Sitting of 4 November 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    MIDLAND METRO (NO. 3) BILL
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Manufactured Goods
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufactured goods for (a) 1978 and (b) the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The United Kingdom had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of £5·05 billion in 1978, with imports at £22·67 billion and exports at £27·72 billion. In the past 12 months, to September 1992, it had a deficit of £6·18 billion, with imports at £92·16 billion and exports at £85·98 billion. Export volume remains strong.
    Mr. Howarth: Is not the picture even worse than that, because, every year since 1983, we have had a deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods, peaking in 1989 at just under £17 billion? When will the Government stop being so complacent about that appalling situation and do something about it? When will they put in place a strategy for manufacturing, instead of the inactivity and hopelessness that we have faced in the past few months?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the trade deficit in manufactured goods has been a long time in coming. Between 1974 and 1979, imports increased by some 37 per cent. and export volumes by 11 per cent. whereas, between 1979 and 1991, imports increased by 100 per cent. and export volumes by 59 per cent. The figures under the previous Labour Government were three times worse than under this Administration.
    Mr. Fry: In view of the disappointing figures that my hon. Friend has just given, will he explain why he has not agreed with our Community partners to impose limits on the importation of Chinese footwear and has acted against the advice of the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation and the vast majority of footwear manufacturers? The failure to take that step will result in fewer jobs in this country and increased imports.
    Mr. Needham: The volume increases in exports over the past 13 years has averaged 4 per cent compared with 2 per
    264
    cent. under the previous Administration. In fact, in the past four years our share of world markets has stabilised and, if anything, increased. I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about the footwear industry, but Chinese imports represent a small proportion of total footwear sales in Britain. We will continue to consider carefully whether the EC rules have been breached in relation to the import of footwear, but, at the moment, we believe that it is not possible to take the action that my hon. Friend requests within the free trade environment of the Community.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware of the huge job losses in the aerospace, steel and textile industries? Why are the Government so complacent? Why do they not bring before the House a policy to promote and defend manufacturing industry in Britain?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows from his own constituency experience what has happened to the steel industry, which has changed dramatically in the past few years. He knows that British steel exports are 10 times higher than they were several years ago. He will be aware also from his constituency experience of the number of lost jobs that have been replaced by those created by companies such as Toyota. Of course, the Government accept that British industry and manufacturing are crucial and that is why support for our export volumes and export promotion is a vital ingredient of our policy.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not devaluation potentially a most encouraging prospect for British manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We now have a tremendous opportunity—I speak as Minister for Trade—to get out and sell British products abroad. We also now have an opportunity to ensure that we can replace imports with locally produced goods.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the number of jobs created in the past 12 months as a result of his Department's programmes and policies.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The aim of the Department of Trade and Industry's programmes and policies is to help United Kingdom business compete successfully at home, in the rest of Europe and throughout the world.
    Mr. Mitchell: In the past three years, the Government have managed to destroy 600,000 jobs in manufacturing industry, thanks to their policy of high exchange rates and high interest rates. Now that they have been forced out of that deflationary bunker and have a chance to do something different, what proposals does the Minister have to encourage import substitution, so that British industry can win back more of its own market?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can think of no policy more destructive of jobs in manufacturing than the policy that the hon. Gentleman supports, of anti-European Community membership. However, I acknowledge that he is at least consistent, unlike the Labour Front Bench.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best job creation programme that his Department could pursue is to ensure that we get a successful outcome in the GATT—general agreement on tariffs and trade—negotiations? Does he agree that the situation is now very serious and poses an immense threat to the traded goods sector of manufacturing in this country? How is it that 2·5 per cent. of Europe's population—the French farmers—have apparently hijacked the pan-European negotiating position? What is going on?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of a successful outcome in the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations. Clearly, it would provide a non-inflationary stimulus to the world economy at a time when it is much needed. He will be aware of the great difficulties in arriving at a successful outcome and of the efforts that have been made. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have been at the forefront of those efforts, but great difficulties remain.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that even the pathetic efforts of his Department to aid British industry are being effectively undermined by policies that have been established by the Treasury, which seeks to impose a further VAT burden on industry by requiring it to pay VAT on account rather than in arrears? In my constituency, that is causing an additional serious burden, which is costing jobs. What does the Minister intend to do about that?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that one of the most important ways to create an environment that encourages business is to improve the tax environment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the rates of corporation tax and personal tax now, as opposed to those that we inherited from the Labour Government in 1979, he will see that we have made immense progress.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that new jobs will be generated by the creation of new, and the development of existing, small businesses? Is he aware that many small businesses complain bitterly about the red tape and regulation that 2 million of them have to face? What progress has his Deepartment made in tackling that serious problem?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the important role of small businesses in job creation, not only directly through the jobs that they provide but indirectly through the service that they provide as suppliers to larger companies. I agree also with my hon. Friend about the importance of deregulation. We have had a drive to remove the burdens of bureaucracy from small businesses. We have not yet achieved enough, but I am happy to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is renewing that drive and is determined that we shall make real progress. I fear that the Opposition remain committed to imposing just the sort of regulatory burdens on business that destroy jobs.
    Mr. Fatchett: With 600,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the past two years, with job losses in manufacturing industry now running at 50,000 a month and with the Engineering Employers Federation predicting 100,000 job losses in the next 12 months, is it not clear that the Government have totally failed manufacturing industry?
    266
    Now that one President in the United States has lost his job, would not the best policy for this country be for the President of the Board of Trade to lose his job as well?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I constantly hope that one day I will hear someone from the Opposition Front Bench say something complimentary about the achievements of British industry. I remind the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] My comment is not confined to the Opposition Front Bench. It would be nice to hear something in favour of British industry said from anywhere on the Opposition Benches. I remind Opposition Members that one of the most remarkable achievements has been the increase of more than 50 per cent. in the productivity of manufacturing industry under the Government.

    EH101 Helicopter
    Sir Jim Spicer: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for methods by which Her Majesty's Government can enhance the sale prospects of the EH101.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My Department has provided £60 million of launch aid for the civil version of the EH101. We shall help to promote export sales of the civil version through our overseas trade services and we are ready to respond to any requests for assistance in pursuing civil export sales prospects.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of the EH101 has been a remarkable success for European co-operation? Beyond that, does he understand that the export market for the EH101 will bring jobs to Westland—a highly successful company—and to 600 small businesses throughout the country? Will he do all that he can to ensure that his Department helps in every way possible to secure the success of an overseas export drive?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of progress on the EH101 and of the potential market for that excellent helicopter in Europe and elsewhere. I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Department of Trade and Industry will do all that we can to help sales of the civil version both overseas and at home.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy with respect to enlarging the manufacturing base.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): We shall give whatever help is appropriate and affordable in support of the manufacturing sector.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a pathetic answer? He is the man who told the Tory party conference that he would intervene all day, every day, if necessary. Manufacturing industry is still continuing to shed jobs at an horrendous rate. Manufacturers—not those on the Labour party's side of the political debate—are now afraid that their base has shrunk and that it is not sustainable. What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that? What will he do about putting public money into schemes that will create

    267
    manufacturing excellence for the future? For example, when will we see the Jubilee line project and investment in British Rail come on stream?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman realises that many of his supplementary questions can be answered only in the context of the "Autumn Statement" by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, let me help the hon. Gentleman specifically. I have no doubt that he is delighted that we have seen industry save £9 billion in interest charges as a result of the recent reduction in interest rates. He will be delighted to know also that the United Kingdom attracted one third of all inward investment into the European Community in 1990–91. He will understand that there is no base except one of low inflation from which we can see an expanding economy.
    Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency has attracted three Japanese companies to its industrial park, which will bring 300 or 400 jobs to the area. How much damage does he think that an adverse vote tonight at the end of the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill might cause to inward investment in my constituency?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has asked a central question. I shall give the House the figures as an indication of the scale of the success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment. In 1991–92, the Invest in Britain Bureau recorded 332 direct investment projects by foreign companies in the United Kingdom, which will create or safeguard 50,000 jobs. The United Kingdom has 36·1 per cent. of American and 40·9 per cent. of Japanese direct investment in the EC. It is critical that we do nothing to prejudice the certainty of these companies that the United Kingdom is a part of the single market and that it intends to remain so.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British industry has shown considerable resolution in weathering a vicious recession, the longest in the post-war period? Is he further aware that industry had hoped that when he came to office there would be, at long last, personal leadership and a strategy for the manufacturing sector? Unless a clear lead and strategy are forthcoming shortly, the right hon. Gentleman will he seen to be like other Ministers—a do-nothing President.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of Britain's manufacturing economy. He knows that a policy of direct subsidy by the public sector has been a disaster in terms of advancing the manufacturing base. No man has greater personal experience of how that happens.
    Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the largest manufacturing industries—I refer especially to the intensive energy users—are being crippled by increasing electricity prices? One company in my constituency has had a 50 per cent. price increase in four years and is paying almost £2 million in nuclear levy. Despite many representations, we are making no progress in this matter. Will my right hon. Friend take a personal interest and try to lift the burden off intensive energy users?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy about that matter, so I am fully aware of his concern and that of a number of
    268
    colleagues. I assure him that we will take a considerable personal interest in this matter in the review that is under way.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the President recall that, during his years in the wilderness, he identified steel, cars and aerospace as the three key industries in our manufacturing base? Is he aware that, during the past month, British Steel has cut output by one fifth, Ford has suspended production and British Aerospace has been exporting jobs to Taiwan?
    The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner. If I bought him lunch, would he intervene to save at least one of those industries? If not, can he name just one specific job that he has saved during the seven months since he took office?
    Mr. Heseltine: If I were invited to sup with the hon. Gentleman, I would take the longest spoon that I could find. He knows that British Steel is now exporting successfully. He knows that Japanese inward investment in our car industry is likely to turn a deficit into a surplus. He knows that aerospace is one of our major exporting industries.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: On the subject of Japanese inward investment, is my right hon. Friend aware that what attracts Japan is our access to the European single market? Is he further aware that, for reasons that I shall explain if I am successful in catching your eye, Madam Speaker, the Japanese would prefer that we did not ratify the Maastricht treaty? They are certainly strongly opposed to monetary union for Britain and for Europe.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has as much knowledge as any in the House about the inward investment arguments. However, his view is not that put to me by the significant number of Japanese who visit my Department.

    Defence Diversification
    Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new initiatives he now proposes to introduce to increase diversification in those industries losing work as a result of the reduction in demand for armaments.
    Mr. Heseltine: The Government believe that decisions about diversification are essentially matters for companies themselves. Nevertheless, they encourage such diversification—for example, through their regional seminars, which have drawn attention to Government assistance and to opportunities in other markets.
    Mr. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that both the management and the work force in industries that are heavily dependent on defence-oriented products —which is very much the case in the north-west and Lancashire—will be concerned about his answer? Is he aware that they believe that he and the Government have a duty to help diversification and to ensure that the industries and the skills of the work force are preserved within civil manufacture? Should not those jobs be secured to preserve the nation's manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Heseltine: The House has rarely heard such hypocrisy from a member of the Opposition, who in the

    269
    1980s threatened to close one third of our defence industries to pander to nuclear disarmers and mobs on the street.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that less diversification would be needed if we in this country did not open our contracts to tender to those European countries that do not reciprocate with our arms industries? May I ask my right hon. Friend when he believes that the single market will be implemented and policed in every member state? Is not that the way forward to a better Europe for trading?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her continuing interest in these matters. I hope that she will feel able to support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Lobby tonight in his determination to achieve more effective policing of the European Community.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that his first answer was unsatisfactory? Does he accept that more than half of Britain's research and development industry is in the aerospace and defence sectors, which are being savagely cut? Organising regional seminars will not ensure that Britain leads the way in technology in either the single European market or world markets. Does he not need to do more to ensure that we diversify our high-tech industries?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman displays a remarkable naivety. No companies are coming to my Department to ask my civil servants for advice on how to run their businesses. Diversification will take place in British industry as a result of the entrepreneurial skills of industry managers, and no one else.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree with voters in Scarborough and Whitby who say that the social chapter would suffocate jobs and enterprise?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has hit a bull's eye. It is precisely because the Labour party wishes to enshrine the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty that it would impose intolerable costs, willy-nilly, on British industry.
    Mr. Byers: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on Tyneside wishes to diversify into the merchant shipbuilding sector but, in so doing, will be in direct competition with German shipyards that presently receive a 36 per cent. subsidy from the European Commission? In the light of that, will the President agree to make intervention funding available? Will he also consider using the provisions of article 4·5 of the seventh shipbuilding directive to protect Swan Hunter from unfair competition? Does he accept that Government action is essential if we are to win those orders and keep jobs on Tyneside?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have great sympathy with the difficult position of the Swan Hunter company, which we have considered carefully. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that grant mechanism was denied to the warship builders as a consequence of arrangements provided for merchant shipbuilders, not warship builders. It is not intended that we should widen the arrangement. There are understandings that preclude the east Germans from competing unfairly with British shipyard products.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend lend his support to the case of training and enterprise councils, particularly the TEC for my district of Kingston and south-west London, which is battling to provide jobs for British Aerospace workers who have been made redundant or are in danger of losing their jobs because of the loss of the Harrier?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The role of the TECs is widely admired. I share responsibility for the TECs with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope to make further announcements in the near future about the positive opportunities for TECs.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the President accept that his seminars were held many months ago and 250,000 workers in aerospace, shipbuilding, electronics and engineering are still waiting for a response? If not, can he simply confirm that he has drawn no conclusions, formed no policy, taken no action and his cupboard is bare?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is ill-informed. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry attended such a seminar in the north-east only 10 days ago. The companies know full well that civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry do not and should not have the skills to explain to British management how to diversify product range. That is a management responsibility, which we should not blur.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the 500 extra jobs that have been created by British Aerospace at Prestwick? Will he also take note of a letter that has been circulated today by the chief executive of British Aerospace urging that the Maastricht treaty must be progressed? Will he join me in urging Opposition Members from Ayrshire to vote with us in the Lobby tonight in support of the chief executive of British Aerospace?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an impassioned plea, but I have never seen the Labour party vote in the interests of British industry one way or another.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of pit closures on public services in the areas affected.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): We have announced a package of measures aimed at economic regeneration of the communities which may be affected. We will be working in partnership with local authorities and development organisations. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has asked Lord Walker to co-ordinate these measures.
    Mr. Hughes: The President's announcement on pit closures, together with the multiplier effect, will mean the loss of some 100,000 jobs. Has the Minister read the recent report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which shows that in the former heartland of the Welsh coalfield—the four counties of West Glamorgan, Mid-Glamorgan, Dyfed and Gwent—20 per cent. of all males are inactive and that there is all manner of social and health deprivation. Is not it a pretty shameful indictment

    271
    of a son of Swansea that he should now be contemplating bringing the same havoc and distress to so many other communities in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman so writes down the considerable achievements of the noble Lord Walker in regenerating economic activity in south Wales. It is widely accepted that considerable efforts were made by the noble Lord, his predecessor and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Wales. Indeed, many parts of the United Kingdom look with admiration at what has been achieved in south Wales in the past decade.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that if the review is comprehensive and fair, most of the pits will not close?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend has made his position very clear. The review will be conducted openly and will encompass a wide number of issues. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his views clear to the review, as he has to me privately.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Government be prepared riot only to refrain from granting further licences for gas-fired stations while the review continues but to make it clear that licences will be revoked where the review shows that the licence should not have been granted in the first place?
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House would not want me to prejudice the results of the review. Existing contracts for independent power projects are subject to the regulator, who has announced that he will consider the economics of the projects with a view to pronouncing some time in mid-December. Future approvals are covered by the review, and doubtless it and the White Paper will comment on the issue.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has had a proud record in the past 20 years of creating new jobs and new job opportunities in steel-closure areas and, more recently, in coal-closure areas? In the last year up until the end of September, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. created 9,482 jobs in the coal-closure areas. Jobs can be created, and if British Coal Enterprise's efforts can be increased, it can deal with the current problem.
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend that. British Coal Enterprise has a first-class record. It is not perhaps widely enough known that some 86 per cent. of all former miners who have registered with British Coal Enterprise since 1987 have found jobs within 18 months.
    Mr. Steinberg: In view of the proposed destruction of the north-east coalfield, will the Minister tell the House what he proposes for Tursdale workshops in my constituency which employs 300 men? If the coalfield is to be decimated, are these jobs safe or will this workshop close, with the destruction of the industry for the people in my constituency and their families?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern and of the concern of other hon. Gentlemen in the north-east on that particular issue. While not directly the subject of the review, it is a matter which will have to be taken into account during the review period, and I will make sure that British Coal is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of his constituents.

    Overseas Relocation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he has to discourage British firms from relocating overseas.
    Mr. Sainsbury: It is for British firms to make their own decisions about where to locate.
    Mr. Flynn: Is it not true that the Government do not even count the number of jobs lost to this country abroad? Is it not rather like trying to fill a bath by watching the water coming in and failing to notice that the plug has been pulled out and that jobs are syphoning off to other countries? From Cwmbran and Pontypool and from Inmos in my constituency thousands of jobs have gone to other continental countries because of lack of investment in British industry. Is it not true that the Minister's Department has done nothing every day for the past six months to help British industry before breakfast, before dinner and before supper and that he has got up the next morning and done nothing again? When will the Government show the same faith in British industry as the Italian, the Belgian and the German Governments?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can appreciate why the hon. Member is concerned about potential job losses from a factory in his own constituency, but he has made some extraordinarily wild and inaccurate allegations about the alleged support available elsewhere, and he seems totally to overlook the massive number of jobs created in this country by inward investors, not just from the United States, Japan or the far east but from other parts of Europe, coming here because we create the right environment to encourage enterprise.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that the 500 jobs created in Prestwick in Scotland represent a direct transfer of jobs from Woodford which is located on the periphery of my constituency. That may be considered as transferring jobs overseas, I am not sure, but will my hon. Friend accept that many major manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom are transferring thousands of jobs to other parts of the world, particularly to the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific basin and, in doing so, are transferring and shipping to those countries not only the jobs but the highly sophisticated, modern machinery which will then be used in employing people in those countries to compete against manufacturers in this country?
    When will the Government realise that manufacturing industry is the only source of non-inflationary economic growth and that we need an industrial strategy now. not tomorrow?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the whole House is well aware of the great interest that my hon. Friend takes in manufacturing industry. Because of that interest he will be aware that not just in this year or this decade or even this century it has been the pattern of manufacturing industry to diversify and invest in other countries. There has always been change. Without it, we cannot have an effective and competitive manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Bell: But even the Minister of State will accept that investment abroad is not covering the balance of payments deficit on our manufactured exports. The Government's policy over the past 13 years has failed. It is no longer good enough for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and

    273
    say that it is up to British industry to locate where it will. When the Single European Act comes into force on 1 January we will be looking for investment in this country by British firms in British industry, in British goods and in British jobs. Where will the Department of Trade and Industry be? Will it be on the coat tails of the Treasury?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know what British industry would think of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is not good enough for the Department of Trade and Industry to say that industry can make its own decisions about where to invest. Does the hon. Gentleman want to bring back industrial development certificates?
    Mr. John Marshall: Is not industry more likely to locate in Britain because of low corporate taxes, low interest rates and the fact that the social chapter does not apply here?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right, and our success in attracting inward investment, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have already referred, is evidence of that. If one thing could deter any inward investor in Britain it would be imposing the social chapter upon British industry.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will presume against the granting of further opencast coal licences during the period of the moratorium on deep mine closures.
    Mr. Eggar: It is for the planning authorities, taking account of all material matters, to determine whether individual applications for opencast mining should be approved.
    Mr. Lewis: Given the problems of the Government's own making in the coal industry, should not the Department of Trade and Industry take a more hands-on approach? The people whom I represent who are threatened by the huge Lomax coal application in Greater Manchester consider it stupid and crass to be ruining communities in deep mine areas while expanding opencast mining and ruining the lives of people who are threatened by that intrusive method of winning coal. We need a sensible overall policy which satisfies the needs of opencast and deep mine coal communities.
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the concern about opencast mining in many parts of the country, but I am also aware that in some parts of the country, such as Scotland and the north-east, opencast mining is critical to the survivability of deep mines, so it is a complex matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the particular matter to which he referred is currently before the planning authorities. As I understand it, the precise proposal is to opencast some 470 hectares, of which 77 hectares have been described as the biggest coal spoil heap in Europe, and there are some who see considerable environmental benefits from that operation. However, it is a matter for the planning authorities.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), opencast mining must be part of the general coal scene, and it is no part of the survival of the general coal
    274
    industry to start being restrictive about a profitable part of it? Therefore will he resist the temptation offered by the hon. Gentleman's question?
    Mr. Eggar: This must be a matter for the planning authorities. It is now widely recognised throughout the House and among people who take an interest in mining matters that there is a role for opencast mining both in reducing the average cost of British coal by reducing its sulphur content and in blending. Overall, it improves the long-term competitiveness of a number of deep-mined pits rather than harming it.
    Mr. Tipping: The Government and British Coal are closing down five of the 12 collieries in Nottinghamshire and there is a world energy surplus, yet British Coal is tearing up green fields, hedgerows and trees on the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire border. Does not that reflect a dereliction of duty by the Government and the lack of an adequate energy framework?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that a blend of methods is required. The precise question that I was asked related to the planning application system and the exact procedure for that is well known. The hon. Gentleman knows that a high proportion of planning applications for opencast mines are turned down.
    Mrs. Peacock: Any opencast coal licences which are granted by the Government will not be well received in Yorkshire, particularly in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Eggar: That is clearly a matter for the planning authorities. A number of applications are in the pipeline, but it goes without saying that part of the review on which we have embarked will inevitably consider the role and level of opencast mining, just as it will consider other sources of energy and the specific 21 collieries that are part of that review.
    Mr. Barron: Last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment told the Energy Select Committee that he was currently revising the mineral planning guidance relating to opencast coal, and that he would report to the House within four weeks. Given that he also said that he had had discussions with other Departments, is it likely that we shall have more opencast coal in Britain next year, or less?
    Mr. Eggar: That point, along with others, will be considered in the review. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that most predictions suggest that an increase in production from opencast sources is not likely; the general consensus is that, if anything, the trend will be downwards. There is also a general consensus, however—with which I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—that we still need a significant level of opencast production to enhance the general competitiveness of deep-mined pits.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is not a local planning matter? Green-field sites are seldom dealt with locally; the material relating to them arrives at the Department. I think that the Opposition's request for a stop on any licences for opencast mining while a review is taking place is very reasonable. My hon. Friend may like to consider gas licences at the same time.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government have announced that the issue of gas consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 will be a matter for the review to consider, and that no licences will be granted until the review itself has been considered. The specific question raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is currently examining possible revisions for mineral planning guidance note No. 3. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to make a judgment from the Dispatch Box on planning applications that are currently in the pipeline.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet representatives of the 10 pits threatened with closure before the end of the consultation period.
    Mr. Heseltine: Representations are best made to British Coal, as it is currently engaged in the statutory consultation process relating to the 10 pits.
    Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but I hope that he will reconsider. Not only would meeting those representatives be the decent thing to do, but they would be able to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the devastating effect that the closures will have on the communities involved. More importantly, the 7,500 miners affected have thought through very clearly their arguments for the viability not just of their own pits, but of the British coal industry as part of the energy strategy. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider meeting the representatives? I think that it would be a very good thing if he did, from all points of view.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. A statutory process is now under way; as the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is sub judice, and I therefore cannot discuss a number of issues connected with it. However, it would not be helpful for me to agree to the hon. Gentleman's request.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the last time that a Government imposed an energy strategy on the economy. they saddled the economy with the most expensive nuclear power in the free world, with coal at well over world prices, while our competitors shopped around for cheap gas and coal and their economies benefited as a result?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made an important point. In the end, we have a responsibility to ensure that British industry is supplied with competitively priced fuel. As the House knows, however, all such matters are now subject to the comprehensive review that is under way.
    Mr. Benn: Did the President of the Board of Trade authorise British Coal to issue redundancy notices to all the miners working in the 31 pits? If so, in what sense can the review be held to be open?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has raised that question with me before, and I have asserted that the assurances that I gave the House about no compulsory redundancy are valid. British Coal is complying with its statutory obligations so that it can offer voluntary redundancy where miners seek to achieve it.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his recent announcement about the closure of the 31
    276
    collieries has struck at the heart of this nation, and that people in my constituency, who live many miles from the coal mines, have been greatly concerned about the effects of the closure programme on local economies? When he meets the representatives of the 10 collieries already threatened with closure, will he discuss with them how we can revitalise those economies? Does he further agree that ratifying the Maastricht treaty will help to encourage more inward investment into this country, including the areas where mines are to close?
    Mr. Heseltine: As my hon. Friend will have heard me say to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I cannot undertake to meet representatives of the 10 pits that were in the closure programme and are now subject to statutory consultation—but my hon. Friend can certainly be sure that I shall meet representatives of the miners in the context of the general review which is proceeding. I entirely support my hon. Friend's view that in order to proceed with the diversification of economic activity in the affected areas it is important to attract inward investment into this country.
    Mr. Robin Cook: As the President of the Board of Trade will not meet representatives from the 10 pits, may I tell him that, when people see their own pits being closed, there is deep cynicism among the work forces as to whether consultation is genuine? If it is genuine, why are props being removed from the coal face at Grimethorpe? Why has millions of pounds worth of equipment at Silverhill already been buried? Why has equipment at Cotgrave been allowed to buckle under pressure? Would not the best way to maintain the pits be to keep them producing coal? Why not let the miners, who are being paid to turn up every day at the surface, go underground to cut coal?
    Mr. Heseltine: As I have explained to the House before, there is no market for the coal that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to produce. The miners know that the coal produced in the past has been added to the stocks at the pitheads and the generating stations, but—[Interruption.] This is an important aspect of what I have tried to do since I announced the review. Several right hon. and hon. Members have suggested to my Department that British Coal is in some way not honouring its commitment to put the 10 pits on a care and maintenance basis, so that if the statutory proceedings determine that the pits should continue in existence, they will be able to do so. I have personally investigated every suggestion put to me, by taking the matter up with British Coal, and I am satisfied with the assurance given to me by British Coal that none of the 10 pits has been prejudiced, should the outcome of the consultations suggest their continued life.

    Northern Region
    Ms. Quin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet representatives of industry and employees in the northern region to discuss the industrial situation in the region.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the northern region, but I intend to visit the region again before Christmas. This should provide a good opportunity to discuss the local industrial situation.
    Ms. Quin: Has the Minister seen the report, "Business Survey North" by the Northern Development Company and the Tyneside and Teesside chambers of commerce? It points out that the northern region's economy is falling back to the level to which it plunged so disastrously 18 months ago—and that prospects are even bleaker now. Can he persuade his right hon. Friend the President to have an urgent business breakfast with the authors of the report—or better still, to intervene to help our region before breakfast?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the concern in the north-east, a region which until recently has managed to cope with the general economic situation well compared with many other regions of the United Kingdom. I have had discussions with several leading business men from the region, and I believe that one of its strengths, which it did not previously have, is a much more diversified economic base over a number of different industrial sectors. That is of considerable assistance.
    When I was in the north-east I was pleased by the determination, especially in the small business sector, to go ahead with new technology, and I was heartened by the response of many smaller firms and their interest in taking advantage of the considerable potential orders available in the United Kingdom continental shelf and the Norwegian North sea.
    Mr. Devlin: As the report points out that 73 per cent. of goods manufactured in our region are exported to the European Community, and as our region has been one of the leading beneficiaries of inward investment from outside the Community, does my hon. Friend agree that when he next talks to business men in the northern region he should point out to them the importance of ratifying the Maastricht treaty at the earliest opportunity? Does he agree that all Members of Parliament in the region who support the Community should vote with the Government tonight?
    Mr. Eggar: There will be no need for me to make that point to business men in the north-east. They have been in the forefront of pointing out to me the need for ratification of the treaty.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that north-east business man of the year, Karl Watkin, told members of the Tyne and Wear chamber of commerce on Monday that if any of them did their jobs as badly as Ministers did theirs, they would all be sacked? As we have developed our own political and development agency structure in the northern region, does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate for him to hand over responsibility for his Department's budget for the region to people who represent the region, live in the region and better understand the needs and aspirations of the people of the region?
    Mr. Eggar: I pay tribute to those regional organisations and, indeed, to a significant number of local authorities in the north-east who have developed a partnership concept and are working with central Government on regeneration projects. For example, I was struck by the positive action of the east Durham initiative, which deals with Easington and Vane Tempest collieries and other areas. I hope that we can get a proper partnership working there for the good of the region and especially of the coalfield areas.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware of the advice given today by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which represents much of industry in the north of England and many other regions? It said that the industry placed the utmost importance on the House giving a clear affirmation today of Britain's commitment to being at the heart of the European Community.
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Almost all companies that come to see Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry which are considering inward investment or expansion see the market for their products as the whole of the European Community—not simply the United Kingdom. I hope that the whole House will bear that in mind and also bear in mind the views of leading industrialists in Britain.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect of the pit closure programme on the balance of payments deficit.
    Mr. Eggar: Pit closures, caused by falling domestic coal demand, have little effect on trade or international payments.
    Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister aware that we already import 20 million tonnes of foreign coal, some mined by child labour in Colombia, and that the position will get worse if we go ahead with pit closures? Is he further aware that all independent experts—and the Minister's Department in Energy Paper 59—suggest that there will be massive imports of gas if the dash for gas continues? Is he aware that that will have a devastating effect on an already appalling balance of payments deficit which is a brake on growth and the development of full employment?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost all counts. No coal mined by child labour is imported to the United Kingdom. We have had a categorical assurance from the Colombian authorities to that effect. It shows a complete misunderstanding about coal production methods in Colombia even to assert that coal is mined by child labour. The hon. Gentleman went on to predict increased imports of gas into the United Kingdom. He seems to be unaware that the share of imports has fallen in the past five years and is predicted to fall further in the next five years. The issues of coal production and generation of electricity by gas are, of course, matters for the comprehensive review which is currently being undertaken.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend explain why, in a free-trade Europe, it is not possible for us to export coal produced at £40 a tonne to countries such as Germany, which produce lots of coal at £86 a tonne, and could even send us some specialist coal? Has the European Community allowed the Germans a system of huge subsidies for their coal while making it clear that if Britain applied for subsidies for our coal, the answer would be no?
    Mr. Eggar: The whole future of the EC coal subsidy regime is still to be discussed in the forthcoming years. We cannot export coal because the production costs of British coal are a long way above world coal prices. It is about twice as expensive to produce British deep-mined coal and to get it to the top as to import coal to power stations. One

    279
    of the challenges that faces British Coal—it will be the subject of the comprehensive review—is to find ways of reducing the costs associated with the production of British deep-mined coal.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does not the Minister appreciate that there is great anger and frustration among British electricity consumers because of the purchasing of nuclear power from France, power which attracts subsidy under the nuclear levy? Will he terminate the contract in 1993 when it comes up for renewal and thus enable 5 million tonnes of British coal to be used to generate the electricity that would otherwise come from France in the form of nuclear power?
    Mr. Eggar: That will be taken into account during the review too. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was responsible for originating the agreement with the French—an agreement which is in a treaty protocol.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up.

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. Ray Powell

    Mr. Bob Cryer

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Privatisation of Gipsy Sites
3.31 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Caravan Sites Act 1968; to make further provision regarding illegal parking of caravans; and for connected purposes.
This is clearly a matter that will be dealt with under the motion that follows this Bill, in that it will be the subject of the subsidiarity which is enshrined in the Maastricht Bill.
This Bill is about protecting the human rights and civil liberties of the law-abiding, property-owning resident population from the people known as travellers who seek to trespass, molest, vandalise and to intimidate others in self-righteous pursuit of their chosen way of life—at the expense of all other people.
At the same time, the Bill seeks to protect and enhance legitimate gipsies who lead a traditionally nomadic life by selling them local government-owned sites for them to control and manage in their own way. The Bill seeks to put the citizens of this country on an equal footing before the law—[Interruption.]—while respecting the liberties of all to lead the lives of their choosing.
My Bill was stimulated by the anger and fear instigated by the arrival of huge numbers of shiny and expensive caravans, hauled by Range Rovers, Jaguars and other expensive motor vehicles, on green belt land near the town of Hertford and near other villages and towns in my constituency. These people then encamped illegally, without sanitation, and in full view of a council house estate, many of whose residents had waited months and years to gain a council tenancy.[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. It is most unfair that the hon. Gentleman should be having such difficulty in making himself heard. That remark applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will those hon. Members who wish to have conversations please leave the Chamber and have them elsewhere?
Mr. Wells: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your protection.
Many people on the housing estates, who were so affronted by these trespassers on green belt land, had waited months and years for the opportunity to gain a house with a lovely view. They could not even allow their children to play on the playing fields for fear that they would be injured and bullied by the children of the travelling families encamped in those fields. They cancelled their holidays because they could not leave their property, knowing that it would be burgled and otherwise interfered with if they did.
When we eventually managed to get rid of these people by legal means, a month later, they left behind them huge
282
mounds of filth, dirt, broken cars and refuse of all kinds, which we in the local community had to pay to clean up. That has happened not once but three or four times on the same land, and these people subsequently moved on to other land in my constituency and constituencies nearby.
Clause 1 would repeal the section in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 that requires local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies. Clause 2 would require local authorities to sell by auction, within 12 months of the passage of the Act, all the sites they own. They must first, however, be offered to recognised gipsy organisations such as the National Gypsy Council at valuation, less discounts equivalent to the maximum discounts allowed to council house tenants buying their homes.
On passage of the Act, the whole of England and Wales should then be designated under the 1968 Act, which would enable local authorities to require the police to remove those trespassing on private and public land and would make such trespass a criminal offence. Powers should be given to the police to impound caravans and other vehicles and property of the trespassers, subject to the payment of fines determined by the clause.
The National Gypsy Council very much wants to own and manage its own sites, and would make certain that they did not attract travellers other than genuine gipsies. That would force any others wishing to lead a nomadic life to use regular private sector sites in the same way as any other citizen who owns a caravan. The Bill would put gipsies, caravan owners and residents on the same basis.
I hope that the Bill will strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate rights of residents and the legitimate rights of those who traditionally lead a nomadic life, such as gipsies who lead a gipsy life in the traditional manner. It will provide for the more effective enforcement of the law for the benefit of all the citizens of England and Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bowen Wells, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Michael Spicer, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Mark Robinson and Sir Michael Grylls.

PRIVATISATION OF GIPSY SITES
Mr. Bowen Wells accordingly presented a Bill to repeal the Caravan Sites Act 1968; to make further provision regarding illegal parking of caravans; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Madam Speaker: Before we come to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I must inform the House of two things. First, more than 90 hon. Members have intimated to me that they wish to speak in the debate; I therefore ask all right hon. and hon. Members who are called to exercise a great deal of restraint. I am sure that it will be obvious that I have had to impose the 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. Secondly, I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, so let us get on with it.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Surely it is wrong that the procedures of the House do not take into account what is clearly a multi-party system. The amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party—a motion of no confidence in the Government's blundering handling of the Maastricht treaty—has widespread support in the House and in the country. What steps can be taken to protect the rights of minority parties—especially when our amendment of no confidence has the support of the majority in the country—and to ensure that their rights are upheld? Our amendment deals with the issue that is at the heart of today's debate.
Madam Speaker: All the authority I have—through our Standing Orders and procedures which have been handed down for centuries—is used to protect the rights of minority parties. The hon. Gentleman is right. He has been to see me about the matter and I am sympathetic to what he said, but I have to make a decision to protect the rights of majorities as well as those of minorities.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a solution to that problem, and it is very easy. If that minority party there —the Scottish nationalists—will tell this minority party here—the Liberals—to vote with us tonight on our amendment, they can have a vote of no confidence tomorrow.
Madam Speaker: Would that all my problems were solved as easily.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Lady seeking to raise another point of order?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that he was out of order, because he had no seat in the House when he raised his point of order.
Madam Speaker: There are so many Members crowding into the Chamber that I could not see whether he was in his place at the time. We must now make progress.
3.42 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That this House notes that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill received a majority of 244 at its second reading and was committed to a Committee of the whole House; acknowledges that the House was promised a debate prior to the committee stage; notes that the Danish Government's intentions have now been clarified; recalls the Lisbon Council's commitment to subsidiarity, the
284
Birmingham Council's agreement on a framework for decisions to implement that principle and the practical steps already taken to achieve it; recognises that the United Kingdom should play a leading role in the development of the European Community to achieve a free market Europe open to accession by other European democracies, thereby promoting employment, prosperity and investment into the United Kingdom; and invites Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill in order that the House should consider its provisions in further detail.
I should like to turn in a moment in some detail to the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the agreement at Maastricht, but I should like, for a moment, just to put this afternoon's debate in context, for I think that that is relevant.
The past two years have seen massive changes, both within Europe and beyond it in almost every part of the world. The Soviet empire has collapsed. Russia has 1,500 per cent. inflation, and the Ukraine higher still. Across the whole of eastern Europe, new democracies are looking to the west and trying to rebuild their countries in a democratic image.
In Europe, in the former Yugoslavia there is a brutal war. The United States—the mightiest economy in the world—has been struggling for the past two years. Japan has falling growth and severe problems in the financial sector. Within the European Community, Italy, France, Germany, Greece and Spain all face increasing economic difficulties as well as those that we face in the United Kingdom.
The world has not seen such a whirlwind of events coming together for many decades, and that is an important background to the debate today. The motion before us is about the treaty agreed at Maastricht, but the substance is about Britain's priorities in Europe, and the essential question there is quite simple: in this country, are we or are we not to play a central role in Europe's future development? I believe that the answer that this House gives to that question is fundamental to our future well-being—both economic and political. I have no doubt about the anwer to that question. The answer, in our own national self-interest, must be yes—we will play a central part in the future of the European Community.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister: If Opposition Members will have some patience, I will give way when I have made a little progress, but I should like to set the scene and make some progress first.
I do not believe that it is credible for this country to sit by on the sidelines of Europe and let other people determine policies. That is frankly no way for the United Kingdom to behave. It is not in our interests—not now, not in the future, not at any time. I believe that I carry the majority of people in the House in the belief that very few people would advocate leaving the European Community; so let me take our future membership as a point that is accepted across the House.
The question is, what sort of Europe is it that we wish to help build? The Community today is at a crossroads. No one should duck, dodge or weave around that question. There are important decisions to be made, now and in the immediate future, about the way in which the Community develops. We can develop as a centralist institution, as some might want, or we can develop as a free-market, free-trade, wider European Community more

285
responsive to its citizens. I am unreservedly in favour of the latter form of the Community, and I believe that that is the overwhelming view of this country.
But there is only one way in which we can bring that Community about, and I believe that it is this—by Britain playing a full part in the Community, by arguing its case, by forming alliances, by exercising its influence and authority, by persuading, by pushing, by fighting for its interests and, sometimes, by digging our toes in and saying no as we did over the social chapter and the single currency.
There is a second question of equal importance. How can a centralist federal Europe develop if some people wish to develop it? The answer to that is equally clear. A centralist Europe is most likely to develop if Britain has no influence in the Community, if it is sidelined, and if we do stand aside and let others run Europe while Britain scowls in frustration on the fringes. That is not the sort of Community that this country wants, and it would not be in the interests of this country or any political party in this country if Britain were to stand on the sidelines and let others run the Community.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty on Second Reading, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts the advice of the House authorities that, even if he were to lose the vote tonight, he could put the Bill into Committee on Monday or any time that the Government please? Is that not fact?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the answer is not as straightforward as he may suppose. Technically he may be correct, but perhaps only technically. Our position on the timing of the Committee stage is clear. We will seek to make some progress before the Edinburgh summit—we need to do so if our views on subsidiarity, enlargement and other vital issues are to carry the day when we get to that summit in Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman's views on Europe are well known —he has held them for many years—and he may be trying to comfort himself with the thought that a vote against Maastricht today will not compromise his principles, because the Government can still move ahead with the Committee stage. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the unlikely event that the Labour party amendment were carried, we would obviously listen to the views that had been expressed in this House. The hon. Gentleman cannot shrug aside the amendment that his own right hon. Friends have put down.
To return to the question that I was developing, I cannot believe that the House wants a European Community with minimum influence for this country.
Let me now deal directly with the motion and the Bill before the House.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: Not upon this point, because I should like to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to develop many questions of substance later, and I will wish to give way when we reach some of those points.
286
On 3 June, I indicated to the House that there would be a debate before resuming the Committee stage. I did so in response to the then Leader of the Opposition. Despite the amendment put down by the Opposition, the roots of this debate were a request by the Opposition in the summer. Since then, we have had the French referendum, the Danish White Paper and specific proposals and, of course, the Birmingham summit. By Christmas, 10 of the 12 member states expect to have ratified the treaty, leaving only Denmark and Britain to do so.
It is against that background that the Opposition amendment proposes that we delay ratification on the grounds that we do not yet have sufficient clarity about the Danish position or certainty about the implementation of subsidiarity.
On subsidiarity, we secured the principle in the Maastricht treaty, and it is justiciable. In Lisbon, we made progress and agreed that subsidiarity should be integrated in the work of the Community as a legally binding rule. In Birmingham, we agreed a framework for specific decisions in Edinburgh.
That framework provides for a clearer understanding of what member states should do and what needs to be done by the Community. It provides for action by the Community only where member states have given it the power to do so in the treaties, and only where proper and necessary. It also provides for the lightest possible form of legislation, with maximum freedom for member states on how best to achieve the Community's objectives.
We made more progress in Birmingham than we foresaw when we went there. Implementing decisions will be agreed in Edinburgh, and the House will probably debate subsidiarity in Committee only after Edinburgh, when the outcome of Edinburgh will be known to the House.
As regards the position of Denmark, the Danish Government have now put forward a memorandum with firm policy proposals. We shall discuss that memorandum with the Danish Government and other member states. Some of the work called for by the memorandum is already in train, and was set in train not least in Birmingham. The task that lies ahead is to find ways of accommodating the needs of the Danish Government while respecting the intention of all member states, including Denmark, not to reopen the substantive text of the Maastricht treaty itself. That is a task that will very much involve Britain as President of the Community.
Let me turn for a moment to the Opposition amendment. In June, the then Leader of the Opposition said that, before the House resumed discussion on the Maastricht Bill, we should have a written report on the Danish position and a debate. The House has the report, and this is the debate.
Against that background, it can be seen that the amendment which the Labour party has put down today is a fraud. It is a very odd amendment from an allegedly pro-European party. The amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) might usefully be called a "Napoleonic" amendment. "Not tonight Josephine," is the message from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "we'll debate it at some other time." That is not the politics of principle. It is the politics of political expediency—[Interruption.] We are told that the Leader of the Opposition is a man of great principle. We are told that he has deeply held views about Britain's place in Europe. As long ago as 1971, he said:

287
"Ministers are in a better position to secure national interests and bolster up the country's sovereignty when they are inside the conference room, not waiting outside."—[Official Report, 26 July 1971; Vol. 822; c. 128.]
I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Then, last May, he said:
"I do not think that we"—
the Labour party—
"should oppose the Maastricht treaty".
Then, in September, he said:
"I have always believed Britain's future lies in Europe and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community".
A leading role, but he is seeking to hide behind Denmark and the splits in his own party.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said just over a month ago:
"I want to see progress in the European Community as set out in the Maastricht treaty".
He wants to see progress. That is why his amendment proposes delay—so that we can see progress. These are said to be deeply held views—principled views, honourable views. Yet now all is set aside in the interests of an expedient amendment.
The Opposition would do well to recall what the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said recently, which was as follows:
"Another Labour flip-flop over Europe would not only rob the party of all credibility but would be against the best interests of Britain and the European Community."
He added that it
"would cost Labour dear."
I agree with him. He then said—the Labour party should bear this in mind—
"there would be a heavy domestic political price to be paid for yet another volte-face over Europe."
There will be.
Mr. Ashton rose—
Mr. George Howarth rose—
Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Prime Minister give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
The Prime Minister: What is the effective message from the Leader of the Opposition? It is: "Lord, give me Europe —but not yet."
Mr. Radice: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by his technical ineptitude, he has provided the circumstances in which the pro-Maastricht majority in the House can be dissipated, and ensured that pro-Maastricht Members can go with anti-Maastricht Members into the Lobby against the Government? Does he not understand that it is not the job of a Labour Member to prop up a discredited Government by supporting a motion that is procedurally unnecessary and expressly designed as a vote of confidence in himself and his Administration?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has said that he is proposing to vote for something that he does not believe in, and against something that he does believe in. If this were truly a vote of confidence, why did the Leader of the Opposition not table a vote of confidence? So much for principle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has
288
his principles cast adrift on a sea of expediency. When that happens when he is in opposition, he deserves to stay there. It is the sort of contemptible wriggling that will earn him no plaudits either here or in the Community.
I turn directly to some of the genuine concerns about the treaty that have been expressed in each and every part of the House. Sometimes people have said of the Government that we have talked too much of what is not in the treaty and too little of what is in it. I make no apology for talking about what we managed to keep out of the treaty, for I believe that it would have been damaging to the interests of this country. I took the view at Maastricht, as I do today, that a single currency cannot necessarily be in our interests, and certainly is not in our interests at this time.
The timetable that was set at Maastricht was too ambitious. I think that that is becoming increasingly apparent to nations across Europe as week succeeds week. We were therefore right to have our special protocol. It is doubtful that the necessary degree of economic convergence will be there in the time scale set out in the treaty, and I have made that point to the House on many occasions.
The danger that now exists on that issue is not that we shall get economic convergence across Europe. In present circumstances, there is a genuine danger of economic divergence.
We have made the point often enough that the social chapter would damage jobs, and I am happy to reiterate that. There is, however, much in the treaty that we want. There are both large and small things that are very much in the interests of this country.
As for some of the more modest things in the treaty, we have long sought fines on member states that do not comply with Community rules. This country complies with Community rules, and the Attorney-General would say something smartly to us if it did not. However, that has not been universally the case throughout Europe. Now, under the terms of the treaty, others must comply or they will pay a financial penalty for not doing so.
One of the matters that concerned us most in the run-up to the negotiations was that, hitherto, each and every development in the Community could go only through the central institutions—the treaty of Rome and the Commission, and justiciably through the European Court of Justice. At Maastricht, we developed a new way, and one much more amenable to the instincts of this country—co-operation by agreement between Governments, but not under the treaty of Rome. It covers interior and justice matters, foreign affairs and security, and the option is available for it to cover wider matters in future.
Some member states—I make no secret of it—had ambitions for that co-operation to be through the traditional route. We resisted that, and in doing so set a pattern for further co-operation.
Sir Anthony Grant: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been a leak of the Maastricht treaty minutes? They have appeared in a Dutch newspaper, which basically says, "Major wants opt-out from EMU and he gets it," and "Major does not want an immigration policy from Brussels and he gets it." The paper asks, "Why is it that Major always gets his own way?" Can my right hon. Friend enlighten us on what appears to be an admirable performance by him?
The Prime Minister: I do not know about the article, but I like the principle.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] I have horns and a tail, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned the pillars. Why is it that, under them, the Commission has rights of policy initiation? Does not the Commission have enough powers already without giving it more?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, under the pillars any decision must be unanimous; therefore, we have an absolute block on any decisions taken. That is the critical point in preserving our national interests.
Mr. Ashton: As an ex-Whip, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even if he wins the vote tonight, he will still need a guillotine to get the Bill through the House? Is he prepared to make deals to obtain that guillotine? Will he accept amendments relating to the social chapter or to other parts of the treaty, or does he intend to go ahead with the Bill as it stands?
The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate what will happen when we reach the Committee stage, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. I certainly do not anticipate accepting amendments that would bring the social chapter within the ambit of our proposals.
I was dealing with the question why we should co-operate with our European partners, either through the twin pillars or by other routes. I tell the House that it is very much in our interests to have that co-operation. There are issues throughout Europe that cross frontiers and can be dealt with only internationally, such as drugs, crime and illegal immigration. There is the exchange of intelligence on terrorist threats, the Dublin asylum convention—something of great importance to us—and the co-operation in the fight against drugs, with 60 per cent. of heroin being seized at United Kingdom frontiers after it has passed through other countries in the Community. Those are practical reasons for the co-operation that we agreed to enter into under the Maastricht treaty.
I know that many hon. Members throughout the House are concerned about ensuring that we keep immigration issues under the control of this House and out of the competence of others, including the European Community. That is the effect of the references to immigration and asylum issues in the Maastricht treaty. Those matters will be kept out of Community competence and dealt with under separate intergovernmental pillars—that is, by unanimous agreement between Governments. Only two limited aspects of visa policy are transferred to Community competence, and I shall explain to the House the rational reason for that. The two aspects are: a visa list and agreement on the format of visas.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall not give way, as I am in the midst of advancing an argument that is relevant to many hon. Members, and I should like to conclude it.
The purpose of that co-operation is clear. We may need at any time in the next few years to deal with the possible difficulties of large-scale migration, either from across eastern Europe to western Europe or from north Africa, up through the southern states of Europe into northern
290
Europe. The Maastricht treaty equips the Community as a whole to deal swiftly and effectively with such problems, should they arise.
I know that the following matter concerns some hon. Members—not least some of my hon. Friends. The test alludes to the possibility of further Community competence, but that is subject to a double lock: first, the agreement of all member states—that would require the United Kingdom's agreement—and, secondly, the specific approval of national parliaments, including this Parliament. Therefore, there is a double lock to protect our authority over immigration matters.
I shall mention another matter of concern to the House: the number of issues of competence that fall under the control of the European Community. One of the greatest concerns has been what many hon. Members in the past few years have referred to as the "creeping competence" that comes about either by the abuse of articles in the treaty or by judgments of the European Court of Justice. I shall illustrate the issue by using the health and safety article to pursue wider social legislation. That is by no means the only illustration, but it is an important one.
Due to provisions contained in the Maastricht treaty, the article codifies, clarifies and limits competence in the sectors of health, education, culture, vocational training and others. It closes down the difficulties that we have faced with creeping competence in a way that has not previously been done.
I shall give but one illustration to the House, as I know that it is one of concern. A number of hon. Members have expressed the fear that the treaty gives the Community a greater say in education. The reality is that article 128 of the treaty of Rome was an example of an article subsequently used for creeping competence.
That article is abolished by the Maastricht treaty, and the new article spells out that it is the responsibility of member states to deal with the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. The action that the Community can take is spelt out clearly, and stipulates that the Community is specifically debarred from any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states. There are many such illustrations that the House will wish to discuss in Committee when we embark on it.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister help the House with the context of the debate? Who authorised the briefings held the weekend before last, at which the Prime Minister threatened a general election if he lost today's vote?
The Prime Minister: I am talking about the substance of debate today.
The difficulties and concerns that some people have expressed about the relationship—
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Last week, the Foreign Secretary said that tonight's vote would decide whether the Prime Minister leads the British representation at the Edinburgh summit. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary? If he does, does that not make tonight's vote a confidence vote?
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Not true.
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will have heard my right hon.

