their way, we should recognise the benefits to this House, to Britain and the community of subsidising a rather wider dissemination of the reports. We should look that straight in the eye.
In conclusion, we have heard many tributes to the achievements of the committees. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, we all wish to reinforce that success; but to will that end, we must will the means in terms of staff and money.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I must begin with an apology and crave the indulgence of the House. Owing to a long-standing and unbreakable engagement I fear that I shall not be able to stay for the winding-up speeches. I intervene only briefly in the debate on the report of the Select Committee because I am largely in agreement with its recommendations and I have only a few marginal comments to make on it.
Having spent, on and off, about 18 years on the European Communities Committee and its subcommittees, and another 12 on the Science and Technology Select Committee and its sub-committees, I have some experience of the work of those two sessional committees. As a co-sponsor of the Select Committee on Science and Technology with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I find some gratification in the tribute which the Select Committee and other noble Lords have paid to its work.
The suggestions which the committee makes for its future functioning have already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and I have no further comment to make on them. However, the noble Lord and other noble Lords have spoken about the term of three years which the Select Committee suggests should apply to the committees. I believe that that time is too short. It takes quite a time to play oneself in, especially on the Science and Technology Committee, and both the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and my noble friend Lord Dainton emphasised the importance of continuity. Therefore, I consider that much more flexibility is needed and that the chairman should have a discretion to exercise a right of co-option to a limit of five years to ensure the addition to the committee of those who have a particular contribution to make to it. Subject to that proviso, I would go along with the suggestion of four years which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and my noble friend Lord Dainton have put forward.
In the work of those two sessional committees I have been impressed by two matters in particular; first, the importance of basing the conclusions and recommendations on the evidence received. There is an ever-present temptation to allow one's own opinions and prejudices to colour one's judgment in arriving at conclusions. That is something which must be—and I believe has been—firmly resisted. That that has been so in itself rebuts the charge in the case of the Science and Technology Committee that it has been no more than a high level lobby for the scientific community.

977
I am glad to know that the Select Committee has firmly rejected that slur on its work. In fact, scientists have been in a minority on the committee, which has always included among its members distinguished engineers, industrialists and the often abused class of generalists. In any event, if some of the reports have been critical of the Government's scientific policy it must be said that, quite apart from the evidence on which the recommendations were based, the scientific policy of governments in the past decade have certainly at times been open to criticism.
Perhaps I may be allowed to interpolate here my opinion that the outlook for policy making in science and technology is better now than it has ever been. I greatly welcome the fact that the present Government have just taken up a recommendation which the committee made about 10 years ago that there should be a senior Minister in the Cabinet, advised by the Chief Scientific Adviser, to deal with scientific and technological issues. That arrangement, backed up as it will be by ACOST and the ABRC and supervised by the Cabinet Committee on Science Policy, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, should ensure the best possible co-ordination within the Government.
In Parliament the prospective addition of a science and technology committee in another place is to be welcomed. I hope very much that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—POST for short —will now be brought within the parliamentary machine and placed on a secure financial footing because that, supplemented by the well-established Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, should offer a wider and better informed basis for the discussion of scientific and technological issues, priorities and funding in both Houses.
Duplication of effort between committees in this and the other place and elsewhere in the system will need to be watched but the proposed steering committee, co-ordinating committee or whatever emerges, should be able to take care of that. All in all, it will not be due now to any organisational defect if a sound policy for science and technology is not formulated.
My second point relates to the resourcing of the two sessional committees. In relation to the volume and complexity of some of the issues, and in comparison with other committees of a similar nature, the system has been run on a shoestring and has always had an inherent instability and risk of breakdown. The responsibility hitherto laid on a single Clerk, assisted by one or possibly two specialist advisers and the chairman, is a heavy one; and I want to pay my tribute, echoing that of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and other noble Lords, to the way in which the Clerks of these committees consistently produce results of high quality.
In that connection, and especially in the light of the reasonable call in the committee's report for much more succinct and readable reports, I emphasise the importance of drafting skills. We all know that drafting by committee is time-wasting and frustrating. The drafting ability of the Clerk, the specialist advisers and of course the chairman, can be crucial to the
978
quality and influence of a report. I am glad to note the recommendation for some increase in the staffing of the committee office. I should say that it was the minimum required if this expanded work is to continue at the standard hitherto maintained.
I should like to return to a previous existence and say a word on the Select Committee's rejection of a Select Committee on foreign affairs. I wholly endorse its conclusions, particularly as to the value and quality of the foreign affairs debates in this House—a tribute I can safely pay as I have not recently taken part in any of them. The Foreign Secretary is already the recipient of more advice than he probably needs.
In conclusion I should like to pay my own tribute to the work of the Select Committee and its excellent report.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the outcome of this excellent report from the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will undoubtedly have an important impact on the effectiveness and usefulness of your Lordships' House. I therefore welcome the debate today. Although it is long and many noble Lords have taken part, there have been many useful contributions. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be making a note of the various comments both in praise and support and possibly in slight criticism of some of the contents of the report.
Among the wide-ranging issues discussed in the report I shall confine my remarks to two main areas. The first is the European Communities Select Committee. It is clear from the evidence which came before the committee from all sides that high value is placed on reports from that committee. That is a great tribute to the chairman recently retired, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, the legal adviser and the Clerks who worked so assiduously for such long hours for the sub-committee and the Select Committee itself. As we know, the reports are not only widely appreciated in this country and by this Government but also in the European institutions.
Perhaps I may mention that a few days ago I was in Seville at the 1992 Exhibition. I met Carlo Ripa di Meana, who is an old friend. He came up beaming and said, "I have just received your latest report on the environment. It is sitting on my desk in Brussels". It is nice to know that the Commissioners see the reports and read them. I did not question whether or not he agreed with the contents, but at least we have evidence that it was appreciated. He welcomed the fact that he had received a copy of it.
We must consider that when the Select Committee was set up in 1974 we were living in a different world. We had delegates from this House who went to the European Parliament, or European Assembly as it was then called. There was therefore a direct link between Members of this House and another place and the European Parliament. With direct elections in 1979 that link was broken. From that time on the importance of the European Communities Select Committee was enhanced, partly because of the lack of direct connection with the Parliament and discussion of draft legal proposals and also because of

979
the great increase in legislation from 1985 with the Single European Act, on which were based all the legislative proposals for the 1992 single market.
There has therefore been a great flood of legislation coming from the Community which affects our domestic legislation. Therefore the scrutiny role of the European Communities Select Committee is vital to protect our own domestic legislation and ensure (a) that it is in accordance with the interests of the United Kingdom, (b) that it is implemented and (c) that, although we may not get as far as it being enforced, it at least follows the track record of EC legislation in this country.
With the increase in the width of competences of the Community, as there are more and more moves from national parliament to the Community, as in the Single European Act, and if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified—which presumably it will eventually be—a whole lot of new areas will be transferred from national to Community competence. It seems to me therefore that it is most illogical that this should be the time to suggest that the sub-committees should be cut down. I should hate to suggest that they be increased —that would clearly be contrary to any thinking I have heard so far today. But when we suddenly find five or six extra subjects added to three or four major subjects from the Single European Act, I wonder whether it will he possible to do a proper job.
I was somewhat surprised, though I may have misunderstood the intention behind the report, that one of the reasons for cutting down the subcommittees in the Select Committee was not that they were inefficient or producing reports that no one wanted but a question of staffing. I can understand the anxiety of the Clerk of Parliaments—a real anxiety --that there are not enough Clerks to go round. But could we not drag this House from the 19th century to the 20th or 21st century? Where one Clerk has to serve two committees, is it beyond the wit of man to decide to have two Clerks to serve two sub-committees? I fail to see how we could not recommend that at least one or two extra Clerks should be employed by this House for the proper and obligatory work of the House if it is to do its duty in the field of United Kingdom legislation. It is quite extraordinary that a reason given for cutting down sub-committees should be the problem of staffing of this House. I hope that that matter will be reconsidered.
We sometimes forget the unique role of the European Communities Select Committee in relation to other Select Committees. I know this because I happen to have the honour and privilege of being a member of it. But this committee is not only a scrutinising committee; by the standard of its reports and the wide-ranging issues with which it deals it has become an advisory committee even to the Government.
That was made clear in the excellent evidence given by the Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones, when he referred to some of the reports which he found made,
"a significant contribution to the debate and to people's collective wisdom … and provided a valuable input into thinking in these areas".
980
We must take note that that came from a Minister in the Foreign Office who accepts that there is a valid advisory contribution from the Select Committee. Those reports were mainly in areas of wide-ranging subjects such as the economic, monetary and political union report and indeed the enlargement report which was requested by the Government to be terminated by June so that they had the benefit of its findings before taking over the presidency.
Another point I should like to mention in relation to the European Communities Select Committee is the role of Sub-committee E. I find it incomprehensible that one should have only three or four subcommittees without paying special attention to the role of the sub-committee. Paragraph 52 on page 28 of the report sets out the special terms of reference for the sub-committee which has the task of reporting on:
"any Community proposal which would lead to significant changes in United Kingdom law, or have far-reaching implications for areas of United Kingdom law other than those to which it is immediately directed".
Inter alia that refers also to any important developments which have taken place in community law. It is the only sub-committee that I know of in either House which has the special task of dealing with this particular matter.
We are immensely privileged in this House by having the benefit of a Law Lord as chairman of that sub-committee. At the moment I have the honour also of being on the sub-committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, has been a most excellent, assiduous and brilliant chairman. As noble Lords will know, he retired in January and we are waiting for a new Law Lord to take on the task. The role on that sub-committee is filled very ably by the Members of this House. I shall be sad to see no provision for its retention or for the work that it does for the House.
Because of the Single European Act we have had to look again at the legal base of draft directives coming from Brussels. As noble Lords will know, that affects the way of voting in the Council of Ministers, which directly affects the role of the British Government in the Council on these occasions. It also affects the procedure within the European Parliament according to which article of the treaty the draft proposal falls within.
Another aspect is subsidiarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, raised this matter in her excellent speech earlier this evening. That again will be a very special area for Sub-committee E to scrutinise most carefully in future European legislation.
I am sorry to say that I am not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for whom I have immense respect. I support the proposal that there should be a foreign affairs committee. I understand that this is the only House of all the national Parliaments throughout the Community which does not have such a body. That of itself is no reason why we should have one. We have many other distinctions which make us unlike any other Chamber within the EC. But this House probably has a greater number of experienced members both in the field of foreign affairs and international relations and with very wide