291
Friend the Foreign Secretary say, from a seated position, that that was untrue. The right hon. Gentleman has been misled—I know that he will accept that.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree that the declaration adopted at Birmingham stated that there could be no change to the Maastricht treaty? If so, how can the Prime Minister argue that the Danish position has been made clear, when the Danish Government are arguing for a legally binding change? How can there be a legally binding change that will satisfy the needs of the Danish people while. at the same time, there is no change to the Maastricht treaty?
The Prime Minister: Almost every intervention from Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I shall answer specifically in a second—has been trying to find another weaselly excuse for not voting for a motion that they are in favour of. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question is that the Danish Government are not seeking to change the substance of what is in the treaty. They are seeking to add to it clarifications and extra matters beyond the treaty, as their Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No, I will make some progress. The House is aware that I have given way a number of times already.
I should like to turn now to the exchange rate mechanism and the fears that have been expressed about the relationship between the mechanism and any possible future commitment to a single currency. It is the Government's intention that the United Kingdom should enter the second stage of monetary union in 1994. It is important to understand precisely what that involves. During the second stage, monetary policy remains a national responsibility and the United Kingdom is not committed to going beyond stage 2. This is not affected by the establishment of the European Monetary Institute, whose functions will be in elaboration of the existing committee of central bank governors. We will continue to take our own decisions on monetary policy matters and will remain entirely free whether or not to participate in the exchange rate mechanism as a quite separate matter from the ratification of this treaty.
The only relevance of the mechanism in this respect is as one of the convergence criteria for the move from stage 2 of economic and monetary union to the final stage of a single currency. I have repeatedly made it clear, and do so again today, that it is far too soon to consider whether the United Kingdom should join a single currency. I have made that clear in the House on many occasions in the past.
Mr. Den Dover: The Prime Minister will be well aware of the strong misgivings in the House and outside about the possibility of moving to a single currency. Will he therefore at least keep the door open about whether there should be a referendum on that matter at some convenient time?
The Prime Minister: I have kept the door entirely open to decisions by the House, at a time when it is economically appropriate to make a decision. As I have said many times in the past—I repeat for my hon. Friend what I said on 20
292
May—I do not believe that it is right to predetermine a decision that should properly be taken only by Parliament, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing across Europe. This decision, as I said then, is too important to be an act of faith: it must also be an act of judgment, and that judgment cannot sensibly be made until we see the economic circumstances of the day.
Mr. Tony Benn: Everybody respects the Prime Minister's desire to take Britain to the heart of Europe, but does he honestly believe that the people of this country can be made to accept that on the basis of legislation passed by the Whips, of either party, on votes of confidence? Is it not clear that, as he is prepared to wait for the Danish people to determine in a referendum whether to reverse their previous decision, he should have the same respect for the rights of the British people—of all opinions, for and against Maastricht, and of all parties—to have a part in deciding the biggest constitutional issue that has come before Parliament this century?
The Prime Minister: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian, and as a parliamentarian he will know that, through the centuries, it has been through this House that we have dealt with such matters. I understand the strong feelings that exist in many parts of the House about referendums, but it has always been my view that these matters are best dealt with by the House, because we are ultimately answerable to the electorate for the decisions we take.
Dr. Tony Wright: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I have given way generously to hon. Members on both sides, and I would like to make a little more progress.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has made his views clear.
The Prime Minister: So the provisions that we have in the treaty mean that, in both stages two and three, we will be entirely free to decide the framework and institutional arrangements for the conduct of monetary policy in the United Kingdom. That is the position, and it will remain so. I believe that it will be better understood not just in the House but beyond it when we have had the opportunity of discussing these matters at great length in the Committee to which I trust we will move, both before and after Christmas.
Mr. Seamus Mallon rose—
The Prime Minister:: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way on many occasions, and I would like to make some progress.
I turn now to the important question of citizenship. Let me again make it clear to the House that our position as British citizens now and in the future will not in any way be affected by the Maastricht treaty. That is the position, and it will remain the position.
In tomorrow's edition of The European—I have not often found things that I like in newspapers in recent weeks, but I have now—there is an article by the Chancellor of Germany, who makes the point very clearly that we will remain, he writes, Germans, Britons, Italians

293
and Frenchmen, and at the same time Europeans; there is no question of subordination to a European citizenship in any way in the treaty immediately in front of us.
One other important matter of concern to the House in the treaty is that of common defence, so let me turn to defence and the perspective of a common treaty.
Mr. Cryer: The treaty needs 12 states to support it—he is wasting time.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were to read the treaty, he might better understand it, and if he were to listen, he would understand it better yet.
Mr. Cryer rose—
The Prime Minister: The treaty reflects a British concept of a possible longer-term perspective of a common defence policy, and it does so because, in my judgment, it is right that Europe should do more in its own defence in future; but it is important to realise the context in which that will happen.
Any defence co-operation will take place within the Western European Union, and the Western European Union is free to take its own decisions on defence. It will not be under instruction in any way from the Community member states, now or at any stage in the future. It is equally clear that any decisions must be without prejudice to our obligations under NATO. NATO has in any case already recognised the Western European Union as the European pillar of the NATO alliance.
All the decisions in this area will be taken by unanimity. There is no question whatsoever of our allowing any of these provisions to come within Community competence now or in the future.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—my point is an important one. May I remind him of the decision of the National Assembly of France on 30 August 1954 not to ratify the proposed European defence community? From that decision there arose the free association of independent sovereign states—the Western European Union and, as a consequence, NATO was strengthened through the accession both of West Germany and of Italy. That procedural motion of 30 August put France, by the decision of its parliamentarians, at the heart of Europe for the next generation. No one can say that they were unmindful of either France's interests or Europe's and nor shall we be when we vote against the Government motion tonight.
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that I detected my hon. Friend's question.
Let me turn to an important issue that is not itself directly in the treaty but is absolutely dependent on the treaty—the enlargement of the European Community. The United Kingdom's policy is unreservedly in favour of widening the borders of the Community. We should like first to bring in the EFTA states and then in due course the newly democratic states of central and eastern Europe.
We would like the EFTA states to join us for a number of important reasons. First, it would widen the Community to embrace democracies which look to us for
294
political and economic stability; secondly, it would increase the free trade area of the single market; thirdly, it would reinforce the democratic structures of Europe.
But there is a fourth reason why it is very much in Britain's self-interest, and that is that the EFTA states would bring in further net contributors to the European Community budget. In future, when the EFTA states have joined, those factors will ensure a better balance. The EFTA states will also ensure our vigorous enforcement of Community obligations.
One of the difficulties at present in the Community is that, of the 12 member states, only three, Germany—by far the largest—the United Kingdom and France, are significant net contributors to the Community budget. Italy and the Netherlands are broadly in balance, but the others are all net beneficiaries, in some cases by large amounts. The practical effect of that is to tilt decision making in favour of the centre because of the interest which a majority of states have in more Community expenditure and because the Commission has responsibility for the administration of those funds.
We will have a much better balance in the Community when the extra contributing nations join it. That will mean that we have nearly 50 per cent. of contributors, a much more healthy position for the future development of the Community.
There are a large number of practical reasons why we should ratify the treaty. I know that there is a seductive argument used by some that says, "Delay—don't hurry. We didn't want the treaty in the first place, so just concentrate on the economy and push it to one side." But the fact is that our European policy and our economic well-being are inextricably linked, and will remain inextricably linked in future.
The EC receives £60 billion-worth of manufactured goods and 54 per cent. of our total trade is now with the EC. An estimated—[Interruption.] I should have thought that the Opposition would be interested in this point. An estimated 3 million jobs depend on trade with the Community. In 1990, the United Kingdom received £17 billion-worth of inward investment, and 50,000 manufacturing jobs flow from Japanese investment in the United Kingdom—new markets, new jobs.
The economic reality is that the Community has been economically good for Britain and good for our position as a power in world trade. Scottish Members will recall a practical illustration of that. It was GATT action by the Community that persuaded Japan to open the market for Scottish whisky. I could stretch that list from here to the doorway and back again.
The Community is good for future trade, and the evidence is clear in the attitudes of countries not yet in the Community. A large array of countries is queuing to join the Community—Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Can they all be wrong about the advantages—social, economic and in security terms—in joining the Community? They all see the Community as a necessary ingredient in their future prosperity, and I believe that they are right in that judgment.
We are seeking to build—this treaty is part of that building—a safer and more secure Europe than any previous generation has known. That is an opportunity for this generation of politicians if they have the courage and the vision to take it and I believe that the House should do so.

295
Neither is this just a question of international matters of that sort. The fact is that our relationship with the European Community is very hard-headed and very much in our own interests; our jobs, our markets, our future prosperity. That is not just the Government's view. British Aerospace is a large company in which many people will have an interest and they would do well to listen to its chief executive, who says:
"The risks of non-ratification to all our businesses and employees are too high to be seriously worth consideration."
As 27 senior business men recently wrote:
"We are also concerned about the signal that failure to ratify the treaty would give about our future position in the Community."
If our interests are so great—and undeniably they are great—this country must play a central role in the Community, and we cannot do that if we shy away from the agreements into which we have entered with our partners in the Community.
I know that it is the wish of some that the Maastricht treaty might not have been proposed by others in the Community. The fact is that it was. It is equally the case that we got the best out of it that we could in our own national interests. Those who argue that, because we did not propose the treaty, we should take advantage of present circumstances to ditch it do so in the belief that we could have everything we want in Europe and sacrifice nothing. I have to tell them that that argument is not real in regard to the way in which the Community conducts its business.
Without the Maastricht treaty, there would be no enlargement of the Community—and every hon. Member knows that it is right to enlarge the Community, and that it is in our interests to do so. Without the Maastricht treaty, we would have no means of developing co-operation between member states outside Community competence—and we want to develop co-operation outside Community competence.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Without Maastricht, we would have no subsidiarity, and we know that we need that. No hon. Member should kid himself that, without Maastricht, we would have a Community without any of the problems posed by the Maastricht debate. Instead, we would have a Community fighting—day after day, time and time again—all the battles that were fought and largely won by us in the treaty that the House will shortly reconsider. Anyone who believes that that situation would be good for political stability —
Mr. Wareing rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that he is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should not proceed in such circumstances.
The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Derby (Mr. Wareing), I have given way frequently enough, and many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
Anyone who believed that that situation of uncertainty would be good for political stability, for business, for growth and for jobs would simply be deluding himself. It
296
would be a fatal cocktail for the future interests of this country if we were to shrink from meeting the agreement into which we freely entered.
There is a very practical point of real and immediate importance that the House should consider. At the Edinburgh summit in a few weeks' time, we will have important matters to agree with our European partners —matters of crucial interest to us: the Community's future financial arrangements, the final stages of the single market, and enlargement. If the House votes against the Government today, it will diminish our capacity to negotiate successfully on matters in our own national self-interest. That is the point that every hon. Member should carry into the Lobby. If hon. Members want to diminish our capacity to negotiate what is right for this country, they should vote for the Opposition amendment and against the Government today.
I must tell the House, however, that, if it were to do that, our European partners would not take our negotiating position seriously, now or in the future, and we would not be able to make agreements that are in our own national self-interest. I understand very clearly the frustration that some people feel in having to make compromises to advance the British interest; the temptation to break out—to go our own way—is sometimes strong. I must tell the House, however, that it would be wrong to do so. National self-interest is not about striking attitudes, but about striking deals that are in our own interest—and that is what we must do in the Community. That is why every British Government from Harold Macmillan's onwards has sought first to enter the Community and then to make a success of our membership.
I have to tell the House, and I have to tell the country, that we cannot continue to make a success of our membership of the Community unless we ratify the treaty to which we agreed. That is my clear judgment, and I would be doing the country and the House a disservice if I did not back that judgment with all the force at my command.
That means that, after this debate has been concluded and won by the Government, we shall bring back the Bill and seek the support of all the Members of this House to secure its adoption—that is what is in our own national self-interest. In order that we may do so, I ask hon. Members to support the motion.
4.30 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from first "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"recalls the conditions relating to the Danish position and to subsidiarity laid down by the Prime Minister in the debate in this House on 24th September; and believes that these conditions cannot be satisfied until the Edinburgh European Council at the earliest and that therefore further consideration of the Bill should await the outcome of that meeting."
Before I enter on the merits of the debate I think that it would be appropriate to congratulate Governor Clinton on his tremendous victory in the American presidential election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear] He fought a positive campaign, which set out a new agenda for America's future, and he eloquently and effectively made the case for change. He deserves his victory, and we in the

297
Labour party wish him well. I add that we are delighted that a major battle has been won against negative campaigning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House should settle down now.
Mr. Smith: I take it, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. A bit of fun is all right, but we want to make some progress now—[Interruption.] Order. I can hear as well as anybody else in the House.
Mr. Smith: I take it from Conservative Members' reaction to what I said that the two Tory strategists who were sent to help President Bush will not be welcome when they come back to this country. What the Conservatives have done seems an odd way to start off a relationship with the new President.
The House will remember that the roots of the motion and the debate go back to 24 September—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister will hear me out, and listen to the argument, he will be able to pass comments on it. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that on 24 September, in the recall debate following black Wednesday, he chose to set out to the House in clear terms the way in which the Government proposed to deal with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He made two points, which he referred to only obliquely today—the Danish question and subsidiarity. This is what he said:
"we need a definition—a settled order—of what is for national action and what is for Community action. We need clear criteria by which Community proposals will be judged. When we are satisfied that such a system has been put in place, and when we are clear that the Danes have a basis on which they can put the treaty back to their electorate, we shall bring the Maastricht Bill back to the House of Commons."
It is clear that the Prime Minister prescribed that there should be a settled order of subsidiarity, and that the Danes should have a basis for a new referendum—both to be in place before the House proceeded further with the Bill.
Today the House must judge whether the substantive conditions have been met.
The Prime Minister: The roots of the debate go back to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) when he was Leader of the Opposition, when I agreed that we would consider arranging a debate in the House in October, as soon as we came back from the recess. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House subsequently specifically confirmed that to the House.
Secondly, I fear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have looked at the paragraph governing the words that he has quoted. That said:
"It would not make sense to bring the … Bill back to the House … before we know clearly what Danish intentions are, and when and how the Danes propose to consult their people again. When those things are known … we must examine the Bill further."
As I clearly set out in my speech, both those things are now known.
Mr. Smith: —[Interruption.] Hon. Members will surely let me reply. Clearly, the Prime Minister was planning for
298
two eventualities because he put two versions to the House. The version that I have quoted embarrasses him because it says clearly:
"When we are satisfied that such a system has been put in place."—[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 8.]
The words carry no ambiguity.
The Prime Minister said that the roots of today's debate went back to the debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister for a written paper and a debate. I do not know where the report is. We do not have a written report before the House. In any event, I will not quibble with the Prime Minister about that because there is a more important matter.
The Prime Minister: Just to ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no need to quibble, the paper is in the Library.
Mr. Smith: The proper—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was heard in reasonable order by the House. The same must apply to every right hon. and hon. Member.
Mr. Smith: The proper place for the Prime Minister to put any report is before the House, not in the Library.
The Birmingham summit—a non-event to which I shall return later—has occurred and the Danes have set out their negotiating position in a series of proposals to other member states, the most important of which they wish to be juridically binding. Do those developments satisfy the conditions set out by the Prime Minister? Is there now "a settled order" for dealing with the allocation of responsibility between nation states and the Community? The Birmingham declaration said:
"we reaffirm that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen."
Note the word "reaffirm". It is not a word which signals some change.
The communique went on to say:
"the Maastricht Treaty provides the right framework and objective for subsidiarity."
It was interesting that, when the Prime Minister came back to the House after the Birmingham summit, he told us that for the first time there was a proper framework for the practical definition and implementation of subsidiarity. When we check that against the summit communique, we discover that he was referring not to something new but to the treaty itself, which existed long before the Birmingham summit.
All that happened at the Birmingham summit was that member states invited reports—presumably from the Commission—on the ways in which Maastricht might be taken forward. The Prime Minister came back and told the House that decisions would be taken at Edinburgh to make subsidiarity an integral part of future Community decision-taking. He did not succeed in discharging his obligation to the House.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish this point because it is at the heart of the amendment.

299
The Danes have set out their stall. We have yet to know the reaction of the other 11 member states to that. Their reactions might be positive or negative but the Prime Minister must confirm—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I have already said that I want to finish this point. If I am allowed to finish this passage, I shall give way. I am adopting the same practice as the Prime Minister in the early part of his speech.
The Prime Minister told us that it was the aim of the Danes to ratify the treaty. He said in his report to the House:
"we plan to set in place at Edinburgh the framework that will allow them to do so."—[Official Report,20 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 320.]
Note that in both cases the Prime Minister said "at Edinburgh". He did not say "now". That is the undertaking which he gave to the House and which has not been discharged. It was not the Opposition but the Government who gave that undertaking to the House.
If the Danish position cannot be resolved, how can there be a basis for a new referendum? If there were any doubts about the Danish position, they were revealed in a memorandum from Mr. Michael Jay, an assistant under-secretary of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said:
"The Danish plan is unlikely to be acceptable as it stands to member states and some of them may make this clear. We may therefore have a difficult negotiation ahead of us, which could play awkwardly with the paving debate and the Maastricht Bill".
That is an interesting passage—
Mr. John Marshall rose—
Mr. Smith: I have not yet finished this bit, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will be persistent.
Mr. Thurnham: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in the Library checking on his other facts, will he look at The House Magazine for 28 September and refresh his memory? He said then that he did not begin to understand why the people of Bolton did not vote Labour. Does he agree that the people of this country will never trust such an unprincipled wriggler as he is proving himself to be today?
Mr. Smith: Since the hon. Gentleman has challenged me directly he will allow me to say that it is a curious idea that to vote against the motion that the Government have tabled is a move to betray the European ideal.
Mr. Oppenheim rose—
Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
Mr. Smith: The motion is drafted in such deliberately anodyne terms that it does not even mention the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Smith: I hope that the House will listen carefully, since many Members seem interested in my reply. The motion is also framed only to endorse the Conservative
300
view of Europe. If the Opposition were foolish enough to vote for it we would endorse the opt-out from the social chapter, and that we are not prepared to do. It might suit Liberal Members, but for us it would be a betrayal of an important principle.
Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. May I suggest in a helpful spirit that he should celebrate his accession to the Labour leadership by changing the rather faded red rose symbol for a fig leaf behind which to hide what little is left of his party's integrity?
Mr. Smith: Not for the first time I have made an error of judgment in giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was going to raise a point of substance.
Mr. John Marshall: In 1971 the right hon. and learned Gentleman was seen as a man of principle because he put principle before party. This evening he is seeking to put party before country. Does he not realise that the fact that we are not in the social chapter makes Britain a haven for inward investment, as Monsieur Delors has admitted?
Mr. Smith: On the first point, I have already demonstrated that the motion before the House is not some rallying call for the European ideal, the Maastricht treaty or the European Community. It is a narrowly, carefully drafted motion which has more to do with the internal problems of the Conservative party than with the European Community.
Mr. Brandreth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I must move on; I have given way with considerable generosity. On second thoughts, I will give way.
Mr. Brandreth: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy. To come to the heart of the matter, if the engineers, the employers, the motor car industry, the CBI and the chambers of commerce all say that they want Maastricht but not the social chapter, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman a Leader of the Opposition who listens, or is he simply the leader of the opportunists who does not give a damn what message his party sends to the world? At least the Liberal Democrats stand by their principles.
Mr. Smith: Once again I have given way expecting a question only to be given a speech. If the CBI's view is to be accepted, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read some of its comments about the state of demand in the economy and the effects of Government economic policy.
Mr. Mallon: I take this opportunity to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly the same question as I would have put to the Prime Minister had I been given the opportunity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I know that in this House there is a majority in favour of Europe and of Maastricht. Can he explain how that majority has been whittled down to a potential minority? Secondly, can he explain why someone like me, in a minority party, cannot vote and deliberate on this issue on its merits but must debate it on the divisions in the Tory party and the contradictions in the Prime Minister's own position? Does not that border on an abuse of the House?
Mr. Smith: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but if he gets the chance on another occasion he should direct it to the Prime Minister. It is he who is responsible for the Government's handling of this and other legislation and it is he who drafted the motion before the House. I agree that it does not even mention the treaty.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that the vote tonight on the motion and on his even more carefully drafted amendment goes to the heart of Britain's policy towards Europe and that, if lost, it would lead to the resignation of the Government? Or is he telling us that this is a narrow and unnecessary motion whose defeat is neither here nor there?
Mr. Smith: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman and other Liberals to read the motion that they are attempting to vote for. All it does is note that there was a majority on Second Reading. It goes on with a few oblique references to subsidiarity and the Danes; it reaffirms the Conservative view of Europe; and it says that we should proceed with the Bill at some stage. I do not regard that as a touchstone of European policy, but what I will tell the Liberals is that they have been conned by the Conservatives and that they suffer from two great defects: naivety and self-importance.
Dr. Robert Spink rose—
Mr. Dickens rose—
Mr. James Couchman rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Smith: No.
Madam Speaker: In that case, hon. Members must resume their seats.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A reference was made a short time ago to a document that is apparently in the Library. When I went to ask Library staff they did indeed produce a document, but it seems fundamentally diferent from that to which the Prime Minister referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The document that the Library gave me is a letter from Poul Schlüter to the Prime Minister covering Denmark and Europe. Whatever else it is, it is not recognisable as a report to the House of Commons. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith: The Prime Minister is waving a document. I think that I have the same document before me. It is a letter from the Prime Minister of Denmark enclosing a document entitled "Denmark in Europe". It is merely the Danish proposals, yet the Prime Minister pretended to the House that it was a report given to us. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)rose—
Mr. Smith: I am not giving way.
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Smith: No.
Madam Speaker: Is the Minister raising a point of order?
Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), Madam Speaker. The documents available in the Library are a letter from Prime Minister Schlüter, a copy of the document issued by the Danish Parliament and a memorandum from the Foreign Office commenting on the Danish document. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Unless the House comes to order, I shall not be able to hear those hon. Members who are screaming to have points of order heard.
Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order for me.
Mr. Davies: It is a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the practice of the House that if a document is tabled to condition a debate—particularly if it is a report to the House on which a debate is purporting to take place—that document is listed on the Order Paper?
Madam Speaker: I understand that it is not the document that has been tabled. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Oh. It has not been tabled."] If the hon. Gentleman would listen, I am sure that he could hear me. The document has been placed in the Library. I call Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: We are all clear about that, then: it is not a report from Her Majesty's Government to the House but a letter from the Danes with a few comments from the Foreign Office. That should put us all on our guard; we should be very careful about accepting assurances from the Prime Minister.
Mr. Couchman rose—
Mr. Smith: I must move on. I am trying to debate the issue but am being frustrated by hon. Members continuing to raise points of order.
Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way yet again. May I ask him—
Mr. Smith: I am not giving way, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) wish to raise a point of order?
Mr. Couchman: No.
Madam Speaker: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat?
Mr. Couchman rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman told me that he did not have a point of order for me. Has he now changed his mind?
Mr. Couchman: I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) whether he would give way. He resumed his seat and I therefore assumed that he was giving way. That is quite natural, but

303
I am quite prepared to raise the point that I wanted to raise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point of order. Would that be in order?
Madam Speaker: No. Points of order are for me, and not for the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Like many hon. Members, I am having difficulty knowing what today's debate is about. May I ask you, because in the Opposition amendment, there is no mention of Maastricht whatever.
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now make progress. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Let me get back to the subject of the debate, which is a motion tabled by the Government, which we are debating together with an amendment tabled by the official Opposition. I am surprised that I should have to tell the Government that, although such is their state of incompetence on other matters that perhaps I should not be surprised.
People will be wondering why we are holding the debate now, given that we know perfectly well that the earliest date at which the Danish referendum can be held is May 1993. The Prime Minister knows that as well as I do. When we look at the political situation, and the Prime Minister's predicament within his own party, we realise that this debate has far more to do with the right hon. Gentleman's problems than with the future of Europe. That is why we have had all the feverish activity of the past few weeks, culminating in the arm twisting of the past few days. Many devices have been used, including, most startlingly, the on-off threat of a general election.
If the debate is only about the timing of the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, why was it that, when the Prime Minister flew to Egypt on 24 October, the accompanying lobby journalists were briefed that the Prime Minister would hold a general election if his authority was further challenged? There is no question about it: the headlines in the Sunday papers carried the story. In The Sunday Times, we read:
"Major threatens general election if he fails to win Maastricht vote",
and in The Sunday Telegraph:
"Angry Major threatens an election".
On the flight back from Egypt, no attempt was made to dissuade people from believing the stories.
In an attempt to try to find a resume of those events that Conservative Members would find fair and impartial, I turned to The Sunday Telegraph, whose leader last Sunday summed up the matter very well. Let me briefly remind the House what it said:
"This newspaper tries to keep its readers abreast of events. At present, however, we suffer from a difficulty: a week is such an incredibly long time in current Conservative politics. Last Sunday we reported faithfully the assertion by No. 10 Downing Street that if the House of Commons turned out the Maastricht Treaty Mr. Major would call a general election. On Monday, Downing Street distanced itself from its own suggestion. As the week went on, it was reported, variously, that the Government would back down over the motion for the paving debate this week, that it would 'go for broke', that Mr. Major would make Maastricht an issue of confidence in him, that he would insist that it be treated solely, in his words, 'on its merits', that his tactic was to go for a bang and that it was to opt for a whimper. As we went to press last night we
304
understood that the Government had proposed a motion on Maastricht which, by not mentioning the subject, hoped to persuade the Tory rebels to back it. By the time you read this the situation may well be different again."
After that series of events—and we all watched them unfold—is there any hon. Member in the House naive enough to believe that the motion is only about the timing of the start of the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill?. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes. The Liberals."] Yes, there are some hon. Members but not very many. How can a motion that attracted the threat of a general election not be about the credibility, competence and authority of the Government? That has been evident in the statements made by Ministers in the past week or so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) drew to the Prime Minister's attention the reply given by the Foreign Secretary at Foreign Office questions last week. As I understand it, the Prime Minister answered that my right hon. Friend had somehow been misled about the reply, which I shall quote so that the House can decide and so that the Prime Minister can correct me if I have been misleading myself in my reading of Hansard:
"The House will have to decide whether it wants my right hon. Friend to preside over that summit preserving and extending this country's influence over what happens in Europe or whether it does not"—[Official Report, 28 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 1004.]
The House has to decide whether the Prime Minister does or does not do that.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gabbled a little bit that he did not want the House to hear. The point that I was making was not that the choice before the House was whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would go to Edinburgh or not, because I took it for granted that he would. No, no. The choice before the House, as is clear from the bit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gabbled, is whether my right hon. Friend would go equipped with all the possible influence that he could exert, or whether he would go weakened by the kind of twists and turns in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is indulging.
Mr. Smith: I must say that, having listened to the Foreign Secretary's reply, I find it a bit rich to be accused of twisting and turning.
The Foreign Secretary said that the House will have to decide whether the Prime Minister will or will not. Let me be charitable to the right hon. Gentleman and take his alternative explanation, that it is about the authority of the Prime Minister when he goes to the summit, which is further evidence that it is not about the Bill.
Mr. John Hume: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the question being discussed, given that the House has already approved the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on the Maastricht treaty, can you tell us whether this debate is a necessary part of the constitutional process of endorsing that treaty? If not—which is what I expect you to say—this debate must be for some other purpose.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows that formal proceedings on the Bill will not be affected by the outcome of the result today—[Interruption.] Order. Hear me out. The Committee stage of the Bill will remain among the Remaining Orders.
Mr. Smith: I also referred to statements made by other Ministers about the nature of this debate. In "On the Record" the Secretary of State for Wales—
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Opposition calls for a four-week delay in consideration of the Bill, until after the Edinburgh summit. First, that is surely at odds with your ruling. Secondly, is it not at odds with the Leader of the Opposition's speech, which seems to be about confidence?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the entire House should not anticipate what will happen at the end of the debate and should allow it to proceed normally. Hon. Members are seeking to speak, and I think that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is one of them, so let us make some progress.
Mr. Smith: Some Conservative Members seem to be reluctant to engage properly in this debate, but I am doing my best. Even if there are another 10 bogus points of order from the Conservative side, I will refer to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in "On the Record" on Sunday. He warned Tory rebels that they were playing with fire and told Mr. Dimbleby:
"We have to show our confidence, not only in the Government, but also in John Major."
That was a sort of double whammy confidence motion.
The third—perhaps even more ominous to the Prime Minister—was the President of the Board of Trade, who said on ITN on Monday:
"The Prime Minister is entitled to our confidence now."
The right hon. Member also chooses his words with care, so I do not believe that the qualifying "now" was accidental—now, but not necessarily for ever. That was not the only effort by the right hon. Member, the Lord President. I beg his pardon: he has an even grander title than Lord President of the Council; he is President of the Board of Trade. I think that, for short, we shall call him Mr. President during this exchange. He told BBC radio—presumably he was addressing Conservative Back Benchers as he used direct speech:
"if you vote against the Prime Minister and the Government on Wednesday, on Thursday you have a policy vacuum at the centre of British decision making of incalculable destructiveness."
Gosh, what an awful prospect that would be.
After all the clear and decisive leadership of the past few weeks, after all the consistent and determined implementation of long-established policies, well and clearly understood, how could we cope with the black hole of a policy vacuum? Perhaps Mr. President could reflect that the Government's basic problem is not the threat of a policy vacuum, but the stark reality of such a vacuum, which extends right to the heart of the Government.
Only this week, with singular appropriateness, the Governor of the Bank of England referred to a policy vacuum at the heart of economic policy.
The Prime Minister: Yesterday the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the Governor of the Bank of England. I gather that he misquoted him, and that the Governor will be writing to him about that. So he had better not pursue the point.
Mr. Smith: While the Governor is doing that he had better write to the newspapers from which I quoted, which quoted him in direct speech. When I checked with the
306
Bank of England I was told that the quote was from a question and answer session with foreign journalists and that the Bank was unable to provide a text. I shall look with interest at what ends up in the Library.
If we had any doubt over what the debate is all about, we could have resolved it by looking at the terms of the motion. There are no ringing declarations about the future of Europe, which would rally the troops under the Maastricht banner. There is no declaration of principle of any discernible kind. I have already drawn attention to some of the hallmarks of the motion, which has the Prime Minister's style all about it. It is the product of the internal machinations of the Conservative party, and it is designed for internal Conservative party purposes. Only someone of enormous naivety—
Sir Peter Hordern rose—
Mr. Smith: I should have been delighted to give way to more hon. Members if there had not been so many organised points of order. I have to get on with my speech. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint, he should take it up with his hon. Friends.
Only the most naive of people would believe that the motion is some touchstone of loyalty to the treaty. The truth of the present situation and the background to the debate, as the whole country knows, is that an increasingly angry and bewildered nation is watching with astonishment and dismay as the Government stumble from one disaster to another. They recollect the Prime Minister's bland assurance—that is why they would not want them to be propped up or given a motion of confidence of any kind—that if they were only to vote Conservative on Thursday, recovery would continue on Friday. Not merely has there been no recovery, but the Government's economic policy was blown to smithereens on black Wednesday.
In the motion, the Government have the nerve to refer to the promotion of "employment, prosperity and investment". Do they know what is happening in this country? When the Prime Minister emerges blinking from his bunker, does he not see the destruction that his economic policies have caused? Bankruptcies and home repossessions continue at record levels and unemployment is rising relentlessly and, I fear, menacingly, and will certainly pass 3 million. Hardly a day goes by without new redundancies, as prestige firms in vital manufacturing industries throw more skilled workers into unemployment and undermine the country's wealth-creating capacity.
Ominously, the most recent surveys of business confidence—I refer this to the attention of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) who mentioned the Confederation of British Industry—from the CBI and British chambers of commerce point to a further downturn in output, investment and job creation. All the signs are that the country is heading from recession into slump.
Just before the election, in the March Budget, the Government sought to paint a different scenario. In the budget we were told that growth would be 1 per cent. this year, and—it seems incredible that they were able to say so, but they did—that it would be 3 per cent. next year. They said that manufacturing output would rise to 4 per cent. by next year and forecast the balance of payments at £6·5 billion.
What are the forecasts now, six months after that election? According to the Treasury survey of independent

307
forecasters, growth will fall again by almost 1 per cent. and will not rise; manufacturing output is expected not to rise but to fall by 1 per cent.; and the balance of payments deficit is predicted to be £12 billion, which is almost double the predicted figure. That is in the middle of the worst recession since the war.
The Government have never realised that our economic success in the European Community—we have heard a lot about that from the Prime Minister and others—can only be achieved if we build a strong economy, based on manufacturing strength, investment, skills development and on Government partnership between industry and commerce. Nor have they realised that the Community can best recover from recession by co-ordinated policies for recovery, growth and jobs.
The United Kingdom presidency of the Community, which has about eight weeks to run, has been a disastrous missed opportunity. Why was the Birmingham summit not used to consider urgent Community-wide action to promote recovery and investment, instead of the Prime Minister's game of words over subsidiarity—a principle which he lauds for Europe but which he denies here?
I have a direct question for the Prime Minister: why did he refuse to put growth and jobs on the agenda for the Birmingham summit although he had been asked to do so by the Commission? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Prime Minister can clear that up. I am told that the Commission asked for those subjects to be put on the agenda for the summit, but, if that were not the case, the Prime Minister can correct me.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman better wait for the reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) before he pursues that line of argument.
Mr. Smith: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask me to go to the Library.
The Prime Minister: There is no need to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go to the Library. He gets all his information from The Sunday Telegraph.
Mr. Smith: I know that the Prime Minister is very good at telephoning the editors of newspapers, but I think that that is one number that he should not put at the top of his list for a little while.
Instead of positive action being taken in the Community, what have we had? Instead of the Government working together with the other member states at the heart of Europe—where the presidency of the Community takes the United Kingdom—their effort has been concentrated in other directions. They have proposed plans to close 31 pits, which will lock off millions of tonnes of recoverable coal reserves, destroy 100,000 jobs in the mining and related industries and devastate whole communities throughout the coalfields.
Next week, in the autumn statement, we will be told who is next to pay the price of Government incompetence. I suspect that it will be teachers, nurses, the low paid, the sick, the elderly and the poor. Because of Government incompetence, public services will be undermined even further and the recession prolonged even longer. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not want to listen to this, but that is what is happening.
As the public well understand, it is not just policies that are the problem— it is the Prime Minister as well. He has
308
the precise opposite of the Midas touch: from black Wednesday to the pit closure fiasco and onwards to the mysteries of whatever the Government's new economic policy is, his baleful presence courts disaster. I understand that even at Stamford Bridge, Chelsea fans would prefer he stay away because most times when he attends Chelsea loses.
Last month the right hon. Gentleman contributed to a book about football entitled "We'll support you evermore"—obviously not a Conservative party publication. When we think of the Prime Minister's record since the election, a passage about his experience as a football supporter hits the truth with uncanny precision. He wrote:
"After all, I have nearly 30 years behind me of high hopes at the start of a season fading into disappointment with a string of disappointing results by January."
As we have repeatedly made clear, as recently as our last annual conference, our commitment is to closer economic and political co-operation in Europe. [Interruption.] But we have a different agenda for the Community from the Conservatives. We want a Community for people, not just a market for business. That is why we will continue our efforts to overturn the foolish opt-out from the social chapter, which is regarded as essential by all the other 11 member states.
I noticed that the Prime Minister's speech consisted of telling us that we should be at the heart of Europe, but for most of the time he told us how he had successfully disengaged us from it.
We also recognise that the British economy is and will continue to be closely integrated both financially and industrially with our EC partners. Those realities mean that Britain's industrial and economic performance depend crucially on developments in the European Community. But it also means that if we are to contribute to and gain from the Community, because it is always a two-way process, we must have a strong and dynamic economy. Under the Government we have been pushed to the sidelines principally because of economic weakness. That affects our stance in Europe just as it affects it over the whole range of Government policy.
We set out our view clearly, and at some length, in the reasoned amendment for which we voted on Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and we will reflect that view in further proceedings on the Bill.
In a curious sense, this debate and the ambiguous and anodyne motion upon which it proceeds has no formal parliamentary status. It is a device, a happening, a political event justified by the Government at different times and on very different grounds, to very different people, as both expediency and the tide of war within the Conservative party dictated.
Those of us who have a sense of political reality can see clearly through all these manoeuvrings. This debate has been turned by the Government into an occasion to garner support for a discredited Prime Minister and a discredited Government. We on the Labour Benches will not be conned by the Government's contrivances. We will vote against a Government who are undermining our society, destroying our economy and thereby wrecking our future in Europe.
5.16 pm
Sir Edward Heath: Before I begin what I hope will be a brief intervention in the debate, which I understood was to be about Maastricht, I should like to make it absolutely plain that what I am going to say has been in no way affected by bullying from the Whips; it has not been affected by the recent structure of an anti-Maastricht mafia in the House of Lords; nor has it been affected by the widely publicised secret session of the 1922 Committee. In fact, I have to confess that what I am going to say will be purely my own thoughts.
I should like to begin by recalling to the House the end of the debate that settled that Britain would become a member of the EC. When I wound up that debate, I spoke about letters that I had received after the veto by President De Gaulle in 1963. One of them was from an ambassador who was accredited to the Community in Brussels during the negotiations. I quoted that letter, which said:
"When you left India some people wept. And when you leave Europe tonight some will weep. And there is no other people in the world of whom these things could be said.'"
I went on to say:
"That was a tribute from the Indian to the British. But tonight when this House endorses this Motion many millions of people right across the world will rejoice that we have taken our rightful place in a truly United Europe".—[Official Report, 28 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 2212.]
There was a majority of 112 in that vote. It was many times the size of the Government majority because 69 right hon. and hon. Members from the Labour party voted with us and 20 abstained. They defied a three-line Whip from their party to vote with us and among them was the present Leader of the Opposition. I greatly admired his integrity and I have continued to do so since, until this afternoon. I must say that I am saddened and dismayed by his performance and by the attitude which he has taken towards Europe. He knows full well that, if he had wished to attack the Government on their shortcomings or the Prime Minister personally, he could have immediately tabled a vote of no confidence. That is the customary practice in the House. He knows that, had he wished to comment on the fact that the Prime Minister had not carried out his obligations in delaying the discussion on Maastricht or dealing with the Danish proposals, he could have said so, and he could have urged the Prime Minister to speed things up. But neither of those things has he done. So today, for the sake of the plaudits from some of his Back Benchers, he has forsworn his integrity. Having done that, he will find that he will never be able to regain it.
Those of us who have followed these events in Europe for more than 40 years have longed for the time when we could feel that the Leader of the Opposition was genuinely in favour of the European Community. This was the first occasion on which we have had it, and today that situation has been thrown away. It is a loss to the Labour party and a loss to our country. And it is a loss which, I am afraid, cannot be made up.
What is not always realised here is that those people in Parliaments in the European Community have no comprehension whatever of what is going on with a manoeuvre of that kind. That is the damage that is being done by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said today. The damage is widespread, because we must face the fact that, in the Community as well as outside, Britain's position has become widely suspect—
310
[Interruption.] I am stating the position, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have helped to deal with that.
The delay in action on Maastricht—in recognising the treaty—has caused dismay throughout the Community. The Prime Minister himself, said that, with the exception of Denmark, all the other countries will have ratified the treaty by December.
Dr. John Cunningham: I normally listen with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, even though I do not always agree with him, but he is fundamentally wrong when he alleges that people in Europe are either dismayed at, or will not understand, the position taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Moreover, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman why, because I personally discussed our position with Jean-Pierre Cot, the leader of the socialist group in the European Parliament, and with other European socialist leaders. They fully understand and support our position.
Sir Edward Heath: All that I can say is that, in the past five weeks, I have discussed the matter with Heads of Government in the Community, in Japan, China and worldwide. They do not understand the attitude of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East.
Dr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I cannot give way twice.
As far as this country is concerned, other members of the Community take the view that the delay is quite unjustifiable, and I say that bluntly to the Prime Minister. The fact that the Danish referendum, by a very narrow majority, went against the Government is no reason why the British Prime Minister and the British Government should have delayed our confirmation of Maastricht—none at all. The Prime Minister has a responsibility, as President of the Community for these six months, to try to find a solution to the Danish problems with the co-operation of the other members. It is not his responsibility to say that Britain, in the meantime, must fail to take action on Maastricht. The other member countries—10 of them—have all taken action and will have completed it by December. I wish that we had done the same.
I am therefore delighted that the motion says that we shall go on to Committee stage, but I am saddened again by the Prime Minister saying that part of it will be before Christmas and that we shall go on with the Committee stage next year. That is no indication to Europe that we are whole-hearted in being at the centre and in reinforcing Maastricht. The House is capable of dealing with the Bill in Committee immediately—there is nothing whatever to stop that. I hope that the Prime Minister will consider the impact on the other members of the Community by delaying still further the passage of the Bill.
Mr. Dalyell: Technically, what is there to stop the Prime Minister doing exactly that for which he asked— putting the Bill in on Monday? Although I have voted with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), albeit in 1971, I shall vote with my party tonight because this is a gratuitous motion that is about the Conservative party's political needs.
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Gentleman, whose vote I acknowledge, is entitled to his interpretation of the motion, but to what does he object in it? He says that it is to achieve unity on this side of the House. Very well, but what is wrong with the motion? One thing that is wrong with it is that it talks about "a free market Europe". It is not a free market Europe and it never will be—a free market means a market that is open to the whole world. It is a single market for the members of the Community, for those who become associated with it and for those who later become members. To take one specific example, we have a quota system for textiles from the developing world —from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. We have had that for many years and we shall go on having it. I am told that it is worth 100,000 jobs in this country. We are not going for a free market, but it is the use of such language that causes so much trouble inside the Community, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister's immediate predecessor has now said openly that what she wants is just a free market and not a Community. That is what is causing a lot of trouble.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept from one who, on a free vote, voted for our accession in 1971 that it is his concept now of a closed, protectionist Europe which he seeks to perpetuate that is so anathema to us? It has helped to perpetuate the difficulty in achieving a successful negotiation on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, particularly on agriculture.
Sir Edward Heath: I am not in the least out to maintain a protectionist Community. As I said before, when I negotiated Britain's entry I had to lower all our tariffs by a very large amount, which infuriated business and industry, but it was necessary. Is my hon. Friend saying that he wants to abolish all quotas and just let in all textiles from developing countries? Not for one moment, and he would not hold his seat if he did. Let us be realistic about the matter.
I want to say a word about another important matter—the responsibility of Ministers. We are told that the public do not understand what is really at stake. Very well, then the responsibility is ours for not explaining it to them. But what is also clear is that, when the Commission is acting, it is acting under the authority of the Ministers who approve their recommendations. Yet how often does a Minister stand up at this or other Front Benches and say, "Yes, I agreed to all that. It is not the Commission's fault. You can't blame the Commission, we accepted it"?
I hear complaints from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), whom I heard the other day boasting on television that he did not understand two words of French. I do not know what there is to boast about.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "In French!"] Peut-etre que mon ami peut dire a cette maison, what is meant by "acquis communautaire"? Just two words in English, so that we understand.
Sir Edward Heath: Non.
My hon. Friend"s problem is that the Commission keeps coming forward with proposals, but that is the structure of the Community. That is the way in which the Community has become, in 40 years, an outstanding
312
success. It has restored the beacon countries of Europe to their present state of prosperity. It is the structure of the Community and the Commission that have achieved that.
It is deplorable that there is a constant attack on the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, who has done a superb job.
Mr. John Townend: No.
Sir Edward Heath: Why does my hon. Friend say that that is wrong? The single market was settled six years ago. It was agreed by the British Prime Minister. Who has carried out all the work and shown leadership in getting the single market established? The answer is the President of the Commission. He is the one who has done it. It is because the Commission has been a success that the countries to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred— Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Finland—want to become members.
The campaign by The Sun against Jacques Delors, urging people tomorrow to put up posters and speak of "Fawk Delors", is sordid, filthy and unworthy of any British newspaper. In fact, that newspaper is American owned and American directed. It makes me ashamed to be in a country in which it is published. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Australian".]
Sir Edward Heath: It is not. It is American owned because it is a renegade Australian who has gone to America.
Apparently, we are the only country that wants to get rid of the President of the Commission, and quite wrongly so.
Great emphasis has been placed on subsidiarity. Very well. I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said towards the end of his speech to the effect that subsidiarity is necessary in some ways. However, we must take a positive attitude towards what will be done in the Community. If we are to be at the heart of it, we can do more things together than we can by saying, "We are not going to touch this."
At present, it is vital that the Commission and the Community concentrate on economic recovery for the Community as a whole. Subsidiarity has little to do with that. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Where are the continuing discussions at the highest level about economic recovery in the Community? We hear nothing of them. We were told that the meeting at Birmingham had been called to deal with the flaws in the exchange rate mechanism, but they were not discussed. No one has yet told us what the flaws are or were. Many of us suspect that the flaws were to be found in us and not in the ERM. Until we face the facts—face reality—we shall never be able to overcome our present difficulties.
The difficulties that we now face are, in my view, some of the most serious that have confronted the United Kingdom since the second world war. I would say that there is absolutely no doubt about that. It will take time to overcome them. We cannot keep on saying, "Yes, recovery is just around the corner." We have seen what has happened in the United States as a result of a President taking that line. Our difficulties will take time to overcome, and in overcoming them we shall need friends. We need friends wherever we can find them and, above all, we need them in the Community.
To say after a meeting, "We have won everything, we have beaten them, we have got what we wanted" is not to

313
make friends. It is a community. Very well, let us look after British interests, but let us look after Community interests as well. If we do not take that approach, we shall not make friends. As I said, we need them desperately at this moment.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, if he were true to himself, he would admit that in his heart much of his European passion—his passion for the European ideal—is based on a severe distrust of the United States? On this day of all days, as a new President is elected, will he take the opportunity to reaffirm his belief in the special relationship that we have with the United States, which is of equal importance to the relationship that we have with the Community?
Sir Edward Heath: Of course, I offer my congratulations to the new President.
On the lawn of the White House, in front of President Nixon, I said that there was no such thing as a special relationship. Again, what is the impact of that on our colleagues in the Community? If we say, "We are special and you are not", what is the impact on south American countries, which are so close to the United States? In effect, we are saying, "You are nothing. We have a special relationship." To take that view is to show no understanding of international relations. That was fully accepted by the Americans.
The Americans do not refer to a special relationship. They take that approach because they do not want to upset the rest of those with whom they are working. What we have—some would say that it is more important—is an historic relationship. We can argue about how good it has been, and if we reflect on recent history, including the history of atomic weapons after the second world war, we might begin to doubt the strength of the historic relationship. Of course I want good relations with the United States, but I am not prepared to give up Europe because of relations with the United States. I am not prepared to do that for one moment.
Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Given the election result in the United States, does he agree that it is likely now that protectionism in the United States will grow? That makes it even more important that we support the Government tonight to reinforce our relationship with Europe, which is so necessary for jobs and prosperity in this country.
Sir Edward Heath: I would not like to commit myself to saying that the President-elect will go for tariffs and other policies of that sort. On the other hand, I agree with my hon. Friend that Europe is necessary for us from the point of view of industry, growth and financial investment in this country. These factors have already been damaged by uncertainty. Talk to any of those who are involved in investment and they will say that, the longer the uncertainty continues, the more investment in this country will be damaged. That is true. That is why I am urging that the process be speeded up.
Mr. Cryer: That is right!
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Gentleman wants to get out of Europe in any event.
314
We must recognise that the Community is essential to us and that we must work in it and with it. We no longer run the world, although some behave as if we do. It is—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members on the Front Benches below the Gangway must not have arguments across the Chamber when other Members are speaking.
Sir Edward Heath: We do not run the world, Europe or the United States.
There are those who are contemplating abstaining or voting against the Government. In more than 42 years in the House, and having been associated with my party for about 50 years, I accept that there have been major differences.
Mr. Skinner: The Conservative party has them now.
Sir Edward Heath: They are serious difficulties.
I cannot recall, however, any episode in which those who have taken a different view from that of the Government were prepared to endanger the life of their Government. I look back to the India battles at the beginning of the 1930s when I was at Oxford. That group was never for one moment prepared to endanger the then Government.
Mr. Skinner: Did the right hon. Gentleman support it?
Sir Edward Heath: I was not a Member of the House at the time.
I look back to the Suez problem, which arose in the 1950s. That, of course, was the time when the Suez group was operating. At no point was it prepared to damage the then Conservative Government.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Well reminded.
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was a Whip then.
Sir Edward Heath: Yes, I was. I respected the group's views. Its members were always ready to assure me that in no circumstances would they damage the Government.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends hold views about Maastricht and the European Community as a whole that are different from mine. I know that some of them never wanted to belong to the European Community. I have always respected their views. I do not believe, however, that it is right for them tonight in any way to endanger the outside world, the Conservative party or the United Kingdom by voting against the Government.
5.39 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Once again, I find myself following the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir. E. Heath) in a European debate. By and large, I could not find a single point of disagreement with what he said—[Interruption.] It is often the case that on specific issues one can agree with those from other parties. Indeed, it is often the case that, when that happens, the nation benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed sadness about the position adopted by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the many others who showed great courage in 1972 but who have now decided to change their minds—[Interruption.] I shall seek

315
to show that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, I greatly regret, driven more by opportunism than by anything else.
The question before the House this evening is probably the most important question with which we have dealt in recent years. It is about Britain's future in Europe, not about the survival of the Government. That is the central issue at stake today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a deservedly fine reputation as a parliamentary debater. I believe that, when he looks back on his speech today, he will find that it did not enhance that reputation. The whole of his speech—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says from a sedentary position that we are frightened of losing our seats—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants to intervene, he should do so in the proper manner; otherwise he must restrain himself.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Workington might reflect on this fact. In 1972, we voted on a matter of principle, and we voted for Britain's future in Europe. There was a deeply unpopular Government at the time, and we heard exactly the same charges against us from Labour Members then that we hear now. They said that we would never be forgiven. However, within three or four months, we had won the by-elections in Sutton and Cheam, Orpington and Berwick-upon-Tweed. Two years later, we won our largest vote ever, because we stuck to our principles when the Labour party did not stick to its.
I want to deal with the matter that took up practically the whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, the central question whether we are debating a motion of confidence. His speech, which turned on a lawyer's legalistic analysis of text rather than anything substantial, must be set against his statement the day before yesterday that this was a "virtual confidence motion". If he examined Britain's constitution, he would realise that there is no such thing as a "virtual" confidence motion.
The way to judge a confidence motion is by a single criterion—if the Government lose the vote, will there be a general election tomorrow? The answer is no, as all right hon. and hon. Members have conceded. Instead, there will he a vote of confidence, which the Government will win —turkeys do not vote for Christmas. On Friday, we will wake up without a general election but with Britain's future in Europe desperately damaged. We will not vote for that.
There is a paradox in that there is a clear majority in this House in favour of ratifying the Maastricht treaty. People outside the Chamber and those viewing our debate from Europe will find it extraordinary that a decision that should be taken on whether it benefits our country is instead being swept to one side in pursuit of what I am bound to call discreditable opportunism.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had tabled a confidence motion, we would have voted for it. If there were an opportunity to remove the Government, we would not miss it. I take second place to no one in my wish to get rid of the Government, and I will not miss the first opportunity to achieve that. However, that is not on offer this evening.
316
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman chooses not to table a confidence motion but instead asks his hon. Friends to vote against something with which they agree in order to show support for a motion that he has not dared to table, he will not win the trust of this country.
Mr. John Smith: I note that the right hon. Gentleman increases his attacks on the Labour party according to the intensity of the representations he receives from his followers throughout the country. They will understand what I mean when I accuse him of staggering naivety. He knows that, if the Government win the motion, they will use it as justification for public expenditure cuts, their economic policy and other matters. The right hon. Gentleman will have to explain to his party and his voters why he was conned across the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Ashdown: When someone runs out of arguments, he indulges in just that sort of name calling. There is an argument for saying that, by voting against the Government, we could damage them. But the central question we must consider is whether we would damage the nation more. The Labour party will inflict damage on the Government, but, as I believe I can show, it will inflict ever greater damage on the country in the process.
There are sincere reasons for voting against the Government's motion—
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman, to whom I will give way later, has always argued his case, as have the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)—who was elected on the basis that he opposed the treaty. I disagree with him, but he is entitled to his view as, indeed, are others. I accept that they have a case to put, to which I and the nation will listen with a great deal of respect. At least they are doing what they believe to be in the national interest.
However, those who want to assure Britain's future in Europe but who vote against the motion are putting party political interest before that of the nation. That is the main charge that I level at the Labour party.
Another case that may be made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and those who vote with the Labour party tonight is that we may so damage the Prime Minister that he would have to be removed. I would weep no tears for that. But we must judge the issue against the national interest. Will it do Britain's condition any good for the current Prime Minister of a Tory Government to be replaced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? The answer to that question is no. Will it damage the country if we do not ratify the Maastricht treaty? The answer to that is unquestionably yes.
Other reasons have been advanced for voting against the motion tonight. One that we have heard articulated is that the motion is unnecessary. That was the first reason the Labour party gave for voting against the motion—until someone pointed out that this debate is being held precisely because the Labour party had requested it on 1 June, a request followed up later by the Labour party's spokesman on foreign affairs.
The second reason advanced was that Maastricht was imperfect. I accept that argument; we were the first to state

317
some of the treaty's imperfections. But unless the Bill proceeds, we shall not be able to amend those imperfections later.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East argued that to vote for the Government tonight was to give the Labour party's imprimatur to the opt-out of the social chapter. Then, why did the Opposition not vote against the Bill on Second Reading? They never did so; they abstained. Neither I nor my party want the social chapter opt-out or the monetary union opt-out, but if Maastricht goes down, the social chapter and monetary union go down with it. Only if we ratify the Maastricht treaty can a future Government—hopefully a more European one—readopt both clauses, which we want to see.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the leader of a party that has fought for people's rights year after year, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that our democratic system will be greatly damaged if the Bill is pushed through without the people having the right to express their view? Could we not put a stop to the bogus nonsense and attacks by one party on another if we simply agreed now to give people the right to a say? Would that not stop all the nonsense of people concentrating on each other's motives?
Mr. Ashdown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he may know, I have always supported a referendum on the matter, and I hope that one will be agreed under the Bill. I agree that the Bill involves a shift of sovereignty—one that I recommend to the British people and in which I passionately believe—but the House does not have the right to give away sovereignty that it does not possess.
Sovereignty comes from the people. I believe that there should be a referendum. If there were a referendum, we should not be seen to take our people into Europe, which I strongly recommend they enter, depending on their ignorance or in the face of their hostility. That has always been my view, and will remain so.
Mr. Michael Colvin rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman: I have given way a number of times, and should like to make progress. I am aware that we are approaching the time for the 10-minute rule to be applied to speeches.
Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just this minute said that he is not prepared to give way. I clearly heard him say so.
Mr. Ashdown: I shall make a little more progress; then I shall happily give way.
The last reason which is given for voting against the Bill, and which lies at the heart of the Labour party's amendment, is that we should wait for the Danes. I cannot imagine a more demeaning attitude for the country to take than to have to shelter behind the skirts of the Danish people. Every other nation in the European Community has ratified or will ratify the agreement without waiting for the announcement from the Danish people on their reconsideration.
318
Only one question needs to be asked by the British people and the House: whether Maastricht is in Britain's interests. I believe that it is. Whether it is regarded by the Danes as being in Denmark's interest is totally irrelevant.
At the heart of the Labour party's amendment is the belief that the debate should be delayed for a further six weeks. What the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would have us believe was a great and towering issue of confidence is merely an opportunity for the Labour party to sit on the fence for another six weeks. That is not a convincing argument.
Mr. Wareing: Last Friday, I talked with a Liberal Member of the Swedish Parliament, who said that, in two years, the Swedes are to have a referendum on whether to join the European Community. The Swedes are carefully watching the way in which the large countries such as Germany, France and Britain are treating Denmark. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if we are to persuade the Swedes and other small countries to join the European Community, we should treat them fairly?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood the position—as he so often does. It is not a question of treating the Danes fairly. Of course we should listen to them and seek to do what we can to accommodate their views. But that does not have any bearing on whether it is in Britain's interests to join the Maastricht process. It is in Britain's interests, not Denmark's, which is the issue that the House and the country must address.
Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: No, I wish to make considerably more progress before giving way again.
Let us consider the Labour amendment. The Labour party wants a six-week delay. What happens in those six weeks? First, severe damage will be done to the respect in which this country is held abroad. I have no doubt that the voice of this country in its EC presidency will be undermined during the six-week delay.
Beyond that, what is the six-week delay about? It is about a Labour party that went to the electorate in April to ask them to vote for something, and now ends up voting against it. It is about considerably more damage being done to the British economy. It is about the fact that the uncertainty that now acts as one of the primary blocks against trying to get the country out of recession will remain for a further six weeks. It is about the fact that the inward investment on which we so much depend in reviving the economy in order to save jobs will not improve for a further six weeks.
Therefore, we shall pay for the Labour party's six weeks with more lost jobs and a deeper recession. One night of fun in Westminster for the Labour party will result in tens of thousands of additional lost jobs in Britain.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Ashdown: No, I shall not give way.
Sir Jim Spicer rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just made it clear that he is not going to give way.
Mr. Ashdown: The economy is in a mess, and the Government are culpable. Of course the Government's economic policies are the origin of that mess, but there is one certain way to make that mess worse and to lose more people their jobs: for the motion to fall and the Maastricht process to be delayed. That would result in this country's economic mess getting worse, not better. The Labour party's action tonight will have brought that about.
Not long ago, a sensible article in The Observer said:
"The Government is not going to be able to solve the economic crisis unless it secures a European solution."
Correct. It continued:
"The ingredients of a practical alternative to that grim future"—
by which the author meant the Government's recession—
"are to be found in the Maastricht treaty".
Correct. The author concluded:
"It is essential that these are acted upon … to-day."
The author of that article was not the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, but the then leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). That is what he felt, but tonight he will vote against those sentiments.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has written one of the best books produced by any Member of the House in recent years on the European question. He said:
"The Labour party must sustain its new commitment to the European Community. A switch back to outright opposition—or even to scepticism—would lack any credibility."
He is right. I am only sorry that he has decided not to support his words in the Lobby tonight.
We will vote not for the Government but for Britain's future in Europe. Tonight, we will vote not for the Prime Minister but to save jobs and to get the economy going again within the only context that makes that possible. This country's tradition does not lie in isolation from Europe. Our history has always been involvement and participation in Europe. Twice this century, when Europe has faced its darkest hour, this country has made great sacrifices to ensure that we play our full part. Now, when Europe again is facing considerable economic problems and when we are seeing rising nationalism and deepening threats to peace in Europe, it cannot be in the interests of this country to abandon that tradition.
I finish with a letter that appeared in The Observer, which I saw on Monday night. It spoke of an old man who was seen by the graveyard in El Alamein. Looking at the rows of white crosses ahead of him in the desert, he said, "This is the reason why I believe the Maastricht treaty must be ratified: that must never happen again." The question before the House tonight is whether that old man, in that single sentence, was able to express more wisdom than the whole of the House in this debate tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that speeches between now and 8 pm must be limited to 10 minutes.
6.3 pm
Mr. Paul Channon: I agreed with much of the impressive speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but I rise to tell the House for the first time for some time, in case there should be any muddle, that there is no unanimity in Southend on the
320
European Community. Therefore, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for once I should like to give my views.
The debate is ostensibly on a motion to proceed with the Bill. We all know that, if we want to, we can proceed with the Bill anyway. The debate is taking place because the Labour party and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wanted it. If we proceed to debate the Maastricht Bill, either now or in a few weeks' time, we shall still have the opportunity to amend it, throw it out or do whatever the House wants to do. All the fuss and debate revolve around a Labour amendment to delay the proceedings of the Committee for six weeks. [Interruption.] That is what Labour's amendment says. I said "ostensibly" because we all know that other considerations lie behind it.
In reality, the House is making an amazing fuss about very little indeed. All of us will have a chance to say more if the Bill is considered, but the basic principles are clear.
Fear was expressed that the Bill might he pushed through. Goodness knows how the Bill will he pushed through. It will have the longest Committee stage of any Bill since the war. I shall be very surprised indeed if it is pushed through.
Let me give the House my views, for what they are worth, which I suspect is not much. I think that it is essential for the United Kingdom to stay in the European Community; not every hon. Member agrees, but the overwhelming majority do. All the old arguments still apply. I am strongly in favour of completion of the single market and of attracting inward investment. There are some signs of people involved with inward investment being worried about what will happen if we do not ratify Maastricht. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), to whose experience I bow, that I am in favour of much freer trade. Indeed, I fear that action may be needed on textiles, to which he referred.
There are both undesirable and desirable provisions in the treaty. If I believed, for example. that ratification of Maastricht would lead to Mr. Martin Bangemann's view of affairs prevailing, I should not be in favour of it. It is interesting that no one has mentioned Mr. Bangemann, which shows that no hon. Member takes his predictions seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends in due course.
I do not believe in a federal Europe, and nor do the Government, the House and the Opposition. I believe that Maastricht represents if anything a step back from federalism rather than a step towards it. Of course Maastricht is not ideal. I do not know any hon. Member who thinks that it is. I am not mad keen on it. I go further than many of my hon. Friends: it would have been much better if it had not happened at all. It was thrust upon us and we had to take part in it. It would have saved us much trouble if the French had voted against it, but they did not and we must face the facts of the real world rather than of the world that many of us would like.
Do we want to be in or out? We cannot take an a la carte approach and choose the parts that we want. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returned from the meetings in Maastricht at the end of 1991, was he received with derision by the House? Was there universal opposition to what he came back with? Not at all. It was a triumph. We were told, and I believed, that my right hon. Friend had achieved remarkable success in getting the British point of view accepted. I remind the House of the

321
motion that was passed on 19 December 1991, with the support of most of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. It reads:
"This House congratulates the Prime Minister on achieving all the negotiating objectives set out in the motion that was supported by the House on 21st November; and warmly endorses the agreement secured by the Government at Maastricht."—[Official Report, 19 December 1991; Vol. 201. c. 555.]
I repeat:
"This House … warmly endorses the agreement secured by the Government at Maastricht."
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and many hon. Friends—who, I read in the newspapers, hold slightly different points of view now—supported that.
The negotiation was a great success. I have a copy of the Dutch magazine to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) referred in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
"The third main protagonist in Maastricht is the British Premier John Major. He was the winner of the negotiations."
I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup: that is a quotation; it is not I who said that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wanted "an opt-out from the EMU" and he got it. The magazine went on to describe that what happened at Maastricht was a resounding British success. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister managed to defuse the issue; he did not compel this country to go in for the social charter—I know that there are differences between the two sides of the House on that. We were not committed to economic and monetary union; we were not committed to a single currency; and we made progress towards subsidiarity.
Of course there are worrying features of the agreement, at least from my point of view. The Commission itself described it as expanding many of their existing responsibilities and bringing in new policy areas. Yes, there are things that are not perfect in the Maastricht agreement. We also know that all over Europe there is increasing concern about the powers of the Commission and the way in which it is out of touch with public opinion in the various member states. If that were not so, we would not have had the situation in France, we would not have had the situation in Denmark and we would not have the powerful body of opinion in this country against the powers wielded by the Commission, or at least against the way in which it chooses to exercise its powers.
What happens if we say no to the Maastricht treaty, if we say no tonight and eventually do not ratify it? Do hon. Members think that it will make the centralising tendencies of the Community better or worse? I believe that it will mean that this country will be in a very much weaker position, not a stronger one, if we stay in the Community. Of course, if I were a Member who believed in our getting out, that would be a different matter. Those hon. Members who want to leave the Community have an entirely different point of view. But for those of us who want to remain, how do we remain as an effective negotiator if we do not in the end sign what we have agreed in a free negotiation and which the House has approved by an enormous majority? Who apart from us in the Community will argue for less Commission control or more subsidiarity?
I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that we must make
322
real progress in Edinburgh on subsidiarity. It has been an amazing achievement by the Government, but it must be there in black and white, meaning something rather than a pious message. We must win Mr. Delors' prize. Mr. Delors' monetary prize will, I hope, be won by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he gets to Edinburgh.
Mr. Hurd: I will buy you all a drink then.
Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend can buy us all a drink—well, he may well be right, but he must win that battle because it is very important for the future of the Community and for the future of the Bill as it passes through the House.
The House has the power to alter or throw out the Bill; neither the motion nor the amendment will affect that. We will debate the Bill in due course. It is ridiculous that we have turned this debate into such an enormous occasion and that we have had the Labour party turning away from its position of supporting the European Community and the treaty in order to try to make some cheap party political capital out of the genuine concern among some of my hon. Friends about parts of the Maastricht treaty. The Labour party seeks to exploit that. I understand why, but the House must not let itself be fooled: there is nothing of merit in the Labour party's case. All it can put forward is this idea of amending our motion to make the line-by-line consideration take place a month later.
I urge my hon. Friends, if they are in any doubt whatsoever, to support the Government motion. It will not prevent them from proposing amendments to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill later if they want to do so, nor will it prevent the House from taking a view on the Bill or throwing it out in the end. The amendment is merely a device to exploit the very understandable differences of view on the Government side of the House. I urge my hon. Friends not to be taken in by it, and to support the motion.
6.13 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: I begin by congratulating my Front Bench on the decision to oppose the Government in the Division later this evening. It is a course of action that I and many colleagues urged on them, and I am naturally delighted that they have taken the advice and reached that decision.
The stated reason for the decision is that this evening's motion and the whole debate have very little to do with the issue of Maastricht but everything to do with bolstering the flagging fortunes of a discredited Prime Minister; but I want to make it clear that, for myself and perhaps for others voting on this side of the argument this evening, there are other and perhaps even stronger reasons for doing so.
I shall be voting against the motion, for instance, because I believe that it is premature. It is premature because it flies in the face of the assurance that the Prime Minister gave in September that we would not reconsider the matter until the Danes had resolved their situation. The Danish Government have, of course, put forward their proposals, but there is no guarantee that the Danish people will listen to those proposals any more than they did when they decided the matter in the first referendum. Nor is there any guarantee that the requirements of the Danish Government will be accepted or even entertained

323
by other European leaders. The Foreign Office has revealed that it understands that very well, and Mr. Delors' initial response shows all too clearly that arrogance and disregard for public opinion which got us into the Maastricht mess in the first place.
I shall vote against the Government this evening because, of all the provisions in the Maastricht treaty which one might or might not wish to support, it is surely perverse for our Government to turn their back on the social chapter, the one provision in the treaty that offers at least the chance of a people's Europe rather than a bankers' Europe. This is the one provision that gives some protection to working people right across Europe against the depredations of employers looking for the lowest wages and the poorest working conditions.
I shall vote against the Government this evening because the Prime Minister has consistently misled his own party, the House and the country about the true effect of the treaty. The Prime Minister claims that it is a decentralising treaty. He says that the provision about subsidiarity has real and precise meaning. That simply flies in the face of the actual provisions of the treaty. The treaty is clear, and we must understand that when our partners write these words they mean them.
The treaty is clear: it establishes a European union of which henceforth we are all to be citizens. Mr. Bangemann spoke the truth. Why should he do otherwise? It is as plain as a pikestaff to anyone that the treaty is designed to be a major step towards a federal Europe. The very term is itself inadequate to describe what is aimed at. What is aimed at is a unitary state, a European superstate with centralised political institutions, and it does no credit to the Prime Minister, in that maladroit way, to say that Mr. Bangemann is wrong and that his own interpretation is right. The most charitable thing that we can say about the Prime Minister is that he appears not to understand the treaty that he negotiated.
I shall also vote against the Government tonight because of what the treaty has to say about economic and monetary union and a single currency. It is ironic, is it not, that we are again being beguiled with those seductive messages from the captains of industry and the leaders of our economy to the effect that we must accept Maastricht for the sake of our economic future. Hardly a dot or a comma has been altered in the similar protestations and messages in support of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, uttered with the same certainty and confidence just eight weeks ago. The reality is that to accept Maastricht would be to throw this economy once again into the abyss; to entrench in permanent and irreversible treaty law all the mistakes of the ERM which created a deepening recession, destroyed jobs, homes and businesses and blighted lives.
That is what we now face by way of the treaty of Maastricht on economic policy. We must not accept it. The provisions of the treaty simply fly in the face of the best economic interests of this country. How can we accept a treaty that sets up an independent central bank which is to control and decide all the major questions of economic policy in a way which is directly and specifically said by the treaty to be unaccountable to any other influence, let alone the democratically elected Governments of the Community?
How can we accept provisions which direct those bankers, if they need such direction, to concentrate exclusively on price stability, even in the depths of the
324
worst recession for two generations? How can we accept convergence criteria defined exclusively in monetary terms; criteria which would require us, if they applied today, to lop £20 billion off public spending? How can that be accepted? What a breathtakingly audacious attempt this is by the bankers to secure for ever their dominance over elected politicians. No responsible Member of the House should give away such centrally important powers of self-government, and certainly not without so much as a word of consultation with those by whose authority we sit in the House.
What is proposed is not just a new arrangement; it is intended to be irreversible. That is the point of enshrining it in treaty law. No British electorate, in any subsequent British general election, could vote in a Government, even a party which stood on the explicit programme of implementing a different economic policy, who could produce a change of policy without a direct breach of our treaty obligations.
I make this case not just for the British people but for the people of Europe as well. I speak as a European politician as well as a British politician. Those who argue that the decision is whether we remain in Europe are frankly wrong. They are not only wrong; the reverse is the case. It is those who are pressing Maastricht who are jeopardising the European project because they will subject that project to such intolerable strains that it will burst asunder.
The argument that somehow tonight's vote can be skated over, that it does not matter, that there will he other opportunities—as we heard from the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)—is insidious but wrong. So, too, is the argument that we have heard so often that we should just accept this step because it will take us to the heart of the negotiations where we can influence events.
We know from Mr. Delors' own lips that there is to be no negotiation; no change to the treaty. Once we accept it, if we accept it tonight, that is that. Whatever the Prime Minister says tonight to his Back Benchers about the nature of the decision, be in no doubt that, if he wins, he will say tomorrow that Maastricht is back on the rails arid Maastricht will then he ratified.
I say to all those who now have to make up their minds that we shall all be put to the test tonight. We shall all have our own reasons. None of us need accept the motivations ascribed to us by others. Some will decide out of genuine conviction, others, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, will prefer pious posturing, and some will be willing dupes of deliberate blandishments and threats.
But the decision will depend on perhaps a small group; people who understand their responsibilities, who know the great struggle for democracy in this country, who know what is at stake is this country's future in Europe. Those people will lift their eyes to a longer horizon. They will understand what is at stake. They will exercise their responsibilities in a proper manner and with proper regard to the interests of the people not only of this country but of Europe.
I do not know how many those people will be. They may he few in number, but, for the sake of Britain and Europe, I pray that they are enough.
6.23 pm
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), not just because I disagree profoundly with every word that he has uttered for the past 10 minutes, but because, in the few minutes available to me, I want to address my remarks to those such as him who are not just interested in whether tonight we vote for postponement of the Committee stage for six weeks or more but who, like him and like some of my hon. Friends, do not believe in the Maastricht treaty at all, do not want to see it ratified, and do not want to see us progress further with our continental colleagues towards a closer union.
All hon. Members will have noticed that, in all the eloquent words uttered by the hon. Member for Dagenham, he offered not one single word of an alternative. He wanted to turn the clock back. He assumed that life could go on as it had in pre-Delors days; no Maastricht treaty, no change, just an economic area. But it is not like that. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said clearly, the other 10 countries will certainly ratify the treaty before Christmas. We have no reason to believe that the Danes will not ratify too within the next year—[Interruption.]—no reason at all.
In any event, my hon. Friends should look around them. On 1 January 1993, if all goes well, the European economic area will come into being, along with the internal market. The seven EFTA countries will all have a full part in that. Those seven have accepted the full body of EC legislation, existing and to come, dealing with the internal market, social policy, environment and competition. On top of that, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland have applied for full membership of the Community, Maastricht and all.
Are those countries all wrong and the hon. Member for Dagenham and a few of my hon. Friends, whose sincerity I respect even if I think that they are blind, all right? Or have those new applicants who accept the Maastricht treaty looked back in history, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) did, at the past 40 years in which, year on year, Germany, at the heart of the Community, has had a growth rate 1 per cent. per annum higher than us, and France, at the heart of the Community, has had a growth rate 0·5 per cent. higher than us; and have they decided that that is the example that they want to follow rather than that of Britain, which is constantly at the fringes of the Community, a late entrant, always asking for exemptions from this and that, and regularly getting poorer than its continental neighbours?
I remember well the time when the deutschmark was 12 to the pound. It was then 10 to the pound. It was then four to the pound. It is now between 2·40 and 2·50 to the pound. If we back away from the Maastricht treaty, not only will it scare off new external investment in Britain —there are already signs of that happening as I see in my constituency—but the deutschmark rate will fall to 2, 1·50, to 1, and we shall progressively become poorer while those in the Community who move to closer union will become richer.
That will be the unalterable tide of history. Those who say that we should beware the Maastricht treaty because it is federalism and will lead on to this, that or the other never come forward with any alternative. I agree with those who say that this is not a perfect treaty. My right
326
hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary did a marvellous job of negotiating in difficult circumstances. The treaty is not well drafted, it is difficult to read and there are parts in it that none of us likes. But our partners, our friends in the Community, are getting on with it. We have to be there too, to change it, to make it better, but also to see that Britain is more prosperous than it otherwise would be.
I make my position clear. Some years ago, I worked in Canada for five years, just when Canada was negotiating its free trade arrangement with the United States. I know how painful and difficult it was to create that free trade market in north America. Mexico is now part of it. Any idea that we could join a north Atlantic free trade area now is turning history back 25 years.
I have been many times to Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore as a business man. They are all developing their own free trade areas within the Pacific rim countries. Do those of my hon. Friends who wish to oppose Maastricht seriously believe that we can stand back, a little England, on the edge of the continent and have inward investment, prosperity, full employment? It is just not possible.
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath); we need to do a better job of explaining the treaty to everyone in the country. We should not run away from it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take that point on board, and will tell us what he has in mind. I do not think that he should emulate the document put out by a number of EC members, which takes the form of a small card; nor do I think that the lengthy 140-page consolidation of the treaty is quite right. I strongly recommend something like this pamphlet headed:
"Info-pratique—Maastricht—faites votre choix. Les 35 points clés pour voter."
I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to read that document, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find a means of ensuring that similar documents are delivered to every household in the country at Christmas or thereabouts, so that it is available to the public when we are debating the Bill's Committee stage. There should be no deficiency in the provision of information. Although the decision must be made in the House, it is possible to ensure that our constituents are much better informed than they are now. A pamphlet summarising the terms of the treaty is undoubtedly needed.
Let me say a final word, which I address particularly to Opposition Members—many of whom I know well, and many of whom I know to be, at heart, strong supporters of Maastricht. I suggest that they return late from dinner tonight. Perhaps their taxis will be blocked; perhaps they will find some other good reason not to be present for the vote. I believe that they could all benefit from practising the wisdom of a Denis Healey or a George Brown, and turn up late after a good dinner in order not to vote in an embarrassing way.
Let me remind Opposition Members of the time in the 1970s when they were in government with a small majority. When the debate concerned defence or Northern Ireland, Conservative Members did not vote to bring the Government down; we followed our principles rather than trying to defeat the Labour Government on issues in which we believed. Many hon. Members who think as we do on the Community now sit on the Opposition Benches, and

327
they should be honourable enough not to be here to vote. If they do not take such action, they—like their new leader —will earn the contempt of the British people, which will hang around that new leader's neck like an albatross. He will never forget it.
The new Leader of the Opposition has done an incredible thing. In one great leap, through his wobble and his hypocrisy, he has made his predecessor seem a paragon of consistency and principle. I never thought that that would be possible, but the Leader of the Opposition has achieved it.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) to withdraw his allegation of hypocrisy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I must say in all honesty that I did not hear the word "hypocrisy", but, if the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) used it, I am sure that he will withdraw it.
Mr. Renton: As you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were not listening with full attention. What I said was that the Leader of the Opposition had shown, or practised, an example of hypocrisy that he would never forget. I think that that comment has the general approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been conducted with full-blooded enthusiasm by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman might be advised to make it absolutely clear that he alleged no hypocrisy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Renton: It is certainly true that I was not calling the Leader of the Opposition a hypocrite; I was saying something rather different.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He repeated exactly what he had said before.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need sedentary remarks.
6.34 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: This seems to be a debate for short speeches, and I sincerely hope that mine will be the shortest of all.
I believe that the comments of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) were addressed to people like me, who have always strongly supported the principle of closer union in Europe. It seems a bit much, however, for a former Government Chief Whip to appeal to Opposition Members to stay away so that his wretched, discredited Government can remain in power, and he will not get away with it. There are a number of words for such behaviour. and certainly the right hon. Gentleman used some ugly words when he described my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a hypocrite. That was nonsense.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now stretching the Chair's patience. Let us return to the debate.
Mr. Home Robertson: I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex withdrew his comment. If so, we can leave it at that.
As I said, I have always strongly supported the principle of closer European union. Along with my constituency party, I campaigned for a yes vote in the referendum; I only regret that I did not join my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in the Lobby on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill. Had I done so, the Bill would have been given a majority of 245. Nevertheless, we shall have further opportunities when the Bill reaches its later stages. I intend to vote for an "opt-in" provision relating to the social charter and all the other bits and pieces in regard to which the Prime Minister dug his toes in—and tried to claim credit for doing so earlier in the debate.
I come from a country that has shared its sovereignty with a powerful neighbour for a long time—ever since 1707—and I do not share the hang-ups of Conservative Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about a development along those lines in the Community. I hope, indeed, that the Community will develop in ways that will give smaller countries like Scotland a stronger and more direct input into the affairs of the Community, as well as their own affairs.
Let me stress the important point that I put to the Prime Minister when he made his statement last week. Subsidiarity must not stop at Westminster. It would be a travesty if the Länder of Germany, such as Bavaria, were given more power according to that principle, while Scotland and Wales continued to be administered from Whitehall like colonies, governed by Westminster legislation. It would constitute the grossest irony if the European Council assembled in Edinburgh, of all places, and agreed to a package that would deny subsidiarity to the people of Scotland.
The Maastricht treaty—with the opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister—is certainly far from perfect.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Ha!
Mr. Home Robertson: Let me remind my hon. Friend of the deliberations that took place at the Labour party conference, which resoundingly supported and endorsed a resolution that stated:
"This Conference reaffirms Labour's vision of Europe with Britain's future at the heart of a European Community which is economically prosperous and which has high standards of social and environmental protection and citizens' rights … Conference believes that the Maastricht Treaty, while not perfect, is the best agreement that can currently be achieved."
That resolution was overwhelmingly supported. Another draft resolution, which stated:
"This Conference calls on the Parliamentary Labour Party to oppose ratification of the Maastricht Treaty",
was overwhelmingly rejected.
As I have said, the treaty is not perfect, and we must vote for improvements to the Bill. That is the approach that we should adopt, and I am confident that the official Opposition will adopt it. If it is appropriate, I intend in due course to vote for the Bill's Third Reading.
If the motion had been genuinely and substantively about Europe, I would have voted with the Government in the Aye Lobby; but it is not. It is a paving motion—a gimmick. According to our procedures it is completely redundant. Indeed, in response to a point of order, Madam Speaker specifically clarified that point earlier.