981
knowledge of the workings of international organisations. I believe that that would have been of immense benefit to this House and to the scrutiny of our international relations.
It is sometimes forgotten how much foreign affairs are now undertaken in Brussels under the name of European political co-operation. With the eventual ratification of the Maastricht Treaty it will extend into the field of foreign common policy and security, yet there will be no provision in this House to scrutinise, follow or monitor any of the policies of the Government, with the ability to give advice or to have any influence at all on the development of our foreign relations. It seems quite extraordinary in the United Kingdom, which is playing such an important role in international affairs, that this House should not have any possibility of being able to contribute except in a very occasional debate.
As regards the development of our international relations, as noble Lords will know, a great many international treaties are now concluded by the European Community on behalf of this country and other member states, as well as those treaties which are concluded by the European Community together with member states. Unless there is some parliamentary scrutiny, it is quite clear that a great many legal obligations will be imposed on this country of which this House is totally unaware. That is one of the reasons why I hope very much that the Select Committee can be set up. I suggest that if there is a difficulty concerning rivalries as to the kind of Select Committee, it might possibly start off as an ad hoc Select Committee for the first year to see how it works. I very much hope that in the interests of the United Kingdom and international relations a foreign affairs committee will not be left out.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in his excellent introduction to the debate this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that his committee had been concerned only with the mundane question of the committee work of the House. Yet, as we have seen, the committee work of the House affects all aspects of the House's work. It seems to me that the recommendations need to be judged against four issues which emerge: first, how to make the House more effective in its primary role as a revising and legislating Chamber; secondly, how to avoid unnecessary duplication of the work of another place, particularly by not replicating that House's committees and procedures; thirdly, how to ensure the continuing development of this House's different and distinctive characteristics and contribution to the parliamentary scene; and, fourthly, how to make the best use of the resources of the House.
In trying to resolve these issues, like the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and my noble friend Lord Murray, I wonder whether the committee has not been too modest in its demands and perhaps too negative in its approach to resources. After all, is there any justifiable reason why this House should be so strapped for resources?
982
The committee has made some excellent recommendations for additional committee work for the House,which I support. However, I have some reservations about the recommendations for a steering committee both as regards its membership and its terms of reference.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, I am not sure that I like the idea of a steering committee monitoring the work of the Select Committees. I am not sure that I am convinced by the points made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the steering committee would be at arm's length and would leave the routine work to the Select Committees themselves. I have reservations on the subject.
I believe that it is widely accepted, not least by the European Communities Select Committee itself, that that committee needs, using the words in the report, to,
"adjust its working methods and sub-committee structure",
as development within the Community takes place. I believe that the Select Committee is conscious of the fact that it needs to be flexible in order to take account of the continuing changes that are taking place in Europe. Surely the Select Committee itself is the best body to determine the disposition of its committees and the scrutiny subjects with which it is dealing. A steering committee, a liaison committee or even the Procedure Committee itself can set the wide framework in which the Select Committee should operate, but I believe the committee must be allowed to take its own decisions.
I return to the issue of Peer and financial resources. The committee states at paragraph 121 of the report, and it has been stated by a number of noble Lords in the course of the debate, that there is a finite limit to the number of Lords who are available for committee work. Some noble Lords have disputed that and I agree with them.
My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Cledwyn, in his evidence to the committee said that he was concerned about this issue too. He suggested that at least 50 new Peers were required if we are to avoid some of the difficulties which have been envisaged. He was particularly concerned about the ability of the Opposition to provide an appropriate quota of members for committees and thereby fulfil the purpose and role of the Opposition parties. His concerns were well founded.
An analysis of the changing membership of the House since 1979 shows that, through the Honours List, the working Peers list and the Dissolution Honours List and through the replacement of hereditary Members, the government ranks have increased by 37 net. On the other hand, the Labour Benches during this period have declined by 27 Members net. Therefore, the gap between the Government and the Opposition Benches over the 12 years has widened by 62 Members. I say that in no spirit of partisanship. I am facing up to the problem. This makes it much more difficult to match Opposition with Government membership in an appropriate way—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness has omitted the fact that the Labour Benches are not the only Opposition Benches.
Baroness Lockwood: I have indeed, my Lords, and I stick to that point. If the noble Baroness wishes to indicate how the Liberal Democrat Benches have declined net, we would be very interested to hear what she has to say. I have looked at the position from the point of view of Labour membership, but I am concerned as a Member of this House that there are adequate numbers of Members from all Benches to man the committees that the House thinks are necessary to carry out its work. This is not an insoluble problem. It can be rectified, and in the best interests of the House I hope that the Government will look at the problem seriously.
There is also the problem of other resources. Paragraph 8 of the report indicates that we are the second hardest worked chamber in the comity of Parliaments. We are by no means the second best resourced House. Indeed, we are probably one of the worst resourced Houses. In a way this House is a voluntary House and is almost like a voluntary organisation. When one considers its workload and its responsibilities, it is probably less well resourced than many of the other voluntary organisations in the country. We must face up to the fact that, if we are to be as effective as we would like to be, we must be properly resourced. That is why I think the committee was quite wrong to suggest that we should spread our resources more thinly. It should not be a question of robbing Paul in order to pay Peter.
I am completely opposed to the proposals to scale down the work of the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. I am completely opposed to the proposal to reduce the rotation rule from five to three years. I say that as a member who has served on both committees. Indeed, I am still a member of the European Communities Committee. To reduce the period from five to three years would be counterproductive. It would damage the continuity of the committees and reduce their effectiveness. After all, there is with all committees a settling-in process and even in your Lordships' House a learning process. That is certainly true of the Science and Technology Committee, particularly if we are to follow the recommendation of the Select Committee to have more lay members.
I was very much a lay member of the Science and Technology Committee but I like to think that I was a useful member if only because I could ask some of the innocent questions which the more learned scientific members of the committee were reluctant to ask. I think I would have been a less useful member of the committee had the period been three rather than five years. I do not share the view that there is a complete separation between the committee and the Chamber work of the House. One feeds into the other. That has certainly been my experience.
The approach of the two sessional committees of the House is quite different from the approach of committees in another place. That is part of their value. The committees add to the distinctiveness of
984
this House. I should like to think that the expansion recommended by the Select Committee will build on that distinctiveness. I hope that we shall consider the recommendation in this more positive and expansive way.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, like every previous speaker, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and his committee on the thoroughness and particularly on the restraint which has gone to produce their report. They have avoided the temptation to which those of your Lordships like myself, who have come from another place, are prone. They have not tried to import into the work of this House procedures which are appropriate to the composition and responsibilities of the elected House of Commons.
It is widely accepted, and has been accepted throughout the debate, that the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee have been extremely successful and have contributed to the much enhanced reputation of this House, here and throughout the European Community. They must continue as they are. I think, however, that we should be very sparing in the use of Public Bill Committees for the Committee stage of Public Bills. I was chairman of only one meeting of the Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill. Like others who came from the House of Commons, I thought initially that Committees of the Whole House were cumbersome and time wasting; but now in this respect my views are very different from those of my noble friend Lord Pym. I have changed my mind. My impression of the proceedings on the Charities Bill was that it was not as effective a method of legislative scrutiny as a Committee of the Whole House.
As I said, we should resist the temptation to take responsibilities in the political field—for example, foreign policy—which are appropriate to the party composition of the House of Commons. However, there is one exception to that. The Parliament Act 1911 left this House with one absolute power; namely, that of preventing the elected majority of the day in the House of Commons from destroying the constitutional right of the public to vote for a new Parliament at intervals of not more than five years and thereby turning the "elected dictatorship" of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham into a permanent one.
I believe, although I speak only personally, that that recognised that the House of Lords has a special responsibility in constitutional matters. If, for example, the problems of devolution for Scotland or Wales have to be faced in the future, or if Parliament has to consider electoral reform or the introduction of a Bill of Rights or the basic principles of the legal system, those are constitutional issues about which the examination by an ad hoc Select Committee of your Lordships' House would be entirely appropriate. We have unrivalled resources of legal knowledge, abundant personal experience of the workings of

985
electoral systems, eminent constitutional historians and most of your Lordships have played a role of one sort or another in regional and local administration.
I include within the constitutional field the structure of local government. If, for example, the advice of a Select Committee on the reform of local government had been available prior to 1974, some of the sad mistakes that were made then might have been avoided. I note that in paragraphs 38 and 123 the committee has considered that as a subject for an ad hoc committee. But there is no point in having a Select Committee for the sake of having one. No doubt there are many subjects—and we have heard about many of them during today's debate—upon which your Lordships would wish to examine and express an opinion. But I strongly support the view of the committee in a different context; namely, that we should exercise self-respect, especially where the subject involves party-political controversy.
I have always been conscious of the extraordinary privilege which we enjoy as Members of the House of Lords. Despite our lack of powers and the illogical character of our membership, we have the privilege which is possessed by members of no other second chamber in any parliamentary constitution. We represent only ourselves. Therefore, we have the privilege of speaking and voting as our conscience and judgment dictate.
I hope that your Lordships will not think that I in any way denigrate what was called by someone "the honourable ties of party affiliation". As Edmund Burke said:
"Parties must exist in a free society".
Indeed, I have been a card-carrying member of the Tory Party for 60 years. While this House can invite the elected Chamber to reconsider the content and drafting of Bills and draw public attention to issues of a general nature through our debates, in normal circumstances it inevitably reflects the ebb and flow of the party fortunes in the House of Commons.
But I submit to your Lordships that we have an independent stance in matters affecting the constitution. That applies to our procedures on the Floor of the House and to our Select Committee system. I therefore believe that we should concentrate any extension of the investigative activities of the House, in the shape of ad hoc Select Committees, on the constitutional field for which we are particularly well qualified.
Here the independence which all Members of this House enjoy is of great importance. I am sure that the growth of public esteem for your Lordships' House, which has been evident in recent years, is due partly to the instinctive feeling in the country that whatever may be the clash of party policies in the elected Chamber, there still resides in this House an element of independent judgment. We may only possess the power to prevent any government from turning our parliamentary democracy into a one-party state. But we have the right to examine and inform public opinion on all matters affecting the constitution and we should not hesitate to do so. In that role, the illogicalities of our composition become a sort of
986
strength, and what appears to be an anachronism remains an essential feature of the British political system.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I intervene in this debate as a stranger to committee work off the Floor of the House. Such work calls for a commitment which the daily demands of my employment preclude my offering. Nevertheless, I wish strongly to support the Select Committee's cautious proposal that, as an experiment, one or two Bills of a technical and largely non-party-political nature should be referred to special standing committees off the Floor of the House. Those standing committees may receive evidence over a limited period and then consider the Bills in committee.
I wish particularly to consider law reform Bills, singling out those appended to the reports of the Law Commission. The Law Commission is very well qualified to identify areas where reform may be required and it makes important proposals for consideration for inclusion in the legislative programme. Nevertheless, notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said in his forceful speech, I offer my own opinion that the Bills offered by the Law Commission are not always of equal quality.
Law reform of a non-party political nature is an area where Parliament does not perform very well. It is an area, I believe, where this House could play a very much more important role in securing the passage of more and better legislation. I would judge that if the Committee stage of law reform Bills took place off the Floor of the House in a special standing committee they would receive better consideration. This would include the attention of non-lawyers. I believe that this attention is often sadly missing. Non-lawyers tend to leave law reform Bills alone. But law reform Bills are seldom comprised solely or mainly of what may be called "lawyers law".
I should like to take as an example the Distribution of Estates Bill which is appended to Law Commission Paper No. 187, Family Law—Distribution on Intestacy, which was laid before Parliament in 1989. I choose this Bill because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has given notice to ask the Government of their intention about the Bill in an Unstarred Question on 16th June. I shall not be able to hear the debate but it seems to me that this may be the kind of Bill which a government might wish to put to a special standing committee if they sufficiently supported the Bill.
There is in the draft Bill much that is at least mildly controversial. I mention only the Law Commission's proposal to amend the law so that on an intestacy a surviving spouse would be entitled to the whole of his or her dead spouse's estate. This is clearly a contentious proposal, having regard to claims which may be made on behalf of the children of a former marriage and in particular having regard to the fact that anyone marrying is in normal circumstances thereby rendered intestate under English law.
It is a proposal which in my opinion needs to be looked at with wisdom, common sense and experience