329
There is no need for the motion, because there is nothing to stop the Government from going ahead with the ratification of the treaty. When they do so they will find that I, and most Opposition Members, approach it in a constructive and positive manner.
This is not a paving motion about Europe; it is a detour round some of the obscure back alleys of the Conservative party. Tonight we are dealing with the stepping stones by means of which the Prime Minister is trying to paddle through the morasses of Southend and elsewhere. It is no part of our job to help the Conservative party through such problems.
The motion is clearly one of confidence in the Government. We are told, "Yes, it is," and "No, it isn't," as different messages come out of different sectors of the Cabinet and the Conservative party—but to all intents and purposes we are dealing with a motion of confidence in the Government.
If, in my 14 years in the House, there were ever a Government which was not worthy of anyone's confidence, it is this Government. We could have argued that we had no confidence in the previous Prime Minister, but we always had confidence that she knew where she was going and what her policies were. Nobody can possibly have any confidence, in the strict literal meaning of the word, in the present Government. They do not know what is going on. Cabinet Ministers do not even have confidence in themselves. That is why the House should reject any notion of any kind of confidence in the Government. We certainly should not help them to plod their way through the morass that they have created for themselves with the motion.
I repeat that when the Bill comes back before the House I shall view it constructively, and I am likely to support its Third Reading. However, the motion before us has nothing to do with that. It is designed to save the neck of a discredited Prime Minister, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote in that spirit.
6.41 pm
Mr. David Howell: The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was the speech of a very clever lawyer with a very bad case. If his mood had been a little less ungenerous, and if the Labour party were in a less uncertain and ambiguous position, he would have given credit where it was due, and acknowledged what has happened right from the start of the Maastricht debate.
I am talking about what has happened not only since the treaty was signed, but way back, when there was first pressure for the intergovernmental conference—which this country resisted—and then for the conference to give birth to the treaty text—about which this country had doubts —and then when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Maastricht with a mandate to warn against excesses and to secure what they could for this country—which they did brilliantly. All that time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the House of Commons—let us, as a House of Commons, take credit for this—have called it right about the unfolding Maastricht programme.
330
We are the ones who warned that there were excess elements, and dangers, in going full out for an imposed timetable, monetary union and a high political union. And now we are hearing the voices of pro-Europeans all round the continent, both inside and outside the Community, saying that we were right, and that the foot flat on the accelerator was the wrong approach, whereas the British stance, and our example, was right.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howell: No, unfortunately I cannot give way, because of the 10-minute rule. Otherwise, I should be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman.
Having reached the point at which this country is protected from some of the excesses of Maastricht, we are now in a strong position to move forward in Europe and to work for two aims. My personal view is that we should get over the hurdle and ratify the treaty, because we have work to do in formulating a new treaty.
I am sorry to burden my right hon. and hon. Friends with the prospect of a new treaty, but we need one to provide for the new priorities in Europe, which were not entirely foreseen at Maastricht but which are becoming clearer all the time.
Let us be clear about the goals we are fighting for. One of those lies before us, only eight weeks away. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has said, a gigantic market, the largest single free trading area ever created by trade negotiators in history, is about to come into being. It will include not only the Community but the European Free Trade Association countries as well—and, I hope, thereafter the Visegrad countries.
On 1 January, in only eight weeks' time, there will be a consumer mass market of 375 million people, covering 46 per cent. of all world trade, with a GNP of about $7,000 billion—I am afraid that that sum is worth more pounds now than it was last week. That is a fantastic achievement, and a high road to great prosperity and opportunity for all the nations in that great economic space—the Community countries plus the European economic area signatories.
Our task in drawing up a new treaty will be to defend and maintain that huge trading operation, that huge economy dominating world trade, in a way that does not allow it to be eroded by protectionism or centralism, and does not allow political busybodies and interferers of every kind to undermine that colossal achievement. We must get on past the Maastricht treaty and begin to design the kind of treaty needed to maintain and strengthen that huge achievement in totally new conditions, which are different from those which existed when the Community began and which hold grave new threats, especially from instability in eastern Europe.
For that reason we, the British—after all, we have called it right all along—must begin to shape the new treaty. I want to see us get over the Maastricht problem, accept the ratification of the treaty while recognising its many inadequacies, and move on to the new tasks ahead.
First, we want a Europe in balance and equilibrium. We do not want a Europe of trains, buses, momentum and destinations, of blueprints and inevitable destiny. We need powers in a treaty—a constitution of Europe—to prevent that. As the Prime Minister said, that is needed to overcome people's deep worries that there will be a

331
continuous slippery slope down which all the powers tumble into the spin drier of the Community. We do not want that, and we need a treaty which can lock in the brakes and barriers to prevent it.
The word with which we conjure to achieve that end is "subsidiarity"—and we have only just started on that. The seed is in the Maastricht treaty, but it is a tiny seed, hardly fertilised. An enormous amount of work is required. We need subsidiarity-plus, and that will not be secured entirely even by taking matters forward in Edinburgh—which I am sure will happen. A new treaty will be required to entrench genuine forces of subsidiarity, and a real reverse thrust into the Community structure to prevent it from going the wrong way.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recently been advised on subsidiarity by a great many lawyers. I am afraid that the lawyers all agree—it is usually a matter for alarm when lawyers all agree—that subsidiarity is not a precise legal concept. Indeed, the Counsel to the Speaker, in an excellent document which I believe was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee, concluded that subsidiarity was
"a principle of policy which is far too imprecise to have any clear legal effect. The fact of unanimity among lawyers would ordinarily cause great apprehension to the public at large; but here it is having a constructive effect. Non-lawyers are having to make the best they can of proposed Article 3b".
In other words, it all falls upon the politicians—us—to make the best we can, or more than that, of making the political concept of decentralisation, subsidiarity or whatever one likes to call it, work.
That will require not only establishing subsidiarity as a political convention in the workings and processes of the Community, but backing it with new procedures, which will require legal force, and will have to be binding. By new procedures I mean, for example, ensuring that the House, our national Parliament—indeed, all national parliaments —can give a view on, and indeed check, all new initiatives, whether they come from the Commission or the Council.
It is important that the next treaty should provide for our Parliament to have a much earlier say on proposals before they reach the legislative stage—before the Council of Ministers decides on them, or before the Commission initiates them. The Maastricht treaty does not provide that; we must go beyond it and build on it. We must deliver safeguards which will lock in the process of building a flexible, diffuse Europe instead of a centralised Europe.
Maastricht was sadly deficient. We must build on it. It was inadequate to deal with the problems of eastern and central Europe. It has been suggested that we should have a commissioner for eastern Europe. I have no doubt that the priority task of Europe should be to prevent the countries of eastern and central Europe from disappearing into fascism and militarism, of which there is great danger. That will require huge political effort, which will not be sufficiently sustained by Maastricht. We must build on the treaty to ensure that eastern and central European countries do not slide into militarism.
We shall need new institutions to cope with enlargement of the Community. We speak glibly about our desire to see Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and so on in the Community. However, to enlarge the Community will require new institutions. The work has to be done. The treaty and the constitutional procedures must be established.
332
We shall need to complete the single market, which we think is all in the hag. It will come into effect on 1 January, but we have only just begun. It will be a vast new task to complete to make that single market operate genuinely. Even greater tasks will be required to ensure that the whole thing is not destroyed by the breakdown of the GATT negotiations. There could be no greater catastrophe than such a breakdown at a time when the planet is beginning to slip and slide into deflation. It would be an utter disaster, for which those who say that we can settle for Maastricht could never be forgiven.
I have described the tasks which a new treaty requires. The question is, who will take the initiative in pushing forward those ideas? Will we be dragged along unwillingly while others make progress? I hope not. I hope that we will recognise what has to be done.
People talk about being at the heart of Europe, but we always have been. This nation has spilt a great deal of blood over the centuries and in recent times. Many families have lost relatives. Their lives were given up by Britain being at the heart of Europe, preventing it from destroying itself yet again and turning to yet more new blueprints and sinister destinies.
So do not let us be told that we are not at the heart of Europe or that it is a new idea for us to be so. We have always been at the heart of Europe. Britain has played a fundamental role in ensuring that Europe remains a balanced, free and open democracy. Where we have failed, catastrophe has resulted.
From the beginning none of us—neither Conservative nor Opposition Members—wanted the Maastricht process—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Ten minutes is ten minutes.
6.51 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I agree entirely with the concluding words of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). None of us ever wanted the Maastricht treaty. It is a good thing that the House has an opportunity today to discuss the issues connected with that treaty. I remind the House that the reason why we are having the debate is the sea change that has occurred and the events that have taken place since the Danes had the courage to say no.
No one should deny that the Danish referendum had a remarkable effect. It got rid of the sense of inevitability and helplessness which most people in most of the countries of Europe felt. People felt that their political elites were doing things over their heads. People did not believe that they had any chance of arresting the process. However, the Danes succeeded in arresting the process.
It is interesting that Mr. Mitterrand's immediate reaction to the Danish result was to announce a French referendum. He believed that he would bury the Danish no in an avalanche of French yeses. Three months later, Maastricht was put to the test of French opinion, and the French gave their consent by a similarly narrow margin. Of course, the French are the founders of the treaties.
Just before the French referendum, Britain had the brutal shock of the pound being forced out of the exchange rate mechanism. Such events made people, not only in Denmark and France but in Britain, think. The plain truth

333
is that there is now far more knowledge and far more criticism about what is in the treaty among people not only in Britain but elsewhere.
One of the Prime Minister's most important remarks this afternoon was when he asked what sort of Europe we were developing through the Maastricht treaty. I agree that that is probably the most important question. In spite of the Prime Minister's assertions and the reservations which the British Government wrung from our reluctant partners in the European Community, the commanding text of the treaty remains.
I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House of the opening declaration of the treaty on European union. It said that the member states were
"Resolved to mark a new stage in the process of European integration …
Resolved to … establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, a single and stable currency, …
Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
Resolved to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy".
Those are not small matters. They are the essence of national sovereignty. To be a self-governing nation is to make decisions in those areas.
I have never heard of a sovereign independent country which did not have its own currency. Yet a declared objective of the treaty is to establish a European state. Who can doubt that the purpose is to establish a European state? The Prime Minister dismissed those matters as European guff. I hope that he was misreported. Those matters are written into the treaty. If he said that they were European guff, he made precisely the same error as his predecessor made with the Single European Act. She did not read the text sufficiently clearly, closely or seriously.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No, I cannot, much as I would like to.
I draw attention to a point which has not attracted sufficient attention. Mr. Bangemann made a speech in Berlin yesterday in which he spoke about what virtually everyone on the European continent takes for granted in political circles. The speech was not an ambush of the British Government. He simply took it for granted that there was nothing interesting in what he had to say. He said that, in the Maastricht treaty,
"the goal of a federal European state was spelt out for the first time,"
and that
"subsidiarity presupposed the idea of a federal European state".
I have always found that entirely convincing. It is implicit in all the speeches made by the more fanatical pro-Europeans in the Chamber.
Dealing with the idea that subsidiarity might lead to the return of some of the powers that Governments had previously exercised, Mr. Bangemann said that the inadequacies of Community decision-making could not be remedied by returning power to the member states, and that the subsidiarity debate must not lead to a "rolling back". It is too bad. There is an awful lot of disappointment implicit in those words. He also said that more and more decisions could be taken only at European level.
334
Lastly, to encourage us, Mr. Bangemann siad that the next step after Maastricht's ratification should be the evolution of the EC treaties into a European constitution. Drafts of such a European constitution are already talked about in the European Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) understands all this. He revealed in the debate on 24 September his understanding that a single currency leads to a single government and a single country. Do not let us deceive ourselves about what we face. The Prime Minister showed some skill in finding a little space between the trunk of the Rome treaty and all that has sprung from it, and the pillars of foreign and defence policy, immigration and home affairs. A little space could be found there, but it is my belief—this is certainly the understanding throughout Europe—that those pillars will merge into the trunk at the very next intergovernmental conference in 1996, which specifically refers to the revision of the treaty, taking account of the objectives expressed in A and B of the common and general clauses.
So there we are. Against this background, subsidiarity is a figleaf. It does not deal with the return of powers or the prevention of powers leaving the United Kingdom. It refers only to the methods by which the European state can implement its policies in the member states—perhaps in a slightly more agreeable way. Perhaps the regulations, to take an obvious example, will become directives. Perhaps we could find some even looser form of directive than has yet been legally defined. As long as the nation state does what the Community wants, then the forms that it adopts to do so can be a matter for subsidiarity.
In the end, it will not be the Government who decide what powers belong to the nation state and what powers belong to the Community. That is all decided by the treaties, and the interpreter of the treaties is the European Court.
So much for subsidiarity, one of the issues that was to be clarified by the Prime Minister and his colleagues before the Bill returned to the House. What about the Danes? They are asking for major derogations. They do not want economic and monetary union, or citizenship, or anything to do with defence. They want a legally binding derogation. That is possible only if it takes the form of a protocol or an amendment to the treaty. A declaration will not do.
Of course, Mr. Delors immediately told the Danes that that was not on. He told them that they could not have a change in the treaty—they could only have a declaration. We have not yet got very far with solving the Danish question—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Devlin.
7.2 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: It is appropriate that we take part in this debate with poppies in our lapels. As we watched the unfolding tragedy in Yugoslavia this summer, it would have done no harm to reflect that it was the prospect of further wars in Europe that led to the foundation of the European Community.
From the very start, the Community has been a political, not merely an economic, entity. It has been designed to stitch together the fabric of our separate nations so as to prevent them from being rent asunder by Europe's age-old rivalries, which are now beginning to

335
resurface. It was foreseen by the founders of the Community that the cold war would not always divide Europe.
Britain, an island, has always been suspicious of continental combinations. Our geography has traditionally allowed us to stand aloof from our European neighbours and to concentrate on trading with the wider world on preferential terms bought by military might.
Those days are over now, and our small country must look to the future. It has taken nearly 30 years for Britain to come to terms with our changed circumstances, and to catch up with the unfolding European Community. Being late entrants, we have not had the opportunity to steer the Community away from its more disastrous policies, such as the common agricultural policy. But we now have the best opportunity to lead the continent since Churchill's call for unity in 1946.
There is no point in our being reluctant members. If all we do is criticise, we throw away the opportunity to shape Europe. If all we do is complain, no one will listen to us. The Prime Minister declared in his acceptance speech that he wanted us to be at the heart of Europe. He has shown that the best way to steer ourselves away from greater centralisation in Brussels is to be one of the big players in the negotiating process. That was how, in the case of the Maastricht treaty, he was able to secure a deal dismissed by many beforehand as impossible.
Now, for the first time in any European Community treaty, Maastricht contains an article specifically remitting anything best done at national level to national Governments. Britain opted out of the social chapter and reserved the right to decide later on a single currency. It was thus that the Council of Ministers agreed in Oslo on 4 June to proceed with ratification.
It is not our way to renege on an agreement negotiated in good faith. Moreover, it is an agreement which for the first time gives us weapons against the centralisation in Brussels. It creates a union, but not one that supersedes nation states. Foreign policy and home affairs are specifically reserved as national pillars.
If this treaty is delayed in its ratification, as the Opposition want, that puts at risk our new role in Europe. We would have to fight all over again the battles that we have won in the past two or three years, or be consigned to the slow lane of a two-speed Community. The Government have worked hard to propose a new and effective agenda that is in the best interests of this country.
First, the Community must be good for British business and British jobs. Coming as I do from the northern region, which has been one of the greatest recipients of inward investment resulting from this forward-looking policy, I know the benefits that it has brought. So it must be a Europe of free trade, where our goods can compete on equal terms.
Secondly, we must ensure that only decisions which need to he taken at European level are taken there, and that we do not become overburdened with the minutiae of unnecessary regulations. Indeed, we want rid of some of the existing ones.
Thirdly, we need to encourage new members such as Austria, Switzerland and Finland to join as soon as possible, not least because they will be net contributors to the Community. That will lessen the burden on our own hard-pressed economy. We also want the east European countries to become members as soon as their economies are in a fit state to enable them to do so.
336
Travelling extensively through Europe this summer, I found many people in Austria and Sweden asking when we were going to ratify the treaty, because they wanted to join the Community at the earliest opportunity and they wanted to be part of the new, closer union that is to be brought about.
If we do not bring in eastern Europe in the near future, we will find that its citizens vote with their feet and cross the borders into the countries of the west. Travelling through Europe, one could not help noticing either, especially in eastern Europe, the emergence of a new German super-power on our doorstep—an economic power permeating the whole of central and eastern Europe. It will become ever stronger as it overcomes its own domestic difficulties.
With Europe in a state of flux following the collapse of communism, never has there been a greater opportunity or need for British leadership. Never have we stood to gain more from this challenge. At this crucial time in Europe's history, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it would be wrong to retreat to the sidelines. I ask all Members to look at the text of the motion on the Order Paper.
What will be achieved by the Government's failure to carry their motion? An overwhelming majority in this House is in favour of the Maastricht treaty. The treaty and the process will go on in Europe, and that will affect this country. If the motion is not carried, we will merely repeat the mistakes of the past and ensure that any new leader or new Government coming into the breach will have to pursue the same policies from a much weaker position. That cannot be good for our country. I urge the House to support the Government.
7.8 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Reluctantly I have to admit that there was not much in the speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) with which I disagreed. I have long been a staunch supporter of Britain's involvement in the EEC. I was one of those who voted for our entry in October 1971 when a lot of these youngsters were not around, and I maintained that position by breaking ranks with my party early in 1972. I, along with my right hon., learned and revered Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), am one of the six parliamentary survivors of that happy band. My support has not wavered over many many years, and I was never open to the "Shall we, shan't we?" casuistry of the party over the years. My support is such that, as the House will recall, I—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—voted a few months ago for the Second Reading. My hon. Friend and I were the only two Labour Members to do that.
Then came this little oddity, the paving motion—an innocuous little thing with no word of which I can disagree. It lacks the word "Maastricht", which I would rather it had contained, but the ways of Prime Ministers are devious and, in the case of the present Prime Minister, timorous.
Had the motion contained that naughty word "Maastricht" I might have been constrained to vote for it —yes, I am a staunch supporter of the Maastricht treaty even though the Government have mucked it up—but then politicians on both sides of the House started to exercise their imaginations on the motion. Lo and behold, the issue became a vote of confidence. Although I cannot find those

337
words in the Government's innocuous motion, I am assured by hon. Gentlemen with greater political nous than I—and with perhaps slightly less political integrity—that such it is, or has become with skilful manipulation and some considerable misrepresentation. So in my innocence, which I have maintained over 26 years in this place, they have convinced me that this is, indeed, an issue of confidence.
I do not usually go along with the mob, especially when it is an excitable mob. I have voted against my party on Vietnam, on arms for Israel in 1973, on east-African Asians and on the EC, and on each issue I was absolutely right, as the House will now realise. I must confess that I do not relish the prospect of being skinned alive on Parliament green if the Prime Minister were to win by one vote and I had abstained.
I must say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, however, that, for an old timer like me, enough is really enough. As we fought the election as ardent Europeans and our conference heartily endorsed that stance—which perhaps some of my colleagues ought occasionally to remember—I now expect the parliamentary Labour party, and its Front-Bench spokesmen in particular, to support strongly the progress of the Maastricht Bill. There must be no erosion of our European position. There must be no obstructionism in Committee.[Laughter.] The laughing would suggest that some berks —I mean, some hon. Members—are going to try it. I hope that they will be roundly defeated. There must be no abstention on Third Reading. As a pro-European I shall certainly vote for Third Reading—regardless of what devious position the party may by then have adopted. What will be interesting at that Third Reading will be to know under which Prime Minister we are then serving.
7.14 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss: The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) made an admirable speech, and I honour him for that, even if I do not agree with much of what he said.
The Leader of the Opposition opened his speech by congratulating Governor Clinton on becoming President-elect of the United States. As I watched the American election results in the early hours of this morning and saw the celebrations of the Democrats' victory, I recalled our own election night on 9 April. When my result was declared at Great Yarmouth town hall, I told those who had elected me that I could not celebrate that victory while so many people in my constituency continued to be out of work.
The message that came from the United States via our television screens last night was clear and strong: President Bush had not addressed the jobs problem; he had seemed to leave the recession to sort itself out and had had no coherent economic programme; and he had lost touch with the people of America. I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if he does not address the problem of jobs, establish a coherent economic programme and regain touch with the people of this country, he will go the same way as George Bush—only quicker. I do not want to see that happen, but I feel that
338
this Maastricht Bill, and the debate on it, is monstrously irrelevant to the real issues that face the Government and the country.
Various right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whose remarks will no doubt be reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—have said that the Maastricht Bill is a means of establishing a climate in which jobs will be created. I see no evidence of that, except that there will be jobs for the boys—the boys in Brussels and Strasbourg.
I admired my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's opening speech, but I wish that the Government had told us exactly what benefits Maastricht, if ratified, would bring to Britain. Those of us on the Conservative Benches who have doubts about Maastricht have heard ourselves described by the Home Secretary and the chairman of the Conservative party on the radio and television as
"the tail wagging the dog".
My vote is as good as my right hon. Friends' votes.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have the greatest respect, and whom I believe to be a most distinguished occupant of that great office—even if, with typical modesty, he is not listening to what I am saying—cannot reduce honourable and deeply held convictions that go across the party divide to what he has described as "internal squabbles". He demeans himself by using that epithet to describe views that are contrary to his own but that are held with a sincerity and conviction equal to his own.
I am told that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says that we must trust him. Of course I trust him. I do not have the same trust in President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl, Mr. Delors and the rest of the Euro-elite. I do not mean that those statesmen are any less or more trustworthy than statesmen in any other country. What I mean is that their interpretation of what the Maastricht treaty means cannot be relied upon to coincide with my right hon. Friends' interpretation, or—more important —with judgments made by the European Court when the Commission seeks to enforce a decision in the United Kingdom in years to come.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said, no one has mentioned one German whom I trust implicitly and whose assessment of the Maastricht treaty was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). His assessment of what the treaty really means is the same as the assessment that I made when I voted against Second Reading in May. That man is Mr. Bangemann. It is no good the Prime Minister saying that that eminent Vice-President of the European Commission was being silly and ill-informed—although perhaps he was silly to let the cat out of the bag at a time of considerable inconvenience to my right hon. Friends.
The Prime Minister tells us that Mr. Bangemann, in interpreting the Maastricht agreement as a step towards a federal Europe, cannot know that because he was not in Maastricht at the discussions when the treaty was negotiated. When the European Court in Luxembourg is required to adjudicate on some issue relevant to the United Kingdom and the judges find that we have not interpreted the treaty correctly, and therefore find against us, will we be told that their judgment is silly and ill-informed because they were not present when the treaty was agreed?

339
Subsidiarity is the fundamental issue. We all know that it means different things to different people, even when they speak the same language. It is a sure thing that it means different things when they speak 12 different languages. Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the President of the European Court from 1984 to 1988, described the treaty definition of subsidiarity as
"a prime example of gobbledegook, embracing simultaneously two opposed concepts."
He was President of the European Court for four years and called it "gobbledegook", but he suffers from an enormous disadvantage as he was not present at Maastricht when the treaty was agreed.
Due to the short time available, I must confine myself to fewer remarks than I had intended to make. When we made a mess of the exchange rate mechanism—I told my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher that we should not have joined—and things did not work out, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the scales had fallen from his eyes—or at least I read that he said so. I may be wrong, in which case someone will correct me. The scales fell from my eyes some months ago. That is why I voted against the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in May. In two years' time, when something in the treaty has been interpreted as lawyers say it should be, but in a way that my right hon. Friend does not accept, will he say that the scales have fallen from his eyes?
My hon. Friends have urged me to vote with the Government and not to let my right hon. Friend down, although the Government motion, and the debate, is of his making. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made it crystal clear from the Labour Benches that he and his fellows view this as a vote of confidence in the Government and I cannot join them, since I have no confidence in the Labour party to handle the United Kingdom's affairs in Europe, out of Europe or wherever we happen to be in 10 years. I cannot join them in the Division Lobby in their squalid attempt to—
Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has chickened out.
Mr. Carttiss: I do not care. The Opposition are a classic case of chickening out. They have been talking Europe, promoting Europe and wanting Europe, yet tonight they intend to record a vote against Europe. I shall vote against them and against the Government and for a referendum —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—so that the people of this country can decide.
7.23 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: This has been an excellent debate on the position of the United Kingdom in Europe. I stress that because we are now in Europe and we must make the best of it for all the United Kingdom.
There has been only one sour note during the debate, which unfortunately came from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sideup (Mr. Heath), in his offensive and arrogant personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition. At one stage, I had to check that the new Leader was not a woman, such was the vigour of his personal attack.
Hon. Members who have served in the European Parliament for many years have had to endure many boring resolutions. Hon. Members present who were there will recall them. We went through a list of meaningless statements such as, "This Parliament accepts that the earth
340
goes around the sun," that "The Single European Act was passed in 1986," and recognising that "Today is Wednesday 4 November 1992," and so on. Judging from the Government's motion, they have become very European in their thinking, because it is anodyne and mundane—a truly European motion.
Unfortunately, the motion is unnecessary. There is no good reason for this debate. Denmark's position has not been clarified. The Danes have come up with proposals, but they have already been shot down by the President of the European Commission. We now know that subsidiarity will not be made clear until after the Edinburgh Council meeting. The two provisos which were to be clarified before we could make progress have not been resolved.
The Prime Minister seems determined to make Maastricht a personal issue and so we are forced to vote on the motion. The Ulster Unionist party has been consistent in its attitude towards the Maastricht agreement. In the recent general election campaign we were the only party which stated clearly in its manifesto that we were opposed to the agreement. Let us not forget that it is a treaty for European union. That is spelt out in detail in the agreement, and for the Government to pretend otherwise is to avoid the truth facing us in this debate. It creates European citizenship, which is also defined in the agreement. It goes further and it extends Community control over our security, immigration and, eventually, defence policies and will extend major control over our economic policy. The Maastricht agreement is another step towards a federal Europe, which many Europeans in the 12 countries of the Community want.
I served with Martin Bangemann in the European Parliament, and I know him well. What he said yesterday is true. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that the Commission had dissociated itself from Herr Bangemann's statement. I looked in the press today and there did not seem to be any rejection of his statement by the Commission. I should like a further clarification that the Commission has not condemned him for what he said yesterday.
I notice that our Liberal colleagues are nodding in agreement with the statement that Herr Bangemann was reflecting the real thinking within the European Community, and the final objective of a united states of Europe—a federal Europe. We must face that in this Parliament.
Of course, the opt-out clauses in the agreement have been praised, but they would isolate the United Kingdom within the Community. Opting out isolates us, so it is not the answer for those people who say that we do not want to be isolated in Europe.
Some people say that they do not want a two-tier Europe but, once again, the Maastricht agreement lays down the formula for creating that, because it will lay down which countries will join monetary union and which ones will stay outside. There will be two systems within the Community.
Subsidiarity still has to be clarified in Edinburgh. Some business men, but not the majority, and some business organisations—in Northern Ireland most business men would not identify with the comments of some business organisations—fear that if Maastricht is rejected we shall lose a market of 340 million people, but that is nothing. If Maastricht disappeared tonight, which it will not, there would still be a European Community and 340 million

341
people living in it, and the single market would still start on 1 January 1993. They will all be there for business men to benefit from, and I wish that they would fully understand that.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister and the Government have decided to deny the people of the United Kingdom a referendum. Denmark, France and the Republic of Ireland were given one, but we have been denied the right to express our views on whether or not we want Europe to be further involved in the internal policies of the United Kingdom.
From a local point of view the cohesion fund is important to Northern Ireland. It has been denied to us under the Maastricht agreement and promised to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has often mentioned how unfortunate it is that that assistance is to go to the south rather that to Northern Ireland. The one way in which to ensure that there is no disparity in this matter is to bring an end to the Maastricht agreement and therefore to the cohesion fund. We would then have a level playing field for Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Ulster Unionists strongly support greater co-operation in Europe on the basis of sovereign states. We reject federalism, common security and defence forces, common European citizenship and a European central bank, which would have adverse implications for our national economic policies. Ulster Unionists would not sell the United Kingdom short in Europe, but some members of the Government obviously would.
Tonight we will call upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the strength of British people's opposition to the Maastricht treaty and to await clarification of Denmark's position. They should let the people speak through a referendum. Alas, the Government seem intent on giving even greater control to Brussels. A delay in the proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and a decision to hold a referendum in the United Kingdom would be well received not only by our citizens, but by the majority of the citizens in Europe. We saw what happened in Denmark where 50 per cent. of its citizens were against Maastricht—a similar number were against it in France. I believe that at least 50 per cent. of Community citizens would welcome a decision to give the United Kingdom people the right to express themselves.
It seems that the Government have closed their ears to those appeals and, that being so, Ulster Unionists have decided, unanimously, that they have no alternative but to support the Labour amendment this evening.
7.31 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I hope that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech, but I am sure that he will understand that my time is curtailed by the 10-minute rule.
I speak as someone with no love for the way in which Europe has developed in the past 10 years. I have had some experience of that development, because on a number of occasions between 1983 and 1987. when I was a Minister in the Scottish Office, I found the European Commission beginning to intervene in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary called some time ago, "the
342
nooks and crannies of our national life." It intervened to the extent that distillery workers' jobs were in danger of being sacrificed in the interests of 300 geese. At that time, I decided that this was not the Europe that we had voted to join in 1971 and that we had voted to support in a referendum in 1976.
The Europe of nations, the Europe of the common market, which was the Europe that we had supported, had been hijacked, in effect, by those who saw a European superstate and a European federation as the direction in which they wanted to go. That direction is not one that I would or could support, nor am I being asked to support it tonight.
We were led to believe that such a Europe was inevitable because of the train analogy. Hon. Members will recall the number of times that we were told that, if we were not on that train, we would not be part of Europe. We were told that, if we were not in the driving cab, we would have no influence on the destination of Europe. One thing I know about trains is that they are run on a railway track, that that track ends at a single destination and that one cannot diverge from that rail on the way.
That myth did a lot of damage to the European cause. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set off for Maastricht, I was sceptical about whether he could achieve some of his stated objectives because I believed that the firmness of the railway track would prevent him from doing so. The achievement of Maastricht was that the Prime Minister came back and showed that Europe was not a train on a single track, but a tanker, very slow to stop and very difficult to turn, but something that could be turned. The significance of the Maastricht treaty was that it showed that the beginning of that turn had started.
All right, we can have our doubts about the word "subsidiarity" and of course it lacks definition. The important thing about subsidiarity is that the concept of devolving power from the centre of Europe to nation states has been given voice. We can build on that. I accept that, at the moment, we alone have the right to exercise the opt-in provision on the single currency. I am prepared to wager, however, that by the time that single currency is established in 1996 or 1997, other countries will ask for the same right to express their views on it. That is healthy.
It is also important to note that defence and foreign affairs have been excluded from the areas of competence. The Maastricht treaty was the first European treaty that enabled nations to say that they would retain their right to self-determination and would co-operate only where we could all agree that such co-operation was necessary. That the Community has shown that it can turn makes it important to me that the Maastricht treaty is ratified. Much mention has been made today of Mr. Bangemann and federalism. Some time ago, he talked about prawn-flavoured crisps, but he was wrong about them and he is wrong about federalism.
Maastricht did not create any vast change, but it is significant because the train analogy has been replaced by that of the tanker—a tanker slowly turning. The turn that started with the Maastricht treaty can be built upon. We can and must turn more, but we can achieve that only if we are still on the bridge and at the helm. That is what ratification of the treaty means.
We have an opportunity to play a role in turning the great European tanker because underlying currents in Europe are running in our direction. We witnessed that with the vote in France. There have been murmurs about

343
change in Italy, while in Germany there have been discussions about the importance of retaining the mark. We can be the natural leaders in achieving change because we were the first to recognise the need to make it. We can do that only if we retain our credibility.
The concept and the movement towards a new Europe of nations are much bigger and greater than the semantic arguments we have had about the commas and semicolons in the treaty. I am a lawyer and I love having black letter arguments about what words mean and in what context, but our neighbours in Europe think that that is completely mad. They look at wider meanings, directions and momentum. We often find ourselves at a disadvantage in Europe because we look at the letter of the law while our European partners look at the concept that lies behind it.
Tonight is an occasion when we must look above and beyond the text of the treaty. We must consider what would happen if the treaty did not exist. Those who are against the treaty have failed to offer an alternative. I am frightened by their lack of recognition of the fact that failure to ratify the treaty would destroy our ability not only to lead the move towards that new Europe but ever to seek any special treatment for this country again.
I fear that those who say that we should turn our backs on Maastricht are taking a tremendous risk—the black risk of a centralised Europe, the risk that Europe will go on without us if necessary, and even if we are part of it, our colleagues will say, "You've had your chance. In future you can take it or leave it."
In my constituency, Honda is busy creating 4,000 jobs. We cannot leave Europe without creating enormous disruption in our economy. If we stay in Europe, I do not want to be part of a Europe in which we were dragged along by the decisions of others. I want to be part of the decision-making process.
I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate. Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate, with our industries unable to penetrate it.
Supporting Maastricht to achieve further change requires a degree of faith. None of us can prove what will happen either way, but nothing worth while in history has ever been achieved by logic and law alone. It requires inspiration and will. Every battle and every great change in history tell us that.
A wind of change is blowing through Europe in the east and the west. For the first time in my political life, the direction of Europe can be changed and we can lead that change. To those who talk about national pride, I must ask, "What pride will there be if we turn our backs and run away from the challenge that we are now offered?" I am prepared to make that act of faith and to take that risk, which is why I shall wholeheartedly support the Government in the Lobbies tonight and when the Bill is considered in Committee.
7.40 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I disagree with the previous speaker because I believe not only that we should not proceed with the Bill but that the Maastricht treaty is the wrong treaty at the wrong time for Europe, as Europe has developed in the past few years.
At the heart of the treaty is the pursuit of economic and monetary union and a common currency. The pursuit of economic and monetary union will intensify the recession
344
throughout western Europe and cause considerable damage to western Europe's industrial base, which is not as strong as people sometimes think. Indeed, it is weakening most of the time. The pursuit of economic and monetary union also poses a real risk to social cohesion and the social fabric of the member states of the European Community.
At the heart of economic and monetary union lies the goal of price stability, which is doublespeak for zero inflation. Price stability is really the new gold standard. To achieve price stability, member states' monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies are to be corralled and converged, despite the diversity of those member states' economies. The money supply will be dealt with by an autonomous central bank that will control monetary targets and the growth of money. Fiscal policy—public spending—will be enshrined and dealt with by the treaty, and exchange rate policy will be dealt with by the movement within the European monetary system, as has happened already, towards irreversible fixed exchange rates. In those three areas of policy, all the decisions are taken away from democratically elected Governments and placed in the treaty or in Community institutions.
I read a publication today by a Conservative lawyer who suggested that we were in breach of the treaty by not re-entering the EMS. I do not know about that—it seems rather extreme—but I have little doubt that, if the treaty is eventually ratified in the House, we shall be back in the EMS within six months, perhaps even sooner.
It will not all happen a long time in the future. The Prime Minister fairly pointed out that the second stage of monetary union—the opt-out provision does not affect the second stage—starts on 1 January 1994 with the setting up of the European Monetary Institute. That body will have no teeth and will be able to issue no directives. But it will be an important body because two of the functions that it must deal with will be, first, to try to work out common monetary indicators and targets in readiness for setting up the autonomous central bank. Secondly, it must try to establish a uniform consumer price index by which means the goal of achieving zero inflation can be met.
That is the reality of what will happen. It will be deflationary but much worse than that, not only because Europe is going through a difficult recession and will continue to do so for some years, but because of the single market and the Single European Act. We hear little about the single market. It is an enormous market, which will lead to considerable rationalisation of European industry. In Europe today, we have eight or nine car firms, if we count General Motors and Ford of Europe. The United States of America has existed for a long time on two and half car firms, if one describes Chrysler as a half. Europe will be unable to maintain seven, eight or nine car firms in the next five to 10 years, with the momentum and process of a single market and the Single European Act.
The steel industry, too, will be affected. Europe will be unable to have two or three steel companies in each EC country. All that rationalisation, quite apart from the Maastricht treaty, will cause considerable problems. Factories will close, jobs will be lost and unemployment will increase. Those problems are difficult enough, but on top of those we shall throw the deflationary Maastricht treaty into the pot, with all the effects that it will have on European industry.
What will happen if we reach that gold standard—price stability—or do not quite reach it? What benefits are likely

345
to come from it? I spent some weeks of the long recess reading literature on price stability and zero inflation. There is a considerable amount of it in Europe and the United States. Most of it is gobbledegook and comes to no real conclusion about the benefits of so-called zero inflation and price stability. Eventually, it reached metaphors, saying that price stability is the tip of the iceberg. The benefits above the iceberg can be seen but far more benefits lie underneath that iceberg. We are not quite sure what they are but they are certainly there. In my opinion, a better analogy would be with subatomic physics and quarks. Apparently, those quarks, or particles, can be seen only by the high priests of the mysteries and when the high priests of the mysteries are not looking at them they are not there.
Those are benefits from zero inflation and price stability. The European high priests may be able to see them—nobody else can—and when they are not looking at them they are not there. So I am not sure what is supposed to be the benefit of driving all the diverse economies of Europe, from those of Greece to the United Kingdom, towards that great goal of zero inflation and price stability.
The people who will suffer on that journey will not be the European bureaucrats or the European political class. They will do well out of it. Indeed, cocooned in their glass and steel offices and their limos, they will do better. I see that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is amused at the prospect. They will churn out more and more paper, destroying more and more Brazilian rainforests, and will benefit from all that. Those who will suffer will be industrial workers, the unemployed, the poor and the disadvantaged—those unable to be part of that rationalisation and that treaty of deflation. Neither will they have much hope of changing the policy because we are taking economics out of politics. Adam Smith talked about the political economy. That will no longer exist and all that will remain will he an economy decided by institutions, bankers and unelected bodies. All those people who will suffer as a result will have little hope. Elections will become rather deceitful. We shall pretend that we disagree on certain matters but the whole economic question, like judges' salaries and the Consolidated Fund, will be fundamentally enshrined. People will be able to do nothing about it because it will be outside the role of democratic Government.
That is not a healthy position and makes no sense. If we ratify the treaty by means of the Bill, it will be a dangerous nonsense. The House of Commons has a good tradition of puncturing dangerous nonsenses. I hope that we shall have the courage to do so tonight.
7.49 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Leader of the Opposition began his speech by applauding the election of Mr. Clinton, as he then was, to the White House. I do not know whether he is aware that President Clinton campaigned on a policy that would take United States investment from Northern Ireland in the advocacy of the MacBride principles. I remind the House that MacBride was a former chief of staff of the Irish Republican Army and that thousands and thousands of dollars have been
346
spent by the Government on trying to counteract those principles which would do great damage to the Northern Ireland economy.
I do not welcome the proposal of the new President to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland by sending a special envoy to beat our heads together to make us see a united Ireland as he wants to see it. The new President should keep out of Northern Ireland affairs. After all, his own state of Arkansas is one of the two states of America that have no civil rights legislation. Let him put his own house in order before he comes to Northern Ireland to set our house in order.
I am glad that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on the Government Front Bench because I hope that he will convey what I have said to his boss, the Foreign Secretary. I hope also that his boss will convey his remarks to the right people. I am sorry that I had to waste valuable time, but what I have just said had to be said.
I am amazed that those who are all for Europe are advocating a breach of the treaty of Rome. The treaty makes it clear that there can be no vital change to it, until every partner agrees that change. The Common Market is prepared now to engage in an illegal act, and I say that on the basis that the Maastricht treaty has been stopped by the outcome of the referendum that the Danes held.
There was much laughter in the Library when we read the Danish document because we thought that we had missed a vital report. In fact, the Danish people stated:
"As a result of the referendum of 2 June, the Bill on Denmark's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty lapsed."
Consequently, the 11 countries that signed the treaty are faced with a real problem which can be solved only by all 12 countries together. So, until Denmark agrees the treaty, there is no treaty. We must make that clear. I see that some hon. Members are shaking their heads. They can do so as much as they like but that does not alter the facts and the law.
I happen not to believe in the treaty of Rome. I do not like it. But why are the advocates of the treaty not prepared to carry a banner for it and argue that we should go legally about this business?
It is no use telling us that France does not police the treaty. I agree that it does not. Similarly, it is no use telling us that the Italians have one inspector in 10 factories when we in Northern Ireland need five if the law is to be kept. There is no point in taking up those issues and at the same time proceeding illegally with a treaty that cannot be ratified until Denmark agrees it.
The Danes have made it clear what they are against, and the things with which they do not agree go right to the heart of the treaty. It is the axe laid at the root of the tree. We are told in a document:
"Denmark does not participate in the so-called defence policy dimension … Denmark does not participate in the single currency and the economic policy obligations … Denmark will have no obligations in connection with citizenship of the Union … Denmark cannot agree to transfer sovereignty."
Well done, Denmark. I am glad that it does not agree to transfer its sovereignty. The document continues:
"As a result of this, the objectives of the Union set out in the common provisions of the Maastricht Treaty will not apply to Denmark on the above points."
At the end of the Foreign Office's comment—it is a typical Foreign Office paper—there appear these words:
"With the publication of this memorandum, we know clearly what Danish intentions are, and that at the end of the

347
negotiations the Danes propose to consult their people again."
They do not propose to do anything of the sort. They are saying, in effect, that they will accept the treaty only if their conditions are met. Unless they are met legally, they will not go back for a second referendum. They know that if they did so it would be rejected. That is what the people of Denmark are saying.
Let us consider subsidiarity. Subsidiarity comes from dogma of the Roman Catholic church, which I know little about. It is devolution of power from the hierarchy to the lower regions. Who made so many countries in Europe the hierarchy? When did they get such power? Others in Europe are saying to us, a national Parliament, "We shall give you this, that and that." Where did they get that power? Did Parliament vote them all that power? They tell us, in effect, that they will release certain parts of their power.
I was at the European Parliament in Strasbourg; so was the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who is sitting with his feet resting on the Government Dispatch Box. He did not stay very long because he had a lunch appointment. That was his great submission to the European Parliament. I do not blame him for that. The President, Mr. Delors, made an interesting contribution to the debate. He spoke about four things, and I am sure that the Minister remembers them. The President talked about transparency, efficiency, proportionality and nearness. He said that he would describe subsidiarity as a "presence of mind" on the basis that it "cannot be defined". He added:
"It is like the academic debate between the Jesuits and the Dominicans."
I think that I know who the Jesuits are, but in this debate I am not sure who the Dominicans are. However, if the high priest of the Maastricht treaty cannot define subsidiarity, how are we to do so?
Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the high priest is not a signatory to the treaty, nor one of the high contracting parties to it.
Rev. Ian Paisley: He is the general director of the treaty and the man who will put it into operation. He has the President of France with him. It is wrong for the Prime Minister to say that Mr. Bangemann's view is not accepted by any Government in Europe; it is accepted by most Governments in Europe. I have sat as a member of the European Parliament since the first elections and I have listened time and time again to ideology about Europe. It seems that it is focused on centralism and not real federalism. Centralism is far stronger than federalism. It means that the crumbs from the rich man's table will be given to the recipients.
I regret the remarks of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). My party has campaigned on these issues more than any other party in Northern Ireland and those issues appeared in its manifesto. The manifesto that was produced by the right hon. Gentleman's party was not the only one that dealt with these matters. I am a consistent anti-marketeer. I do not sit among the big battalions in Strasbourg. The Official Unionist Member sits with the Christian Democrat ranks, which are adamantly for Maastricht. I do not sit with them. I sit alone. I raise my voice—I shall continue to do so—against something which I believe is detrimental to the United Kingdom. Let no one go down a side alley this evening.
348
We are debating whether we shall accept the Maastricht treaty, not whether we are coming out of the Common Market. What the treaty—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Mrs. Margaret Ewing.
7.59 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In speaking today, I represent the views of the joint Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru group in the House. I remind hon. Members that all seven of us cast our votes in favour of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and therefore contributed to the majority of 244 on Second Reading. The fact that those seven votes were cast in that way might not have appeared to be important on that occasion, but I give a clear warning to both the Treasury and the Opposition Front Benches that this is a multi-party Parliament and no one should arrogantly assume that the votes of the smaller parties will be automatically cast in any particular direction.
I have missed only about eight minutes of today's debate. There has been a sense of unreality about it with each hon. Member interpreting the motion in his or her particular way. Some have said that the debate is about ratification of the Maastricht treaty, which it is not. Madam Speaker gave a ruling on that earlier. Others have said that it is about confidence in the Prime Minister. However, the only party that had the courage to table a motion of no confidence in the Government's handling of the Bill was the joint Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru group. Had our amendment been selected, we could have had a much simpler debate because we could have dealt with European issues and where the Government stand on them.
The Government have set a dangerous precedent by saying that they are holding this debate because the Opposition asked for it. If that is so, I assure the Government that this opposition will be asking for many more debates on vital issues. For example, my fishermen would very much like a debate on the common fisheries policy.
We are debating what is called a paving motion. In Scotland, the pavements are covered with crazy paving —and the Government's motion falls into that category. It makes no sense to anyone either inside or outside the House. Hon. Members have said that people in Europe do not understand what the debate is about, but I suspect that the majority of people in the United Kingdom do not understand either.
I wish to make clear why we are voting against the Government tonight. We would not have tabled a motion of no confidence if we had not meant it. The Bill was flawed at the start by the Government's cavalier attitude to the Maastricht treaty—the other 11 partners had their copy, while they went home with ours. It is like the advertisement for a certain brand of lager, "I've got mine." It was hailed as a great victory. That set an example to the other member states so that they would want an a la carte menu on the treaty. The Government's attitude has flawed the concept of moving towards closer European union.
The United Kingdom opted out of two aspects of the treaty. The Danes now want clear opt-outs on four aspects and they have made it clear that they want that to be legally binding for an unlimited period. It will be difficult to ensure that the Danes ratify the treaty. They have said

349
that, assuming that the four opt-outs are accepted by the other member states, another referendum might be held as late as November next year. It will be a long time before the treaty can be ratified.
The Government have shown themselves to be extremely weak in allowing the backwoodsmen on the Conservative Benches to set the agenda on Maastricht during the past few months. Those Members have narrow attitudes; they believe that civilisation stops at the white cliffs of Dover. They have now driven even the Prime Minister, who said that he wanted to be at the heart of Europe, to say that he is the biggest Euro-sceptic in the Cabinet in an attempt to get them to vote for him. That is pitiful. The Government have been weak and vacillating. There should have been a straightforward debate which would have allowed us to move immediately to the Committee stage. Instead, we have this waste of everybody's time.
I want the Foreign Secretary to think about a few specific points; as the Government currently hold the European presidency, they should have considered them carefully already. Every hon. Member who has spoken tonight has mentioned subsidiarity and said that it is gobbledegook. Indeed, even the Foreign Secretary has said that it is an unlovely phrase. The Danes, who visited us in Parliament yesterday, said that it was a strange example of Eurospeak. The concept that was supposed to bring Europe closer to the people has been defined in such a way that no one understands it. The Government have a responsibility during their presidency to deal with the question of subsidiarity. The motion says only that a "framework for decisions" was established at the Birmingham summit; it does not mention the decisions themselves. That is a dilatory approach.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Government have not budged an inch on the concept of subsidiarity as it relates to Scotland and Wales. They maintain their selfish attitude of keeping it as a concept purely between London and Brussels.
Mrs. Ewing: Indeed. I had intended to say that the concept of subsidiarity sits uneasily with many on the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. Britain is the most unitary state in the European Community. We want to move away from centralisation. Subsidiarity should mean Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, directly elected by our peoples. We could then participate as equal partners within the European Community.
The Prime Minister held out the idea of subsidiarity as a key victory in his negotiations, but he has quickly forgotten it and is leaving it to rot on a shelf somewhere. The Committee of the Regions is often cited as an example of subsidiarity. We believe that Wales and Scotland are nations, not regions. However, the Committee of the Regions is an aspect of subsidiarity that should be dealt with during the United Kingdom's presidency. Naturally, we have reservations about it being a consultative body. It is rather like the Prime Minister taking stock of the constitutional position at the election—the exercise goes on for ever. I am always wary of extensive consultation. A committee that is purely consultative will obviously be weak. In the absence of Scotland and Wales having their own Parliaments able to send people to that committee,
350
there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that those who do represent the United Kingdom reflect the political aspects of Scotland and Wales. The whole political landscape must be accurately reflected.
There is a prospect that the committee might develop further. I do not want it to be like the Economic and Social Council, just making a comment here and there. It should develop beyond a consultative role and possibly even into a second chamber within the European Parliament. That would be a great step forward for real democracy within the European Community. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will deal with those issues.
Because of the 10-minute rule, I shall not deal with other matters such as the cohesion funds, which are a vital aspect of the treaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The 10-minute rule no longer applies, but self-denial would be welcome.
Mrs. Ewing: I shall conclude as I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to speak and they, too, have been sitting in the Chamber throughout the debate.
Having given the Bill a majority of 244 on its Second Reading, at this stage in the United Kingdom's presidency we should have been much further along the road to ratification. We should have been in the Committee stage. We should have had a constructive debate on various aspects that concern people, whatever their views on Maastricht or Europe. Instead, there is just a mishmash that has caused confusion. The Government did not get their act together and table a straightforward motion to move the Bill on to its Committee stage. My hon. Friends and I have no option but to show that we have no confidence in the Government and we shall vote against their motion.
8.9 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: Hegel, whose works are to be found in the Library of the House, observed that the great crises of history are clashes not of right against wrong, but of right against right. A striking feature of the debate on Maastricht has been that both the federalists and the anti-federalists have, with validity, claimed the treaty as an advance for their own cause. However, the federalists are also bound to concede that the treaty marks a much smaller step towards the fulfilment of their long-prepared design than they hoped that it would be in those heady days when Mr. Delors held out to the European Parliament the prospect of 80 per cent. of economic legislation and, possibly, of social legislation emanating from Brussels in a few years' time, and the Delors plan was being devised.
Correspondingly, my right hon. Friends are entitled to be proud of their achievements during the arduous negotiations that culminated at Maastricht. They denied the federalists the wholesale extensions of Community competence proposed during the Dutch presidency. They established the concept of a pillared Community, with major areas of intergovernmental co-operation falling outside the scope and processes of the treaty of Rome. In that way they established a new concept of the union to which member states are required to aspire. The British right to opt out of European monetary union and the equivalent right that the Danes are bound to be granted

351
mean that the centralists do not have a clear road open to them for the creation of a unitary European state, even if the difficulties with convergence are ignored.
My right hon. Friends' achievements at Maastricht applied a powerful brake to the federalising process and opened the prospect of a different sort of evolution of the Community, much better suited to the individualities of its constituent peoples. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserved the praise that he received from the Conservative party when he returned from Maastricht, and he deserves a clear endorsement tonight so that the House can proceed briskly with ratification of the treaty. The more reluctantly and slowly we proceed, the more the standing of my right hon. Friends and the Government in Europe will be undermined, and with it their capacity to act effectively in our interests. I would remind some of my hon. Friends that politics is about obtaining power, using it to good effect, and certainly not about throwing it away.
Isolationism has never been a part of Britain's tradition. I indeed recollect Baroness Thatcher saying, in 1979:
"our island is our base and not our refuge".
Heine has an image of Britain as a great sea monster, crawling back to its island cave, but that was only after we had done the job that we had to do to defeat Napoleon's attempt to establish a European hegemony and, afterwards, at the Congress of Vienna. After the Congress of Berlin, Bismarck paid tribute above all to Disraeli's brilliant diplomacy. Twice in this century Britain, vigilant for her own interests in Europe, has chosen to go to war on the European continent, once in support of Belgium and once in support of Poland. Our engagements have always been both European and global.
Disraeli observed that real statesmen are inspired by nothing other than an instinct for power and a love of their country. On both counts, Britain needs to be at the heart of European decision-taking. It is simply too effete, too dangerous for us not to be.
It is a truism that Britain lives by trade, and 60 per cent. of our exports go to the European Community. It is crucial that we exercise a powerful influence on the Community's trading policies, although many of them have been less than admirable. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the enormous personal commitment that he has made during his presidency in seeking to achieve a rational and constructive position for the Community in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations.
If, in the future, we are to be perceived as marginal to the European Community, inward investment will cease to come to this country in any worthwhile sums. I would not fancy our prospects were we to attempt to set up as a Singapore of the North sea. Our fellow citizens do not generally evince the characteristics that have enabled the people of Singapore to make the success they have of their economy, and I say nothing of the Singapore style of government. Were we to try to go it alone, in my view we would be wiped out economically by the true Singapores, the new industrial powers of the Pacific rim.
Vital British economic and diplomatic interests need to be secured through the Community. We should grasp the opportunity to do that with alacrity and in positive style, through rapid ratification of the treaty.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister needs to resume his task, on behalf of Britain, of leading the debate and setting the agenda for the reform of the Community.
352
In recent years Britain has set the pace for at least three major advances within the Community: the single market, the pillared Community, and the acceptance within the Community of the desirability of enlargement. In addition, important work has been set in hand by Britain during its presidency to put flesh on the bones of subsidiarity. Once ratification is behind us, there is the need and opportunity for Britain to continue to lead the Community's development.
One of the agreements at Maastricht was that there should be a further intergovernmental conference in 1996. It is vital that we ensure that the propositions on the table for decision in 1996 are ours and not, this time, those of the federalists.
As the events of the summer have shown, there is a large constituency across the peoples of Europe for our view of a less centralised, less authoritarian and less grandiose Community.
Mr. Rogers: I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech up to now, but exactly where does he believe that Europe should go? Having served at the European Parliament with other hon. Members present when the Spinelli report was drawn up after close perusal of Europe's future development, I know that all the Conservative Members in the European Parliament supported the Spinelli recommendation for closer European union. What is the hon. Gentleman's vision of Europe? The Prime Minister says that he is in, but wants to move out. What do the Government want from Europe?
Mr. Howarth: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. Britain must continue to lead the member states in the redefinition of the powers and procedures of the Community institutions so that subsidiarity becomes truly entrenched, the Commission is, in future, more modest in scope, and the European Court of Justice ceases to aggrandise itself. Even more importantly we need to lead the development of policies within the Community. We must lead the economic debate so that the Community puts behind it sectional subsidies and protectionism. We must secure acceptance that cohesion on a continental scale is no more likely to promote general prosperity than socialist redistribution on a national scale. We need more of the peoples of Europe to recognise that European monetary union, a single currency, would not only be impoverishing but mean the destruction of essential national self-determination. We should underline the terrible inadequacy of a so-called European Community that jeopardises the fragile economies and democracies of central and eastern Europe by restricting its imports of their food, iron, steel and textiles.
All those are important and difficult arguments, and powerful vested interests will have to be overcome. But we shall have allies, not least the Germans, who have no interest in losing the deutschmark and the Bundesbank, and to whom the cost of cohesion on top of their existing costs in the new lander would be intolerable. The Germans in any case are more naturally interested in their relationships with the countries of central Europe and the European Free Trade Association than with those of the Mediterranean.
The experience of the French referendum has shown that there is a huge body of opinion against a federal, homogenised Europe, even a Europe run by enarques.

353
There can hardly be a Frenchman who does not acknowledge the truth and force of Sir Winston Churchill's observation that
"the Almighty, in his infinite wisdom, did not see fit to create Frenchmen in the image of Englishmen".
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people have the view that federalism is not about centralisation but about decentralisation?
Mr. Howarth: There has been a great deal of quibbling, and sometimes wilful semantic confusion, in the debate on Europe. Federalism has been interpreted in the debates that we have had in recent months and years as a movement towards a unitary European state, and it is that to which I refer.
The old leadership in France and Germany does not have long to run. With the natural effiuxion of a short space of time, and by virtue of his own abilities and of Britain's standing, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will emerge as Europe's senior statesman. But the precondition for that is that my hon. Friends agree to ratify the treaty and allow my right hon. Friend to seize the opportunities that are open to us in Europe, if only we will take them.
8.20 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Many hon. Members have said that their decision on how to vote is motivated by high principle and that other hon. Members who will cast their vote in a contrary way are engaged in some venal calculation. I am in a fortunate position. My principles and venal calculations lead me to the same conclusion: I shall vote against the Government tonight because I do not believe that hundreds of years of struggle to achieve basic democratic rights have now reached their apex in Europe and that we should pass many of those most vital and important powers to a committee of unelected bankers to take decisions that effectively govern and control our economy.
My venal motive is simple: to remove that shower on the Benches opposite as rapidly as possible. I do not care if there is only a one-in-a-million chance of the Government being brought down—I will take it. My duty is to my constituents, who are being thrown out of work, who are losing their homes and who are seeing their basic services devastated by Government cuts and by cuts imposed on local authorities. The sooner that lot opposite are thrown out of office, the better. The way in which they have conducted the Maastricht debate alone shows that they no longer deserve to lead this nation.
We are trying to come to terms with a Government policy as though it were in the middle of a great grey blancmange—one dives in, feels something in one's hands but it slips through like mush. What does the Prime Minister believe? What does the Tory party want? Are they committed to a move towards a united Europe? Are they committed to hanging back? If they are committed to the latter, they should vote against Maastricht, which is the logical second stage from the ERM and which leads inevitably to monetary union and a common central bank. If hon. Members do not want that, they should vote against the motion, because it will be no good whingeing in 10 years' time, "I didn't mean that when I voted to
354
support Maastricht." That is what Maastricht is all about, and it has been the drift of the European Community for the past 15 years. The first stage was the move towards the creation of a genuine common market—a complete barrier-free Europe—and then a common currency and central bank.
The weakness is that there is no common democracy to control those great central institutions. If the Government and the pro-Europeans were saying, "We are going full speed towards a genuine, united, democratic union of Europe", we could debate that, but they are not. I find myself very much in agreement with the nationalist parties and Liberal Democrats about creating a genuine democratic Europe, but that is not what is on offer to the people of Europe. Maastricht is about winding down our democratic rights. It is about a major shift of power from ordinary people to great and unaccountable financial institutions. We shall be reduced to a body of no more relevance than the average county council subject to rate capping. That is not what I came into power—[Laughter.] one day, we shall get some power as well—into politics, to see.
My opposition to the motion is not personal. I think that the Prime Minister is a nice guy. If he were a family's neighbour, he would feed their cat and water their roses when they were away on holiday, but he does not have a clue where the British economy is going, so I shall take every opportunity to bring this painful period for the British people to an end as rapidly as possible.
The Liberal Democrats have made a crass mistake by allowing the Government to set the terms of the debate. I am pro-Europe but against that lot over there and I have not the slightest problem about going into the Lobby to reject a fatally flawed treaty. I have not debated with any Liberal Democrat at public meetings or on radio or television programmes without hearing that person say, "This is a flawed treaty. It is not the treaty that we want. We are really unhappy with this. We would have created something better." Why accept this inadequate treaty that is damaging for the British people? They should throw it out and fight for what they believe in, as those of us who are genuine European federalists are prepared to do.
The peoples of Europe will be soured against European co-operation when they see unemployment worsening and their social wages being ratcheted down under the structure created by the treaty. Only a few Opposition Members have debated the issue tonight. Which Conservative Members have honestly told us what they would do if the Maastricht treaty were in operation in Britain today and the Commission and Council of Ministers instructed the Government to reduce their borrowing requirement to comply with Maastricht law? Where would they make the tens of billions of pounds of cuts if the treaty were in power, because that is what the treaty says? Would they make them in the military sector or in social security? Would they savage further capital works? Why ratify a treaty that they cannot live with now, hoping that somehow the British economy will be better in five or six years' time?
The truth is that for Britain, one of the weakest European nations economically, to lock itself into this situation until it has created a growing and dynamic industrial economy—the modern economy of which the Leader of the Opposition spoke—is disastrous. Maastricht creates an economic unit, with all the benefits for the successful and large corporations and the most dynamic economies, but are we creating a mechanism for the

355
redistribution of wealth, which is effectively what the nation state is? How would Britain have survived if we had redistributed only 2 per cent. of GDP by central Government activity? Britain would have fractured long ago, and that is the flaw of the treaty. If we were creating a Europe that was going to take vast amounts of wealth from the most wealthy parts of the European Community and use them for the poorest parts, we would be creating a mechanism that could function, but that is not what is on offer. The small amount of funds, in relative terms, which is available may assist Greece, Portugal and Ireland—nations with relatively small economies—but Britain stands to suffer most in the move towards European integration unless its economy is re-energised and there is manufacturing growth. There will not be enough wealth from Brussels to save our people from the pain of this treaty.
In a sense, this debate has many of the echoes of the debate when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, took us into the exchange rate mechanism. What were we told then? There was an overwhelming majority in favour, a huge consensus. Sadly, most of my party went along with the consensus. It was the biggest consensus in British politics since the consensus to appease Hitler, and it was as devastatingly bad. We have lost two years of our life as a nation. We have seen 1 million people added to the unemployment figures, as those who criticised the level at which we joined the ERM accurately predicted. We are now seeing stage 2. We are in an incredible mess. I hope to God that enough Conservative Members will put their nation and constituents before their loyalty to propping up a broken-backed Government who are locking us into a treaty that will devastate their constituencies, as it will devastate ours.
8.29 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): We have had a debate as distinguished as the hour deserves. We have heard historic speeches from both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) warned us of the financial consequences of the ever-greater integrating approach of the Community to the management of our economies. He pointed out that it has been a vain attempt because the economies of western Europe are not converging but diverging and to seek artificially to bring them together, which is what the Maastricht process is all about, could lead only to further disasters following that of our withdrawal from the ERM and the withdrawal of Italy, which were wholly predictable and which the Government were warned about in advance.
Then we heard the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) whose credentials in these matters are second to none. He pointed out the serious problem of citizenship. Citizenship is not something for us to wish away. We cannot vote in this matter without the assent of the British people. Who are we to say that they should have additional citizenship of the union—and I quote from the proposed treaty—with its attendant duties and responsibilities, unless they, the British people, assent thereto? In this debate, certainly from the Government side, there has been all too little reference to the British people. So many people allege that there is a democratic deficit in Europe. The democratic deficit is here in Westminster, and if we tonight, on behalf of the British
356
people, allow this proposed treaty on European union to proceed, we will betray the trust which is ours and which was conferred upon us at the last election.
I sought, in what may have appeared to be an arcane intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to point out that the action of parliamentarians, acting according to their conscience in what they regard as the national interest, can be for the greater good not just of their country but of Europe as a whole, and I referred to the decision of the French National Assembly on 30 August 1954 to vote on a procedural motion—funnily enough, it was not on the issue but on a procedural motion—not to go ahead with the ratification of the European defence community. It was a community which was more political in intention than militarily practicable, and the French deputies had the good sense to realise it and vote it down.
The Western European Union, with its assembly, with its armaments control agency and its standing armaments committee, ensued and the WEU, as a bulwark of our western security in Europe, has endured to this day, so much so that it is to the WEU that, under the proposed treaty of union, the execution of union policies—I say that deliberately, the entity's policies—in defence could ultimately be assumed if the Maastricht treaty were approved.
It was, with hindsight, a development that everybody could approve of because it strengthened Europe's defences and strengthened our mutual co-operation, and it did so on a basis which could endure—that is, of co-operation which is freely sustained by the will of independent sovereign states.
If the union, that integrated entity, goes ahead as the proposed treaty suggests, we know that an artificial creation of this kind without the majority assent of the peoples of the 12 countries of Europe cannot endure. We have seen artificial unions and they do not last. The union that is most akin to what is proposed is paradoxically the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was not a federal structure but a union, and a union is what Maastricht proposes. The glue was a common ideology and, apart from the ideology, there was, of course, the threat of coercion, the big stick of the party apparatus, the KGB and the military.
There is nothing like that in this, but all I can say is that it is not even a federation. If a federation were proposed, with appropriate checks and balances between locally elected legislatures in the constituent countries of the federation and with a central parliament with appropriate competencies, all would be well, but it is not to be like that. The proposed treaty on European union suggests a highly integrationist approach. There is almost nothing in it about the role of national parliaments; there is more in it about the role of the regions, funnily enough, than there is of the national parliaments.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to let this opportunity for a historic decision on behalf of our people slip by. If Her Majesty's Government, in winding up this debate, were wise enough to say that they would bring legislation to the House to make possible a referendum so that the British people could decide, they would have my support; but unless they can do that, I shall vote for the Labour amendment and against my Government. Some will say that in so doing I am being disloyal. Those who say that should have heard the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss).

357
He spoke many home truths. A number of home truths have come out in the debate—truth will always out. Commissioner Dr. Bangemann's intervention in Berlin was a home truth that needed to be expressed, and he is at the heart of Europe, after all. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who has a long and respected experience of European affairs, said that Dr. Bangemann spoke with authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth spoke with the authentic voice of conservatism and for the principles that can on occasion transcend transient party loyalty.
We must make sure that what we do tonight is the will of our constituents. In the general election campaign there was a virtual conspiracy of silence on the proposed treaty of European union because at the time it suited the three main parties that it should not come up. I even voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. Only when the Danes, by their brave action in the referendum, caused me and others actually to read what the treaty proposed did I change my view. If anybody has any doubts about what this debate is all about, I ask him or her to read the treaty, the treaty and nothing but the proposed treaty.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: Not at this moment.
Read not what right hon. and hon. Members say is not in the treaty or what derogations we have secured, but the treaty, because in it is spelled out the irrevocable objective of the signatories of the treaty: an ever-closer union from which there will be no withdrawal without the great pain and grief which attend upon any divorce, particularly of parties who have gone into an enterprise with good will but perhaps without sufficient appreciation of what is at stake.
Mr. Allason: I share many of my hon. Friend's reservations about the Maastricht treaty which he has urged the House to read. Would it be incorrect to say that he should read the Government's motion? It is tremendously anodyne and there are many of us who voted against the Maastricht treaty and will continue to do so but who find it perfectly possible to support the Government this evening.
Mr. Wilkinson: There is much sophistry around in the Palace of Westminster and at no time more so than when a debate of this nature is forced upon us.
I was about to say that loyalty works both ways. We should not be put into a position where we are made fools of. The anodyne motion—supposedly anodyne—is gravely deficient on two cardinal points to the extent of being blatantly disingenuous. First, we cannot presuppose what the Danes will ultimately democratically decide in their second referendum, and until that second decision the treaty is dead; it does not exist. Secondly, with regard to subsidiarity—
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is not the central point of the Government's motion that it progresses the Bill which ratifies the Maastricht treaty? I, for one, do not want that to take place.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is right.
358
I thought from reading the Evening Standard, which as a London Member I do, that the Prime Minister had his reservations after our withdrawal from the ERM about pressing ahead regardless. Everyone has his or her formative influences. Those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were probably in the bank and those of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were, rather as today, on the diplomatic cocktail circuit in Europe and elsewhere. Those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—well, when the Prime Minister spoke of creeping competencies, I understood what he was talking about.
I had my formative influences flying aeroplanes. No pilot would press on regardless, letting down through cloud, knowing that there were mountains underneath, if he wanted to survive. We are being asked in the Government motion to do something that is clearly foolish. All it can achieve is to unite the Labour party, which is fundamentally divided on Europe, against us and so discredit the Government who were paradoxically seeking thereby to enhance their reputation and standing for the forthcoming Edinburgh summit.
How bringing a majority of 21, and one of more than 200 on Second Reading, down at best to single figures and probably to a minus quantity would somehow enhance our credibility at Edinburgh, I cannot for the life of me understand. That is why it is not acceptable for the Conservative party to be made fools of. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth was right when he spoke those home truths so eloquently. I hope and pray that we will take our destiny in both hands and do what we know to be right by voting for the Labour amendment and against the Government tonight.
8.43 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: When we speak of Britain being at the heart of Europe, we should consider for a moment what that means to our constituents. What should they reasonably expect? For the people of Hartlepool as for others it should mean, above all, employment opportunities. It should also mean standards of living that match those of Germany, a quality of infrastructure on a par with that of France and public services that compare with those enjoyed in Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Yet we in Britain are at the bottom of the European league on jobs, divisions between rich and poor, falling spending power and deteriorating public services. We are, in short, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) observed earlier, in a desperate mess in this country.
I do not blame the Government and their present head entirely. They are the enthusiastic inheritors of a slide that they have done nothing to reverse and, in most senses, have made worse. They have failed to use the economic opportunities available to us in the 1980s and, as a result, have failed to prepare us for the challenges of the 1990s. They have also signally failed on what this debate is ostensibly about—their record on Europe and, in particular, their attitude to Maastricht.
As they are asking us to vote tonight in favour of their policy on Maastricht, it is as well to ask precisely what that is. Maastricht has become for the Prime Minister a totem, not of his European policy but rather of his personal credibility. I do not mean simply the absence of the word

359
Maastricht from the motion, though that surely has its own symbolic significance. It is that he defines the nature of his position on Maastricht not by how much he is participating in its processes, but by how little; not by the parts of the treaty to which he has opted in, but by the parts from which he has opted out.
The Prime Minister is bitterly opposed to the social chapter. Even now, he cannot or will not say what his views are on a single currency. He is even unable to say definitively whether he still believes in managed exchange rates even though, a few weeks back, that was supposedly the crux of the Government's economic policy. Therefore, Maastricht for him is little more than a legal document, a treaty to which he is committed without, aparently, being committed to what it means. It has become, in his hands, a mere paper transaction.
We have reached the absurd position where the Prime Minister's justification for the Maastricht treaty rests on almost nothing more than his having given his word to his European partners that it would be ratified and his desire that that promise should not suffer the fate of all his other promises. But on the actual issues, the moves that give meaning to the process of Maastricht. he is silent, agnostic or opposed.
The key point that I want to make, therefore, is that the Government, under the Prime Minister, are now incapable of leading this country towards the greater European co-operation that Maastricht seeks to implement. This is the pro-Maastricht, pro-Europe case for opposing the Government's record on Europe in line with my party's official conference policy.
The result of the incompetence and machinations of the past few weeks is to leave the Conservative party in the position where it can do no more than offer grace words in support of Europe, while making it clear that no practical action will follow as a result.
Therefore, I want to argue not why Maastricht should be ratified under this Prime Minister who does not believe in its essential elements, but why Maastricht itself is right for Europe and, most important of all, right for Britain.
Whatever its imperfections, the treaty is the best way forward for the European Community. It enshrines the social chapter in Community law. It creates a social cohesion fund for the benefit of less prosperous regions. That will be crucial for my town and the north and needs to be strengthened if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the single market.
Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am speaking against the clock.
The treaty improves environmental and consumer protection—
Mr. Whitney rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has been here long enough to know that if another hon. Member does not give way, he must resume his seat.
Mr. Mandelson: The treaty improves environmental and consumer protection and makes a significant advance in overcoming the EC's democratic deficit. It is vital that
360
the European Parliament's ability to oversee the work of the Commission is enhanced and that the power of co-decision with the European Council is strengthened.
We must, however, ask another question, about our own work in the House. Maastricht extends the scope for intergovernmental co-operation, which is desirable and gives the lie to the claim that the treaty creates a federal Europe. None the less, we must also strengthen Westminster's ability to hold the Commission and the Council properly accountable. Without that, the Community's bureaucracy and democracy will remain badly out of balance, which will make it difficult for us to win the necessary popular support for the Community's development.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving that, in relation to the economic and monetary aspects of the treaty, which are the foundation of the Maastricht process. That is particularly true in the wake of black Wednesday. The forced withdrawal of sterling from the exchange rate mechanism—which is, after all, the key building block of economic and monetary union set out in the treaty—made many suppose that it was the Euro-system, not the weakness of sterling and the surrounding events, that was at fault.
Let us be clear about this. The crisis of black Wednesday was born out of the fundamental weaknesses of the British economy. It was as much the product of 11 years of Thatcherite neglect as that of two years of Majorite incompetence. Public doubts and disinformation about Maastricht, however, have been fed further by those who argue that, having left the ERM, in one bound we are free and can now insulate ourselves from further European economic and monetary integration. That is a deeply dishonest message to peddle.
I share the strong feelings of all hon. Members who are in despair at the scale and depth of the recession—who daily witness in their constituencies the destruction of Britain's manufacturing base, and who daily see the victims of unemployment.
Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if I do not: others wish to speak.
Opposition Members want action now, and action at home, from this weak and feeble Government. We want action to kick-start recovery, to begin to return the unemployed to work and to make householders secure in their homes again. There is so much that the Government could do to lift the economy out of recession, if only they had the will to do it. Yet, in the long term, it is the gravest of illusions that Britain can solve its economic problems by acting alone. It is disingenous to argue that the way out of our economic decline is to operate within a purely national framework of policy that ignores the huge interdependence of Europe's economies. That applies particularly to monetary policy, and to the levels of interest and exchange rates.
When it comes to monetary policy, national independence of action is as much a part of history as is the British empire. That is why the Government need to plan now—as soon as is reasonably possible, and at a level that can be sustained—to resume Britain's membership of the ERM, within a practical timetable. That remains necessary

361
for the achievement of macro-economic stability, without which long-term planning for investment and growth under any Government will certainly be undermined.
Although the Government have not specifically ruled out a return to the ERM at some point, they certainly seem to have cooled on the idea. If that is true, the Government's support for economic and monetary union, and their stated desire to be part of the Maastricht process, can hardly be taken seriously. The Labour party has consistently argued that, for Britain's membership of the ERM to work successfully, accompanying policies are required to strengthen the industrial base of the economy. That is all the more true and all the more necessary now, as part of any timetable for re-entry to the ERM.
The choice facing Britain is clear. We can wish away the growing interdependence—
Mr. Whitney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all understand that hon. Members are reluctant to give way when the ten-minute rule is in operation, but surely at this stage, in the interests of debate, an hon. Member who is reading out an essay ought to give way, as every other speaker has done.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) knows very well that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way. That is well established, and there is no doubt about it.
Mr. Mandelson: Had the hon. Gentleman been present during any part of our earlier proceedings, I might have been more inclined to give way to him.
As I was saying, the choice facing Britain is clear. We can wish away the growing interdependence of Europe's economies. We can try to set out our own interest rates, unaffected by levels in the rest of the European Community—as long, of course, as we are prepared to suffer the devaluation that will be necessary to sustain them. I strongly believe, however, that, in the long term, such independence is unsustainable. We are not free agents outside the ERM, any more than we were free agents inside it. Inflation would follow from the depreciation of sterling, and an interest-rate premium would be demanded by the money markets as a result.
The alternative route is for us to play our part in building cross-national institutions to cope with that economic and monetary interdependence within Europe. We can have our say in developing the policies that dictate the European benchmark. Instead of railing at the power of German monetary policy, and seeking to insulate Britain from it by staying outside the ERM and eventual monetary union—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that the rules of the House permitted hon. Members to refer to copious notes, but the hon. Gentleman is definitely reading every word of his speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly the practice of the House for Back Benchers, at least, not to read speeches; but I defy anyone to determine precisely when an hon. Member is reading and when he is using copious notes.
Mr. Mandelson: Thank you for your support, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Instead of railing at the power of German monetary policy and seeking to insulate Britain, we should seek to Europeanise that policy. A monetary policy implemented by a European central bank, acting within a framework of objectives set by the ECOFIN Council, has a far better chance of achieving rational co-ordination of policies—including interest rate reductions across the board—than the present arrangement, in which, like it or not, the Bundesbank determines its own priorities and others must simply respond. That approach is at the heart of the Maastricht process. That is why, rather than opting out of those crucial developments in Europe and putting Britain on the sidelines of monetary union, the Government should use the moves forward in the treaty to construct a long-term strategy for truly sustainable growth and employment. That is where Britain's true interests lie—and that is where secure employment for my constituents will come from.
It is tragic that the Government's lamentable lack of vision and purpose in their European and economic policies is putting that prospect further and further out of reach.
8.58 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would tell me how long we have before the closing speeches. I want to make my speech brief and to the point.
Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the Front-Bench speakers would like 25 minutes each, which means that the first should begin at 9.10. However, that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman has to fill the time between now and then.
Mr. Booth: I shall bear that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your guidance.
The debate has demonstrated the feelings in the country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that they are in favour of Europe and yet against Maastricht—or that they are for their party but do not intend to go down its main line. It has been a case of tip-toeing not so much through the tulip fields of Maastricht as through the poppy fields of Ghent.
Hon. Members will be grateful to hear that I have consulted the people of Finchley on the issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "What did she say?"] I shall support the Government. We cannot play ducks and drakes with our exports; 57 per cent. of our exports go to Europe, and we cannot play risky games with those. As other hon. Members have said, our trade is the life blood of our nation. Nevertheless, I recognise the deep feelings not only among Conservative Members but among Opposition Members. I recognise the depth of agony that runs right through the nation on the issue.
We have been told that we had a debate last December, but that was six months before a certain document—Cm. 1934, the "Treaty on European Union"—was published in May. We have been told that we had an election—but both sides agreed on Maastricht. We have been told that we had a main debate in the summer. Yes, but that was before the Danes made their decision.
On 23 January 1975, the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, set out two grounds when he announced

363
his referendum. He said that, on an issue of deep constitutional importance, on which there was a deep division in the Government, there might be a referendum. There are benefits from a referendum. My people in Finchley would have the benefit of more information. There would he more debate and more choice, and we should give more power to our negotiators in Europe.
I have listened carefully to all the objections to a referendum. On a previous occasion, one of my right hon. Friends said that no one read referendum papers—or at least that only 10 per cent. of people did. But nowadays, such debates are conducted on television. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, understandably, has said that we as a nation must make our decision on the issue before Edinburgh. That is quite right—but there are four weeks before then. It took only three weeks to hold a general election. Why can we not have a quick referendum?
Then there is the "mixed up" argument that the issue would be mixed up with other issues such as the economy, as happened in France. But in France, one of the main parties argued against Maastricht, whereas in this country all the main parties are in favour of it.
Some of the people who oppose a referendum say that the question is too complex. That is an insult to the British people. Are we really saying that our people are less intelligent than the Danes, the Irish and the French? Of course we are not.[Interruption.]
Some say that there may be drafting problems with a referendum. We had one before in 1975, so why can we not have one again? It is also said that to have a referendum would involve a U-turn by the Government. I and many other hon. Members go—or at least, used to go—to the Court of Appeal every day. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must observe that there is an increasing buzz of conversation in the Chamber—and it is not confined to one side of the House.
Mr. Booth: Many hon. Members have been to the Court of Appeal. No one would regard the decisions that it takes every day as U-turns. Its decisions to change its mind are based on new information. We in Britain and Parliament have new information about the depth of anxiety about Maastricht among the people whom we represent. That is a new circumstance, and we must learn from it.
It is said that to call a referendum would be weakness. It is never weakness to trust the people. The House of Commons has been in existence for almost 800 years. It has grown great and become the mother of parliaments by trusting the people. We should do that again in this crisis. I call on both Conservative and Opposition Members to support me.
There is nothing to fear from a referendum but fear itself. If the vote is tight tonight, I call on my colleagues, particularly on the Front Bench, to use courage and common sense and to show confidence in their case, which I shall support.
9.5 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In the five minutes that I have, I wish to call into question the central theme that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State,
364
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), have put to their party, the House and the country in the past few months.
They have suggested that, for the first time in the evolution of the European Community, they have rolled back the advance of centralism; they have cabin'd and to some extent confin'd the scope of the European institutions, especially the Commission and the court. I hope quickly to prove in two ways that what the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have suggested is not the objective truth.
In the past year or so of negotiation, the Government have slowed down what would otherwise have been a faster advance towards centralism. They rest their case on two issues—subsidiarity and the erection of pillars of the union separate from the trunk of the Community.
Mr. Hurd indicated assent.
Mr. Spearing: I see the Foreign Secretary nod.
There is enormous doubt about subsidiarity. Even if the principle is defined, after competitions and 20-page documents from Mr. Delors, the Foreign Secretary knows that it is not applicable to matters in which the Community has exclusive competence. I tabled a written question in which I asked the Government to define exclusive competence. The Minister of State replied on 23 October. He said that topics within the exclusive competence of the Community included single commercial policy and single agricultural policy. Undoubtedly they would include the single market, too. However, he said:
"It is not possible to draw up an exhaustive hypothetical list."—[Official Report, 23 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 409.]
In other words, subsidiarity—if it is successfully defined—will apply in a relatively small area and, I suspect, at the margins.
The other issue is that of the pillars—A to S at either end of the treaty. They apply to single foreign and security policy. Can the Foreign Secretary separate foreign and security policy from defence policy? I do not believe that one can separate them. They are two sides of the same coin. As the Foreign Secretary is aware, article J.2 of the treaty makes it possible in certain circumstances for majority decisions to be made in such matters.
I put it to the Foreign Secretary that our armed forces would not be loyal simply to the Government and the monarch of the day: they would be loyal to the policy of the European union and its president for that six months. That is absolutely essential to the concept of citizenship also found in the new treaty. Curiously enough, it is found in the trunk of the treaty of Rome, in article 8.
There, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, we find the duties of citizenship. If there will be no change, as the Prime Minister misleadingly implied at Brighton and again today, and if we all remain British citizens, what is the purpose of making us union citizens in a twinkling of an eye on the stroke of midnight at some future date?
I assert that the citizen of the union would also be the monarch of the day, and that the monarch in Parliament would assume the duties of the citizen of the union. So the theoretical sovereign power would assume these duties, whatever they turn out to be and whoever interprets them.
The idea that we have rolled back the advancing powers of the European Community is false. Their advance may be slowed down by Maastricht, but it is because the Government have tried to give the House the wrong

365
impression that we should vote against proceeding further with this Bill—unless and until the Danes have decided whether they can ratify it. If we proceed before that, are we not undermining the principles of democracy itself?
9.10 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I have sat through almost the whole debate. Once we had got rid of the boorishness and the false points of order made by Conservative Members during the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it became a good-natured and enjoyable debate.
Many of the speeches from both sides were well worth hearing, and I shall refer to some of them in detail shortly. The arguments about the need for the House to debate today's motion and the significance of its outcome have been kaleidoscopic: give them a shake and they all appear to change before our very eyes.
Some have argued that the debate is about some huge and fundamental principle. I do not believe that. Others have argued that it is about the whole future of the Maastricht treaty. I do not share that view, either. Even wilder allegations have it that the future of the British economy is at stake tonight. Would that that were so, with a discredited Government facing possible defeat.
In many respects, the House would have been better employed debating the various crises that our country faces in economic, industrial and social policies. There seems to be a Cabinet meeting every day, and still Ministers cannot get things right. Just as the Government have failed the British people at home, so they have failed and continue to fail our country in Europe.
The British presidency of the Community has been a fiasco. The British Government have sought the lowest common denominator in the European Community time after time. This Conservative Administration has failed to give a lead. I heard a speech claiming that Britain was leading Europe. I wonder what our European Community partners think of such arrogance on the part of supporters of the Conservative Government.
Far from taking the lead, the Government have failed to give a lead. They have failed to take any initiative during their presidency—on economic recovery in Europe, on the disastrous unemployment in the Community, and even, tragically, on the Community response to the appalling conflicts in Yugoslavia, which was misjudged.
Stripped of the hype and misrepresentation of recent Community events and their significance, this debate is really on a motion about procedure, but a motion with the prime objective of trying to re-establish the authority of an increasingly accident-prone and embattled Prime Minister, who is trying to establish his authority over his increasingly querulous party. We do not intend to help him in that objective, and those who do so intend will be required to account for their actions to an angry and incredulous British public.
As the Prime Minister has struggled over the results of his own misjudgments, of which the coal crisis is merely the latest in a long and sad line, and as the Cabinet meets to consider public expenditure cuts and possibly a public sector pay freeze, who really believes that an incompetent Conservative Government deserve the support of opposition parties?
Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
All that—and the various changes of explanation for the wording of the motion that we are debating tonight—was graphically set out in the editorial in The Sunday Telegraph, referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That editorial continued:
"There must always be a strong presumption against rebellion if the country is to be run successfully."
That is the point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
"But"—
said The Sunday Telegraph—
"the problem of which all Tory MPs are acutely aware is that the country is not being run successfully."
That is the reality of the circumstances we face, and there is not much sign of confidence, in the wider debate that is taking place in the country, in the Government's ability to get things right.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman said that he would.
Dr. Cunningham: No, I did not, and I do not intend to.
What of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup? The right hon. Gentleman grossly misrepresented the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and, what is more, he quite erroneously ascribed—to European socialists, at any rate—views that they simply do not hold. I asked him to withdraw what he said. He did not do so. I repeat that he was wrong to say it.
I understand that Conservative Members are somewhat sensitive about the Opposition's charge that the motion is a motion of confidence in the Government in disguise. I can only say that any suggestions of that nature have not come from us—[Laughter.] Oh, no. They have come from the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Wales, the President of the Board of Trade and, most emphatically, at the end of his speech, from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who urged his right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against the Government tonight. Pleas for support and confidence in the Government are coming not from us but from members of the Cabinet and other Government supporters.
I have a thing or two to say about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), which was strong on sanctimony and weak on judgment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke immediately after the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup but seemed to deny that this was an issue of confidence in the Government, even though that had been the tenor of that right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. We need no sanctimonious lessons from the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who lost part of his share of the vote at the general election, who has lost support in the country since, who once changed his mind on his party's defence policy in a single afternoon, and who has made many other U-turns since.
Mr. Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) does not wish to give way?
Dr. Cunningham indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: In that case, hon. Members must resume their seats.
Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the speech that took the prize for the greatest cheek was that of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). In a distinguished parliamentary career, the right hon. Gentleman has been, among other things, a Government Chief Whip who has bullied, arm-twisted, cajoled and threatened hon. Members into the Lobby against their better judgment for all sorts of reasons, but who came to the Chamber tonight to tell Labour Members not to go into the Lobbies—the denial of half a career's work as a member of the Whips Office.
Mr. Renton: What the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten, but I have not, is that there are some hon. Members with honour sitting behind him. I suggested to them that they should not come here in time to vote but should take the liberty of a long dinner, so that they could save their honour rather than act hypocritically.
Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the hon. Members in the House who have honour are on the Opposition side, and not sitting behind him. What is more, they have more honour than he has, and a lot less pomposity.
I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), although I did not agree with what he had to say—
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: In a moment. I am referring to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and when I have finished I shall give way. He spoke with great courage and clarity about his convictions. Even though I did not agree with some of his arguments, I shall welcome his commitment to support us in the Lobby.
Mr. Ashdown: Since the hon. Gentleman is talking of honour, I wonder how he can with honour recall that, three or four weeks ago, he vociferously suggested and recommended to the French that they should vote in favour of something that he will vote against tonight.
Dr. Cunningham: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the vacuous motion tabled by the Government is about the principles of Maastricht, greater European integration or greater commitment to the European ideals, among all his other faults, he simply cannot read. It is not about those issues at all.
I do not wholeheartedly share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but I must pick him up on one thing. He said that there was an almighty effort to get a French yes because of the rejection of the treaty in the Danish referendum. Whatever the size of the majority in the French referendum, it could not negate the fact that the
368
Danes had voted no, and the fact that, until an accommodation of the Danish problem is clearly agreed, the treaty cannot be ratified.
That was confirmed by none other than the Prime Minister, writing in the Evening Standard on 21 September, when he said:
"The plain fact is that the Maastricht Treaty can only come into force if it is ratified by all member states. In Denmark they have voted against it and, unless the people there change their minds, the treaty cannot go ahead … But I made it clear that I will not bring the Maastricht bill back to the British Parliament until the Danes have made their intentions clear."
I also applaud the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and I congratulate all those Conservative Members who spoke, even though I may not agree with what they had to say, who had the courage and the decency to ignore Tory central office instructions to launch bitter and abusive personal attacks on my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
The motion is simply procedure dressed up as principle—saving face dressed up as substance. Even the president of the Liberal Democrat party called the motion a "contrivance". The Foreign Secretary told the House last week that it was about the
"authority of the Prime Minister".
The Secretary of State for Wales said on BBC television:
"These are very important issues. We have to show our confidence not only in the Government but also in John Major."
In those circumstances, and given the repeated claims for support for the Prime Minister from his right hon. Friends, how do the Government believe that it would be possible for the Opposition to do anything other than oppose the motion?
The Government's position tonight has nothing whatever to do with principle; we have that on no less an authority than that of the Foreign Secretary, who said at the Conservative party conference in Brighton:
"If huge matters of principle are at stake, collisions are sometimes inevitable. But that does not apply here".
The right hon. Gentleman said that no great issue of principle was involved, and that remains the case with the motion before us.
So there we have it: principle does not apply. There is no mention of Maastricht in the motion. It is contrived, it has no substance—no confidence. It is, as Oscar Wilde might have put it, "the motion which dare not speak its name". That is the type of motion that we are being asked to approve tonight.
How did the Government come to inflict this latest crisis on themselves—for clearly it is all the Prime Minister's work? Step by step, he has added to the confusion at the heart of his Government, in the House and in the country.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman and his party have made great play of the fact that the Government's motion makes no mention of Maastricht. Would he please mind telling me what the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is about if it is not about Maastricht?
Dr. Cunningham: In that case, why not mention it in the motion?
On 24 September, the Prime Minister set out for the House the two conditions that needed to be met before the

369
House should be asked to proceed with the Bill. The first was the common one, which was well known and agreed on by both sides of the House—an accommodation for the Danish Government and their people. That condition was never contested by any members of the Conservative party or of my party. There was general agreement in the House on that requirement.
Without being pressed and without any political duress, the Prime Minister added his own second condition—the need for a clear definition of subisidiarity. At that time, no one in the House challenged what the Prime Minister said. It was a generally agreed position, and one which the Labour party had constantly occupied since the result of the Danish referendum in June.
Very little has changed since 24 September. It is true that Denmark has published its demands—the so-called national compromise—which mean that the Danish position will be discussed and agreed by the 11 Community members before Denmark can put any "accommodation" on the treaty to the Danish people. Of course, no such accommodation has been agreed, and nor is it likely to be before the Community summit in Edinburgh at the earliest.
That was confirmed by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), during a BBC interview on 28 October, when he said:
"When it's approved by the Danish Parliament all the member states will look at it. But I am pretty confident that by the Edinburgh Council we will be able to have a position that might be acceptable to the Danes."
That is what the Secretary of State's principal Minister for Europe said "might be acceptable".
The reality is reinforced by the letter from the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mr. Poul Schluter, to our Prime Minister, dated 30 October. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the letter was his report to Parliament. It was not a report from Her Majesty's Government to Parliament; it was a letter from the Danish Prime Minister. Moreover, if it was a report to Parliament, why was it placed in the Library of the House of Commons as late as 2 pm yesterday, with no notification, formal or informal, to any Opposition party or anyone else in the House? It is an odd way for the right hon. Gentleman to keep his promise to make a report to Parliament.
Even in that document, the Danish Government say:
"Denmark and the eleven other countries which signed the Treaty are therefore faced with a real problem which can be solved only by all twelve countries together."
Earlier in the same submission to the President of the Council, they say that there will have to be negotiations leading up to the European summit in Edinburgh before there is any hope of an agreement being reached.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
There is no question of the Danish accommodation having been resolved at the present time. We now know from the Foreign Office memo, which the Prime Minister carefully skated over and which was leaked to the press a few days ago, presumably in the Government's latest contribution to more openness in Community affairs, that, quietly and privately, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not optimistic about the Danish demand.
370
The memorandum said:
"The memorandum is unlikely to he acceptable as it stands to member states and some of them may make this clear. We may therefore have a difficult negotiation ahead of us which could play awkwardly with the paving debate and the reintroduction of the Maastricht Bill".
That is the real view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the Danish demands and this matter.
It is interesting that the sanitised version of the Foreign Office memorandum, placed in the Library, has had that passage removed from it altogether. Those words appear in the leaked memorandum but not in the one placed in the Library for the information of Parliament. I wonder why.
The Danish Government, it goes on to say,
"have effectively had to swallow, as their own proposals, a document put forward by the Opposition. The proposals will need to be sold by Ellemann-Jensen, who will not believe in them."
That is the real view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the circumstances we face.
We also know that the Prime Minister's demands for an agreed definition of subsidiarity have not been met. People have said that tabling this amendment to this nonsensical procedural motion will make no difference to the position in the House if it is defeated. No one really believes—not even the Liberal Democrats—that, if our amendment is carried and the motion is defeated tonight, it will have any impact on the Committee stage of the Bill other than simply to delay it until after the Edinburgh summit. A vote for our amendment tonight cannot negate the vote on Second Reading of the Bill. We have made our position on the European Community clear at our conference in Blackpool. I stand by those decisions, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They are set out in our document, "Europe: Our Economic Future", which was approved overwhelmingly by the Labour party, and it remains our position.
The Labour party has already made it clear that the Maastricht treaty that we wanted would have been somewhat different from the one that the Prime Minister wants. We wanted a more democratic approach to European decision making. We wanted a much more socially conscious approach, as reflected in our support for the social chapter. Irrespective of the outcome today, which is not really about the Maastricht treaty anyway, Labour's position, as already stated, is support for Europe, and it will be in no way diminished.
The Government's motion fails the Prime Minister's tests on Denmark and on subsidiarity. That is why we have tabled the amendment, which does not and could not negate other decisions of the House. It simply proposes awaiting the Edinburgh Council, which is only five weeks away. The real reason for the Government not being prepared to wait that long is that the Prime Minister wants to take on and humiliate the opponents in the Conservative party. That is the reason for today's debate; that is why we are here.
In normal times, that would be a questionable judgment, but now, with the Government all in pieces, with all coherence gone, it is surely complete folly. The amendment would almost save the Prime Minister from himself, if only he could see it. It would allow time for the Edinburgh summit finally to decide the outstanding issues on subsidiarity and on accommodation for Denmark. Then, and only then, should we proceed to consider the Bill in Committee. That is why I urge the rest of the House to join us, the Opposition, in the Lobby.
9.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): This has been a spirited debate but a complicated one, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said. He compared it to a kaleidoscope. Now that he has shaken the kaleidoscope the situation is even more confused than it was when he began to address the House. Few motions can have received so much analysis. All sorts of interpretations have been placed upon it as if it contained long extra passages in invisible ink, but there are none. The motion means what it says.
The survival of the Conservative Government is not at stake. What is at stake is the survival of a credible European policy for the United Kingdom. There are Opposition Members who believe in a European policy for Britain that is based on the success of the Community, and they have made some sacrifices for that belief in the past. I have not been enormously enthused by their excusing speeches today. It remains to be seen whether those Members will allow themselves to be driven off their beliefs when the main motion is put to the House.
The speech by the Leader of the Opposition was on a motion of no confidence that he has not tabled. If that is how he feels, why has he not tabled the motion? The answer is that he hopes to lure some of my hon. Friends into the Lobby with him. His speech showed clearly the trap, and on the whole when traps are set in the sight of the victim they do not catch him.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House—and certainly some of my hon. Friends who sit behind me—have through the years wanted nothing to do with the European Community, and that is still their view. For them, the amendment and the motion have no attractions. The great majority of the House, however, believes that Britain and British interests are secured by joining energetically in the European Community.
Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: No. I shall make some progress.
Most of us—the great majority of us—have broadly the same idea of how the Community should work. We believe in a Community that is based on the effective work together of nation states, whose roles and institutions enable it to intervene—that is the Community—only where it is necessary and proper for it to do so—for example, in enforcing a single market. The words "necessary and proper" are in the Birmingham declaration, which was agreed by all member states.
Most of us reject the idea of a European superstate. We believe—certainly Conservative Members do—in a Community that is based essentially on the principles of the free market. We believe also in a Community which is ready to admit new members as they qualify and wish to join. All this is just about common ground for most of us—almost all of us—on the Government Benches and for many beyond us.
The question that divides us is whether these aims, which we share, are best advanced by ratifying the Maastricht treaty or wrecking it. I am sure that it is better to ratify it. That is not a question that will be decided today because before it can finally be decided Parliament will want to undertake detailed study of the Bill and the treaty. I welcome that. Indeed, we will have a more
372
detailed parliamentary examination than any other member state. That is right because there is a whole multitude of questions and anxieties being tossed to and fro by the media and by individual citizens. This House is the place for those questions to be pinned down, to be definitely posed and answered and for anxieties to be stated and either confirmed or disproved. That is what the Committee stage will be about.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) took a different line in his speech. He is a familiar and, on the whole, agreeable figure in the House. However, we do not know very much about his opinions. For many years as shadow Chancellor his economic policy consisted of denouncing the Chancellor of the day and then shadowing his policies. We do not know much about his social or foreign policies. However, we thought that we knew one thing—that he was clear that Britain's place effectively lay in Europe. He has a long and good record on that. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) reminded us, the Labour party conference recently emphasised support for the Maastricht treaty without caveat. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was hustled to the stake when he stepped out of line.
I had an illuminating Saturday morning last month when I was in Brussels meeting some of my Foreign Minister colleagues. Some of them happen to be socialists. They were in Brussels that morning because they were attending a meeting of European socialist leaders. Several of them—more than one—came to see me with great relief on their faces. They said, "Your parliamentary difficulties are over. We have just met that nice Mr. Smith and he has assured us that the Labour party will abstain and abstain and abstain." They regarded that as the height of statesmanship. In the circumstances, I understand why. When I pointed out that the Labour party was not quite as simple as that and that possibly even the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not so simple, they dismissed me as a ruthless cynic. I did not expect to be proved right quite so quickly. The truth is that the one principle, the one policy for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is known and respected is the one principle, the one policy that he has today clearly abandoned.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, taking a lawyer's tortuous path through the argument, spent a great deal of time analysing the Government's motion and explaining why he could not support it. We all remember that long before we published our motion he said that whatever we tabled he would oppose it. He must think that we have remarkably short memories.
After the vote tonight the House will turn its attention to other matters. Next week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes his autumn statement. There is no doubt that the domestic agenda is full and pressing. However, I cannot accept the proposition that the debates about our place in the Community are irrelevant to our concerns about the economy. As some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the perception that Britain is a fully committed player in the Community is vital in attracting investment. American and Japanese firms do not come here for the weather; they come here because we have certain specific advantages—and at the moment one of them is continuing access to the economic arrangements within the Community.
I wish to deal with two points that have taken up a great deal of time in the debate. The Danish Parliament—with