987
and not necessarily by lawyers just because it is classified as law reform. It is also, I suggest, a proposal on which it would be desirable to receive evidence from the Law Commission. The Law Commission report on the point is balanced and detailed. But I do not think that the commission would for a moment claim that the arguments lead inevitably to the conclusions to which it has come.
My noble friend Lord Renton doubts whether special standing committees will often be required to take evidence on Law Commission Bills because the Law Commission would already have consulted widely. I am sorry that on this occasion I do not agree with my noble friend.
I was very glad to read the unstinted welcome of the Law Commission to the idea that it should give evidence to special standing committees. I quote from a submission of its chairman, Mr. Justice Peter Gibson, in Volume H of the special committee report:
"The Law Commission supports with enthusiasm and gratitude the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor that the House of Lords might use special standing committees to consider and take evidence on law reform Bills".
He also writes:
"The Commission would be willing and indeed anxious to assist such a Committee in its work".
The particular significance of this may be seen by contrasting it with the more guarded response of the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, from whose submission I also quote:
"If one purpose of taking oral evidence from members of the Commissions is to debate the merits of any particular proposal, there is a risk that consultation carried out by the Commissions may be devalued, and that the present detachment and independence of the Commissions may be compromised".
The English Law Commission may well feel that it would have been beneficial had special standing committee procedure been applied to what eventually passed into law earlier this year as the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992. In my view nothing would have been lost to Parliament or the Law Commission had the previous Bill, which the Government supported, been debated (to borrow the word used by the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission) with a Law Commissioner in a special standing committee of this House.
I have finally but two reservations to put forward about the Select Committee's proposal. The note of the meeting between my noble and learned friend and the chairman of the committee has my noble and learned friend express interest in special standing committee procedures:
"to facilitate the inclusion of Bills … in the legislative programme which would not otherwise find a place".
I find myself a little sceptical here. It seems to me that technical and law reform Bills could even now be introduced into and passed by this House in the generally quiet period at the beginning of a Session. The difficulty seems to lie in another place and that difficulty is not necessarily going to go away with the introduction of special standing committees here.
My other worry arises from a few words in the second of the Select Committee's proposals on special standing committees. Paragraph 132 expresses the hope that,
988
"through the free exchange of views at the evidence-taking stage, a consensus will emerge from the Committee, which will facilitate the speedy passage of such bills through their remaining stages in both Houses".
That is stated to be a hope shared by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack; but I see that his hope was that the consensus would be established in the Lords rather than in the committee. That is a different matter.
That apart, I am sure that I am not alone in envisaging the possibility of challenge being made on Report to the consensus established in a special standing committee. The Select Committee report does not suggest that there should be any rubber stamping; so I merely say that I hope that the rules of procedure applicable to special standing committees would permit Members other than those on the committee to take a full part in the evidence-taking process and to speak on and move amendments in the committee, and that there would be no fetter on the right of the House to re-open on Report any question decided in the committee. Any other arrangements would be very much against the traditions of the House. They would also create considerable difficulties in the selection, composition and balance of the membership of any such special standing committee.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence. Even before I saw the wonderful list of speakers, I doubted whether I had anything of value to contribute; but the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whom I admire so greatly, not least for his report and his indomitable attendance here all day, and my Chief Whip, whom I also greatly admire (and whom, in addition, I fear) told me that it was my duty to speak. Having been Leader of the House, and a Member for nearly 47 years, I should have to be a moron if I could not find something to say; so be it on the heads of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and my Chief Whip that I speak.
Most noble Lords who have spoken have done so as producers of reports. I come before the House as a consumer. I see the Leader of the House in his place. Perhaps I may extend to him my very best wishes. I think we can say that all Leaders of the House have been well-meaning men. None of them has been caught out in any malpractice. Taking it all round, he has every right to be proud of joining our little team. I mean that in the best of spirits.
I have listened in the House to committee reports. The members of the committee come before the House in a spirit of mutual admiration and congratulation. Up to a point that is pleasant to listen to. They always seemed to have served under a chairman who is a mixture of Solomon and Rhadamanthus. It has clearly been a great privilege to serve on one of those committees. Such a privilege has, alas, been denied me. During my quarter of a century on the Back Benches no one has ever invited me to serve on one of those committees, and no one has ever approached me to ask if I would serve if I were selected. Clearly I am not what is called the "right type". I am not good committee material. I take that all in good part. I hope

989
the House will therefore allow me to make a few remarks about the method of selecting the members of the committees.
I am keeping a good eye on the clock, so I shall mention just two of the committees. I shall touch on the committee on murder and life imprisonment chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. No committee in my time has produced a more successful report. It won the admiration of everyone in the House. The Government were not as helpful as we hoped they would be. Still, it made a permanent impact on the history of penal thought. Why was it so successful? The answer is not far to seek. With no disrespect to anyone I can say that, on the whole, there have been differences of opinion in this House between what might be called the penal reform lobby and those who represent the judiciary here and elsewhere. On this occasion all those parties and other people were represented and a fine report was produced.
There was another committee where I am afraid the outcome was less happy. I refer to the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill. Anything I say is no reflection on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He needs no compliments from me because he is held in such high esteem here. The story was quite remarkable and I commented on it at the time, rather waspishly perhaps, but I am slightly more mellow now in my attitude. The Bill was produced by Bishop Montefiore to make it more difficult to obtain abortion. The Bill received a Second Reading for which there was a majority; incidentally, supported by the Government of the day. Nevertheless, the lifelong champions of easier abortion fought hard and were defeated, they were in the minority and had the worst of it.
When the Select Committee was set up, a very different picture resulted. Apart from myself—and we know that I am not the right type for such committees —no one out of the majority was chosen to serve on the committee, yet three of the minority were on it. I do not know how that came about. I am sure that it was not the fault of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He is integrity itself. It was an odd outcome and in the end the committee produced a report precisely the opposite of what the Bishop had intended when he produced the Bill that received a Second Reading. If that kind of thing could happen, there is something wrong. It is anomalous. Thus, it seems necessary to make a change. I have only made a beginning in that direction. I shall not go into fine terms of detail. I have already spoken for five minutes and that should be enough.
Steps ought to be taken to allow all Members of the House to know that a committee is being set up and the news of it should be published in a way that makes it easy for people to apply for membership. They may not be selected, but selection is another question. At least application should be made a great deal easier and more available than now. That is not the end of the story, it is a beginning and, in my eyes, would be a marked improvement.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, during the last part of the noble Earl's speech I began to doubt whether he was a "well-meaning" man, but it was a very enjoyable speech. It would be much better if I left it at that.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Why did he think that? Will he not give way?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not do so because we have been asked to be brief, which tempts me to take my compliments to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his committee as read. They have already been paid, but I hope that the committee will take it that the compliments are genuine and heartfelt.
The memorandum from the Clerk of the Parliaments or one of the academics tended to suggest that the development of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House was unplanned, was not thought out and was not systematic. That is right, but it is none the worse for that. This has been a remarkable story since the noble Earl the Leader of the House rescued that famous spar from the reform attempts in the late 1960s. The first Select Committee for a long time in this House was the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure in 1971. That was what a favourite judge of mine used to call "an alert seizure of opportunity". Since then there have been a series of alert seizures of opportunity. We heard a good example from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he described the origin of the Science and Technology Committee —an alert seizure of opportunity if ever there was one. That is the way we have developed. After 20 years or so, it calls for review. That review has been exceedingly well conducted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his colleagues. It is no matter for apology that we should have worked as we have. But we should be alert and seize opportunities. I am sure that we shall do so. Perhaps we shall be better informed in doing so as a result of the work of the noble Earl and his committee.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the recommendations of the Jellicoe Report will lead to any reduction—I should say, more charitably, measurable reduction—in time spent on the Floor of the House. That matter should be considered by another committee. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will have to report after the Commons has decided whether or not to reduce the amount of time spent on the Floor of the House there. As the noble Baroness rightly said, if the Commons succeeds, this House will be the Chamber that devotes the longest period of any in the whole wide world to consideration of matters on the Floor of the House. That is unthinkable.
I have a feeling that after the House of Commons has considered the Jopling Report and has made attempts to reduce the amount of time it spends on business, we shall unfortunately have to have another report. I hope that the task of compiling it does not fall to the noble Earl after he has spent nine months on this one.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Why not?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: It would be marvellous if he agreed to undertake the task. However, I am rather more kindly disposed to the noble Earl than that.
On the subject of Law Commission proposals in Bills, I should like to see the use of a special standing committee, if that is at all possible, for such Bills. I am being hopeful when I say that I should like to see such a measure combined with an understanding by the business managers that the selection of Law Commission Bills for this treatment gives those Bills a measure of immunity from the political battle and that such Bills should be capable of being carried over from one Session to another if necessary. I address myself here to the noble Lord the Leader of the House as he has had such long experience as a Whip. I hope that the idea will not be thrown out as being a romantic one from someone who knows nothing about the conduct of business. I know that the Whips' club are close in their refusal to agree any alteration to procedures or conventions. However, I seriously believe that unless we can achieve some kind of consensus there is no chance whatever of Law Commission Bills having any accelerated progression through both Houses.
I concur entirely with what the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Brightman, said about these Bills. Prior selection must be made before introduction, preferably in consultation with the Opposition parties. If that is not done I envisage less chance of success for that category of Bills. I recognise, of course, that some are so controversial in party political or other terms that they cannot be candidates for such treatment. However a great many of them, and parts of them, should be capable of receiving that treatment. I put in a plea for a measure on those lines.
As regards the European Communities Committee I agree that the sub-committee structure could possibly be a little more flexible than it now is but I hope that there will not be fewer resources for that committee. The same applies in the case of the Science and Technology Committee. I recognise that, being a question of resources, it will have to be decided primarily by the steering committee, although ultimately by the House.
I much applaud the Jellicoe recommendation that the time has now come to find the resources for at least one ad hoc Select Committee each Session, whether on a Bill or a general subject. It was a matter of great embarrassment at the time when I was Clerk of the Parliaments to have to advise the Leader of the House that resources were not available to serve such committees as well as the two main committees of the House. It is not right that, if the House wants a particular subject to be referred to a Select Committee, that that should be denied for want of resources.
As to the rotation rule, I have always been attracted by the idea of reducing the number of years to three. However, I think that the rule had better remain as it is. I was much impressed by what the noble Baroness said about Peers coming and going all the time. It is unthinkable that, as the House is now composed, we should reduce the term to three years. The only
992
alternative is even more unthinkable. It is that there should be a six-year rotation rule for the Opposition parties and a three-year rotation rule for the rest of us. I believe that the status quo had better be maintained.
On the subject of the steering committee, I have the honour to agree fully with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and with the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I am firmly of the belief that the Leader of the House should take the chair rather than the Chairman of Committees, a former Leader of the House, or any other Peer for that matter. The position and the authority of the Leader of the House in this House are unique: I should hate to see that status diminished in any way. It would be diminished if he was not the chairman of that very important committee. There should be no fear that any Leader of the House would not put the interests of the House first and foremost in a matter of such importance. That was amply demonstrated by the tenor of the memoranda and evidence of the last Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The same can confidently be expected of the present Leader of the House.
While on the subject of the steering committee, there may be some ambiguity in the recommendation that it should,
"monitor the select committee work of the House".
If that means merely allocation of resources in the light of competing needs I have little complaint. However, if it means monitoring the Select Committees in the sense of evaluating their work, then I share the startled reaction of my noble friend Lord Flowers in evidence. He said that he would take out his shotgun. It was news to me that the noble Lord was a shooting man, but I now know. I had the same reaction. There is a hint of Big Brother—I do not say Son of Jellicoe—in the suggestion that that committee should be looking over the shoulders of the Select Committees as they do their work. To my mind the composition and terms of reference, and the name of the steering committee, all need careful reconsideration. I hope that that will happen. I would just add that to my mind Back-Benchers should certainly be included on that committee.
I should like to say a word about specialist advisers. I refer to paragraph 168 of the report. I agree that specialist advisers have a major contribution to make to the work of the committees and should continue to be appointed. However, there are concealed dangers. The proposal in which I am particularly interested is that some specialist advisers should be retained beyond the conclusion of the particular inquiry. There is always a danger, and particularly if that happens, that they may get on top. It has been pithily said that specialist advisers should be "on tap but not on top". It is a most important consideration. It has sometimes happened—I shall not say in which House —that they have got on top. It is most undesirable.
So far, nobody, at least in my hearing, has mentioned the evidence of Mr. Kenneth Clarke MP. He deserves mention. I concur with the committee in disagreeing strongly with what he said about this House and the technology committee; namely, that it,
"can be identified as nothing more than a distinguished part of the science lobby".