373
the support of seven of the eight parties in it—has now approved proposals that, if accepted by other member states—
Dr. Cunningham: If.
Mr. Hurd: Yes, I said "if" accepted—would form the basis on which the treaty could be put back to the Danish people. The Danish proposals match our views on topics such as subsidiarity and the open way in which the Community works. The Danish proposals for economic and monetary co-operation aim for a position broadly the same as that already negotiated for this country.
The Danes have made it clear that they are not seeking to reopen the text of the treaty. They are essentially seeking to clarify how the treaty will be applied to Denmark in certain key respects. I had a long conversation yesterday with the Danish Foreign Minister who confirmed the Danes' approach on his visit to London. During our six-month presidency of the Community we must quickly take forward discussions among the Twelve. We aim to agree at Edinburgh on a political framework for a settlement of the Danish proposals. Having listened to the Minister and studied the first reaction across the Community—which was not unanimous—to the Danish plan, I believe that there are reasonable prospects for such a settlement.
The hon. Member for Copeland made heavy weather of the issue, but usefully read out an extract from an Evening Standard article by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman studies what I have said and what my right hon. Friend wrote in that article, he will find that we are exactly at the position sketched by my right hon. Friend at that time.
We have not solved all the problems, but we have never said that we would not bring the treaty into Committee until the Danes had solved all the problems. We have said that we need to be clear about their intentions. We are clear about their intentions. I believe that there is a reasonable chance—I do not want to deceive the House —that at Edinburgh we shall be able to reach an agreement that will enable the Danes to go back to their people.
Mr. Enright: What is the position on European citizenship, as that is crucial to what the Danes are saying? If the Foreign Secretary is renouncing European citizenship on the part of the United Kingdom, that is a basic departure from previous statements.
Mr. Hurd: Our position is exactly that agreed by all member states at Birmingham. Citizenship of the union brings our citizens additional rights and protection without in any way taking the place of their national citizenship.
The issue of subsidiarity has dominated much of the debate. We made good progress at Birmingham. The Birmingham declaration makes it clear that in future the presumption will be that action will be taken at a national level. As one veteran remarked at the conference, that is a huge change from the vocabulary used in the early years of the Community when it was assumed that Community action was, in itself and without question, a blessing.
There are people, like Commissioner Bangemann yesterday, who cling to that faded belief, although I think
374
that it is fading. But having had meeting after meeting in the past few months, I am certain that the climate on that crucial issue—on which the House concentrated—is changing in Europe.
No one who listened to the discussions at the Birmingham summit could believe that there was any prospect of a united states of Europe in the lifetime of the people here. Some people may regret that, but that is the tenor of the discussions.
Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on an issue that is of fundamental importance to many of us. The other day the Prime Minister was quoted as referring to the treaty's preamble, which contains so many of those federalist ambitions, as Eurowaffle. How can those of us who have consistently opposed federalism and the move to a centralist authority be reassured that signing the treaty when it contains those words will not have major legal and political significance?
Mr. Hurd: I shall develop the point. The point that I am trying to make is that the climate is changing. Those who believe, quite genuinely, that there should be a steady, inexorable movement towards a single Executive and single Parliament are now on the defensive rather than on the offensive. I do not claim more than that. I do not claim that their voices are silenced, but I am sure that they are on the defensive.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will not accept that. He listens only to the voices that he most detests. He likes to cling to his nightmares. He said to us today that everybody except the Prime Minister and British Ministers believe that there is this inexorable move towards centralism. Perhaps I could quote from the article that the federal German Chancellor has placed in The European.I do not know what relationship it has to what Mr. Bangemann said, but Chancellor Kohl wrote:
"We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate which reduces everything to the same level and blurs the differences; rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of 'unity in diversity'. In a strong aside against Brussels"—
this is the agency report—
"he says: 'We must all ask ourselves in a self-critical way what kind of impression this mania for rules and regulations makes on ordinary people and whether we are running the risk of bringing the European unity process into disrepute.'"
There is more on the same lines. It gives the absolute lie to the notion that we in Britain are solitary and isolated in pressing for changes in the Community on these lines. We are not. We are in an increasing body of opinion pressing in that way.
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman's whole case is that the body of opinion is changing. The body of opinion has changed only because of the impact of the Danish no vote. It is not a change of fact or a change in the text of the treaty; it is a change entirely in presentation so that gullible people in this country will accept that there has been a change when there has not been.
Mr. Hurd: The change was there at Maastricht. The change was there in the British arguments at the negotiations. The change was there when we defeated the Dutch centralising draft in September 1991. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right—I want to be fair to him—that the Danish referendum and the debate in this country, in France and in Germany has added to this movement

375
—of course it has. It is affecting people's views and opinions and that is quite right. It is affecting them in a way for which we have been pressing over many years.
Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend know that in Management Today, which came out only a few days ago, 69 per cent. of the 3,000 readers who were requested to reply said that they wanted a referendum, and that 68 per cent. said that they were against the Maastricht treaty? Those are business men in this country.
Mr. Hurd: I have not had the advantage of studying that census. I do not think that it fits into the point of the argument that I have reached. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained why we believe that this place, and particularly this House, is the place for the detailed examination and then the final decisions on the treaty of Maastricht.
There is now an article on subsidiarity in the treaty. There was no such check in the treaty of Rome or in the Single European Act; now there is such a check. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and I agree that much that has happened in the debate in different countries has shown that we are working with the grain of public opinion. We are not waiting for the article to be ratified and to become a legal obligation; we are making it a political fact. That work has gone on since the Lisbon summit in June, and was carried forward in Birmingham.
The Commission has been asked to produce examples of past legislation that fails the test and should be removed from the statute book. We have our own list to offer. Already, the Commission is changing. The number of legislative proposals from the Commission so far this year has dropped to 48, compared with the 118 that it had planned. That compares with about 150 in each of the past two years. We are working in the Council, too, and will discuss again on Monday new procedures so that we, the Ministers of the different countries, can test subsidiarity before discussing merits.
This will take time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is quite right to urge us to press this, but I must say to him—and this was part of his argument—that the idea that we can press this successfully if we are hanging back and are seen to be hanging back on the ratification of the treaty is fruitless. The fruits of the Edinburgh Council meeting can be taken into account as the Bill proceeds through the House, but for the Prime Minister—and this is the point I made earlier —to go to that meeting without the clear backing of the House would be to put him, as he said, in a weak and vulnerable position.
I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about the importance of the treaty for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The new Committee of the Regions, as she will agree, has the potential. It can be important. It depends how it works out. But we certainly do not believe that it should be underrated, and she knows very well the importance for those parts of our kingdom of the structure funds and of the point that I have already made about inward investment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made a striking speech in which he said that what we have to do in eastern and central Europe is the most important job for the Community at present. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took a British initiative and invited here last week the Prime Ministers of
376
Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. That is exactly the kind of initiative which we are taking but which will wither unless the framework of the treaty of Maastricht is carried through.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—I am sorry that I missed his speech because I was out—and also the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) tried to indicate to the House that the Commission would have a sinister strength in the pillars, that is to say, in foreign policy, security matters and Home Office/immigration matters. That is not so. The Commission is present now in our discussions on foreign policy because if one is discussing Yugoslavia and sanctions one is discussing matters in which the Commission has a role, and it is useful for its members to be there. But they do not have—and the treaty excludes them from having—the monopoly of initiative, and there is no jurisdiction in these matters for the European Court. So it is quite a different system and the presence of the Commission and its ability, among others, to make proposals is entirely reasonable.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and his plea for more information, we intend to issue reasonably soon—maybe next week—a booklet which explains the treaty.
This Community of Europe, among other things, is a forum of continuous debate, and this is natural in a community of 12 democracies. The debate on the future of Europe is not over and the centralisers are still active, though now on the defensive. But one does not stop the debate by refusing to ratify the treaty. If we did that we would merely ensure that in the debate the voice of Britain was muted and that the opinions of Britain carried less weight. We would increase the possibility of combinations forming on the continent which would deeply affect the prosperity and security of these islands but in whose policies we would have no say.
The treaty includes several of our own British ideas. We negotiated out of it obligations that we believed would be damaging for us. This is the only agreed framework for the Community over the next five or six years, and I am quite clear in my own mind that no agreement is possible at this time on a different basis, as the Danes themselves have recognised. If we wreck the treaty by refusing to ratify it, the Community will pass through a period of bad-tempered confusion. In that atmosphere, I would judge that there would be no enlargement of the Community—it would not be possible—that the single market would be spoiled and that investors and traders would be uncertain about Britain's place in Europe and therefore uncertain about our future. Within the treaty we can continue to press our own ideas as we are now doing with success on subsidiarity.
The Labour party leadership has shied away from the test. It has tabled an amendment. Once it comes to the point, it has decided to evade it. I hope that the House will take a different view. Let us have some self-confidence in our approach. Let us take advantage of the changing climate of opinion in Europe. Let us drive forward our own British ideas within the framework which we in Britain have helped to negotiate. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 319.

Division No. 82]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Adams, Mrs Irene

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

Ainger, Nick

Denham, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dewar, Donald

Allen, Graham

Dixon, Don

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dobson, Frank

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Armstrong, Hilary

Dowd, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Austin-Walker, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Barnes, Harry

Eagle, Ms Angela

Barron, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

Battle, John

Enright, Derek

Bayley, Hugh

Etherington, Bill

Beckett, Margaret

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Beggs, Roy

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bell, Stuart

Fatchett, Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Faulds, Andrew

Bennett, Andrew F.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Benton, Joe

Fisher, Mark

Bermingham, Gerald

Flynn, Paul

Berry, Dr. Roger

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Betts, Clive

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Foulkes, George

Blair, Tony

Fraser, John

Blunkett, David

Fyfe, Maria

Boateng, Paul

Galbraith, Sam

Body, Sir Richard

Galloway, George

Boyce, Jimmy

Gapes, Mike

Boyes, Roland

Garrett, John

Bradley, Keith

George, Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gerrard, Neil

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Gill, Christopher

Budgen, Nicholas

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Burden, Richard

Godsiff, Roger

Butcher, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Byers, Stephen

Gordon, Mildred

Caborn, Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Callaghan, Jim

Gould, Bryan

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Graham, Thomas

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cann, Jamie

Grocott, Bruce

Cash, William

Gunnell, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hain, Peter

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Mike

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hanson, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hardy, Peter

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Harvey, Nick

Clelland. David

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Henderson, Doug

Coffey, Ann

Hendron, Dr Joe

Cohen, Harry

Heppell, John

Connarty, Michael

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hinchliffe, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hoey, Kate

Corbett, Robin

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Hood, Jimmy

Cousins, Jim

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cox, Tom

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cran, James

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cryer, Bob

Hoyle, Doug

Cummings, John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

Hume, John

Dafis, Cynog

Hutton, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Illsley, Eric

Darling, Alistair

Ingram, Adam

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jamieson, David

378

Janner, Greville

Pope, Greg

Jessel, Toby

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prescott, John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jowell, Tessa

Purchase, Ken

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Quin, Ms Joyce

Keen, Alan

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Randall, Stuart

Khabra, Piara S.

Raynsford, Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Redmond, Martin

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Reid, Dr John

Knapman, Roger

Richardson, Jo

Legg, Barry

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Litherland, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Livingstone, Ken

Rooker, Jeff

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Rooney, Terry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Loyden, Eddie

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

McAllion, John

Rowlands, Ted

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCartney, Ian

Salmond, Alex

McCrea, Rev William

Sedgemore, Brian

Macdonald, Calum

Sheerman, Barry

McFall, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McGrady, Eddie

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

McKelvey, William

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mackinlay, Andrew

Short, Clare

McLeish, Henry

Simpson, Alan

McMaster, Gordon

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Madden, Max

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

Maginnis, Ken

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Mahon, Alice

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mallon, Seamus

Snape, Peter

Mandelson, Peter

Soley, Clive

Marek, Dr John

Spearing, Nigel

Marlow, Tony

Spellar, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Steinberg, Gerry

Martlew, Eric

Stevenson, George

Maxton, John

Stott, Roger

Meacher, Michael

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Michael, Alun

Straw, Jack

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Milburn, Alan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Tipping, Paddy

Morgan, Rhodri

Trimble, David

Morley, Elliot

Turner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Mudie, George

Walley. Joan

Mullin, Chris

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Murphy, Paul

Wareing, Robert N

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Watson, Mike

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Welsh, Andrew

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Wicks, Malcolm

O'Hara, Edward

Wigley, Dafydd

Olner, William

Wilkinson, John

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wilson, Brian

Parry, Robert

Winnick, David

Patchett, Terry

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Pendry, Tom

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Pickthall, Colin

Wise, Audrey

Pike, Peter L.

Worthington, Tony

379

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wright, Dr Tony

Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Martyn Jones.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Day, Stephen

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Aitken, Jonathan

Devlin, Tim

Alexander, Richard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dicks, Terry

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Dorrell, Stephen

Alton, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Amess, David

Dover, Den

Ancram, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Dunn, Bob

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dykes, Hugh

Ashby, David

Eggar, Tim

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Elletson, Harold

Aspinwall, Jack

Emery, Sir Peter

Atkins, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Evennett, David

Baldry, Tony

Faber, David

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Fabricant, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bates, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Batiste, Spencer

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Fishburn, Dudley

Bellingham, Henry

Forman, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Foster, Don (Bath)

Booth, Hartley

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Boswell, Tim

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Freeman, Roger

Bowden, Andrew

French, Douglas

Bowis, John

Fry, Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gale, Roger

Brandreth, Gyles

Gallie, Phil

Brazier, Julian

Gardiner, Sir George

Bright, Graham

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Garnier, Edward

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gillan, Cheryl

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gorst, John

Burns, Simon

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Carttiss, Michael

(Epsom-Ewell)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Hampson, Dr Keith

Churchill, Mr

Hanley, Jeremy

Clappison, James

Hannam, Sir John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Harris, David

Coe, Sebastian

Haselhurst, Alan

Colvin, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Congdon, David

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Heald, Oliver

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

Hicks, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Horam, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hordern, Sir Peter

380

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

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

Ottaway, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Page, Richard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Paice, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunter, Andrew

Pickles, Eric

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jack, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Redwood, John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Richards, Rod

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Riddick, Graham

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Key, Robert

Robathan, Andrew

Kilfedder, Sir James

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

King, Rt Hon Tom

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knox, David

Sackville, Tom

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shersby, Michael

Lidington, David

Sims, Roger

Lightbown, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lynne, Ms Liz

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spink, Dr Robert

Mac Kay, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Maclean, David

Sproat, Iain

Maclennan, Robert

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Madel, David

Steen, Anthony

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stephen, Michael

Major, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Stewart, Allan

Mans, Keith

Streeter, Gary

Marland, Paul

Sumberg, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sykes, John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thomason, Roy

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Milligan, Stephen

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, Iain

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Tracey, Richard

Moate, Roger

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Richard

Tyler, Paul

Nelson, Anthony

Viggers, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walden, George

Nicholls, Patrick

Wallace, James

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ward, John

Norris, Steve

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Waterson, Nigel

381

Watts, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wells, Bowen

Wood, Timothy

Wheeler, Sir John

Yeo, Tim

Whitney, Ray

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Willetts, David

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Wilshire, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 316.

Division No. 83]

[10.17 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Conway, Derek

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Aitken, Jonathan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alexander, Richard

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cormack, Patrick

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Couchman, James

Alton, David

Critchley, Julian

Amess, David

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

Ancram, Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Arbuthnot, James

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Day, Stephen

Ashby, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Devlin, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Dickens, Geoffrey

Atkins, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Dorrell, Stephen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Duncan, Alan

Baldry, Tony

Dunn, Bob

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dykes, Hugh

Bates, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

Elletson, Harold

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Emery, Sir Peter

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bendall, Vivian

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evennett, David

Booth, Hartley

Faber, David

Boswell, Tim

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bowden, Andrew

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowis, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forman, Nigel

Brandreth, Gyles

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brazier, Julian

Forth, Eric

Bright, Graham

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Freeman, Roger

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

French, Douglas

Burns, Simon

Fry, Peter

Burt, Alistair

Gale, Roger

Butler, Peter

Gallie, Phil

Butterfill, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Garnier, Edward

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gillan, Cheryl

Carrington, Matthew

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carttiss, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gorst, John

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clappison, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grylls, Sir Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Colvin, Michael

Hague, William

Congdon, David

382

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

(Epsom-Ewell)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Merchant, Piers

Hanley, Jeremy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Hannam, Sir John

Milligan, Stephen

Hargreaves, Andrew

Mills, Iain

Harris, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hawkins, Nick

Moate, Roger

Hayes, Jerry

Monro, Sir Hector

Heald, Oliver

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Moss, Malcolm

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Needham, Richard

Hendry, Charles

Nelson, Anthony

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hicks, Robert

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nicholls, Patrick

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Horam, John

Norris, Steve

Hordern, Sir Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

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

Ottaway, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Page, Richard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Paice, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunter, Andrew

Pickles, Eric

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jack, Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Powell, William (Corby)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Johnston, Sir Russell

Redwood, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Richards, Rod

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Riddick, Graham

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robathan, Andrew

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Key, Robert

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kirkwood, Archy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sackville, Tom

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

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knox, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Leigh, Edward

Shersby, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Sims, Roger

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lidington, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Speed, Sir Keith

Luff, Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Spink, Dr Robert

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

MacKay, Andrew

Sproat, Iain

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maclennan, Robert

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Madel, David

Stephen, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stern, Michael

Major, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan

Malone, Gerald

Streeter, Gary

Mans, Keith

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Sykes, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mates, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

383

Thomason, Roy

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Waterson, Nigel

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Watts, John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Thurnham, Peter

Wheeler, Sir John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Ray

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

Widdecombe, Ann

Tracey, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Tredinnick, David

Willetts, David

Trend, Michael

Wilshire, David

Trotter, Neville

Wolfson, Mark

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wood, Timothy

Tyler, Paul

Yeo, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wallace, James

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ainger, Nick

Corbett, Robin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Corston, Ms Jean

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cox, Tom

Armstrong, Hilary

Cran, James

Ashton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Austin-Walker, John

Cummings, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Barron, Kevin

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

Battle, John

Dafis, Cynog

Bayley, Hugh

Dalyell, Tam

Beckett, Margaret

Darling, Alistair

Beggs, Roy

Davidson, Ian

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Benton, Joe

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Denham, John

Berry, Dr. Roger

Dewar, Donald

Betts, Clive

Dixon, Don

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Dobson, Frank

Blair, Tony

Donohoe, Brian H.

Blunkett, David

Dowd, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Body, Sir Richard

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boyce, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Boyes, Roland

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bradley, Keith

Eastham, Ken

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Enright, Derek

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Etherington, Bill

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

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Burden, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Butcher, John

Faulds, Andrew

Byers, Stephen

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Caborn, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Callaghan, Jim

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

Fraser, John

Cann, Jamie

Fyfe, Maria

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Galbraith, Sam

Cash, William

Galloway, George

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gapes, Mike

Clapham, Michael

Garrett, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

George, Bruce

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gill, Christopher

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Godsiff, Roger

Coffey, Ann

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cohen, Harry

Gordon, Mildred

Connarty, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

384

Gould, Bryan

Marlow, Tony

Graham, Thomas

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Martlew, Eric

Grocott, Bruce

Maxton, John

Gunnell, John

Meacher, Michael

Hain, Peter

Michael, Alun

Hall, Mike

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hanson, David

Milburn, Alan

Hardy, Peter

Miller, Andrew

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Harvey, Nick

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Henderson, Doug

Morgan, Rhodri

Hendron, Dr Joe

Morley, Elliot

Heppell, John

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hoey, Kate

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mudie, George

Home Robertson, John

Mullin, Chris

Hood, Jimmy

Murphy, Paul

Hoon, Geoffrey

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, William

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hume, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hutton, John

Parry, Robert

Illsley, Eric

Patchett, Terry

Ingram, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pickthall, Colin

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Pike, Peter L.

Jamieson, David

Pope, Greg

Janner, Greville

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jessel, Toby

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prescott, John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jowell, Tessa

Purchase, Ken

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Quin, Ms Joyce

Keen, Alan

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Randall, Stuart

Khabra, Piara S.

Raynsford, Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Redmond, Martin

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Reid, Dr John

Knapman, Roger

Richardson, Jo

Legg, Barry

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Litherland, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Livingstone, Ken

Rooker, Jeff

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Rooney, Terry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lord, Michael

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Loyden, Eddie

Rowlands, Ted

McAllion, John

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Salmond, Alex

McCartney, Ian

Sedgemore, Brian

McCrea, Rev William

Sheerman, Barry

Macdonald, Calum

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McFall, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

McGrady, Eddie

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McKelvey, William

Short, Clare

Mackinlay, Andrew

Simpson, Alan

McLeish, Henry

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McMaster, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McWilliam, John

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

Madden, Max

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Maginnis, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mahon, Alice

Snape, Peter

Mallon, Seamus

Soley, Clive

Mandelson, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Marek, Dr John

Spellar, John

385

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wareing, Robert N

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Watson, Mike

Steinberg, Gerry

Welsh, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Stott, Roger

Wigley, Dafydd

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wilkinson, John

Straw, Jack

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wilson, Brian

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Winnick, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Tipping, Paddy

Wise, Audrey

Trimble, David

Worthington, Tony

Turner, Dennis

Wray, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Wright, Dr Tony

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Tellers for the Noes:

Walley, Joan

Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Martyn Jones.

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill received a majority of 244 at its second reading and was committed to a Committee of the whole House; acknowledges that the House was promised a debate prior to the committee stage; notes that the Danish Government's intentions have now been clarified; recalls the Lisbon Council's commitment to subsidiarity, the Birmingham Council's agreement on a framework for decisions to implement that principle and the practical steps already taken to achieve it; recognises that the United Kingdom should play a leading role in the development of the European Community to achieve a free market Europe open to accession by other European democracies, thereby promoting employment, prosperity and investment into the United Kingdom; and invites Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill in order that the House should consider its provisions in further detail.

PETITION

  Pit Closures
  10.31 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I have other business to deal with.
  Mrs. Mahon: This is the humble petition of the residents of Halifax—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?
  Mrs. Mahon: The petition—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. This is totally unfair on the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who is dealing with business of the House. Will those hon. Members who are leaving do so quickly and quietly so that we may proceed with our business? Mrs. Mahon, please try again.
  Mrs. Mahon: The petition reads:
  That the recent announcement of pit closures has filled the people of Halifax with deep concern because of the consequential loss of employment for miners. They are also concerned because of the effect these pit closures will have on employment in related industries. They believe that this short-term policy will be to the long term detriment of the people of Yorkshire and of the nation.
  Two thousand, one hundred and ninety eight people in Halifax have expressed their concern by signing this petition because they feel that they are neither economically nor socially justified.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that the Honourable House will take measures to see that these pit closures do not proceed.
  And your Petitioners, in duty hound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: After such a momentous debate, it may seem somewhat of an anticlimax to talk about the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—in relative terms, it is. However, the Act is of great importance to some 6 million dog owners in our country.
  I immediately declare my interest as the owner of three west highland terriers, named Tammy Hansard, Madam Speaker Hansard and Ben Hansard. I am also the chairman of the National Advisory Panel for Pro Dogs.
  The 1991 Act was passed with perfectly good intentions, it was fully justified and it was supported by the public. It was designed to reduce the threat of attacks by dangerous dogs. I will prove, however, that its implementation has been unfair and a disaster for many responsible dog owners.
  When the pit bull terrier first came to the United Kingdom in the mid-1970s, strong representations were made to the Government to ban the import of those dogs. The Government considered that request but said that they could not ban their import because there was no way in which one could define that breed. Surely a dog should be judged not by its breed but by its behaviour and record. For example, a cross-breed of a labrador and a boxer could look very like a pit bull terrier. How many people would have the expertise to identify it on that basis, be they police officers, dog wardens or even veterinary surgeons?
  Section 3 of the Act could affect every dog in the country—including the many dogs that are owned by hon. Members. Let me give an example of what could happen as a result of the Act. Let us suppose that a woman peacefully walking her dog in the woods, enjoying an afternoon stroll and minding her own business, is suddenly attacked by a man who may attempt to rape, assault or rob her. The dog, devoted to its owner, immediately goes to her defence and bites the man. The man runs off but within a few hours is detained and charged by the police. He is sent to court and then to prison for assault or whatever. It is quite possible, however, that, as a result of the Act, that woman's dog will be destroyed and the woman will have a criminal record for life. That cannot be right.
  Another specific example involved my wife. In the early 1980s—long before the introduction of the legislation—my wife was walking our dog in my constituency. A large, aggressive man came towards her and asked, "Are you Andrew Bowden's wife?" When she said yes, he verbally abused her and put his clenched fist right under her nose. He did not hit her, but my wife was very frightened. Our west highland terrier, which was at her side, growled and showed her teeth. The man turned around and ran.
  As the Dangerous Dogs Act stands today, that man could go down to the local police station and say that that dog had caused him worry and strain and that he had felt threatened by it. He could demand action and the police would have to take action. Again, that cannot he right.
  In view of the circumstances, it is not surprising that people have described the Act as a "dog haters' charter". Unless the Act is amended, it gives spiteful people every opportunity to settle scores against dogs and dog owners that they do not like.
  388
  I wish to make some positive suggestions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who I know is listening sympathetically to what I have to say and will pay careful attention to my points. In view of the instances that I have outlined and the possibilities that can and will arise unless the Act is amended, I ask him to consider these amendments. First, the courts should be given discretion in dealing with cases, particularly in relation to the destruction of dogs.
  Secondly, having heard all the evidence, they should have the power to make a judgment between a savage dog that is a danger to society—we all want those dogs dealt with—and a pet dog that reacts to a situation of the type that I outlined. The law distinguishes between common assault, grievous bodily harm and bodily harm. Why should not the same principle apply to the Dangerous Dogs Act?
  Thirdly, the description of the type of dog known as a pit bull is open to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and abuse. The courts should have a power, in those circumstances, to allow late registration. They have no discretion at present.
  Fourthly, under the muzzle and lead section, the courts should be able to consider pleas of "reasonable excuse". If a dog were wearing a muzzle and that muzzle were taken off for 30 seconds so that the dog could have a drink. or if the dog were sick and in danger of choking, that should be justifiable to a court. Is it reasonable to say that, if the muzzle has been removed, the dog could be taken and destroyed? I cannot believe that that was the original intention of the House when the Act was passed.
  The case for review of the Act is strong. It is supported by Pro Dogs, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Kennel Club, a world-renowned animal behaviourist. Dr. Roger Mugford, many magistrates, and a leading QC, Mr. Thomas Field-Fisher, who is chairman of the Battersea Dogs Home. Those are just a few examples of people who believe that an urgent review and changes are needed.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider those points carefully? The Act can be—and has proved to be on occasions—unfair and cruel. As a result of the Act, there have been suicides. Families have been devastated by the loss of deeply loved pets. Many of those who have been brought to court are responsible dog owners. Their dogs have caused no harm, but they have been seized from their homes, gardens and even cars and destroyed. That is not true British justice. The law must be changed. I ask my hon. Friend to act quickly.
  10.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate and on raising such an important subject. As a near parliamentary neighbour of his in east Sussex, I know only too well what an effective spokesman he is on this important issue and on many other subjects. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), who is in his place, is also extremely concerned about the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown has raised.

  389
  It is a little over 18 months since we saw the horrific injuries sustained by Mr. Tempest and the young Rukhsana Khan resulting from attacks by dangerous dogs. No one who saw those photographs and the pictures on our television screens could deny the need for some action to safeguard the public. That is why the Government took some action to give the public increased protection against dangerous dogs.
  The House will recall that there was particular concern about those types of dogs which are specially bred for fighting. These are not pets or companion animals in the normal sense of that expression. Dogs such as the pit bull terrier are characterised by their fighting nature and by the force and ferocity of their attacks. That is why the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 places special controls on fighting dogs. These controls apply to any dog of the types known as the pit bull terrier or the Japanese tosa, to the dogo Argentino and to the fila Braziliero.
  Section 2 of the Act enables my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to apply restrictions to any other type of dog which he considers presents a serious danger to the public. But equally the Act also contains more general provisions aimed at dogs of any type which are dangerously out of control in a public place. The Act therefore deals with the specific problems of fighting dogs and the problem of dangerous dogs generally.
  Before turning to fighting dogs, I remind the House of those general controls which apply under the Act to a dog of any type which is dangerously out of control in a public place.
  Section 3 of the Act gives the public additional protection against any type of dog. All dog owners must be aware that they are responsible for their dogs' actions. It is for them to control their dogs in public. A dog need not have injured anyone for section 3 to apply. It is sufficient that, by its actions, there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure someone.
  Where a dog causes injury, an aggravated offence is committed. These provisions should encourage dog owners, many of whom are ready to take their responsibilities seriously—indeed, most, I am sure—to exercise greater control of their dogs in public. Not everyone is a dog lover, but even those who are can be put in fear by a dog of any size or type which is dangerously out of control.
  The Act also clarifies the courts' powers under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 to impose controls on dangerous dogs. A court may make an order on complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, whether or not the dog is shown to have injured anyone. An order under the 1871 Act may require a dog to be muzzled in future, kept on a lead, tethered or excluded from specified places like, for instance, a school playground or a recreation area. It can also apply in and around a private house. It thus enables, for example, action to be taken by a neighbour where a dog represents a particular menace. These are important and useful provisions.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown has allowed me to sketch out these matters before I deal with the issues that he has raised. Before I respond to them, I ask the House to recall that the ultimate objective of the legislation as it applies to fighting dogs such as the pit bull terrier is the elimination from this
  390
  country of such dogs. The Government continue to believe that fighting dogs, of which the pit bull terrier is the best known, have no place in our society. The 1991 Act therefore makes it an offence, inter alia, to have a specially controlled dog. It is also an offence to breed from such a dog. The legislation does, however, allow owners to keep such dogs for the remainder of the animals' natural lives, provided that they comply with stringent conditions. It is against this background that the operation of the 1991 Act should be seen.
  Owners who wished to keep their specially controlled dogs were required to notify the police by 12 October 1991 that they owned such a dog. They were then required to obtain a certificate of exemption by 30 November 1991 from the index of exempted dogs. To obtain a certificate of exemption, an owner was required to have the dog permanently identified by the insertion of a microchip and by having the dog tattooed, to obtain third party insurance, to have the dog neutered and to pay a fee.
  It has been an offence for anyone to have an unexempted specially-controlled dog since 1 December 1991. All these provisions received wide publicity at the time. I have no doubt that some owners who were unsure about whether their dogs were specially controlled erred on the side of caution and sought certificates of exemption. Those owners of specially-controlled dogs who did not wish to have their dog exempted could choose either to have the dog destroyed or to export it. Those who chose to have their animals destroyed within the specified period were eligible for compensation.
  The Government believe it right that there should be strict controls on fighting dogs, but they have not been inflexible. They responded to the difficulties which owners in some parts of the country had in getting their dogs tattooed within the deadline. We therefore extended the deadline for getting dogs tattooed until 29 February, although owners were still required to have completed the other steps for obtaining a certificate of exemption by that date.
  We believe that the 1991 Act and the exemption scheme established under it are working well. It would, of course, be surprising if it did not take those involved in operating the Act on a daily basis—the police, the courts and others —a while to become familiar with the legislation.
  My hon. Friend has drawn attention to what he sees as particular problems with the operation of the Act. I will attend to some of those points in a moment. However, I must make it quite clear that the Government do not propose to relax the strict controls that the 1991 Act introduced. The need for strong action was acknowledged by the House at the time the legislation was introduced and we do not think it would be right to reduce the protection now afforded to the general public.
  It has been suggested that the courts should be given discretion about whether to order the destruction of a dog whose owner has been convicted of one of the main offences under the 1991 Act, a point that my hon. Friend made eloquently. I understand the reasoning behind the proposal and I do not pretend that there will not be or have not been hard cases. The destruction of any dog is always a matter for sadness, but the Government believe that that must be the penalty for fighting dogs if the courts find that their owners have not complied with the relevant provisions of the law. If courts were allowed discretion to decide whether or not to order the destruction of a dog following the successful prosecution of its owner and if the

  391
  court did not order the dog's destruction, the dog would have to he returned to the convicted owner. That owner, by his actions, would have already shown himself to be irresponsible. Similar arguments apply to destruction orders made in respect of a section 3 offence of having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place.
  I also understand the view that a dog should not be liable to destruction simply, for example, for having its muzzle removed in public, a point made by my hon. Friend. However, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if a dog in such a position were to attack. Less responsible owners would be encouraged to break the law and the public would rightly want to know why Parliament had thought fit to relax the strict regime. They would, with some justification, accuse us of contributory negligence. Incidentally, I understand that muzzles are available which allow a dog to drink without the muzzle having to be removed.
  The problem of defining and identifying pit bull terriers was also discussed. This is not the time to enter into a debate about canine genealogy and the origins of the pit bull terrier. I shall just say that the pit bull terrier is not a recognised breed in this country and there are therefore no breed standards for the dog. It is not recognised as a breed by the Kennel Club. It can be misleading to talk in terms of pure pit bull terriers, as some do, as the dog of that type that we encounter in this country will be in almost all cases the result of the cross breeding of a bull terrier type with another type of dog to produce a fighting dog of strong build. It may be of interest to the House to know that the Dutch Animal Health and Welfare Act, which imposes controls on pit bull terriers in the Netherlands, refers to such dogs in the same terms as section 1 of our 1991 Act.
  It was always recognised that there might be problems with the identification of pit bull terriers. It is a matter in the first instance for the police or local authority dog wardens to consider whether a particular dog is of the type known as the pit bull terrier where an offence under the 1991 Act may have been committed. If the matter proceeds to court and the owner disputes that the dog is a pit bull terrier, the owner has the opportunity to bring forward whatever evidence he or she thinks appropriate and may, of course, call expert witnesses. In the final analysis, it is rightly a matter for the courts to decide on the basis of the
  392
  evidence brought before it whether or not a particular dog is one which is specially controlled under section 1 of the Act.
  We are also aware that there has been concern that, to the untrained eye, a Staffordshire bull terrier may be confused with a pit bull terrier. Staffordshire bull terriers are not, of course, specially controlled by the Act. In view of the concern, a Home Office circular detailing advice about the operation of the Act was sent to the police and courts with a list provided by the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Council of clubs and societies that are willing to give advice to the police, local authority dog wardens and the courts in cases where there is any doubt whether the dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier. That is further evidence that the Government have responded, where possible, to the concerns of the dog world.
  However, I would not wish to give the impression that the Government do not understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has articulated so clearly. While I cannot give an undertaking that the Government will amend the Act as some would wish, we do keep the operation of the Act under review and my hon. Friend's comments will be borne in mind.
  We are well aware of criticisms which are made of the Act. That is why, for example, when we issued further guidance during the summer on the operation of the Act, we reminded the prosecuting authorities of previously existing statutory provisions relating to the control of dogs, where the option of having a dog destroyed is either not available or is not mandatory. It is of course a matter for the prosecuting authorities to consider which legislation is the most appropriate in individual cases. We also draw attention to the desirability of expediting cases under the 1991 Act where the dog in question is being held in kennels.
  The legislation is still relatively new and I am sure it is right that its operation should be examined closely, as my hon. Friend has done tonight. The Government will continue to listen carefully to my hon. Friend and others who wish to comment constructively on the controls. But at the same time I would ask that they bear in mind the Government's overriding duty to ensure the adequacy of the law to protect the public.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he keeps on the reasons for refusal of asylum cases; and if he will publish these, including the number of refusals on the ground of multiple applications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The main statistics available are of refusals after determination of the claim to refugee status, those on safe third country grounds and those under paragraph 101 of the immigration rules. For these statistics I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 20 October 1992,Official Report, columns 261–62. Figures for refusals of multiple applications are not identifiable separately.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with EC counterparts to harmonise the primary purpose rule with practices in other EC countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Discussions have been held at official level in the ad hoc group on immigration with a view to agreeing a set of principles and a resolution on the harmonisation of family reunification policies in the member states. The existence in the United Kingdom of the primary purpose rule has been taken into account in those discussions.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken since June to reduce levels of secrecy in the work of the ad hoc group on immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A public statement on the decisions and conclusions adopted will be made in the normal way following the meeting of EC Ministers concerned with immigration on 30 November.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of how many individuals are in the United Kingdom(a) illegally, (b) in breach of their entry conditions and (c) otherwise in the United Kingdom unofficially.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Comprehensive information on the number of immigration offenders resident in the United Kingdom is not available, and it is not possible to make a reliable estimate. In many cases it is not possible to determine whether a person is an immigration offender until he/she has been traced and interviewed. In the 12 months up to the end of June 1992, some 8,800 immigration offenders were detected and served with illegal entry notices or with notices of intention to deport for being in breach of their conditions to enter or remain.
  222
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the topics and proposals on immigration, asylum and other matters that Her Majesty's Government are putting before the Edinburgh summit.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Immigration and asylum matters will be discussed by immigration Ministers of EC member states on 30 November. It is too early to say whether any of these matters will need to be referred to the Edinburgh European Council.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the meeting of the ad hoc European group on immigration held on 10 and 11 September giving details of its conclusions, of how Parliament will be kept informed about the group's proceedings, of what matters are currently under consideration by the group, when the group will meet again, what sub-groups have been formed and for which subjects.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave on 19 October 1992,Official Report, cols 50–52, to his previous questions on this matter.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to establish a system to compensate individuals who have suffered damage, loss, inconvenience or general disadvantages as a result of poor quality of service from the immigration and nationality department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are arrangements in place for making ex gratia compensation payments in certain circumstances where a person has suffered financial loss as a direct result of negligence, error or delay by an officer of the Home Office.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in each year since 1988 that evidence from DNA testing has been available to immigration appeals against refusing entry to children, what percentage of original refusals by entry clearance officers were(a) correct and (b) incorrect;

  (2) how many individuals initially refused entry because of not being related as claimed and subsequently accepted as related after DNA testing have (a) subsequently reapplied for entry and (b) been refused, giving as a percentage the grounds of the refusal in each category.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member setting out such figures on cases involving DNA evidence as can he obtained at reasonable cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest year for which figures are available, of those persons refused entry under the primary purpose rule how many were married to(a) British citizens, (b) citizens of another nation, but settled in the United Kingdom and (c) other categories as totals and as a percentage of the whole.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the subjective and the objective criteria used in each of the EC countries which are
  223
  comparable to the primary purpose rule in the United Kingdom in respect of applications from a spouse to join his or her partner.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available. It is a matter for each member state to decide, in accordance with its national immigration legislation, what criteria to apply in relation to the admission of spouses.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the current situation of the Zairean national who was returned to Zaire in May 1991 whose case subsequently gave rise to contempt of court proceedings involving the Minister's predecessor.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Treasury Solicitor was informed on 18 July 1991 that the person concerned had contacted his legal representatives from Nigeria. We have heard nothing more as to his whereabouts since then.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff have been employed by the immigration and nationality department to deal specifically with applications for asylum in each of the past five years; and if he will make it his policy to ensure a regular review of staffing levels in the department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of staff employed in the asylum division to deal specifically with applications for asylum on 1 October in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1988

  52

  1989

  62

  1990

  86

  1991

  200

  1992

  435

  Staffing levels are kept under constant review.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional individuals have joined their spouse in the United Kingdom as a result of the change in guidance in June to no longer use primary purpose as a reason to refuse in cases where a marriage has existed for five years or where there is a child of the marriage with the right of abode in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the trends emerging from this change.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not possible to make an estimate of the effect of this change. The available information on decisions on entry clearance applications in respect of spouses relates only to those made in the Indian sub-continent; the latest statistics for which are published in tables 8 and 9 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics—First and Second Quarters of 1992". A copy of this bulletin is in the Library.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines setting out the type of questions to be asked at entry clearance interviews of non-EC nationals at United Kingdom ports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Existing instructions to immigration officers are to the effect that questioning should be 224
  confined to what is relevant to the decisions the officer will have to make. Cases vary greatly, and I see no need for more detailed guidelines.

  Procedures at entry clearance interviews overseas are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but similar principles are followed.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for burden sharing with other EC countries in respect of refugees from non-EC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Member states of the European Community provide assistance in different ways in response to refugee problems, but no plans are under consideration for burden-sharing in the sense of distributing refugees or asylum seekers within the territory of the Community in accordance with quotas for each member state.

  Primates (Experiments)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many primates were used for research and testing in the United Kingdom in 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the number of procedures on primates started in 1991 and the number of primates used during 1991 is contained in table 2a and 2b respectively of the Command Paper "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Safer Cities
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the timetable and procedure relating to the submissions for additional safer cities status.

  Mr. Jack
  The safer cities programme was originally intended to create 20 local projects, all of which have now been established. We remain committed to doubling the number of safer cities projects to 40, when circumstances and resources enable us to do so. At that time I will advise the hon. Member of the timetable and procedures which will be followed.

  Prisons Inspectorate
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the dates on which he received the last 25 reports of inspections by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons; and on what dates the reports were published by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The dates on which the 25 most recent inspection reports by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons were submitted to me and on which they were published by the Inspectorate are as follows:

  Inspection

  Submission— 1992

  Publication—1992

  HMP Styal

  26 February

  16 July

  HMP Birmingham

  5 March

  23 July

  HMP Leicester

  12 March

  21 October

  225

  Inspection

  Submission— 1992

  Publication—1992

  HMP Latchmere House

  24 March

  23 July

  HMP Sudbury

  31 March

  being printed

  HMP Stafford

  15 April

  21 October

  HMP Manchester

  15 April

  13 August

  HMP Wymott

  30 April

  being printed

  HMP Lewes

  30 April

  being printed

  HMP Long Lartin

  29 May

  being printed

  HMP The Mount

  10 June

  being printed

  HMP Wellingborough

  11 June

  being printed

  HMP Bullwood Hall

  15 June

  being printed

  HMP Morton Hall

  18 June

  Not yet published

  HMP Acklington

  30 June

  Not yet published

  HMP Spring Hill

  22 July

  Not yet published

  HMP Ashwell

  6 August

  Not yet published

  HMP Bristol

  30 September

  Not yet published

  HMP Haslar

  30 September

  Not yet published

  HMP Hindley

  30 September

  Not yet published

  HMP Maidstone

  30 September

  Not yet published

  HMP Whatton

  30 September

  Not yet published

  HMP Swansea

  22 October

  Not yet published

  HMP Portland

  26 October

  Not yet published

  HMP Blantyre House

  26 October

  Not yet published

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of adults in the city of Southampton on the electoral register in use at the time of the general election on 9 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There were 146,499 parliamentary electors registered in the constituencies of Southampton, lichen and Southampton, Test at the time of the general election on 9 April; 1,634 of these were young people (attainers) reaching 18 years of age during the currency of the 1992–93 register. Information about the number of young attainers who had reached voting age by 9 April is not held centrally.

  Suicide
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides by teenagers were attempted either while held in custody or in prison in Wales in the years 1981 to 1990; how many occurred in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of acts of deliberate self-harm by teenagers in prison service establishments in Wales was 21 in 1990 and 24 in 1991. No distinction is made between attempted suicides and other acts of deliberate self-harm. Information for earlier years is not available. No deaths occurred as a result of acts of deliberate self-harm by teenagers in Welsh prisons in 1991.

  Information about attempted suicides in police custody is not recorded centrally by the Home Office or by police forces in Wales. Questions relating to local authority secure accommodation in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers and grades of staff employed at the Wolds remand centre.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are 196 people working at Wolds prison. They include prisoner custody officers and 226
  supervisors; management, administrative and maintenance staff; full and part-time chaplains; subcontracted catering, medical and education staff and seconded probation officers.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to market test all or any of the work of the probation service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: The Government's intention to apply market testing principles to aspects of the work undertaken by the probation service was set out in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper, including the encouragement of competition within both the public and independent sectors in the development and management of hostels.

  Passports
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports are lost each year when submitted for revision of name or other details to the Passport Agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the chief executive of the United Kingdom Passport Agency. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Hayzelden to Ms. Tessa Jowell, dated 30 October 1992:

  PASSPORTS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about passports submitted to the Passport Agency for revision of name or other details.

  The UK Passport Agency issues over 3 million new or replacement passports each year. In addition, over 250,000 passports are submitted for a change of name or the addition of children's names. Most of these new, replacement or amended passports are sent out by post, although there is a facility for customers to collect their completed passports in person if this is more convenient.

  It is very rare for a passport that has been submitted for a name change to be lost in the Passport Office, though some do go astray in the post. For that reason, we do not keep separate statistics. I am aware of a particular problem that arose in relation to one of your constituents on which you are in correspondence with the London Passport Office. We are naturally keen to ensure that such problems do not arise in future. We have impressed on all staff the importance of document security, both from the point of view of customer service and the prevention of passport fraud.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to give greater autonomy to the Turks and Caicos islands.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A constitutional commissioner visited the Turks and Caicos Islands in February 1992 and his report was placed in the libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords on 27 July. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will decide what action to take about the commissioner's recommendations once consultation with the Turks and Caicos Islands is complete.