993
I think that he was just being naughty. However, one must be careful with specialist advisers. They can get on top and achieve a very powerful position, having the ear of the chairman and the committee. Their use may conceivably have given rise to, or coloured, Mr. Clarke's erroneous impression. I therefore enter a caveat over the committee's agreement that in some circumstances it would be helpful for sub-committees to retain specialist advisers and seek their guidance on future programmes of work and potential inquiries.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend on the subject of Mr. Kenneth Clarke who said that the committee was committed to putting European men into space. That was the exact opposite of the committee's recommendation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very glad to have given the noble Lord the opportunity to say so.
Lord Shackleton: It is all in the report.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I know, but it has not been said on the Floor of the House. Finally, I wish to endorse all that has been said about the Select Committees being value for money. I also believe that it is a waste of money to spend money on a publicity clerk.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, just said included some very wise remarks indeed, which I hope in due course we shall be able to absorb. I too welcome the excellent report of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and his committee. I am reminded that it was my noble friend Lord Jellicoe who, just over 20 years ago as Leader of the Opposition, advised me on my maiden speech, for which advice I was grateful.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, perhaps I may just correct my noble friend on a small matter of history—in doing so, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his governorship —and say that I was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Lord Mottistone: I beg the Leader's pardon, if he is still around. In a debate of this kind, it is tempting to comment on many of the interesting recommendations; but I shall restrict my remarks to those relevant to the European Communities Committee and in particular Sub-Committee D. In view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the selection of members of the committees, and what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about his never having been selected to serve on a sub-committee, it might be worth telling the House of my experience. I went to see the Deputy Chairman of Committees, who at that time was Lady Tweedsmuir. It is interesting to note how many charming ladies there have been in that job. I said, "I should like to serve on one of your sub-committees." She asked, "What would you like?" and I said that I had just started to be employed by the biscuit industry. So we settled on Sub-Committee D. I served on that sub-committee for 10 years, which is
994
much too long by the terms of the report with which we are now concerned. I enjoyed those years very much and hope that I was of some use. Obviously 10 years is too long; but, on the other hand, three years is much too short.
If there is time, I shall say a few words about Public Bill Committees, having contributed to both the Pilotage Bill Committee and the Charities Bill Committee. I agree with the general recommendations in paragraphs 172 to 177 of the report—and especially with the need for shorter and sharper reports. Such were produced for most of my time, which ended in the mid-1980s, with Sub-Committee D.
I turn now to the European Communities Committee. I agree with almost all that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said. I shall refer only to aspects that are relevant to my experience. I agree with most of recommendations 188 to 193 and with recommendations 200 and 203. However, like my noble friend Lord Selborne, and unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I strongly disagree with the suggestion in paragraph 147(ii) to combine the agriculture, fisheries and food sub-committee with the environment committee. My noble friend Lord Middleton, who was predecessor to my noble friend Lord Selborne as chairman of Sub-Committee D, and, sadly, cannot be with us today because of a long-standing engagement outside London, has read that part of my speech and is in broad agreement with it.
Sub-Committee D deals with subjects which cost the Community 65 per cent. or more of its expenditure. That is too important to be brushed under the carpet. Before seeing the unfortunate proposed amalgamation, I had observed in paragraph 8, on page 70 of the report, that the Secretary General of the Commission had omitted a recommendation for our Select Committee to keep an eye on the common agricultural policy or on the common fisheries policy. My reaction was, "He would, wouldn't he?". The common agricultural policy must be the biggest embarrassment for the Commission that there has ever been. Repeated efforts by Sub-Committee D during the past 15 years to propose manageable improvements to agricultural policy have been shied away from by Councils of Ministers, Councils of Agricultural Ministers and the Commission. Even the most recent change has been most inadequate. Our proposals always tried to be as communautaire as they could be and not British inclined. They were always non-political. Regard really should have been paid to them.
We must retain a strong sub-committee to continue to scrutinise and where necessary to attack the common agricultural policy and defend the common fisheries policy. Diverting the activities of the committee to more general environmental matters, which Directorate-General VI can faintly praise without doing anything, would be a tragic waste of this House's potential influence.
Another detailed scrutiny of the sugar regime is long overdue. The sub-committee also needs to look more closely at what is intended for the green currencies and monetary compensation amounts

995
which are supposed to be being phased out but which appear to linger on. Those arc a few points from what could be a long list. My noble friend Lord Middleton tells me that the amount of European Community papers—which could usefully be studied by Sub-Committee D in its present form—have been growing steadily in recent years. Combining environmental matters would he unmanageable for one committee.
Like other noble Lords, I cannot accept that the House should not employ the number of excellent Clerks that it needs. The arguments against increasing the number of Clerks were not convincing. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has stated that the total cost of all the committees is under half a million pounds. That seems absolutely ludicrous when one considers that if your Lordships were paid at the outside going rate for the information, experience and knowledge that you contribute to the various committees from your own expertise, the cost would be astronomical. We are getting that cheaply. We are getting your Lordships cheaply. Surely we can ensure that we are serviced by superb Clerks who are of the highest quality in sufficient numbers to have as many committees as we wish and that we can provide service for.
There is another point with which I and my noble friend Lord Middleton strongly disagree. It is the suggestion made at the end of paragraph 140(iii) that reports should be based on written rather than on oral evidence. We both believe firmly that the recommendation should be reversed; oral evidence is far more useful as the basis for a report.
While agreeing that sub-committee membership should be about 12 and that it should include non-specialists, I hope that efforts will always be made to include in Sub-Committee D not only farmers but one or two Peers with a knowledge of other matters in what is described as the food chain; that is primary and secondary processing and retailing. When I as a food processor stood down from the sub-committee, I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, with his Co-op experience remained a member as chairman. That spread of food knowledge has been neglected in recent years.
I now turn briefly to the Public Bill Committees. I do not believe that they will ever be much of a success or save much of the House's time. They appear to me to appeal more to Leaders of the House freshly appointed from another place and to Back-Benchers with a similar background than to those of us who have grown into the particular debating advantages of this House. The Pilotage Bill Committee needs no more comment than the report has given to it. The Charities Bill was better organised, even though the Committee was again condemned to the Moses Room. However, the Committee membership was properly apportioned, similar to the normal attendance in the House, with equal Government and Opposition of both parties' membership and a balance of Cross-Benchers. That meant that after a few sittings the Cross-Benchers rumbled the fact that they could always win their more important amendments, and did so. They would have had to play their by hand much more carefully—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord's memory fails him because on a number of occasions members of his party voted for some of the amendments. I do not believe that the situation was as straightforward as he supposes.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in the early stages, members of my party cast their votes the other way. However, after more than half way, the Cross-Benchers rumbled that fact and did very well—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, Cross-Benchers do not act in unison.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am sure that they do not. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has often made that point to me. However, if two or three people apparently vote together perhaps they are working in unison. If they do not do so officially they may do so instinctively. Without that advantage, the CrossBenchers would have had to play their hand much more carefully on the Floor of the House and probably wait as usual until Report for the big attacks.
In conclusion, I believe that a study of the Public Bill Committees was not appropriate to the committee which prepared the report with its particular terms of reference. If the House ever wishes to have a committee studying the overall handling of Public Bills through all their stages from First Reading to being passed, attention to the Committee stages off the Floor could be more suitably included in that study. That is the background that one needs in order to study when and how that should be done. I hope that note will be taken of my comments, and that the recommendations in the report that I believe are a mistake will be ignored. I hope that in other respects the report has every success in the future.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has listened to our long debate with extraordinary patience. He and his colleagues have produced a valuable report for which we must all be grateful. At this late hour almost all the important points have been made and I wish to intervene only briefly having regard to my experience as a member in turn of three of the sub-committees of the European Communities Committee.
The main point I wish to make is to question, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the wisdom of the suggestion made in paragraph 147(ii) that there should be a single sub-committee to consider agriculture and the environment. Of course, there is a great deal of overlap between those two spheres and the two sub-committees often need to work closely together. But, having been a member of the environment sub-committee and now the agriculture sub-committee, I have serious doubts about that suggestion.
As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, proposals requiring scrutiny are increasing in number in both environment and agriculture. I have been impressed in working with the sub-committees by the value of thorough in-depth inquiries carried on over a

997
period of several months: for example, the environment sub-committee produced a report on habitats and another on municipal waste water or sewage, both of which were important; the agriculture subcommittee has produced a report on the CAP, and we are now working on a report on the common fisheries policy. Those involve a substantial amount of reading and listening to evidence and, in my judgment, it would be quite impossible for one sub-committee to cover adequately both those spheres.
That said, I welcome the proposal in the report for more ad hoc committees, which would be extremely useful. I have only taken part in one of those, which was a sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee under the chairmanship of my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, to consider the science base in the successor bodies to the Nature Conservancy Council. However, that was a fairly quick inquiry which produced a useful and timely report and some of the major reports by ad hoc committees, such as the overseas trade report and the report on murder and life imprisonment, have certainly been landmarks in the committee work of the House.
I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that a foreign affairs committee in some form or other would be useful. One of the things which has struck me in this House is the lack of contact between Members of this House and civil servants. By bringing civil servants to give evidence a committee is extremely useful to Members of your Lordships' House. Talking to them in that sort of forum one can understand very clearly the thinking behind policy. It is also quite useful for civil servants to have that contact. It would be useful for Foreign Office officials—and I speak as one who has been a Foreign Office official—to have that contact. It is even more useful for your Lordships' House.
I believe also that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, suggested, it could be perhaps an ad hoc committee to start with. Clearly it should not overlap or conflict with what is being done by the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place.
I believe, too, that it is important to have a committee in some form to consider general environmental and conservation matters. I see that page 73 of the report states that that was suggested to the Jellicoe Committee by several noble Lords.
Finally, I wish to make one very brief point about procedure in the committees. I am very much against the practice of preparing questions, giving them in advance to the witnesses and then sharing them out among members of the committee to ask. It has put off the media, as is recorded in paragraph 96 of the report which states:
"proceedings were often little more than a 'private and a technical series of exchanges' with witnesses who replied from prepared scripts to questions agreed and circulated in advance".
The practice also destroys spontaneity. In my view it would be better to give witnesses in advance a general indication of the areas on which the committee would like to question them and for chairmen to
998
arrange for members of sub-committees to tackle specific areas of interest to them. That is touched on in the last sentence of paragraph 161 of the report.
Finally, I join in the tributes made to our admirable Clerks and to the chairmen of the sub-committees. I have served under five. A heavy burden falls upon them and they discharge their responsibilities with exemplary tact and skill.
10 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, your Lordships are aware that the 34th speaker in a debate can have little or nothing new to contribute to the issues under discussion. I hasten to say, therefore, that I make a contribution at this stage because I was a member of the Select Committee and feel it may be useful to stress the importance of at least some of the matters raised by the report. Your Lordships will forgive me if I make my points briefly.
There is a fundamental problem in considering the committee work of the House which is not immediately apparent, although I am glad to say that certainly two speakers in the debate referred to it. It concerns the shortage of resources with the so-called "Peer resource" probably presenting a greater difficulty than financial resources.
It is a constant struggle for chairmen and staff to recruit Peers for committee work. The work can and often does make considerable demands on a Peer's time. Therefore, those members of your Lordships' House who ask from time to time why some subject is not being dealt with must make some suggestion as to where the manpower is to be found. Perhaps your Lordships are not aware that in the last Session of Parliament the average daily attendance was 337. That is misleading because, as we all know, for good and different reasons Peers can often stay for only a short time and are not necessarily present for the whole of the daily Session. I believe I am right in saying also that the total number of Peers is 1,200 or thereabouts. We are therefore really speaking of around one-quarter of the Peers putting in some sort of attendance.
I am bound to say that I am not so sanguine as my colleague on the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who seemed to suggest that there was a wide reservoir of Peers who would be ready to undertake committee work. With regard to financial resources, your Lordships will have noted that all that is suggested in the report is a "modest" increase—that is the word we use. I hope that that will be forthcoming from the Government.
My second point relates to the recommendation that some legislation, or indeed some aspects of legislation, should be taken off the Floor of the House as an experiment. When I came to your Lordships' House from another place some five years ago I was struck perhaps more than anything else by the committee structure in relation to legislation. The flexibility and the opportunities for making contributions were a considerable advantage. I believe that that is still the case. However, it cannot be denied that the problems facing the House from an increasing workload are now far greater than in 1977 when the

999
Practice and Procedure Committee reported, and perhaps even more serious than when the group on the working of the House reported as recently as 1987.
I suggest with great respect that self-restraint, which is so frequently urged upon us, has not been successful. As a heavy workload will stay with us I have no doubt that the time has come when we should seek proper ways to consider legislation off the Floor of the House. The committee is cautious about that and suggests only that it should be of an experimental nature. Your Lordships will note from the report that we suggest four possible options and I shall not go into their details. I hope that Appendix 6, dealing with the Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill which sat as recently as December 1991, will be carefully considered. Most of the disadvantages contained in the appendix were of a minor nature and could easily be corrected. The evidence for further experimentation is overwhelming. I hope that that will be supported by your Lordships and the Government. I concede immediately that a final decision now would not be appropriate and that further experience is essential.
I turn to the report's recommendations on ad hoc committees. In our deliberations I was a very strong supporter of them for a number of reasons and I mention only two. The first is the very high quality of most of those reports issued in recent years. Your Lordships' House is perhaps better qualified to undertake that kind of work than any other legislature that I know of. I do not believe that that is being immodest. Some of the reports made a very considerable impact not only inside but also outside the House.
Secondly, ad hoc investigations permit the House to study areas of importance which simply cannot be undertaken in any other way. The suggestions that we received—your Lordships will have read some of them in Appendix 5—are good examples of what can be done. When we were considering the possibility of a third sessional committee I was the Member who was rather keen on having a foreign affairs Select Committee. I felt that the existence of the Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee was no obstacle to having one because it is such a wide policy area and, particularly these days, of very great importance. Duplication with the Commons' work could be easily avoided not least by prior consultation between the two committees.
I finally accepted the views of my colleagues. One of the reasons was that ad hoc studies of aspects of foreign affairs would be very appropriate. I believe that the increased emphasis we place on ad hoc committees is one of the most important recommendations of the report. In particular, I draw your Lordships' attention to the suggestion that these committees should report to the House well within 12 months. That is surely a significant aspect of such reports.
If there is universal agreement about the work and reports of committees in your Lordships' House it is on the high standards achieved. It was mentioned time and again during our sittings in both oral and written evidence. So the most important subsequent question
1000
to be asked is: what have they achieved? An objective answer would be that no one really knows. It is a matter which requiring a great deal of research which nobody would be prepared to undertake. But there is general agreement that they make some contribution to our work.
I make that point because there is one thing that can be said with some certainty—that the links between the committees and the House are, to say the least, tenuous. If the reports are as good as it is said, something should be done about it. The report makes some concrete suggestions. Your Lordships will have noted that debates on committee reports took up less than 4 per cent. of the time of the House. Not only that, the debates took place at times which were highly inconvenient to most Members. The three recommendations made to rectify the situation would be an important first step in integrating committee work into that of the House as a whole. They are: debates on major reports should not be held on days when the House meets in the morning; two Wednesdays should be allocated to the debates at the later stages in a Session; and the usual channels should take greater account of committee reports when selecting subjects for their own debates.
I venture to suggest that these proposals will not be adopted—I look particularly at the noble Lord the Leader of the House at the moment—if one ingredient is missing. If the Government do not inject some goodwill into considering these proposals the work of committees and of the House will remain as far apart as ever.
I wish to make some brief comments on the proposals concerning the European Communities Committee. The report makes clear the high esteem in which its work is held. Not only that, it was pointed out when we were in Brussels that it is unique among the member states. The suggestions made by the committee are an attempt to make the work even more effective, not least because of the rapidly growing importance and effect of the European Community. At this stage in the development of the EC it seems sensible, indeed essential, that there should be, as we recommend, increased liaison between the committee and both the Commission and the European Parliament.
In this connection it appeared to us that there is a need for a sub-committee structure which has a greater degree of flexibility, and I hope that some of the proposals, at least, will be acceptable to your Lordships. However, one has to say at this stage, having listened to the whole of the debate, that this has not been one of the most popular recommendations of the report.
A particular contribution to that flexibility is the suggestion that within the European Communities Committee there should be an ad hoc sub-committee. I do not accept the view of my noble friend Lady Serota that this is a contradiction in terms. I can understand the logic of it but I think that that is not quite the case. There must be, from time to time, areas of policy which are not considered by the sub-committees. Although the report recommends some reduction in the number of sub-committees it