  European Community Law
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) of 2 July,Official Report, column 696, if he will make a statement on the principal duties of citizens which flow from the direct effect of EC law.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Mostly EC laws concern Governments, public bodies and companies. However, some do affect individuals directly, especially if they are traders, eg the Directive on Toy Safety. Another example, binding on all, is the duty to inform the authorities of the transfer of a firearm under the Weapons Directive. Nowhere is there any duty of the kind normally regarded as deriving from national citizenship, eg military service.

  Albania
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of consular representation in Albania; whether he will extend that representation to full embassy status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is a British chargé d'affaires in Tirana. He undertakes a limited range of consular functions. There are no immediate plans to change this arrangement.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Heads of State of Community member states hold any different status under article 8 of the treaty of Rome proposed under the Maastricht treaty from that held by other citizens of the union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No. Heads of Community member states will be entitled to the same rights as other citizens of the European union.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government concerning the decision by the Russian Government to slow, or cease, the withdrawal of troops from the Baltic countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in frequent contact with the Russian Government about the withdrawal of former Soviet troops from the Baltic states and will, of course, be expressing our concern about the latest developments. We were encouraged by the Russian/Lithuanian agreement of 8 September on the withdrawal of troops by 31 August 1993, and look to Russia to agree to, and implement, similar timetables with Estonia and Latvia, in accordance with the terms of the Helsinki declaration of July 1992.

  Council of Ministers
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.
  228
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The information is as follows: Council of Ministers business for November 1992

  1. The following meetings are planned:

  3 November: Consumer Affairs Council

  9 November: Foreign Affairs Council

  10 November: Internal Market Council

  12 November: Culture Council

  13 November: Health Council

  16 November 17 November} Agricultural Council

  17 November: Budget Council

  18 November: Development Council

  19 November: Telecommunications Council

  23 November: Economic and Finance Council

  23 November: Fisheries Council

  24 November: Industrial Affairs Council

  27 November: Education Council

  30 November: Energy Council

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  (a) Consumer Affairs Council—3 November

  —Sixth amendment to cosmetics directive

  —Time-share

  —Distance selling

  —Comparative advertising

  —Consumer aspects of Sutherland report on operation of the Internal Market

  —Enforcement of consumer protection law

  —Rapid information of exchange system on consumer products

  —European home and leisure accident surveillance system (EHLASS)

  (b) Foreign Affairs Council—9 November

  —Follow up to Birmingham European Council

  —Ratification of Maastricht

  —Subsidiarity

  —Transparency

  —Delors II package

  —Enlargement—Finland

  —33rd meeting of EC/Turkey Association Council

  —Ex-Yugoslavia

  —Phare programme

  (c) Internal Market Council—10 November

  —Abolition of frontier controls

  —2nd amendment of machinery directive (possible)

  —External projections on vehicles of category N (possible)

  —Regulation of the CE Mark (possible)

  —Vehicle noise (possible)

  —2/3 wheeled vehicles: braking and power (possible)

  —2nd company law directive

  —European company statute (6516/91)

  —Making the Single Market work post 1992

  —Community trademark regulations

  —Medicines—agency and future systems (9490/91)

  —Rental and lending rights (possible) (6344/92)

  —Harmonisation of copyright term

  —Amendment to public works directive (possible)

  —Food hygiene directive (possible) (4690/92)

  —Sweeteners directive (possible) (7762/92)

  —Directive and regulation on cultural goods (9962/91)

  —Standardisation and intellectual property

  (d) Culture Council—12 November

  —Cultural priorities

  —City of culture

  —Books and reading

  —Cultural goods (possible)

  (e) Health Council—13 November

  —Future action in the field of public health (SEC(92)1866)

  —Communicable diseases

  —Health education (6571/92)

  —Drugs ——2nd drug demand reduction report (7291/92)

  —information of the European Drugs Prevention Week

  —Tobacco —draft tobacco advertising directive (6294/92)

  229

  —orientation debate on Presidency memorandum (9030/92)

  —Cancer evaluation (possible)

  (f) Agriculture Council—16–17 November

  —Bananas (8372/92; 9023/92; 9421/92; 9432/92)

  —Agrimoney (7907/92; 9361/92)

  —Milk codification (8950/91; 9280/92)

  —Italian milk quotas (8067/92; 9261/1/92)

  —Spanish and Portuguese transition

  —GATT (not applicable)

  —Integrated controls (possible) (10537/91; 9373/92)

  —New Zealand butter (possible)

  —Sheep VRAs (possible)

  —Sugar (cane) (possible)

  —Animal identification (possible) (6414/92; 9446/92)

  —Exotic disease (possible)

  —General welfare (possible)

  (g) Budget Council—17 November

  —Draft community budget for 1993

  (h) Development Council—18 November

  —Development co-operation policy in the run-up to 2000 (107/3/92)

  —Family planning in co-operation with developing countries (121/1/92)

  —Human rights, democracy and development (125/92)

  —Follow up to UNCED

  —clean and efficient energy for development (120/1/92)

  —financial aspects

  —Emergency aid

  —Somalia

  —Mozambique

  —Flexibility in responding to disasters and subsequent rehabilitation needs

  —Untying of aid

  —Co-operation with NGOs

  (i) Telecommunications Council—19 November

  —ONP directive on voice telephony

  —Resolution on frequencies

  —Resolution on numbering policy

  —Review of article 90 Services directive and ONP framework directive

  —HDTV Action plan

  —Postal services green paper

  —Telecoms manufacturing industry

  —Trans-European networks (possible)

  —ETSI and intellectual property rights (possible)

  (j) (Economic and Finance Council—23 November

  —Delors II

  —Belgian convergence programme

  —Relations with FSU/CEE

  —Abolition of fiscal frontiers

  —Investment services directive

  —Direct tax

  —Fraud

  —Customs convention

  —Balance of payments loan to Italy

  —Transport taxation (possible)

  (k) Fisheries Council-23 November

  —Annual price fixing for fish

  —Tariff suspensions/quotas

  —New basic regulation (replacing 170/83)

  —Amendment of structure regulation (4028/86)

  —Orientation debate on structural policy (possible)

  —Commission report on industrial fishing (possible)

  —Commission report on discards (possible)

  (l) Industrial Affairs Council—24 November

  —Business and environment

  —SMES

  —Competition policy

  —Administrative simplification

  —ECSC—Future of Treaty of Paris

  —Spanish steel

  —Mining (possible)

  —Maritime industries (possible)

  230

  (m) Education Council—27 November

  —Tempus II (educational links with Eastern and Central Europe) (9082/92)

  —European dimension in higher education

  —Open and distance learning

  —Health education in schools (6571/92)

  —EC/US cooperation in education and training (7192/92)

  —European schools (6700/92)

  —Information from the Commission

  —consultation on commission memorandum on higher education (9497/91)

  (n) Energy Council—30 November

  —Liberalisation of energy markets (4911/92)

  —Hydrocarbon licensing regimes (6566/92)

  —Oil crisis measures (6245/92)

  —EC accession to the International Energy agency (IEA) (6245/92)

  —New and renewables (ALTENER) programme (7757/92)

  —Energy efficiency (SAVE) programme (7847/92)

  —Stabilization of CO2 emissions (8918/91)

  —European Energy Charter

  3. The Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 3 November where Ministers will seek to achieve a common position on the proposed 6th Council amendment to the cosmetics directive. The Council will also discuss the following: time-share and distance selling; comparative advertising; consumer aspects of the Sutherland report on operation of the Internal market; the enforcement of consumer protection law; the rapid information exchange system on consumer products and the European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System (EHLASS).

  4. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 9 November. Items for consideration by Ministers will include follow up to the Birmingham European Council; further discussion on the Commission's proposals for the future financing of the Community (the "Delors II package") and progress on the current applications for EC membership. Ministers will also discuss the former Yugoslavia and the Community's response to the latest developments, including the humanitarian crisis. The Council will approve draft conclusions outlining the Commission approach to the second phase of the PHARE programme. A Cooperation Council with Turkey will also be held in the margins.

  5. The Internal Market Council will meet on 10 November and will discuss the abolition of frontier controls; the 2nd company law directive; European company statute; making the Single Market work Post 1992; the Community trademark regulation; proposals for regulation and directives on the future system for the free movement of medicinal products; harmonisation of copyright term; a proposal for a Council regulation on the export of cultural goods, and standardisation and intellectual property. The Council may also consider the 2nd amendment of the machinery directive; external projections on certain goods vehicles; vehicle noise; rental and lending rights; an amendment to the public works directive; the food hygiene directive and the sweeteners directive.

  6. The Culture Council will meet on 12 November. The Council will consider a Commission communication on new perspectives for the European City of Culture programme; a public awareness campaign for books and reading and a proposal for a regulation on the export of cultural goods.

  7. The Health Council will meet on 13 November and will discuss a framework for future action in the field of public health. The Council is also expected to agree a draft resolution on the monitoring and surveillance of communicable diseases. Other items for discussion by Ministers include: a report on health education in schools; draft conclusions on the 2nd report on drug demand reduction; information on the European Drug Prevention Week; the draft directive on tobacco advertising and an evaluation of the 1991 report on "Europe against Cancer".

  8. The Agriculture Council will meet on 16 and 17 November. Ministers will discuss bananas; the agrimonetary system; milk codification; Italian milk quotas; Spanish and Portuguese transitional arrangements, and the agriculture aspects of

  231
  GATT. Discussion may also focus on: integrated administrative controls; New Zealand butter; sheep voluntary restraint agreements; animal identification; exotic diseases and general welfare.

  9. The Budget Council will meet on 17 November to discuss the European Parliament's amendments and modifications as a result of their first reading of the draft budget for 1993.

  10. The Development Council will meet on 18 November and will agree common objectives for the Community and member states for the 90s including a work programme and mechanisms for improving coordination and collaboration. Ministers will endorse priorities and objectives for the community in family planning in cooperation with developing countries. A review of the November 1991 resolution on human rights, democracy and development in the light of a Commission report on its implementation; how the Community's research and technology programmes might benefit developing countries, and details of the 3 becu promised by the Community in support of Agenda 21 at the Rio Conference will also be considered. The Council will discuss various aspects of the Community's response to disasters, including the Community and member states action in Somalia and their participation in the UN 100-day plan for Somalia, and ways of increasing flexibility of funding the Community response to disasters. An oral report on Community plans for Mozambique will also be heard. Other items for discussion include: an oral report on progress made in drafting a proposal on untying aid at Community level and a Commission paper which describes follow-up to the May 1991 Council resolution on NGOs.

  11. The Telecommunications Council will meet on 19 November. Discussion will concentrate on the ONP directive on voice telephony; the Council resolution on frequencies, a review of the Article 90 services directive and the ONP framework directive; the HDTV action plan; the postal services green paper and the telecoms manufacturing industry. Trans-European networks, ETSI and intellectual property rights may also be discussed.

  12. The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 23 November to consider further the Commission's proposals for the future financing of the Community (Delors II). Ministers will also discuss the Belgian convergence programme; aid to Romania and the Baltic States, and the abolition of fiscal frontiers. The Council will continue in its efforts to achieve a common position on the Investment Services Directive. The draft 7th Directive on the sale of second-hand goods, works of art, antiques and collector's items; the United Kingdom Presidency's paper on increases in the current Third Country travellers' allowances; matters concerning the Community action to combat fraud against the EC budget, and a request from Italy for a balance of payments loan may also be discussed. Further items for discussion may include: the draft simplification directives for VAT and excise, and the signing of the Customs Information system Convention by EC Finance Ministers.

  13. The Fisheries Council will meet on 23 November. Ministers may discuss: annual price fixing on fish; tariff suspension/quotas; the new basic regulation that will replace 170/83; amendment of the structures regulation 4028/83 orientation debate on structural policy; new control regulations; the Commission report on industrial fishing and the Commission report on discards.

  14. The Industrial Affairs Council will meet on 24 November. The Council hope to discuss resolutions on the strengthening of the Community's commitment to minimizing the administrative burdens placed on business by Community legislation and on the proper integration of environmental and industrial policies. Ministers are also expected to discuss the phasing out of the ECSC Treaty; the future direction of Community policy on small and medium sized enterprises; competition policy and the Commission proposal to allow Spain to give restructuring aid to its steel industry. Other items include: communications on maritime industries and Community non-energy mining.

  15. The Education Council will meet on 27 November and will have an orientation debate on the proposal for a second phase of the TEMPUS programme, which offers support to the higher education systems of Central and Eastern Europe. Ministers will also discuss conclusions on measures for developing of the European dimension in higher education,
  232
  and on criteria for the Community action on open and distance learning. The Council will consider a report on Health education in schools and the Commission's proposal for a programme of EC/US Cooperation in Education and Training. Amendment to the convention defining the statute of the European Schools, and a presentation from the Commission on the outcomes of the consultations on their memorandum on higher education in the EC is also likely to be discussed.

  16. The Energy Council will meet on 30 November. Ministers will discuss proposals for the promotion of new and renewable energies (ALTENER); oil crisis measures; Community accession to the IEA, and harmonisation of hydrocarbon licensing regimes. The Council will also consider proposals for liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets; improved energy efficiency as well as progress in relation to the rest of the Community's strategy to limit CO2, emissions, and the European Energy Charter. Discussion may further focus on a new Community regime for state aids to the coal industry.

  North Atlantic Assembly
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following will represent the United Kingdom at the North Atlantic Assembly:

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, MP (Leader)

  Mr. Robert Banks, MP

  Mr. Winston Churchill, MP

  Sir Peter Emery, MP

  Mr. Michael Jopling, MP

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls, MP

  Mr. Peter Viggers, MP

  Mr. Jerry Wiggin, MP

  The Earl of Kimberley

  Lord Lucas of Chilworth

  Dr. David Clark, MP

  Mr. Donald Anderson, MP

  Mr. Harry Cohen, MP

  Mr. Frank Cook, MP

  Mr. Bruce George, MP

  Mrs. Alice Mahon, MP

  Lord Howell

  Mr. Menzies Campbell, MP

  Colombian Coal
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has been given by the Colombian authorities that coal being imported into the United Kingdom from Colombia does not come from mines which are exploiting child labour.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government-owned Colombian coal company, Carbocol, has assured the British Government that no coal exported to the United Kingdom is produced using child labour.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the outcome of the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors in June.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  A copy of the International Atomic Energy Agency newsbrief for June-July 1992, containing details of the meetings of the June board of governors, has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Israel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions remain in place on the export of nuclear materials or equipment to Israel.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Exports of nuclear materials or equipment to Israel as set out in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991, as amended, require a licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. Applications for export licences are considered on their individual merits and take account of advice received from other Government Departments which will reflect the United Kingdom's obligations in respect of nuclear non-proliferation.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by the International Atomic Energy Agency in each of the last five years on monitoring work in relation to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The published accounts show that International Atomic Energy Agency expenditure on nuclear safeguards in each of the last five years has been as follows:

  United States $ million

  1987

  43·8

  1988

  47·5

  1989

  48·3

  1990

  58·6

  1991

  58·0

DEFENCE

  Indonesian Armed Forces
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discontinue the training of members of the Indonesian armed forces by the United Kingdom armed forces and in his Ministry's establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Naval Bases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the most recent figures for the annual running costs of(a) Portland naval base, excluding the naval air station, (b) Portsmouth naval base and (c) Devonport naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1991–92 the annual running costs of the three naval bases were:

  Naval Base

  £ million

  (a) Portland (excluding air station)

  12·1

  (b) Portsmouth

  99·7

  (c) Devonport (excluding royal dockyard)

  86·7

  These totals exclude major expenditure on capital works and the cost of lodger units accommodated in all naval bases.

  Defence Support Agency
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Director General of the Defence Accounts Defence Support Agency for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The director general of defence accounts has been set a range of revised targets for 1992–93 that will ensure continuing improvement in the quality of service he provides to Defence and other customers.

  The targets set for the period 1992–93 are:

  —To achieve the agreed Headquarters Staff reductions arising from Options for Change by 31 March 1993.

  —To carry out agreed tasks to time and standard within budget.

  — seek to achieve, in co-operation with his customers, higher standards in the delivery of services.

  —To establish a training policy and training plan by 31 March 1993.

  —To seek further efficiencies in the use of resources, including the use of new technology, to the advantage of the Agency and its customers, thereby making efficiency savings of at least 0·5 per cent. of the total Cash Budget.

  —To complete the feasibility stage of the mainframe replacement study by 30 September 1992.

  —To take on new bill payment business from the Property Services Agency in respect of defence works by 31 March 1993.

  —To continue to develop improved management arid financial information systems which will meet the needs of internal management and satisfy requirements for reports from the Secretary of State.

  —To ensure the successful implementation of the amendment of the MOD central ledger system for a revised vote structure to meet the needs of the new management strategy by 31 March 1993.

  Performance against these key targets will be published in the director general's report and accounts in April next year, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the forthcoming local authority housing investment programme bids.

  Mr. Baldry
  As is customary, the relevant local authority associations have made representations at national level through the consultative mechanism under the Housing Consultative Council, and individual local housing authorities have submitted housing investment programme strategy statements and bids to my Department's regional offices. These will all be considered before decisions are announced in December.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the right-to-repair scheme for council tenants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Provisions for a new right to repair are included in the Housing and Urban Development Bill introduced on 22 October. The new scheme will replace the existing right to repair and will enable secure tenants of local authorities to have qualifying urgent repairs carried out by a second contractor when the first has not done the work by a target date. Details of the scheme, including the
  235
  qualifying repairs, will be set out in regulations which may also require landlords to pay compensation if the first contractor fails to do a repair within the target time.

  Housing (Multiple Occupation)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received expressing objections to chapter 7 of the draft housing in multiple occupancy management guide; and if what is his policy toward that chapter.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department received 22 representations which expressed objections to chapter 7 of the draft Houses in Multiple Occupation Management Guide; 48 responses to the consultation were received in total. All comments received will be taken into consideration when the final version of the management guide is to be produced in due course.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to allow an automatic right of appeal to county courts for homeless applicants who are refused provision by a local authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no immediate plans for further legislative change.

  Private Rented Sector
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidelines requesting that each property within the private rented sector should be issued a minimum and maximum controlled rent level within the maximum rent payable when the property is proven to be of a set standard.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Years of rent controls have contributed to the decline in the private rented sector. We removed these from most new lettings as part of the package of deregulation measures introduced by the Housing Act 1988 designed to revive the sector.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that tenants are enabled to take effective legal action against private rented sector landlords who default on repair obligations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Tenants can already take action against private landlords who fail to carry out repairs either by taking the landlord to court themselves or by bringing the matter to the attention of their local authority. Local authorities have powers to require private landlords to carry out repairs or if necessary to do the work themselves and charge the landlord. These powers were considerably strengthened by the Housing Act 1988. We therefore have no plans to make any further amendments to the legislation.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of rental deposit boards to monitor the return to private rented sector tenants of deposits against damage.

  Mr. Baldry
  Although we do not consider the compulsory use of rent deposit boards to be desirable, we would welcome any proposals to set up such schemes on a voluntary basis.
  236
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidelines to local authorities to encourage the setting up of licensing and monitoring systems for the private rented sector.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. We would not wish to introduce further regulation into the private rented sector.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish a committee of inquiry into private rented accommodation.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish a new form of protected tenancy within the private rented sector, with limited grounds granted for early repossession.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to introduce such a tenancy.

  Domestic Water Supplies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state by region the number of water disconnections for non-payment in 1991–92 and 1990–91(a) for domestic properties and (b) for commercial properties.

  Mr. Maclean
  Water companies are obliged to report disconnections every six months to OFWAT's customer service committees. This information is collated and published by the Director General of Water Services in a press release twice a year. The following table contains the Director General's information on disconnection of domestic customers and non-domestic disconnections in the form requested.

  (a) Disconnections by area (domestic)

  Region

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Central

  4,797

  462

  Eastern

  1,889

  971

  North West

  2,074

  889

  Northumbria

  1,009

  662

  South West

  381

  210

  Southern

  3,064

  429

  Thames

  2,084

  966

  Wales

  2,951

  1,305

  Wessex

  492

  194

  Yorkshire

  2,545

  1,585

  Source: OFWAT News Release PN15/92.

  (b) Disconnections by area (non domestic)

  Region

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Central

  870

  409

  Eastern

  145

  149

  North West

  177

  129

  Northumbria

  228

  249

  South West

  11

  9

  Southern

  386

  191

  Thames

  264

  160

  Wales

  84

  92

  Wessex

  9

  20

  Yorkshire

  217

  143

  All areas

  2,391

  1,551

  Source: OFWAT 26 October 1992.
  237
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce proposals to ensure that public authorities are notified of any domestic water disconnections on grounds of health and safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 63 of the Water Industry Act 1991 already requires a water undertaker who disconnects, or otherwise cuts off, a supply of water to any inhabited house and does so without restoring the supply to that house within 24 hours, to serve notice informing the local authority in whose area the house is situated no later than 48 hours after the supply is cut off.

  Charities (Water Payments)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will act to ensure that properties used for charitable or community use such as churches have concessionary standing charges for their water payments.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Water companies are private companies and their charges must cover their costs and it is for them to decide their tariffs subject to the Director General of Water Services' duty under section 2(3)(a) of the Water Industry Act 1991, to ensure that their pricing is not discriminatory. The Director General recognises that standing charges may represent a large proportion of water charges for some customers and has asked water companies to consider their tariff structures to ensure that they reflect the true costs of supply in different cases.

  Industrial Development, Merseyside
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he will make to further industrial development in the area of the Merseyside development corporation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  MDC has a substantial programme of encouraging industrial development, through the creation of business parks, formation of industrial associations and strategy to secure inward investment. MDC's policies are discussed with the Department regularly, at the ministerial meeting on the corporate plan and with officials at the Merseyside task force throughout the year.

  House Building
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department has given to the access committee for England's publication, "Building Homes for Successive Generations: Criteria for Accessible General Housing"; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have seen a copy of this publication and will consider it together with other information, in order to establish how best to improve access for disabled people in new housing.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in the network installer area which contains the constituency of East Edinburgh have been improved under the home energy efficiency scheme since the scheme's inception.
  238
  Mr. Maclean
  Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 3,534 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of adults in the city of Southampton registered for the poll tax for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest information available to the Department relates to the financial year 1991–92 when there were 156,600 people registered as subject to a personal community charge in Southampton.

  Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pregnant single women were prosecuted for fraud related to obtaining council house accommodation in each of the last five years and in the current year to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Baldry
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Somerset House
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in opening up Somerset house to wider public access.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in opening up Somerset house to wider public access.

  Mr. Howard
  I have invited Mr. Trevor Osbourne, chairman of Speyhawk, in conjunction with the Prince of Wales' Institute of Architecture and with Kings college, to prepare within six months detailed proposals for possible future uses for Somerset house, involving, amongst others, the organisations and individuals, who have written to me and my Department with their ideas. I have stressed that the proposal should not incur any extra public expenditure.

  Methane
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the contributions to the United Kingdom total methane emissions from landfills in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be.

  Mr. Maclean
  Direct estimates of total methane production from landfills in Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been made. An estimate based on population and waste arising statistics suggests that the figure is likely to be between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent of the total for England and Wales, or between 100,000 and 150,000 tonnes per annum.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Pensions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will bring forward proposals to enable judges to purchase additional years for pension purposes; and if he will make a statement.
  239
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced during the Report stage of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill in another place that it is his intention to bring forward further amendments to that Bill in order that members of either the present judicial pension schemes, or of the new scheme, may make voluntary contributions within Revenue limits toward the cost of benefits in addition to those otherwise obtainable under those schemes.

  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of orders granted under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for all London courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, (1) if he will publish for each of the county courts in London the usual length of the reasonable period in the allowance of time for mortgage borrowers to pay arrears;

  (2) how many possession orders have been suspended but have not yet been enforced in each of London's county courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he will take, as part of his civil justice system review, to ensure that all county courts in London have a duty adviser scheme for home owners facing repossession.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to ensure that all county courts in London have a duty adviser scheme for home owners facing repossession. From early next year, courts will send out a list of sources of free advice with each possession summons.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the county courts in London which have duty adviser schemes for home owners.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The London county courts which have duty adviser schemes for home owners provided by advice agencies are Lambeth, Bow, Clerkenwell and West London.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, for each county court in London, the percentage figure that suspended possession orders represent as a total of the number of actions issued in each county court for home owners, the percentage figure for adjournments as part of the total number of actions entered for home owners, and the percentage figures as part of the total of absolute possession orders issued.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance 240
  he gives county court judges in defining the reasonable period and in the issue of time orders for payment of arrears of mortgage.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The guidance given is that there is no set period. Sometimes a period of 24 months should be considered; often a longer period will be appropriate, particularly where the equity is substantial or the remaining life of the mortgage long.

TRANSPORT

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to tighten up the driving hours regulations for public service vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Both the current EC regulations and our domestic legislation on drivers' hours were designed to give drivers and operators flexibility, whilst retaining proper regard for road safety. We have no plans at present to propose changes.

  Investment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to stimulate new investments by British vessel owners.

  Mr. Norris
  Proposals for fiscal measures to stimulate investment are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Department is considering with the Chamber of Shipping and within the EC what other measures might be taken to encourage the growth of the British and other European fleets. We have also been taking forward action on the recommendations of the report of the joint working party, "British Shipping: Challenges and Opportunities", which will help the general climate for investment.

  Cyclists
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, as part of his quality of service objectives, he will require the publication of all reports relating to the safety of cyclists commissioned using public money.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is our general policy to publish all road safety research reports commissioned by the Department unless there is a particular reason for not doing so—for example, the need to respect commercial confidentiality.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on(a) the degree of concentration and (b) the likely effect of poisonous gases if Halon 1301 is used in the channel tunnel to suppress fire.

  Mr. Freeman
  The use of halon gas in the channel tunnel was reviewed by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority in its paper "Non-segregation of drivers and passengers from their vehicles", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In agreeing to the use of Halon 1301 the authority accepted evidence showing that halon is not harmful at the concentrations used to extinguish fires. Studies also show that the decomposition products of
  241
  halon do not reach harmful concentrations if it is released before the fire has attained large proportions. But in view of possible irritant effects, the authority concluded that halon should not be released in the compartment of a tunnel shuttle wagon unless it had been evacuated or as a last resort if the lives of passengers were threatened.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require the channel tunnel safety authority to publish information about the safety tests conducted on the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safety authority propose to publish a commentary on the fire safety and evacuation tests being undertaken by Eurotunnel.

  Shipping
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Shipping to discuss the future of the British merchant fleet.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caithness meet the president of the Chamber of Shipping and other industry representatives periodically to discuss a wide range of shipping issues.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of international shipping was carried by British-owned ships in 1991; what were the comparable figures for 1971 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available. However, figures showing the proportion of United Kingdom international seaborne trade carried in United Kingdom registered vessels are published annually. The latest is a Department of Transport Statistics Report, "Seaborne Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom 1991", available in the Library.

  Emergency Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made for fire protection legislation for those vessels which have been converted to emergency standby vessels operating in offshore oil and gas fields, whose keels were laid between September 1984 and October 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The legislative provisions for fire protection on standby vessels as described are contained in the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 1984 (Statutory Instrument 1984 No. 1218) as amended by Statutory Instruments 1985 No. 1193 and 1986 No. 1070. Further measures are contained in the joint Health and Safety Executive/Department of Transport publication "Assessment of the suitability of standby vessels attending offshore installations" (ISBN 0-11-551024-9).

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the orange badge scheme to include the profoundly deaf.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: I have no plans to extend the orange badge scheme to include the profoundly deaf.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Voluntary Schools
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in his consideration of the level of capital grant rate for voluntary schools in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The question of an increased capital grant rate to voluntary schools in Northern Ireland was raised during consultations on the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) told the House in December 1989, our view has been that an increase in capital grants could be considered but would have to be accompanied by significant changes in management structure. Subsequently, in its sixteenth annual report presented to the House in July 1991, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights recommended a review of the grant rate and accompanying administrative arrangements.

  Discussions have taken place with the voluntary school authorities and it is clear from these that there are some voluntary schools which are having difficulty in meeting their share of the capital cost of necessary school developments. They have told me that these schools would welcome an opportunity for 100 per cent. capital funding; and that they would be content to operate under different management structures. I have also been mindful of the facts that the education reform process has in many cases increased the need for capital expenditure, and that grant-maintained status is not available in Northern Ireland.

  At the same time, it is equally clear that parents, teachers, and the voluntary school authorities themselves would not wish to see any change in the distinctive ethos of the existing schools, including the denominational nature of many of these schools, and that any changes in grant rates and management structures would therefore have to be without prejudice to that distinctive ethos. It has been common ground throughout the discussions that parental rights of conscience in matters of education should not be affected or diminished in any way.

  Against this background, I am pleased to say that we have identified in discussion an approach which I believe will meet the legitimate concerns both of the voluntary school authorities and of the Government. This will be to allow maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools to opt for designation as a new category of voluntary school which will be eligible for 100 per cent. capital grant. Such schools would, however, be managed by a board of governors on which no single interest group will command a majority of nominees. Similar management principles apply to controlled schools, and grant-maintained integrated schools which already have their capital costs met in full from public funds.

  For example, in the case of a voluntary maintained school or voluntary grammar school with nine governors, only four would be appointed by the school trustees or foundation governors. The balance would be composed of representatives of parents, teachers, the relevant area education and library board, and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. In the case of Catholic maintained schools, the DENI nominee would be chosen after consultation with the Council for Catholic

  243
  maintained schools, which has a statutory duty to advise DENI on matters relating to Catholic maintained schools. I should emphasise that this would create a new additional category of voluntary school and existing schools will be able to decide to retain their present management structure and remain eligible for capital grant rate of 85 per cent.

  Legislation proposals to give effect to these arrangements will be contained in a proposal for a draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order which I hope to publish early in 1993. The detail of the proposed new arrangements will be the subject of consultation in the normal way.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Mates
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the following Agencies under their respective Chief Executives.

  Agency

  Chief Executive

  Training and Employment Agency

  Mr. J. Crozier

  Rates Collection Agency

  Mr. D. Gallagher

  Social Security Agency

  Mr. A. Wylie

  Ordnance Survey Agency

  Mr. M. Brand

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Mr. B. Watson

  Compensation Agency

  Mr. J. Robinson

  I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Crozier to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he would list by grade the numbers of staff and their costs for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each Executive Agency for which he is responsible.

  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency (T and EA) (Northern Ireland), I provide at attached Table 1, the figures for 1991–92 and at Table 2 the estimated figures for 1992–93 for the T and EA.

  Table 1—1991–92

  Grade

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Under Secretary (G3)

  1

  58,720

  Unified Grade 4 (G4)

  1

  50,768

  Assistant Secretary (G5)

  4

  167,409

  Principal (G7)

  22

  677,745

  Deputy Principal

  47

  1,221,601

  Staff Officer

  71

  1,291,740

  Executive Officer 1

  108

  1,721,228

  Executive Officer 2

  199

  2,623,320

  Administrative Officer

  306

  3,056,993

  Administrative Assistant

  133

  1,058,221

  Careers Adviser

  4

  73,341

  Senior Careers Officer

  18

  301,826

  Careers Officer

  95

  1,295,736

  Trainee Careers Officer

  28

  399,956

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  15,474

  Deputy Principal Statistician

  1

  14,181

  Senior Instructional Officer

  41

  884,905

  Higher Instructional Officer

  52

  1,150,179

  Instructional Officer 1

  301

  5,060,712

  Training Service Manager

  35

  906,674

  Deputy Principal Information Officer

  1

  21,336

  Nurse

  4

  50,286

  Support Grade Band 1

  8

  70,757

  Support Grade Band 2

  43

  548,293

  Psychologist (Grad Trainee)

  2

  17,373

  Senior Psychologist

  1

  20,618

  Senior Systems Analyst

  1

  26,588

  244

  Grade

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Senior Personal Secretary

  2

  19,260

  Typist

  5

  51,432

  Management Training Advisor

  1

  25,884

  Industrial Grades

  118

  1,035,317

  Support Manager 3

  1

  9,414

  Administrative Trainee

  1

  4,689

  Total

  1,656

  23,931,976

  Table 2

  Estimated costs 1992–93

  Grade

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Under Secretary (G3)

  1

  57,269

  Unified Grade 4 (G4)

  1

  53,015

  Assistant Secretary (G5)

  4

  176,120

  Senior Principal Officer (G6)

  1

  41,115

  Principal (G7)

  21

  696,759

  Deputy Principal

  51

  1,389,750

  Staff Officer

  70

  1,355,620

  Executive Officer 1

  104·5

  1,744,837

  Executive Officer 2

  193

  2,702,193

  Administrative Officer

  288·1

  3,138,273

  Administrative Assistant

  143

  1,223,788

  Careers Adviser

  4

  77,780

  Senior Careers Officer

  17

  301,818

  Careers Officer

  102·6

  1,594,712

  Trainee Careers Officers

  17

  241,383

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  16,662

  Senior Instructional Officer

  46

  988,724

  Higher Instructional Officer

  55

  1,088,890

  Instructional Officer

  286

  5,274,126

  Training Services Manager

  36

  981,000

  Nurse

  10

  110,326

  Support Grade Band 1

  9

  97,362

  Support Grade Band 2

  47

  446,421

  Psychologist (Grad Trainee)

  2

  28,846

  Senior Psychologist

  1

  22,456

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  15,724

  Typist

  5

  51,955

  Management Training Adviser

  1

  27,308

  Industrial Grades

  120

  1,090,407

  Support Manager 3

  1

  13,326

  Total

  1,639

  25,047,965

  Overtime and performance pay

  119,462

  25,167,427

  Letter from D. Gallagher to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 2 November 1992:

  As I am responsible for the Northern Ireland Rate Collection Agency (RCA), the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to a Parliamentary Question recently put down by you. This related to the numbers of staff, by grade, and their cost for 1991–92 and estimated figures for 1992–93.

  I attach a table summarising the numbers of RCA staff by grade for 1991–92 and a corresponding estimate for 1992–93. Salary costs (excluding superannuation) for 1991–92 totalled £3,399,372 and the estimated salary costs for 1992–93 are £3·6 million.

  Rate Collection Agency—Staffing figures

  The staffing figures given below reflect the position as at 29 October 1992

  Staff Grade

  Number of staff 1991–92

  Estimated number of staff 1992–93

  Chief Executive (Grade 6)

  1

  1

  Principal

  1

  1

  Deputy Principal

  4

  4

  Staff Officer

  11

  12

  Executive Officer I

  22

  23

  245

  Staff Grade

  Number of staff 1991–92

  Estimated number of staff 1992–93

  Executive Officer II

  37

  38

  Administrative Officer

  170

  168

  Administrative Assistant

  10

  11

  Support Grade 1

  1

  1

  Support Grade 2

  9

  9

  Security Officer

  1

  0

  Typist

  2

  2

  Total number of Staff

  269

  270

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  Your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the numbers of staff by grade and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each Executive Agency in Northern Ireland has been passed to me for reply as regards the Social Security Agency as I am its Chief Executive.

  I enclose the information you request but there are some points I should bring to your attention. Firstly, the figures cover not only work related to payment of social security benefits in Northern Ireland but also work undertaken on behalf of the Benefits Agency in Great Britain at our Paid Order Unit and Belfast Benefits Centre and work in connection with the collection and enforcement of National Insurance contributions.

  Secondly, I should also explain that, inevitably, the numbers of staff in the Agency fluctuate throughout the year so I have provided figures as at 31 March 1992 and the estimated figures for 31 March 1993.

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Social Security Agency: Manpower and Costs

  Number

  Staff numbers by grade at 31 March 1992

  Grades 3 to 6

  7

  Principal

  26

  Deputy Principal

  63

  Staff Officer

  167

  Executive Officer Grade 1

  348·5

  SSO Grade 1/EO2

  958

  SSO Grade 2/AO

  2,323

  Administrative Assistant

  903

  Secretarial/Support

  315

  TOTAL

  5,110·5

  Costs £000s

  67,203

  Estimated staff numbers by grade at 31 March 1993

  Grades 3 to 6

  7

  Principal

  28

  Deputy Principal

  70

  Staff Officer/Administrative Trainee

  190

  Executive Officer Grade 1

  359

  SSO Grade 1/EO2

  964·5

  SSO Grade 2/AO

  2,449

  Administrative Assistant

  858·5

  Secretarial/Support

  316

  TOTAL

  5,242

  Estimated costs £000's

  73,906

  Notes: Staff numbers quoted refer to full-time equivalent permanent staff.

  Costs relating to overtime, casual staff and ERNI are included.

  Letter from M. Brand to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:
  246
  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland was launched as a Next Steps Agency on 1 April 1992. The estimated figures for 1992–93 which are listed below are based on the average numbers of staff in each grade over the whole year.

  Unified Grade 5

  1

  Unified Grade 6

  1

  Unified Grade 7

  3

  Senior Mapping & Charting Officer

  6

  Higher Mapping & Charting Officer

  17

  Mapping & Charting Officer

  126

  Mapping & Charting Technical Grade 1

  37

  Mapping & Charting Technical Grade 2

  8

  Staff Officer

  1

  Administrative Officer

  2

  Administrative Assistant

  7

  Personal Secretary

  1

  Typist

  2

  Support Band 1

  1

  Support Band 2

  3

  Staff Costs

  Salaries

  £3,628,000

  Superannuation

  £574,200

  Accommodation charges

  £470,000

  Total

  £4,672,200

  Letter from J. Watson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  I am responding directly on behalf of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you requested a list by grade of the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each Executive Agency.

  The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency was established on 1 April 1992 and figures for 1991–92 are not applicable.

  The estimated figures for 1992–93 are as follows:

  Grade

  Number of Staff

  Costs (£K)

  6

  1

  47

  7

  2

  75

  Deputy Principal

  2

  61

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  2

  60

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  17

  396

  Staff Officer

  3

  68

  Supervising Examiners

  2

  45

  Professional and Technical Officer

  116

  2,273

  Senior Driving/Traffic Examiners

  3

  59

  Driving/Traffic Examiners

  6

  1117

  Executive Officer Grade I

  2

  139

  Executive Officer Grade II

  3

  149

  Administrative Officer

  25

  1322

  Administrative Assistant

  57

  1593

  Typist/Telephonist

  3

  136

  Industrial Staff

  13

  1202

  Estimated Costs for Overtime and Casual Staff

  282

  4,724

  1These estimated costs are inclusive of Employers Related National Insurance Contributions and Superannuation.

  Letter from J. Robinson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question about the numbers and cost of staff in executive agencies in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has asked me to provide the information in respect of the Compensation Agency.

  The Compensation Agency was launched on 1 April 1992. The current number of staff in post listed by grade is:

  247

  Grade

  Number in post

  Chief Executive

  1

  Principal

  2

  Deputy Principal

  4

  Chief Law Clerk

  1

  Staff Officer

  6

  Executive Officer I

  16

  Law Clerk I

  2

  Executive Officer II

  29

  Administrative Officer

  32

  Administrative Assistant

  31

  Personal Secretary

  1

  Typing Manager

  1

  Typist

  7

  Messenger

  3

  Receptionist

  1

  Senior Accountant

  1

  Accountant

  1

  Senior Quantity Surveyor

  1

  Quantity Surveyor

  1

  Assistant Solicitor

  1

  Senior Legal Assistant

  7½

  Legal Assistant

  2½

  Total

  152

  The estimated salary costs for 1992–93 are £2·7 million [running costs £3·4 million].

  Holding Centres
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will appoint an independent commissioner for holding centres.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I shall make an announcement on the appointment of a commissioner shortly and place his terms of reference in the Library.

  Iraq (Beef)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place between the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and companies in the Province relating to the export of non-intervention beef to Iraq; and whether the question of health certificates has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Iraqi importers.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Agriculture has discussions from time to time with companies in the Province about the health certification required for exporting beef to countries outside the European Community, including Iraq. The terms of a health certificate for Iraq has not yet been resolved to the satisfaction of Iraqi importers.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Power Generation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings in power generation have been partly or wholly financed from the overseas aid budget during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Details of ODA's power sector financing over the 10 years 1981–1991 on an annual expenditure basis have been placed in the Libraries of the 248
  House. ODA does not directly finance undertakings, i.e. utility organisations, other than through the funding of capital projects or the provision of technical co-operation.

  Debt
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to reduce debt burdens incurred by the poorest countries; and what progress has been made since the Earth Summit in Brazil to implement the financial and structural commitments made there.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1990, in Trinidad, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward proposals to reduce significantly the debts of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. The Paris Club of Government creditors began implementing Trinidad terms in December 1991. The terms currently reduce eligible payments due to governments by up to 50 per cent. Creditors also undertake to consider reducing the whole stock of a country's bilateral official debt after three to four years of economic reform. Ten countries have already benefitted, and we expect more to do so over coming months. We will continue to press for even greater relief to be made available to those low-income, heavily indebted countries that need it.

  More than 150 countries signed the conventions on climate change and biological diversity at the Earth Summit. The interim funding mechanism for these two conventions is the global environment facility (GEF). We want to see the GEF established as the permanent funding mechanism for both conventions. We shall make a further contribution to the GEF once the level of its replenishment is agreed, and shall take part in discussions on its restructuring at the participants assembly in December.

  Sustainable development is the central aim of our aid programme. We shall continue to focus our aid activities on the priorities set out in "Agenda 21", which lays out a comprehensive strategy for action on environment and development issues into the next century. The current United Nations General Assembly will establish the Sustainable Development Commission, which will have a key role in ensuring effective implementation of "Agenda 21".

  EC Development Aid Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, column 708, what is the draft 1993 EC development aid budget; what was the 1992 budget; and what is the change in constant price terms.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Commission established the preliminary draft budget for 1993 on 15 June 1992. This has a commitments provision for development assistance of 2,037 mecu. This was an increase of 15·11 per cent. over the 1992 approved budget aid commitment provision of 1,770 mecu. Subsequent amendments have raised the commitments provision further to 2,095 mecu, although a final figure is not expected until towards the end of the year. It is not yet possible to calculate a deflator for 1993 to allow a comparison in constant prices.

WALES

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish figures showing the number of instances in each local education authority in Wales where(a) services mentioned within statements have been withdrawn by the local education authority and (b) parents were informed by their local education authority that obligations outlined in a statement could not be fulfilled due to lack of resources;

  (2) what is the estimated cost within each local education authority in Wales for providing specialist equipment in schools for disabled children who are integrated into mainstream education; and what is the average level per disabled pupil integrated into mainstream education of specialist equipment provided by each local education authority;

  (3) how many children with special educational needs are currently being withheld from school within each local education authority area in Wales due specifically to disputes over statementing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available centrally. Local education authorities have a duty to arrange that the special educational provision specified in a child's statement is made available.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local education authorities to ensure that all special educational needs statements contain a clear definition of resource levels;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local education authorities to ensure that speech therapist and physiotherapist reports conducted as part of an individual's special educational needs statementing procedure are fully taken into account within the final statement;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local education authorities in Wales to simplify the current special educational needs statementing procedures.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Welsh Office circular 54/89 and its addendum, issued in March 1992, give detailed advice to local education authorities on assessment and statementing procedures. These make it clear that, in considering an assessment, a local education authority has to take into account all the advice it has received as part of the statutory process, including medical advice, and, if a statement is warranted, it has to refer to all special educational needs identified during the assessment.

  Our new Education Bill contains proposals which will improve the current procedures and make them more responsive to the views of parents. These include the issue of further guidance for local education authorities on the criteria to be used for making assessments and issuing statements. This will be subject to consultation.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many applications have been made for special educational needs statements in each local authority area in Wales; and how many such applications have been successful;

  (2) how many pupils with special educational needs there are between the ages of five and 18 years in each local
  250
  education authority area in Wales; and how many such pupils have received a statement from their local education authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There is no specific system of applications for statements of special educational needs. Local education authorities do, however, have a duty to make and maintain statements if, following a formal assessment, they are of the opinion that they should determine the provision to be made for a child.

  Information on the number of pupils between five and 18 in school with statements of special educational need for January 1992 is shown in the following table:

  Number

  Clwyd

  2,072

  Dyfed

  1,041

  Gwent

  1,890

  Gwynedd

  818

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,300

  Powys

  518

  South Glamorgan

  1,333

  West Glamorgan

  2,295

  Wales

  15,267

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average length of time taken between actual application and the granting of special educational needs statements within each local education authority area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available. The Welsh Office has issued guidance to local education authorities that the period of time from the initial notification to the authority that an assessment might be necessary to the production of a draft statement should not exceed six months. Our Education Bill proposes legislation to ensure that the assessment procedures are conducted within prescribed time scales.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to monitor the administration of special educational needs statementing procedures by local education authorities in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The statutory responsibility for identifying, assessing and making appropriate provision for children with special educational needs rests with local education authorities. If parents are dissatisfied with the decision or actions of the authority, or the special educational provision it has specified, there are rights of complaint and of appeal to my right hon. Friend, or a local appeals committee, as appropriate.

  Cadw
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by grade and number employed, the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93, for Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments).