1001
stresses that, taken together, the proposals will involve a net increase in the European Communities Committee's work overall. That point has not been made during the debate.
It is not possible to deal with even the more important subjects in a debate like this, but I hope that such matters as a steering committee, which I am glad to say has been well aired, the availability of committee reports, which has not been spoken about too much, the publicity given to them and, not least, the Government responses to reports, will be fully considered not only today but in the coming months.
I conclude by paying tribute to the work of the committee chairman. His long and varied experience in this House and his wide knowledge of procedure here and elsewhere were evident in every session we had. He gave the impression all the time that committee members were producing the ideas but we knew all the time that he was the guiding hand. I doubt whether there has ever been a more charming chairman of any committee. It was a great pleasure to serve under him. I am going to add these words now. The reason I am speaking tonight is that he charmed me into doing so.
I am delighted that so many of your Lordships have referred to the Clerks. Our Clerk was superb. He did a first-class job and I am glad that he has been able to be at the Table in the normal course of his duties—he need not blush—to hear so much of the debate. A great deal was due to him.
I think that every Member of your Lordships' House will agree that it is time for some changes to be made to the committee work of the House and I hope that the report will make some contribution to those changes.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and congratulate him as well as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the other members of the committee on their report.
At this late hour I shall keep my remarks very brief. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am concerned about the structure of the steering committee and its name. The usual channels, good as they are, are not necessarily equipped to allocate financial resources and to monitor the work of committees, two points which are linked together. I also wonder, knowing how Select Committees in another place do not always see eye to eye with the usual channels there, whether they are the right liaison body between the Select Committees and our Select Committees. I make that point in passing.
1002
As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said, I feel that the European Communities Committee should be given the resources and then be allowed to decide how it divides the cake itself. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said that there is perhaps need of an ad hoc committee within the European Communities Committee. In a way, we have had that recently because, although we had a particular committee—I have in mind at present the one on the carbon tax—it was basically one committee with co-opted members from two other committees. In many ways, that is an ad hoc committee, based on experienced members who are used to working as a team in European committees. In my view that is important.
The other point that I should like to make relates to the issues of whether a period of three or five years should apply and whether there should be 12 or 15 members in a committee. I can see a slight case for three years, although I should still prefer five. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, it is most unfortunate if, for example, one third of the committee are new boys each November. A committee is a team. If there are only four members available instead of eight, especially if two of the four are missing due to an earlier meeting, the committee is not a strong one as regards questioning civil servants and others. Only recently we had six civil servants backed by 25 of their support staff. Such a situation creates a problem. Similarly, while I agree that the optimum number of members on our sub-committees is 12, I should not like that to be set as a rigid limit. Again, if someone is missing, the committee will be short in numbers. I believe that 12 should be the recommended number but that 15 should be a possibility. I leave the matter there.
There is just one further comment that I should like to make. I am an intermittent attender of the House, but I enjoy coming here regularly once a week to take part in committee work. I have been involved in the Committee stage of Bills. I find it acceptable to have a break of a day, two days or part of a week as the Committee stage proceeds. I would be somewhat horrified if I were to become involved, as happened on the Charities Bill, in having to sit continuously considering a Bill in which I was interested for a tight period of time. That is why I have sometimes felt unable to join committees on Private Bills, and so on.
I welcome everything that has been said. I congratulate the noble Earl on his committee work and on the report. Like other speakers, I join in thanking the Clerks and the specialist advisers of all our committees for their very valuable work.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, after that most commendable speech—indeed, the most commendable speech of all because it has hit the record of being the shortest speech of the evening—it falls to my unhappy lot to initiate the conclusion of this most interesting debate. Of course it is almost impossible to try to pull the threads together. However, I propose to spend just a few moments dealing with those matters upon which there appears to be general agreement, then deal with the ones in the next category and finally I shall turn to those issues where there is perhaps no agreement at all.
I believe that there is general agreement that Public Bills in committees off the Floor of the House are worthy of experimentation. We pinned some faith on the success of the Charities Bill, although we were not quite sure of that success until after the committee's final meeting. However, I think that we were right to have faith in it. It was a successful committee and its success gives us the opportunity to have further experiments.
Special standing committees have received fairly universal support throughout the whole House, especially on matters relating to the law. Ad hoc committees have also been widely accepted. Everyone has their ideas as to what they would like to see in an ad hoc committee. But I think that the principle of such committees has been widely agreed.
There is certainly total agreement that the staff of our committees do a superb job. There is no dissent from that view. I was most interested in the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She said that if there was to be an increase in the staff of the House, the whole question of career development ought to be looked into. That was a most interesting and useful point.
There are those things which fall into the category of being in the "curate's egg" department so far as this House is concerned today. First, there is the recommendations on the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. There is no disagreement at all that these two committees do a superb job. There is no way in which those of us who sat on the Jellicoe Committee have any doubts about that at all.
There has been criticism of some of the suggestions that we have made and there seems to be in many cases a feeling that these committees should be expanded rather than contracted. I thought that the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that we should have as many Clerks as we need probably epitomised that point of view. Indeed, I do not think that anyone on the Jellicoe Committee would have dissented from that. But we know that reality is such that that will not happen. The demands of European legislation could go on expanding almost indefinitely and the need for support staff for that purpose could also go on expanding indefinitely; and it may be cheap to provide. Certainly I do not dissent from that. But as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, it is the question of Peer resources with which we are faced. Certainly I find, as one of those dreaded members of the usual channels that have been referred to so often during the
1004
course of the day, that it is not easy to provide people from the ranks on my Benches to staff the various committees of the House. We do our best, but there is a limit to Peer resources.
If one looks at the figures for attendance at Select Committees the truth is that in the European sub-committees in 1989–90 attendance was of the order of 57 per cent. That does not indicate that there is a vast vibrating group of Members of your Lordships' House who are anxious to be at committees every day of the week. The truth is that our resources are extremely limited. The figure for the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I should say, is somewhat better. It is 71 per cent., but it is not even approaching 100 per cent. That is the major restraint and I am sure that that was the restraint that members of the committee felt when we were looking at resources.
Of course, so far as Clerks are concerned, if the Government and the Treasury can be persuaded to put up the money, we could have as many Clerks as we need. That is a more difficult problem in some ways; but at the end of the day it is Peer resources that are the problem.
The steering committee has obviously met with somewhat mixed fortunes in the course of our debate today. The name is not important, as has already been said. We tussled with the name and we were not satisfied that it should be called a steering committee, but nobody, as the noble Lord, Lord Pym, said, could come up with anything better. The idea that the committee should be monitoring the work of the Select Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, was very far from our minds. It would be there as a co-ordinating committee, a committee which facilitated the agenda for the various committees, but not in any way to monitor the results of what the committees produce.
The composition has come in for considerable criticism. Again this is clearly something which is there for future debate. My view is that it would not be right to have the chairman of the European Communities Select Committee and of the Science and Technology Select Committee on that committee. Certainly they should be in attendance. Their views should be sought, but I do not believe that they should be actual members of that committee because they are, as we have seen, extremely committed to their own particular bailiwick; and so they should be, and very properly so.
Clearly the Leader of the House, if he could be persuaded to be the chairman of that committee, would be a very useful member. If one can get the commitment of the Leader of the House, the chances are that things will actually happen. Whether the rest of the usual channels should be involved is a matter for further discussion.
The committee considered secondary legislation—the "Rippon Committee" as we might perhaps call it—and that has received approval from all around the House, with a slight suggestion from the Leader of the House that he might have some problems with it. That seems to be a step back from his predecessor's

1005
position. I hope that it is not seriously so. I know that we shall shortly hear about that from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the Government were not prepared to expose their hand at the beginning of the debate so that we could have discussed the issue properly. Like many other noble Lords, I believe that it is a crucial part of the report. If it did nothing other than prevent my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, from bobbing up and down in debates rather more frequently than they have to, it would save the House a great deal of time. They are correct to stand up to say what they have to say on the Henry VIII clauses; but nevertheless I believe that that type of committee would save the House a considerable amount of time, not just because it would act as a filter but because the people who draft Bills might say to themselves, "Hang on a minute, is this going to run up against the committee in the House of Lords? Had we better not think about the way in which we are drafting this legislation?" It is a precautionary measure that would improve our legislation.
I commend to noble Lords the appendix which deals with the visit to Australia of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. It is a most interesting document. I should have preferred to include in the report rather more of the Australian experience. We have pared it down. Many of the items in the Australian checklist are ones we should consider in the future. The matters we have included in the report are vital to ensure that legislation coming through the House is better legislation.
Finally, there is the rotation rule, which no one seems to have liked. I have to admit that I was not pleased with it. It seems that we are moving towards four years rather than three. The problem was that there was a feeling in the committee that the five-year rule was not being applied as rigorously as it might have been. There were those who had been on committees for five years, who were co-opted for a further year, went on for another five years and then were co-opted for another year. One can have a lifetime's experience of committees in that way. We have drawn attention to that and suggested that in the future rotation should mean rotation. Whether it is three, four or five years is not necessarily significant. It is important that people should have a break from the onerous task of serving on those committees.
Like other members of the committee who have spoken, I have nothing but praise for our chairman, enhanced by the fact that he has managed to sit through the whole debate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, none of us apart from the noble Earl have managed to do that. He is greatly to be commended. He was a marvellous chairman. It is a good report. I hope that noble Lords will accept it in principle and largely in detail, with the caveats that have been entered tonight.
10.29 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the debt of gratitude which the House owes to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his committee is nonetheless sincere if I express it in a weary way at this time of night. I add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on the diligence with which he has attended the debate, knowing that he will not even have a chance to reply at length to the discussion.
As my noble friend Lord Williams said, this is not a party matter. I conceive it to be my duty to respond always in a personal capacity to the matters prominent in the debate. I wish to conclude by talking about what I conceive to be the first rank importance of the issues raised by the Jellicoe committee report. I believe that the proper use of the committee system in this House is essential not only to the smooth running and marginal effectiveness of the House, but to the House's survival in some form in the 21st century.
We must give the report the first rank in serious consideration of the future, not only of the committee structure but of the House. That is the tribute which ought to be paid to the Jellicoe committee and those who gave evidence to it. We have here evidence about the working of a second Chamber of the utmost importance for the future of the House in some form.
I start with the issues which were prominent in the debate. After 37 (not 41) speakers, it is possible to see the oscillations reducing, to some extent, and a form of consensus emerging on many of the issues. One issue on which there was a consensus from the outset was the admiration felt for the work of the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. If I were to list noble Lords who made those points, I would come up against what used to be in the Good Food Guide, in recommendations of restaurants: "Approved by too many members to list". I shall not attempt the full list that I have here.
When I consider the discussion on the European Communities Committee, I think above all of the contribution of my noble friend Lady Serota. She was the one, above all, who emphasised the importance of the legislation which will come to the House and the country from Brussels and the importance of not restricting the scope of the work of the committee. She emphasised in particular the importance of not restricting the work of the committee to legislation which had already reached its final form. We should rather seek to use the European Communities Committee procedure to deal with legislation as it takes shape, in order to influence the final form. Above all, she made the point that the importance of the quality of the report of the European Communities Committee was absolutely fundamental.
All the other issues which have been the subject of the debate—whether there should be an amalgamation of the agriculture and environment committees; whether there should be a reduction in the total number of committees; whether there should be ad hoc sub-committees within the European Communities Committee—are secondary. The context in which we must look at the work of the European Communities Committee is that the workload is increasing; it has

1007
increased; and from 1st January 1993 it will increase enormously. We had expert evidence on that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and many other noble Lords. I cannot overemphasise the importance of ensuring that the resources available to the European Communities Committee are not restricted by some notion that there is only a finite pool of resources for the committee, defined in a limited way. We should ensure that they are determined by the workload which will be thrust upon the committee by the changes in the European Community itself.
A number of noble Lords of great distinction made a powerful case for the continued work of the Science and Technology Committee—in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord Shackleton and Lord Porter. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, used the phrase "a fearsome list of pressing topics" facing the Science and Technology Select Committee. That may be the case, but of course it could also be the case in a number of other areas—when we come to think about ad hoc committees more widely—where all of us could think of a fearsome list of pressing topics which could benefit from the work of sessional committees in this House.
We have to maintain some degree of caution. I say without any disrespect to the work that the Science and Technology Committee has carried out since it was set up when the House of Commons failed to reappoint its own committee that the time may come when it may say, "Let us have a couple of years off. Let us not think of this as being a permanent fixture just because it has been a success for a period of 10 or 11 years. Let us think objectively and coldly about the pressing issues to which the House might contribute in its deliberations, not necessarily in the sphere of science and technology".
That leads me on to the issue of the extension of the deliberative committees of the House. The committee's report, having considered carefully all of the suggestions for sessional committees, comes down on the side of a cautious increase in ad hoc committees rather than setting up sessional committees. However, there are plenty of suggestions for sessional committees. My noble friend Lady Nicol was keen on having such a committee on environmental assessment and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and others wanted one on foreign affairs. I recommend the recent book of John Kenneth Galbraith to the noble Baroness entitled The Culture of Contentment in which he describes a study of foreign affairs as being recreational rather than seriously political. His essay is entitled Staying awake at the Council of Foreign Relations.
I feel strongly that there is an argument for a committee on the relationships between central and local government, as proposed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, as that is an issue that arises in a large proportion of our legislation at the present time. It deserves some form of continuing consideration. If one looks at the areas of expertise and interest in the composition of the House one might well feel there should be a sessional committee on salmon fishing or on field sports. Certainly looking at the legal representation in the House there are many
1008
arguments for increasing the committee consideration of legal matters either in the broadest sense of the operation of justice or in the more narrow detailed sense discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. However, I would say that any move towards committee consideration of legislation on the legal process which tended to confine or restrict discussion to lawyers would be a bad thing. We should make sure that in any restricted consideration there is adequate and indeed dominating participation by non-lawyers. After all, the Law Commission provides the legal input to these matters.
However, at the end of all of this discussion I tend to the view that the committee is right and that we should not set up from scratch new sessional committees but rather we should use the suggestion of more ad hoc committees and, if they justify themselves, consider whether their work should be continued. I shall not comment in great detail on the matter of the steering committee. I think that a range of views has been expressed on that matter but I do not honestly think it matters much what it is called or what its composition is. The important matter is its terms of reference. It is important to ensure that what it is doing is avoiding duplication rather than seeking to guide the work of the committees themselves.
Nor do I think that there will be much disagreement about the rotation rule. As the oscillations flatten out over time we seem to be moving towards four years rather than three or five.
Much more important in that respect is the issue of resources. A number of noble Lords—my noble friends Lady Lockwood, Lord Longford and Lord Dormand and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff— referred to the shortage of Peers available to serve on the committees. I suspect that the shortage would be less if the commitment were not so overwhelming and that more people would be willing to serve on ad hoc committees than would be willing to undertake the commitment of three, four or five years on a sessional committee. That may be a further argument in favour of ad hoc committees.
A number of noble Lords—including my noble friends Lord Murray and Lady Lockwood—referred to the need for staff resources. Whatever the figure —I made it £1.3 million rather than £0.5 million, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested—for the cost of the committee work of the House, it is incredibly cheap. The cost of additional resources in the form of Clerks cannot be and should not be a significant element in the consideration. If the problem is that that creates too many Clerks for the career structure, we should consider bringing in people on secondment from elsewhere in the Civil Service or even outside the Civil Service. I am sure that Mr. Waldegrave would be pleased to hear me say that. That is not and should not be a major concern of the House.
What I consider to be the fundamental issue behind the report, however, is the role of the committees in the essential work of the House. I take the essential work of the House to be the revision of legislation.

1009
That is what will justify the continuing existence of this House in some form as a second chamber into the 21st century.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in his evidence referred with his usual moderation to "a difficult situation". He was not exaggerating. The truth of the matter is that the increase in legislation and the increase in the complexity of legislation are incompatible with our rules which impose no restrictions on the number of speakers, on the length of speeches and on the number of amendments to be considered.
Some way must be found—and I suggest that it will have to be through the committee system—of improving the quality of legislation coming before the House in order to avoid the enormous waste of time on probing amendments, on misconceived amendments or on misconceptions in the legislation itself. That is the only way in which we shall keep consideration of legislation on the Floor of the House at a manageable level.
I am one of those who feel, as others have said in the course of the debate, that the distinctive feature of this House is that we consider controversial legislation on the Floor of the House and do not allow it to be restricted to a limited number of Members of the House. If we lost that feature we should be losing a large part of the raison d'être of the House.
Let us consider the suggestions that have been made for dealing with that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Pym, described this as a tailor-made opportunity to rethink our legislative procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to the constitutional significance of the work that we do and the need to maintain that. I agree with both noble Lords.
Perhaps the least important aspect is the Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee will clearly be applicable only in a limited number of cases. In the case of the Pilotage Bill it did not work but in the case of the Charities Bill it appears to have worked. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that that is not due to any self-denying ordinance as to whether to repeat matters at Report stage. There was inadequate consultation on the Pilotage Bill and a great many people felt very aggrieved about it, whereas the Charities Bill was the result of many years consultation and the charities themselves felt fairly happy about it. In addition we were up against the deadline of an election. So it is the quality of legislation that goes into Public Bill Committees rather than any self-denying ordinance on the part of noble Lords which is the significant factor.
With regard to the scrutiny of delegated powers, very many noble Lords supported that view, based to a considerable extent on the Australian visit of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. Again it was approved by too many Members to mention, but clearly there is scope for experimentation there. I hope that it will not be delayed in the search for consensus in advance. I agree with those noble Lords who said that consensus would have to come from the committee itself rather than what would otherwise be an abstract statement.
1010
Of all those methods I am much more strongly in favour of special standing committees. It seems to me that special standing committees present an opportunity, if they take place in a very short period of time—a maximum, say, of 28 days after First Reading—to improve the quality of the legislation coming before a Committee of the whole House and therefore to reduce the time spent in Committee. As the Clerk of the Parliaments said, in those committees we work in very primitive ways, with carrier pigeons from officials' and advisers' boxes, rather than by means of an effective dialogue with those who know what they are talking about.
But what is behind it all? If we are to survive into the 21st century as some form of an effective second chamber, we have to do it on the basis of the functions we perform and not on composition. Ultimately, as we all know, the composition of this House is indefensible. What will defend a House with that indefensible composition is a House which does something useful. The value of the work of the committee has been to consider and enable us to consider what we might do to be genuinely useful. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and his colleagues for the work they have done.
10.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate covering a great deal of ground. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe will have an opportunity to sum up the whole of the debate to which he has listened so attentively if he should desire to exercise that particular right.
If there was one matter of unanimity in the debate, it was praise for the chairman of the committee, its members and its staff. I certainly wish to associate myself most strongly with that. I have daily experience of the need to rely on the Clerks. Were it not for them, I should make many more mistakes than I do.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, gave another commendation to my noble friend the Leader of the House by describing him as one who has joined the ranks of well meaning men who have been Leaders of the House. I am glad to note that in that group the noble Earl, Lord Longford, intended to include my noble friend Lady Young.
I do not think your Lordships desire me to attempt to recite in summary form all that has been said in the debate. I begin by saying a few words about two matters which my noble friend the Leader of the House rather left to me. The first concerns the special standing committee. The idea was that it would be a way of dealing perhaps particularly with Law Commission reports. I was a law commissioner before I joined the Government in 1979. I have had a great interest in the work of the Law Commissions from that time on. It is perfectly true that there are a number of Law Commission reports awaiting consideration by Parliament. I do not think that the number is quite as great as the statistics given earlier might suggest. Some have been overtaken by events, some have been rejected by the Government for one reason or another, and some are quite controversial in character.

1011
I was most interested to hear my noble friend Lord Coleraine talk about the report on intestacy. That was a report prepared by the Law Commission, balancing all the evidence that it had heard in the course of consultation. It has come up with a view which my noble friend summarised and which has caused great differences of opinion among those well qualified to have an opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has kindly put down a Question in the House so that we may consider the matter because I have felt some doubt about the correct way forward. I thought that our minds might be clarified by preliminary discussion in the House.
However, there is no doubt that there is a degree of difficulty in getting the more technical Law Commission reports legislated. The Law Commission of course provides legislation for us every Session in the form of consolidation Bills. We must not forget that work. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman was a distinguished chairman of that committee. He kindly taught me how to do the work. However, I was on the committee for only a short time before I found myself with some rather different responsibilities.
The Consolidation Committee is a joint committee. It is an example of how the Law Commission work in this area can be legislated without troubling the House in the process. The Law Commission reports which we have in mind for the special standing committee are more substantial and involve more policy than consolidation. I was interested in the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale that we should go for some form of joint committee with another place. I started out with that in mind. However, I have concluded, not least in light of the experience of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, that it may be better for each House to have its own procedures. Therefore what the committee has proposed, and what I very much endorse—and I am glad that so many noble Lords have felt able to endorse the proposal—is that that is the way for this House to deal with such matters.
A question has been raised about whether it would be suitable to have evidence, or whether it would be better to have an ordinary Public Bill Committee. I am persuaded that it would be better to have evidence available from the Law Commission and from those who have been kind enough to contribute to the various sides of the debate which the Law Commission carries out as a result of its working papers. Such evidence would illuminate technical matters for Members of the House who would form the committee. I strongly endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that the composition of the committees that would deal with Law Commission reports should by no means be confined to lawyers. Indeed, very few lawyers need to be on them. It would be much better to have a lay appreciation. Members of the Law Commission are lawyers, as has been pointed out, and they analyse the matter from the legal point of view. But sometimes there are questions of what I might call common sense and ordinary policy to be decided.
1012
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was one of the few noble Lords who had hesitation about the proposal. I understand well what he said about the general scope of committee work in this House and the importance of the opportunity for everyone to contribute. On the other hand, the Bills are in a fairly narrow compass. If we do not have some new procedure for dealing with them, I believe that they may not be satisfactorily dealt with. I have taken some Bills through this House myself. As my noble friend Lord Coleraine mentioned, one was dealt with last Session as a Private Member's Bill by my noble friend Lord Murton. However, the problem is that they often contain matters of detail which are much better decided in the light of evidence on the problem. I believe that that procedure would help to make the Bills even better because although, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman said, Bills are prepared by the Law Commission, very often they have to be amended. Bills are never absolutely perfect and on examination amendments are often required. Amendments tabled in the light of evidence of what the real problem is would be useful in this type of Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that, despite his reservations, the proposal should be accepted.
Questions arise about the consequences of the procedure. I hope that your Lordships will consider that if a broad-based committee has examined the matter in detail in the light of the evidence, the Report stage and Third Reading can be formal. If that were so there would be a strong chance that the Second Reading Committee procedure in the other place would be agreed to. The Bill could proceed fairly rapidly to a conclusion, possibly making unnecessary the carry-over provisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. My intention would be to seek to have those matters agreed with the Opposition parties in advance before the Bills are put into Parliament. I am grateful for the huge amount of support that the idea has received.
I turn to a proposition which, from my point of view, is a little more contentious. It is the delegated powers scrutiny committee. Many noble Lords have approved of the committee. My noble friend Lord Pym issued me a challenge by asking what we are afraid of and why do we not want the committee. I shall not give a conclusive answer to whether we want it because we wish to consider carefully all that your Lordships have said. I shall indicate only some provisional views.
First, no parliamentary draftsman presently employed by the Government is unaware of your Lordships' attitudes to these clauses. The appointment of a new delegated powers scrutiny committee in this House is unlikely to create any greater fear in the minds of parliamentary counsel than the thought of having to justify such a clause in this House under the present system. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff said, among our Members are the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Rippon, and a host of others. Everyone who has anything to do with the matter knows that these clauses must be

1013
defended. Of course, defended they are and most of them survive, usually with a degree of conviction on the part of the House that they are justified. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale gave an instance in which the defence was not successful. That shows that the House enters into the matter with care and judgment.
The position in Australia—visited in the brown paper parcel by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—is interesting. However, one must remember that it is different. I am open to correction because I have not seen the Senate debate a Henry VIII clause. I suspect that it does not happen often; indeed there is no opportunity in the Senate for that to happen. Appendix 4 paragraph 3 states:
"the scope for and the number of amendments passed by Parliament seems considerably less than in the United Kingdom—the role of party caucuses, approving legislation before its introduction into Parliament, is strong, so that even an abstention by a Labor Party member on a caucus-approved bill could be grounds for expulsion from the party.
This does not mean that the weight of legislation is less than in the United Kingdom; it is common for over 200 bills to be introduced each year, and although on average these are much smaller than their British equivalents, they must be squeezed into a parliamentary year lasting a maximum of 80–90 days. The result of party strength and time pressure in the Senate is that the opportunities for amendments, including amendments sponsored by committees, is restricted".
The situation is that that type of point is not considered at all except through the committee—that is the way I would summarise that—whereas in your Lordships' House the situation is entirely different.
In his summing up, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave me an extraordinarily interesting carrot and suggested that if this committee were in existence I might not have to face the terrors of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Rippon on this kind of question in the House. I do not think the committee's proposal embraces that suggestion. It is interesting that the committee proposes only that the attention of the House should be drawn to those matters. As regards those Members of the House, that is a work of supererogation. They are extremely quick to notice them already. Therefore, that seems to be a classic case of duplication of work already carried out.
That does not mean that I am huffing and puffing—I use the phrase of my noble and learned friend—but I believe those are matters to be considered. If your Lordships felt that some kind of self-denying ordinance on raising such points could be founded on the committee's view that would be well worth considering, but that aspect has not really been put forward.
There are a number of other matters which I should mention briefly. As regards a steering committee, a liaison committee—or perhaps a committee committee—most of your Lordships agree that such a committee is desirable. The question of who should be on such a committee has been widely debated. I doubt whether there is much consensus on that point but I cannot see why it should not be chaired by the Leader
1014
of the House if that is what your Lordships desire. Of course, he would have the interests of the whole House at heart.
On the question of rotation, the arbiter's approach to the matter is probably the right approach. The committee suggested three years, the existing limit is five years and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, plumped for four years quite early on. That seems to be a fairly good compromise.
I welcome the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that noble Lords should put down their names to signify an interest in being appointed to a certain committee. It would be extremely useful for the Committee of Selection to know whether Members of your Lordships' House are interested in serving on committees.
As regards resources and accommodation, a number of your Lordships have mentioned the pressure on physical accommodation for the work of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the accommodation which is to be relinquished by the Lord Chancellor's Department in this House. As soon as I had an opportunity to examine the situation I thought it wise to try to make some arrangement of that kind. As soon as I find accommodation for those members of the staff who are still here, who deal with matters not directly concerning myself daily, we shall relinquish that accommodation. I cannot say exactly when that will be but your Lordships can be assured that I am anxious to progress in that regard as soon as circumstances permit. Discussions about that and other accommodation matters are continuing by the Administration and Works Sub-committee.
The only other point I should mention is on publicity. It was suggested in the report that that is a matter which could perhaps be dealt with. My noble friend Lord Aldington has long experience of dealing with these matters. He suggests that all a committee needs to do in order to attract publicity is to make an attack on the Government. That method has been employed with a certain degree of success over the years. I am not sure that it is one that particularly commends itself to me, and of course it is not a means of obtaining publicity which is open to a Member of the Government. That may be why my right honourable friend Mr. Clarke thought the best thing to do to obtain publicity for his appearance before the committee was to attack a few of the committees here. I am sure that my right honourable friend appreciates, in the quietness of the evening, just how valuable the work of both the European Committee and the Science and Technology Committee is.
We have had an extremely valuable debate. The Government have listened carefully to all that has been said. I believe that it would be wise for us to seek to put into written form a considered reply to the committee's report, and that the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, giving plenty of time to the House before the matter is finally decided, would be appropriate.
It is a most valuable report. I am sure that it will not be shelved. I shall be most concerned to see that

1015
substantial parts of it are pursued. I believe that our committee deserves to he thoroughly congratulated on taking such a major step forward.
11.6 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, at the end of this short debate it is only appropriate that I should not make one of my longer speeches, such as those made by the Abbé Bossuet and what used to be called a discours fleuve. Mine today will be marginally less.
I should like to extend my thanks—and this is not just polite waffle—to all those massed battalions who have put duty before Epsom this afternoon; and for the contributions that they have made to the debate. It has been a useful discussion. I heard what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said with regard to the follow-up, and I believe it is the follow-up which will be really important.
I should like to thank also all those who said nice, nasty or mixed things about the report. Irrespective of agreement or disagreement on this or that point, I believe everybody is agreed that it is right that we keep our committee structure under review; that we keep it up to date, moving with the times and as flexible as possible. I felt that there was a large measure of agreement in that regard.
I thank again the members of the committee, which I had the honour to chair, for all the experience and industry they brought to bear and for the help and guidance which they extended to the often faltering footsteps of their chairman. In doing so, perhaps I can give special thanks to that particularly experienced and valuable member of our committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who would certainly have been with us today had not illness made that impossible.
I should trespass unduly on your Lordships' extraordinary patience if I sought to wind up in the three-hour fashion that I described; but perhaps I can make a few points. I was glad to hear the fairly wide support given to a number of recommendations which lay at or near the heart of our report—and there were exceptions to this—for the continued occasional use of Public Bill Committees and for the experiment, or perhaps more than an experiment after what was said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, for special standing committees.
There was widespread support too for the appointment of a delegated powers scrutiny committee. We have heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say on that and his teasing remarks. I understand that this matter will continue to be looked at. There was also widespread support for ad hoc committees. There was almost unanimous support for what we have said about them.
I am really following in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in a Tordoffian fashion. I believe that there was unanimous agreement on the deserved very high standing of our existing two sessional Select Committees; namely, of Science and Technology and of the European Communities.
Perhaps I may make a few remarks about rotation. I believe that we are rather close, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack feels. About 48 months at the present time might be a sensible
1016
measure. Whether it is three, four or five years is not absolutely vital. I was very interested in the remarks which have been made on the subject.
I was also very interested in the critique of some of the things said about a possible slight massage of the structure of the European Communities Committee. On that matter all that can be said has been said and taken account of. In some quarters of your Lordships' House there was perhaps an underlying feeling that one of the driving forces behind our report was the need for financial restraint and that we simply accepted that no significant increase in Clerk resources was possible. That is very far from the view of the committee. There is a great list in paragraph 166 of the report. If the full implementation of what we propose is going to require more staff, I am one who feels that we should press very hard for the resources to he provided.
As regards the steering committee, many useful suggestions have been made about it. A great deal of care must now be taken that we get its composition, chairmanship and remit right. That said, I remain absolutely convinced that, if the House is to widen its committee activity even a little, some system of oversight or co-ordination must be established to look at resources, to establish priorities and to keep our system flexible and up-to-date but not, I stress, to meddle or to dictate. To put it as clearly and succinctly as I can—I believe that I am expressing the views of all the members of the committee —we did not see this proposed steering committee as an interfering busybody of a nanny but rather as a helpful and constructive midwife.
The system as it stands will simply not deliver. Having said that, there are clearly matters that need to be looked at such as the name. In the view of our committee it is not the essential thing. There is the question of membership. We suggested two experienced Back-Benchers and maybe the number should be three or four. I do not know. That should be looked at. As to the chairmanship, at the time we suggested that it might be the Lord Chairman of Committees. I feel that there is a strong sentiment at present that the chairman might and should properly be the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not think that we would quarrel with that if that were the final decision.
In conclusion, I should like to express the hope, put so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that the House will show that it means business and will not allow our report to gather dust on the shelf. I was extremely encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said about that in his summing up. But we all know what governments are. I should just like to suggest to your Lordships' House, with 1977 and all that in mind, that we should keep an eye on progress. All that said, and thanking again all noble Lords who have made such a contribution to what has been a not uninteresting debate, I commend the report to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Woodgrange Park Cemetery and Crematorium Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a special report was made; it was ordered that the special report be printed.

British Railways (No.2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o' clock.

  NO. 2 MARSHAM STREET
  NO. 2 MARSHAM STREET
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 26th MAY
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 26th MAY
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: POLICY GUIDANCE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: POLICY GUIDANCE
  CANARY WHARF: GRANTS
  CANARY WHARF: GRANTS
  MARKHAM GAS FIELD: TREATY
  MARKHAM GAS FIELD: TREATY
  REFERENCES TO THE MMC: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  REFERENCES TO THE MMC: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  LAND-MINE CLEARANCE PROGRAMMES
  LAND-MINE CLEARANCE PROGRAMMES