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments Executive Agency under its chief executive, Mr. E. A. J. Carr. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  251
  Letter from E. Carr to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992:

  As Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Wales has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the grade and number employed and the staffing

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Actual

  Estimate

  Grade

  Number

  Cost £

  Number

  Cost £

  Chief Executive

  1

  48,907

  1

  53,510

  Grade 6

  4

  131,929

  4

  158,520

  Grade 7

  8

  225,278

  8

  233,720

  Senior Executive

  13

  298,568

  13

  327,947

  Higher Executive

  14

  282,603

  15

  333,404

  Executive

  31

  376,484

  30

  421,976

  Administrative

  32

  347,583

  38

  449,136

  Custodial

  50

  651,599

  51

  649,063

  Industrial

  99

  920,535

  95

  1,009,845

  252

  3,283,486

  255

  3,637,121

  Education Authorities
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that education authorities in Wales spend all of their capital allocation for the purpose for which it was intended;

  (2) which Welsh education authorities did not spend their capital allocation during each of the past three years; and if he will give details of the underspend.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Welsh local education authorities do not receive specific capital allocations for education services. County councils receive resources within their annual basic credit approvals which are unhypothecated to particular services. Spending priorities are a matter for them.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his decision concerning the opencast mining application at Bannell Bridge, Buckley, Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As soon as possible.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent on research and development by his Department in each of the last five years; and how much research and development money has been allocated to health and social care research in each instance.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Total Welsh Office expenditure on research and development £ million

  Of which: expenditure on health and social care research £ million

  1987–88

  1·9

  0·4

  1988–89

  1·9

  0·4

  1989–90

  2·4

  0·5

  252
  costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93 for Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The information you have requested is shown in the table below in which specialist grades have been assimilated into the equivalent administrative grade:

  Total Welsh Office expenditure on research and development £ million

  Of which: expenditure on health and social care research £ million

  1990–91

  3·0

  0·5

  11991–92

  3·6

  0·5

  1 Provisional.

  The figures do not include NHS monies spent on research and development as an integral part of policy evaluation and service development, which are not separately identifiable; nor do they include research and development supported under the joint England and Wales programme managed by the Department of Health.

  River Dee
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to eliminate pollution of River Dee waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority. The River Dee is a class 1 good quality river, and the authority regularly reviews discharge consent conditions to achieve higher standards where practicable. In addition, it is undertaking a catchment management plan for the Dee estuary to identify existing problems and propose solutions.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an additional transport supplementary grant allocation to Clwyd county council to enable them to build the new River Dee crossing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Some £2·75 million has so far been provided towards the cost of the scheme. Clwyd county council's application for further transport grant support is being considered as part of the 1992 public expenditure survey.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of housing to rent in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a supplementary housing capital allocation to Alyn and Deeside council for the current year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Such an assessment is principally a matter for the local authority acting as enabler, and working in partnership with Housing for Wales, voluntary groups and the private sector. We have no plans to supplement the substantial resources made available to Alyn and Deeside in the current financial year.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the average annual cost of referrals for psychiatric/psychological counselling for patients referred as a result of head injuries sustained in serious road traffic accidents;

  (2) what was the average annual cost of community care for people disabled due to severe head injuries (a) resulting from road traffic accidents and (b) from all causes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  National Parks
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures will be taken to safeguard the national parks from over-exploitation by commercial enterprises.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy", stipulates that conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside should be given great weight in planning policies and decisions in the national parks. Moreover, major development in the national parks should not take place save in exceptional circumstances and must be subject to the "most vigorous examination".

  Planning Consents
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to local authorities encouraging the review of all current planning consents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on medical care and supervision from sufferers from epilepsy in Wales annually between 1989 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Seven-year-olds Test
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of seven-year-olds in Powys reaching level 2 in the compulsory tests; what was the comparable average percentage in England; and if he will make a statement.
  254
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the achievements of seven-year-olds in the 1992 national curriculum assessments is published by local education authority in table 4 (Aggregated Subject Outcome Scores by LEA), in the Welsh Office publication "National Curriculum Monitor: Key Stage 1 1992 Assessments". A copy is available in the Library of the House. Information on the achievement of pupils in England is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Student Assessment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has made of the results of the national curriculum key stage 3 assessment of students in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The key stage 3 assessment results arising from this summer's voluntary national pilot exercise in mathematics and science were published at the all-Wales level by the Minister of State on 20 October. Copies of the results were sent to all LEAs in Wales. The results were not published from the much smaller number of schools included in trials of test material in English, Welsh, Welsh second language and technology.

  The 1992 pilot and trial assessment arrangements are being evaluated by the School Examinations and Assessment Council in preparation for the introduction of the first statutory assessment of pupils in all these subjects during the summer term 1993.

  Hazardous Sites
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites in Powys are considered serious environmental or health hazards; what was the comparable number of sites in 1971 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Surveys of possibly contaminated land in Wales were undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Office in 1982–83 and 1987–88. The 1982–83 survey assessed two sites in Powys as posing a potentially serious environmental or health hazard. The later survey downgraded the risk assessment of both sites and identified no other sites. The Department holds no comparable information for 1971.

  TECs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what element in the last full year's budget for training and enterprise councils in Wales was top-sliced before the balance was negotiated between individual training and enterprise councils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  For 1992–93, a total of £700,000 was retained for contributions towards developments, systems and initiatives on an England and Wales basis, before negotiations were conducted with TECs in Wales.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the private sector currently contributes to the funding of training and enterprise councils in each training and enterprise council area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The financial arrangements in the contracting chain between Welsh Office, training and enterprise councils, training providers and employers do
  255
  not facilitate estimates of the private sector contribution towards training activities. Direct contributions to TECs are not centrally recorded.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of training and enterprise councils' budgets in Wales is allocated for purposes other than direct youth and adult training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  One third of the training and enterprise councils' budgets in 1992–93 is allocated for other purposes, including employment action, enterprise support, local initiatives and TEC administration costs.

  Education and Business Partnerships
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many education and business partnership schemes there are in each training and enterprise council area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There is one in each training and enterprise council area except for that covered by the West Wales TEC which has two schemes covering Dyfed and West Glamorgan local education authorities.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) prosecutions and (b) enforcement notices occured under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is provided in the tables:

  Prosecution action taken by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) factory and agricultural inspectorates1 for breaches of Health and Safety at Work Legislation2 in Wales 1986–87 to 1990–91

  Date of hearing3

  Number of informations laid4

  1986–87

  156

  1987–88

  167

  1988–89

  100

  1989–90

  113

  51990–91

  137

  Enforcement notices issued by HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates1 for breaches of Health and Safety at Work Legislation2 in Wales, 1986–87 to 1990–91

  Type of notice

  Date of issue3

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition

  Total

  1986–87

  626

  24

  150

  800

  1987–88

  695

  26

  159

  880

  1988–89

  661

  14

  220

  895

  1989–90

  659

  14

  262

  935

  51990–91

  624

  31

  234

  889

  1 Regional analysis of enforcement action taken by other enforcement authorities is not generally available (but see note (5) below).

  2 All action taken under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and subordinate regulations and other legislation.

  3 Years commencing 1 April.

  4Number of individual breaches of legislation laid before Magistrates.

  5 Includes action taken by HSE's quarries inspectorate.

  256
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time equivalent staff specialised in health and safety at work in Wales in each of the last five years; and what was the ratio of premises per member of staff in each year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of inspectors medical staff and scientists employed by the Health and Safety Executive in Wales was:

  Number

  1 April 1988

  67

  1 April 1989

  66

  1 April 1990

  68

  1 April 1991

  70

  1 April 1992

  78

  Available information about the ratio of premises to full-time equivalent staff is:

  Factory

  Agricultural

  Quarries

  1989–90

  910:1

  3,110:1

  229:1

  1990–91

  784:1

  3,228:1

  192:1

  1991–92

  682:1

  3,059:1

  204:1

  Services Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) injuries in general and (b) serious injuries have occurred in the services industry sector in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Occupational injuries1 in the services sector2 in Wales reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and to local authorities are provided in the table.

  Year3

  Fatal

  Major4

  Over 3 days5

  Total

  1986–87

  13

  883

  3,290

  4,186

  1987–88

  11

  893

  3,243

  4,147

  1988–89

  6

  971

  3,107

  4,084

  1989–90

  10

  865

  3,483

  4,358

  1990–916

  10

  874

  3,296

  4,180

  1 Injuries at work to employees, self-employed persons and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  2 As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 1980 divisions 6–9.

  3 Years commencing 1 April.

  4 As defined under RIDDOR.

  5 An injury causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days and reportable for employed persons only.

  6 Includes reports made to the HSE's quarries inspectorate.

EDUCATION

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the expenditure per pupil on primary education for each local education authority in England;

  (2) what is the expenditure per pupil on nursery education for each local education authority in England.
  257
  Mr. Forth
  Information on nursery and primary pupils is not collected separately. The latest year for which information on actual expenditure is available is 1990–91. In that year, school-based funding per full-time equivalent pupil in nursery and primary education for each local education authority in England was as given in the table. These figures include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. They do not include the costs of services provided centrally by local education authorities such as home to school transport, school meals, local education authority central administration and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  LEA

  Net institutional funding per pupil (£)

  City

  1,950

  Camden

  1,710

  Greenwich

  1,720

  Hackney

  1,900

  Hammersmith

  1,970

  Islington

  1,770

  Kensington

  2,060

  Lambeth

  1,840

  Lewisham

  1,710

  Southwark

  1,850

  Tower Hamlets

  1,940

  Wandsworth

  1,820

  Westminster

  2,110

  Barking

  1,460

  Barnet

  1,550

  Bexley

  1,260

  Brent

  1,670

  Bromley

  1,410

  Croydon

  1,440

  Ealing

  1,690

  Enfield

  1,430

  Haringey

  1,840

  Harrow

  1,480

  Havering

  1,290

  Hillingdon

  1,540

  Hounslow

  1,510

  Kingston-upon Thames

  1,430

  Merton

  1,750

  Newham

  1,490

  Redbridge

  1,350

  Richmond-upon Thames

  1,530

  Sutton

  1,360

  Waltham Forest

  1,570

  Birmingham

  1,260

  Coventry

  1,300

  Dudley

  1,230

  Sandwell

  1,450

  Solihull

  1,240

  Walsall

  1,510

  Wolverhampton

  1,390

  Knowsley

  1,390

  Liverpool

  1,290

  St. Helens

  1,210

  Sefton

  1,260

  Wirral

  1,280

  Bolton

  1,220

  Bury

  1,190

  Manchester

  1,320

  Oldham

  1,370

  Rochdale

  1,200

  Salford

  1,270

  Stockport

  1,260

  Tameside

  1,320

  Trafford

  1,170

  Wigan

  1,140

  Barnsley

  1,260

  Doncaster

  1,250

  Rotherham

  1,340

  Sheffield

  1,390

  Bradford

  1,500

  Calderdale

  1,440

  258

  LEA

  Net institutional funding per pupil (£)

  Kirklees

  1,300

  Leeds

  1,430

  Wakefield

  1,340

  Gateshead

  1,390

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,520

  North Tyneside

  1,310

  South Tyneside

  1,290

  Sunderland

  1,280

  Avon

  1,320

  Bedfordshire

  1,380

  Berkshire

  1,340

  Buckinghamshire

  1,320

  Cambridgeshire

  1,260

  Cheshire

  1,260

  Cleveland

  1,230

  Cornwall

  1,190

  Cumbria

  1,340

  Derbyshire

  1,370

  Devon

  1,310

  Dorset

  1,290

  Durham

  1,370

  East Sussex

  1,240

  Essex

  1,240

  Gloucestershire

  1,200

  Hampshire

  1,260

  Herefordshire

  1,360

  Hertfordshire

  1,340

  Humberside

  1,280

  Isle of Wight

  1,250

  Kent

  1,120

  Lancashire

  1,310

  Leicestershire

  1,290

  Lincolnshire

  1,210

  Norfolk

  1,280

  North Yorkshire

  1,230

  Northamptonshire

  1,230

  Northumberland

  1,320

  Nottinghamshire

  1,390

  Oxfordshire

  1,570

  Shropshire

  1,350

  Somerset

  1,230

  Staffordshire

  1,270

  Suffolk

  1,310

  Surrey

  1,340

  Warwickshire

  1,220

  West Sussex

  1,240

  Wiltshire

  1,260

  Notes: Net institutional funding covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books, equipment and other supplies and services, and unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department of Education.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expenditure per pupil on post-16 education on transport for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on post-16 pupils is not collected separately from that on other secondary pupils. Separate information is available for home to school transport only. The latest year for which information on actual expenditure is available is 1990–91. In that year, average expenditure on home to school transport per pupil in secondary education for each local education authority (LEA) in England was as given in the table.
  259

  LEA

  Expenditure per pupil (£)

  Camden

  43

  Greenwich

  26

  Hackney

  41

  Hammersmith

  36

  Islington

  8

  Kensington

  0

  Lambeth

  17

  Lewisham

  1

  Southwark

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  30

  Wandsworth

  0

  Westminster

  12

  Barking

  2

  Barnet

  18

  Bexley

  5

  Brent

  12

  Bromley

  20

  Croydon

  0

  Ealing

  0

  Enfield

  0

  Haringey

  8

  Harrow

  4

  Havering

  23

  Hillingdon

  0

  Hounslow

  9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0

  Merton

  8

  Newham

  11

  Redbridge

  27

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  6

  Sutton

  21

  Waltham Forest

  9

  Birmingham

  8

  Coventry

  6

  Dudley

  10

  Sandwell

  8

  Solihull

  15

  Walsall

  9

  Wolverhampton

  9

  Knowsley

  6

  Liverpool

  14

  St. Helens

  25

  Sefton

  0

  Wirral

  34

  Bolton

  17

  Bury

  10

  Manchester

  2

  Oldham

  2

  Rochdale

  13

  Salford

  6

  Stockport

  0

  Tameside

  11

  Trafford

  18

  Wigan

  8

  Barnsley

  7

  Doncaster

  1

  Rotherham

  18

  Sheffield

  2

  Bradford

  16

  Calderdale

  36

  Kirklees

  13

  Leeds

  12

  Wakefield

  11

  Gateshead

  12

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  6

  North Tyneside

  3

  South Tyneside

  2

  Sunderland

  4

  Avon

  47

  Bedfordshire

  60

  Berkshire

  44

  Buckinghamshire

  111

  Cambridgeshire

  76

  Cheshire

  44

  Cleveland

  9

  Cornwall

  75

  260

  LEA

  Expenditure per pupil (£)

  Cumbria

  79

  Derbyshire

  47

  Devon

  114

  Dorset

  57

  Durham

  70

  East Sussex

  35

  Essex

  70

  Gloucestershire

  79

  Hampshire

  45

  Herefordshire

  46

  Hertfordshire

  37

  Humberside

  45

  Isle of Wight

  58

  Kent

  71

  Lancashire

  35

  Leicestershire

  53

  Lincolnshire

  70

  Norfolk

  92

  North Yorkshire

  94

  Northamptonshire

  34

  Northumberland

  61

  Nottinghamshire

  29

  Oxfordshire

  76

  Shropshire

  70

  Somerset

  77

  Staffordshire

  54

  Suffolk

  87

  Surrey

  60

  Warwickshire

  66

  West Sussex

  46

  Wiltshire

  74

  Notes Figures are derived from LEA's returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department of Education.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expenditure per pupil on secondary education for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which information on actual expenditure is available is 1990–91. In that year, school-based funding per pupil in secondary education for each local education authority (LEA) in England was as given in the table. These figures include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. They do not include the cost of services provided centrally by LEAs such as home to school transport, school meals, LEA central administration and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  Net institutional funding per pupil

  Local education authority

  £

  Camden

  2,290

  Greenwich

  2,390

  Hackney

  2,710

  Hammersmith

  2,670

  Islington

  2,440

  Kensington

  2,900

  Lambeth

  2,580

  Lewisham

  2,430

  Southwark

  2,350

  Tower Hamlets

  2,490

  Wandsworth

  2,520

  Westminster

  2,580

  Barking

  2,300

  Barnet

  2,110

  Bexley

  1,970

  Brent

  2,360

  Bromley

  2,220

  Croydon

  2,080

  261

  Local education authority

  £

  Ealing

  2,580

  Enfield

  2,080

  Haringey

  2,590

  Harrow

  2,320

  Havering

  2,140

  Hillingdon

  2,340

  Hounslow

  2,080

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2,240

  Merton

  1,990

  Newham

  2,410

  Redbridge

  2,120

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,990

  Sutton

  2,080

  Waltham Forest

  2,650

  Birmingham

  2,050

  Coventry

  2,340

  Dudley

  2,100

  Sandwell

  2,300

  Solihull

  2,080

  Walsall

  2,260

  Wolverhampton

  2,120

  Knowsley

  2,230

  Liverpool

  2,250

  St. Helens

  1,960

  Sefton

  2,030

  Wirral

  2,110

  Bolton

  1,990

  Bury

  1,810

  Manchester

  2,150

  Oldham

  1,940

  Rochdale

  2,140

  Salford

  2,190

  Stockport

  2,030

  Tameside

  1,950

  Trafford

  2,080

  Wigan

  2,100

  Barnsley

  1,820

  Doncaster

  1,860

  Rotherham

  1,960

  Sheffield

  2,150

  Bradford

  1,780

  Calderdale

  2,090

  Kirklees

  1,920

  Leeds

  1,920

  Wakefield

  1,940

  Gateshead

  2,080

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,990

  North Tyneside

  1,940

  South Tyneside

  2,140

  Sunderland

  1,930

  Avon

  1,940

  Bedfordshire

  1,880

  Berkshire

  1,950

  Buckinghamshire

  2,050

  Cambridgeshire

  1,880

  Cheshire

  1,950

  Cleveland

  2,090

  Cornwall

  1,890

  Cumbria

  2,030

  Derbyshire

  2,110

  Devon

  1,950

  Dorset

  1,810

  Durham

  1,900

  East Sussex

  1,980

  Essex

  1,950

  Gloucestershire

  1,910

  Hampshire

  1,970

  Herefordshire

  1,840

  Hertfordshire

  2,070

  Humberside

  1,910

  Isle of Wight

  1,760

  Kent

  1,800

  Lancashire

  1,950

  Leicestershire

  2,090

  Lincolnshire

  1,910

  Norfolk

  1,990

  North Yorkshire

  2,020

  Northamptonshire

  1,800

  262

  Local education authority

  £

  Northumberland

  1,810

  Nottinghamshire

  2,220

  Oxfordshire

  2,160

  Shropshire

  2,100

  Somerset

  1,850

  Staffordshire

  1,930

  Suffolk

  2,020

  Surrey

  2,100

  Warwickshire

  1,890

  West Sussex

  1,910

  Wiltshire

  1,890

  Net institutional funding covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books, equipment and other supplies and services, and unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department of Education.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expenditure per pupil with special needs for each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which information on actual expenditure is available is 1990–91. In that year, direct expenditure per pupil in maintained special schools or receiving education otherwise than at school provided by each local education authority (LEA) in England was as given in the table. Expenditure on pupils with special needs attending primary and secondary schools is not collected separately. The figures do not include costs of services such as child guidance and educational psychology provided centrally by LEAs, nor of home to school transport, school meals, LEA central administration and financing costs of capital expenditure, as these costs were not apportioned between services in LEAs' expenditure returns.

  LEA

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Camden

  13,230

  Greenwich

  15,190

  Hackney

  7,920

  Hammersmith

  13,590

  Islington

  11,290

  Kensington

  15,300

  Lambeth

  9,120

  Lewisham

  11,370

  Southwark

  12,900

  Tower Hamlets

  11,090

  Wandsworth

  14,950

  Westminster

  8,390

  Barking

  16,800

  Barnet

  8,590

  Bexley

  7,330

  Brent

  11,170

  Bromley

  8,680

  Croydon

  6,820

  Ealing

  8,820

  Enfield

  10,510

  Haringey

  9,140

  Harrow

  14,120

  Havering

  6,500

  Hillingdon

  9,340

  Hounslow

  8,460

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,520

  Merton

  9,450

  Newham

  11,350

  Redbridge

  7,760

  Richmond upon Thames

  8,440

  Sutton

  6,020

  263

  LEA

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Waltham Forest

  10,680

  Birmingham

  8,010

  Coventry

  9,040

  Dudley

  7,310

  Sandwell

  5,600

  Solihull

  12,080

  Walsall

  7,630

  Wolverhampton

  7,030

  Knowsley

  6,790

  Liverpool

  5,880

  St. Helens

  6,340

  Sefton

  5,370

  Wirrall

  6,750

  Bolton

  6,550

  Bury

  6,130

  Manchester

  8,670

  Oldham

  5,990

  Rochdale

  6,990

  Salford

  7,800

  Stockport

  7,140

  Tameside

  8,250

  Trafford

  6,550

  Wigan

  7,070

  Barnsley

  9,750

  Doncaster

  4,240

  Rotherham

  7,260

  Sheffield

  11,470

  Bradford

  9,950

  Calderdale

  6,480

  Kirklees

  8,200

  Leeds

  6,380

  Wakefield

  5,630

  Gateshead

  8,110

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9,430

  North Tyneside

  8,520

  South Tyneside

  6,560

  Sunderland

  5,740

  Avon

  7,590

  Bedfordshire

  6,700

  Berkshire

  6,880

  Buckinghamshire

  6,450

  Cambridgeshire

  8,890

  Cheshire

  9,570

  Cleveland

  6,390

  Cornwall

  7,040

  Cumbria

  9,050

  Derbyshire

  8,860

  Devon

  5,590

  Dorset

  4,960

  Durham

  8,470

  East Sussex

  7,650

  Essex

  7,010

  Gloucestershire

  7,590

  Hampshire

  6,250

  Hereford & Worcestershire

  5,040

  Hertfordshire

  8,760

  Humberside

  12,310

  Isle of Wight

  4,270

  Kent

  5,360

  Lancashire

  7,760

  Leicestershire

  7,940

  Lincolnshire

  9,250

  Norfolk

  9,480

  North Yorkshire

  8,950

  Northamptonshire

  8,620

  Northumberland

  7,820

  Nottinghamshire

  6,310

  Oxfordshire

  8,420

  Shropshire

  7,880

  Somerset

  13,890

  Staffordshire

  6,720

  Suffolk

  6,170

  Surrey

  6,690

  Warwickshire

  8,120

  West Sussex

  5,740

  Wiltshire

  6,610

  264
  Note to table

  Direct expenditure covers the costs of salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books, equipment and other supplies and services. Figures are derived from LEA's returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department of Education.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to provide funds to continue to allow appropriate pupils to be referred to non-maintained special schools such as those which offer secondary and further education to the hearing impaired.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the proposals in the Education Bill, local education authorities will retain their responsibilities for identifying and assessing pupils with special educational needs and issuing and maintaining statements as required. They will continue to be funded to meet their statutory duty to make school placements appropriate to individual pupils' special educational needs, including placements in non-maintained special schools.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy in respect of an application for grant-maintained status by a school which has balloted in favour of becoming grant-maintained to commence on 1 April 1993, but which has subsequently been found to have overspent its budget under local management of schools so as to be unable to meet its financial commitments.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend takes account of a number of factors when considering an application for grant-maintained status: ability to manage an LMS budget effectively is one. However, we expect local education authorities to monitor their schools' expenditure and to assist their schools to manage their resources in such a way as to ensure that they do not overspend their budget share. Under LMS, governing bodies must live within their means and may not plan on the basis of a deficit budget.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of schools are grant-maintained in(a) the north-west of England and (b) the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  As of 3 November, 1·9 per cent. of secondary schools and 0·1 per cent. of primary schools in the north-west have been approved for grant-maintained status. In England as a whole, 7 per cent. of secondary schools, 1·2 per cent. of middle schools and 0·3 per cent. of primary schools have been approved.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have responsibility for grant-maintained schools in those countries.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he has given to the Education Assets Board with regard to the funding and control of facilities that are treated as the responsibility of the school once it becomes grant-maintained.
  265
  Mr. Forth
  The Education Assets Board does not deal with matters of funding for facilities. Every grant-maintained school's articles of government state that the occupation and use of school premises shall be under the control of the governing body.

  GCSE
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria he used in devising the new compulsory code of practice for the General Certificate of Secondary Education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) to prepare the code in consultation with the Joint Council for the GCSE. Its purpose will be to increase the transparency of the examining process in order to secure standards and maintain public confidence in the GCSE. It will cover the matters identified in SEAC's advice on quality and standards in the GCSE, published on 20 October.

  Student Assessment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evaluation he has made of the results of the national curriculum key stage three assessment of students in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A national analysis of the results of those schools which participated in the national pilot of the national curriculum assessments of 14-year-olds in England will be published shortly.

  Administrative Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, in table form, the percentage of each local education authority's budget spent on administration.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which information on actual spending is available is 1990–91. The table shows, for each local education authority in England, expenditure on administration expressed as a percentage of its total net recurrent spending on education.

  Administration as a percentage of net recurrent spending on education

  LEA

  Per cent.

  City

  10·2

  Camden

  12·4

  Greenwich

  12·1

  Hackney

  14·4

  Hammersmith

  13·3

  Islington

  14·3

  Kensington

  11·5

  Lambeth

  9·5

  Lewisham

  11·3

  Southwark

  6·9

  Tower Hamlets

  7·3

  Wandsworth

  12·5

  Westminster

  9·9

  Barking

  7·6

  Barnet

  5·8

  Bexley

  7·2

  Brent

  5·5

  Bromley

  5·7

  Croydon

  6·1

  Ealing

  6·2

  Enfield

  7·0

  Haringey

  9·6

  266

  LEA

  Per cent.

  Harrow

  3·0

  Havering

  6·8

  Hillingdon

  7·9

  Hounslow

  5·9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  7·0

  Merton

  7·8

  Newham

  7·1

  Redbridge

  5·8

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  9·4

  Sutton

  11·5

  Waltham Forest

  6·7

  Birmingham

  5·0

  Coventry

  7·1

  Dudley

  5·5

  Sandwell

  4·9

  Solihull

  4·5

  Walsall

  4·1

  Wolverhampton

  5·9

  Knowsley

  4·2

  Liverpool

  4·0

  St. Helens

  6·1

  Sefton

  5·2

  Wirral

  3·7

  Bolton

  6·3

  Bury

  4·7

  Manchester

  4·8

  Oldham

  10·9

  Rochdale

  3·3

  Salford

  10·4

  Stockport

  4·1

  Tameside

  4·3

  Trafford

  3·8

  Wigan

  3·4

  Barnsley

  4·6

  Doncaster

  3·5

  Rotherham

  3·2

  Sheffield

  4·3

  Bradford

  4·1

  Calderdale

  4·8

  Kirklees

  7·1

  Leeds

  4·7

  Wakefield

  3·9

  Gateshead

  6·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6·7

  North Tyneside

  4·3

  South Tyneside

  4·8

  Sunderland

  3·3

  Avon

  5·7

  Bedfordshire

  4·9

  Berkshire

  4·6

  Buckinghamshire

  6·3

  Cambridgeshire

  6·4

  Cheshire

  5·1

  Cleveland

  5·1

  Cornwall

  5·9

  Cumbria

  6·4

  Derbyshire

  4·3

  Devon

  2·9

  Dorset

  4·8

  Durham

  3·0

  East Sussex

  4·0

  Essex

  5·3

  Gloucestershire

  4·9

  Hampshire

  3·9

  Herefordshire

  3·9

  Hertfordshire

  3·7

  Humberside

  4·1

  Isle of Wight

  7·6

  Kent

  5·6

  Lancashire

  3·4

  Leicestershire

  3·9

  Lincolnshire

  5·1

  Norfolk

  4·8

  North Yorkshire

  3·8

  Northamptonshire

  4·5

  Northumberland

  3·5

  Nottinghamshire

  4·6

  Oxfordshire

  6·4

  267

  LEA

  Per cent.

  Shropshire

  3·4

  Somerset

  4·6

  Staffordshire

  4·1

  Suffolk

  4·7

  Surrey

  6·8

  Warwickshire

  5·1

  West Sussex

  4·3

  Wiltshire

  3·9

  Note: Administration includes net recurrent expenditure on administration of the education department, and costs of central departments recharged to education in accordance with the authority's accounting practice. Net recurrent expenditure includes total expenditure other than capital financing charges, less income other than from Government grants. Information is taken from local authorities' returns of their actual spending to the Department of the Environment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 389, how many members of the civil service have retired early since the beginning of 1992, on terms comparable to those mentioned in his answer.
  268
  The Prime Minister
  These terms are payable to civil servants who are retired early by reason of redundancy or in the public interest. The number shown in Civil Service Statistics (1991 edition, table 7) as leaving for these causes in 1990–91 was 1,582. Figures for 1991–92 will be published on 27 November.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his response to the petition presented on 23 October to No. 10 Downing street by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on behalf of Liberal Democrats calling for a fully independent review of the coal industry before any pits are closed.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced a moratorium until early in the new year on the closure of 21 of the pits proposed for closure by British Coal, unless the work force at a pit concerned agrees otherwise, and a full and wide ranging review of the prospects for these pits. The Government will publish a White Paper early in the new year setting out the results of the review in the context of our energy policy. There will be a full debate in the House of Commons.

  British Coal is carrying out the statutory consultation process in relation to the other 10 pits before any closure takes place.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  HIV Infection
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the EC-approved network of co-operation agreements between the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Medical Research Council, University College, London, and the United States research foundation Southwest, for research and development of a vaccine to combat HIV infections.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council, University College, London, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research are all shareholders of HIVER Limited which is a research driven healthcare company located in the United Kingdom. HIVER Limited focuses on developing vaccines, therapies and diagnostics for AIDS and other immunological disorders.

  Since 1987, more than £4 million has been committed to the research programme. Research is currently underway at The MRC clinical research centre, University College London, The London hospital medical school and St. Georges hospital medical school. The research is coordinated from the HIVER executive office.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax he expects to repay in the current year and 1993 for losses at Lloyd's.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1992–93, to the end of September, repayments to Lloyd's underwriters have amounted to £143 million. These relate almost entirely to losses incurred in 1988–89.

  The Lloyd's market declared net trading losses of £509 million for the 1988–89 tax year. Lloyd's underwriters are entitled to set their shares of these losses against their other income which has been subject to tax.

  No separate forecasts are made of the eventual amount of such repayments.

  Annex A

  Public appointments by the Chancellor's Department

  Baseline 1991

  Appointments 1992

  Reappointments 1992

  Position 1992

  Goals 1996

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  1. Building Societies Commission

  4

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  0

  4

  3

  1

  2. Friendly Societies Commission

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  1

  3. Crown Estate Commission

  8

  8

  0

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  0

  8

  8

  0

  8

  8

  0

  4. Public Works Loan Board

  12

  10

  2

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  1

  12

  10

  2

  12

  9

  3

  5. Retail Price Index Advisory Committee

  14

  14

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  120

  16

  4

  20

  13

  7

  6. Securities and Investments Board

  15

  13

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  0

  13

  12

  1

  13

  11

  2

  7. Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  4

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  4

  4

  0

  4

  4

  0

  8. Advisory Panel for Treasure Trove in Scotland

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  1

  4

  2

  2

  9. Treasury Academic Advisory Panel

  12

  12

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  12

  0

  12

  12

  0

  10. National Savings Board

  2

  2

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  11. CSO Management Board

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  12. Royal Mint Management Board

  2

  2

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Cross-border Shopping
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study has been made of the opportunities for cross-border shopping for people living in coastal areas following the abolition of EC frontier controls; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that people in inland areas are able to take advantage of the lower prices for goods on which duty will no longer be paid available in other member states of the Community.

  Sir John Cope
  Agreement has been reached for intra-EC duty free sales to continue after 1992, but all other purchases by private individuals for their personnel use will be subject to VAT and excise duty in the member state where they are sold. It is difficult to anticipate the extent to which these opportunities will be taken up.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast has been made of the increase in each country in the amount of cross-border shopping between the United Kingdom and France, in respect of goods which will be free of duty from January 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  No increases are expected in cross-border shopping from the continuation of intra-EC duty free sales after 1992. All other purchases by private individuals for their personal use will be subject to VAT and excise duty in the member state in which they are sold.

  Housing Loans
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals for a code of practice for all lenders of house purchase loans covering the regulation of(a) interest rates on all loans, (b) lending practices and (c) recovery and repossession practices and proceedings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to do so.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Sir John Cope
  The following provides the information requested for all current appointments to public bodies for which the Chancellor is responsible except for VAT tribunals on which, because of the numbers involved, I will write separately to the hon. Member.
  271

  Baseline 1991

  Appointments 1992

  Reappointments 1992

  Position 1992

  Goals 1996

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  Total

  M

  F

  13. VAT Tribunals

  148

  130

  18

  2(3

  2

  1)

  2(61

  52

  9)

  151

  131

  20

  148

  111

  37

  14. CSO Advisory Committee3

  14

  9

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  10

  4

  14

  8

  6

  15. Royal Mint Advisory Committee

  12

  10

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  10

  2

  12

  9

  3

  16. Financial Services Tribunal

  17

  16

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  16

  0

  17

  15

  2

  17. Top Salaries Review Body

  10

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  7

  2

  10

  6

  4

  Totals

  279

  245

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  283

  246

  37

  288

  219

  69

  12 per cent.

  13 per cent.

  24 per cent.

  Zero goal implies no firm target set.

  1 First committee appointed since 1990. No details on new appointments or reappointments.

  Size of committee varies depending on need.

  2 Proposed appointments/reappointment from 30 September 1992.

  3 Subsumes the CSO's Production Statistics Advisory Committee. No details as to whether members sat on previous committee.

  The CSO baseline figure was a projection.

  Body

  Member

  Appointment

  Qualification

  Remuneration

  From

  To

  £

  Building Societies Commission

  Mr. M. R. C. Walden CBE

  25 September 1986

  24 September 1994

  Building Society Director

  17,500

  Mr. S. Procter CBE

  25 September 1986

  24 September 1993

  Banker

  17,500

  Mr. G. Sunderland

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  Banker

  17,500

  Mr. F. E. Worsley

  1 May 1991

  30 June 1994

  Accountant

  17,500

  Friendly Societies Commission

  Mr. A. Wilson

  25 September 1992

  24 September 1995

  Lawyer

  12,500

  Mr. J. A. Geddes

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  Actuary

  12,500

  Mr. P. E. Couse

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  Accountant

  12,500

  Dr. J. Dine

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  Barrister

  12,500

  Securities and Investments Board

  Mr. A. Large (Chairman)

  1 June 1992

  31 May 1997

  The Financial Services Act 1986 requires that the members of the governing body must include persons with experience of investment business of a kind relevant to the functions of the agency; and other persons, including regular users on their own account or on behalf of others of services provided by persons carrying on investment business of any such kind; and the composition of that body must be such as to secure a proper balance between the interests of persons carrying on investment business and the interests of the public.

  Matter for the Securities and Investments Board

  Mr. R. Quartano CBE (Deputy Chairman)

  27 June 1985

  31 July 1993

  Lord Runciman CBE (Deputy Chairman)

  8 August 1986

  31 July 1994

  Mr. J. Craven

  1 August 1990

  31 July 1993

  Mr. R. Croft CB

  8 August 1986

  9 June 1994

  Mr. J. Gardiner

  1 August 1989

  31 July 1995

  Mr. N. Lessels

  1 August 1989

  31 July 1994

  Mr. J. Manser

  8 August 1986

  31 July 1994

  Mr. J. Palmer

  1 August 1991

  31 July 1994

  Mr. G. R. Russell

  1 August 1989

  31 July 1993

  Mr. L. Warwick

  1 August 1989

  31 July 1993

  Mr. B. Williamson CBE

  8 August 1986

  31 July 1993

  Lady Scott CBE

  1 August 1991

  31 July 1994

  Financial Services Tribunal

  Mr. K. A. Blundell

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  The Financial Services Act 1986 requires that there be a panel of persons to serve as members of the Tribunal. The panel shall include persons who appear to be qualified by experience or otherwise to deal with the cases that may be referred to the Tribunal

  per diem free

  Mr. W. M. Carson

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. P. G. Green

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. G. C. Grover

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. J. L. Kirkpatrick CBE

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. A. F. Lamb

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. H. G. Littlefair

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Sir J. McKinnon

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. A. W. Mallinson

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. W. O'Farrell

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. J. B. Page

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. J. C. Ritchie

  1 May 1991

  30 April 1994

  Mr. R. P. Wilkinson

  1 May 1991

  30 April 1994

  Mr. G. Willetts

  4 May 1988

  30 April 1994

  Mr. P. D. Williams

  1 May 1991

  30 April 1994

  Mr. H. Woods

  1 May 1991

  30 April 1994

  National Savings Board

  Mr. M. St. Giles

  1 October 1991

  30 September 1993

  Marketing

  10,000

  Mr. R. Heape

  1 October 1991

  30 September 1993

  Financial Services

  10,000

  Royal Mint Management Board

  Mr. J. Burnett-Stuart

  17 June 1992

  16 June 1993

  Industry

  3,120

  Mr. S. Cameron

  17 June 1992

  16 June 1993

  Industry

  3,120

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  Professor J. Evans

  5 years

  —

  Archaeologist

  Nil

  Mr. D. Sellwood

  5 years

  —

  Numismatist

  Nil

  Mr. C. Lyon

  1 year

  —

  Numismatist

  Nil

  Mr. J. Och

  5 years

  —

  Auctioneer

  Nil

  Advisory Panel on Treasure Trove in Scotland

  Mr. M. Jones

  No set period

  —

  Museum Keeper

  Nil

  Mrs. M. Buchanan

  2 years

  —

  Museum Keeper

  Nil

  Mr. J. Murray

  2 years

  —

  Museum Keeper

  Nil

  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee

  Mr. J. Astin

  March 1992

  —

  Eurostat

  Nil

  Mr. S. Brittan

  March 1992

  —

  The Financial Times

  Nil

  Professor D. Currie

  March 1992

  —

  London Business School

  Nil

  272 273

  Body

  Member

  Appointment

  Qualification

  Remuneration

  From

  To

  £

  Professor M. C. Fleming

  March 1992

  —

  Loughborough University

  Nil

  Mr. K. H. B. Frere

  March 1992

  —

  Nominated by the National Federation of Consumer Groups

  Nil

  Mr. S. G. B. Henry

  March 1992

  —

  Bank of England

  Nil

  Mr. T. J. Hoyes

  March 1992

  —

  Nominated by Age Concern

  Nil

  Mr. J. Hughes

  March 1992

  —

  Nominated by the National Consumer Council

  Nil

  Mr. D. Lea OBE

  March 1992

  —

  Nominated by the Trades Union Congress

  Nil

  Miss R. Lea

  March 1992

  —

  The Mitsubishi Bank Ltd.

  Nil

  Miss R. J. Maurice

  March 1992

  —

  —

  Nil

  Mr. C. J. Mowl

  March 1992

  —

  HM Treasury

  Nil

  Dr. J. Muellbauer

  March 1992

  —

  Nuffield College, Oxford

  Nil

  Professor J. F. Pickering

  March 1992

  —

  Portsmouth University

  Nil

  Professor D. G. Rhys OBE

  March 1992

  —

  Cardiff Business School

  Nil

  Mrs. B. Rosewell

  March 1992

  —

  Business Strategies Ltd.

  Nil

  Dr. P. Rowlatt

  March 1992

  —

  National Economic Research Associates

  Nil

  Dr. A. Sentance

  March 1992

  —

  Nominated by the Confederation of British Industry

  Nil

  Professor R. Turvey

  March 1992

  —

  London School of Economics

  Nil

  Mr. R. G. Ward

  March 1992

  —

  Central Statistical Office

  Nil

  Central Statistical Management Board

  Mrs. M. Berg

  February 1992

  February 1994

  Economist

  2,000

  Mr. P. Thornton

  February 1992

  February 1994

  Marketing

  2,000

  Central Statistical Office Advisory Committee Members

  Mr. A. Armstrong

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economics

  Nil

  Mr. S. Brittan

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economics

  Nil

  Mr. R. Brown

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Commerce

  Nil

  Mr. A. Chantraine

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Eurostat

  Nil

  Dr. C. Cosgrove

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economic and Export

  Nil

  Mr. H. L. Cousins

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Commerce

  Nil

  Mr. S. Jukes

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economics

  Nil

  Mr. M. King

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economist, Bank of England

  Nil

  Professor D. Lievesley

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economic and Social Research

  Nil

  Professor D. Mayes

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economic and Social Research

  Nil

  Mrs. B. Rosewell

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economics

  Nil

  Dr. A. Sentance

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economic

  Nil

  Dr. J. Whitley

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Economic

  Nil

  Mrs. A. Wright

  July 1991

  July 1994

  Overseas Development

  Nil

  Treasury Academic Panel

  Professor C. Bean

  1991

  —.

  Academic

  125 per diem

  Professor D. Begg

  1982

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor S. Holly

  1983

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor M. Miller

  1976

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor P. Minford

  1976

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor K. Wallis

  1980

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Mr. M. Weale

  1990

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Mr. P. Westaway

  1990

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor M. Wickens

  1981

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor S. Wren-Lewis

  1987

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  Professor D. Vines

  1985

  —

  Academic

  110 per diem

  TSRB

  Sir D. Nickson KBE DL

  1988

  End March 1995

  Not held

  Nil

  Ms. L. Bolting

  1987

  End March 1993

  Not held

  Nil

  Mr. J. Pope OBE

  1986

  End March 1993

  Not held

  Nil

  Sir P. Cazalet

  1988

  End March 1993

  Not held

  Nil

  Sir A. Wilson

  1988

  End March 1995

  Not held

  Nil

  Mr. H. Pigott

  1988

  End March 1994

  Not held

  Nil

  Sir C. Clothier KCB QC

  1989

  End March 1993

  Not held

  Nil

  Ms. A. Burdus

  1990

  End March 1993

  Not held

  Nil

  Mr. A. Gormly CBE

  1990

  End March 1993

  Not held

  Nil

  Royal Mint Adisory Committee

  Mr. J. Porteous MA

  1968

  —

  Numismatist

  Nil

  Sir H. Casson CB, KCVO, PPRA, RDI, RIBA

  1971

  —

  Royal Academy

  Nil

  Sir J. Hale D. Litt, FBA

  1979

  —

  Professor of History

  Nil

  Mr. V. Duggleby

  1985

  7 years

  Financial Journalist

  Nil

  Mr. N. D. Cadbury

  1985

  7 years

  Chief Executive of Cadbury

  Nil

  Miss M. Warner

  1985

  7 years

  Writer

  Nil

  The Most Hon. The Marchioness of Anglesey

  1991

  7 years

  Chairman of the British Council

  Nil

  Dr. C. E. Challis

  1991

  7 years

  Numismatist

  Nil

  Mr. M. H. Harvey

  1991

  7 years

  Lettering expert

  Nil

  Professor B. Kneale RA

  1992

  7 years

  Master of Sculpture

  Nil

  Professor E. A. Bell CB, Ph.D

  1992

  7 years

  Former Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew

  Nil

  Public Works Loan Board

  Mr. R. J. Dent (Chairman)

  1991

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Miss F. M. Cook (Deputy Chairman)

  1992

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Miss V. J. di Palma

  1990

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. G. R. Russell

  1991

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. P. Brackfield

  1990

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. D. Adams

  1992

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  274 275

  Body

  Member

  Appointment

  Qualification

  Remuneration

  From

  To

  £

  Mr. R. A. Chapman

  1989

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. A. Morton

  1989

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. I. C. Wilson

  1989

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. G. G. Williams

  1990

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. R. G. Tettenborn

  1991

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. J. E. Scotfield

  1992

  4 years

  Finance/Local authorities

  Nil

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that housing loans lenders should not have the automatic right of repossession in arrears cases.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to do so.

  House Renovations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that house renovation costs are not liable to value added tax charges.

  Sir John Cope
  VAT at the standard rate has been applied to house renovation costs since 1973 when the tax was first introduced. Our obligations under the EC Sixth VAT Directive prevent us extending the scope of our present zero rating.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for legislation under which the auditors of banks would be required to detect and report fraud to the regulators.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 22 October, the Chancellor announced that the Government accepted all the recommendations of Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry into the supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, including the recommendation that there should be a statutory duty on auditors of banks to report to the Bank of England. A similar recommendation had been made in the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's fourth report for 1991–92. Consultation with the accounting profession and with the banks on the formulation of such a duty and its enforcement will begin shortly.

  Housing Loans
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 to enable mortgage lenders to transfer shortfall suffered when redeeming the mortgages from sale proceeds to new mortgage accounts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to do so.

  We recently announced two new measures which will help borrowers with a shortfall to move house (Official Report, 20 October 1992, column 243).

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to require housing loan lenders to explore alternative legal remedies for debt recovery before repossession is considered.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to do so.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to extend the business expansion scheme to include assured shorthold tenancies.
  276
  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to do so; the business expansion scheme will not be available for new investment after the end of 1993.

  Cohesion Funds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the United Kingdom will benefit from the cohesion funds of the Maastricht agreement; what was the gross domestic product per capita in the United Kingdom, expressed in ecus, at 15 September; and what it is now.

  Mr. Lamont
  The cohesion fund envisaged in the Maastricht treaty will be a structural fund; and the usual method of calculating relative wealth for these funds is to use purchasing power parities. On that basis the United Kingdom would not qualify for any assistance from the cohesion fund.

  The latest forecast of money GDP at market prices for financial year 1992–93 is £619·2 billion, or £10,721 per head. This would be equivalent to 14,810 ecus per head at the exchange rates on 15 September; and 13,191 ecus per head at the exchange rates on 29 October.

  Visual Handicap
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation took place with organisations representing visually handicapped people before the design of the new £10 and £20 notes was approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  The Bank of England's consultations with organisations representing the visually handicapped, regarding the new series of banks notes, began in March 1984. Regular meetings, approximately annually, have taken place since then with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which co-ordinates communication between the bank and other organisations representing the visually handicapped.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the additional costs to the Exchequer of benefit payments and lost income tax and national insurance contributions arising from the increase in unemployment since April 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for benefit expenditure on the unemployed are set out in figure 9 on page 8 of the DSS departmental report (Cm. 1914). The effect of the increase in unemployment on tax revenues and national insurance contributions cannot be estimated reliably.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual cost of maintaining the current number of people on the unemployment register in each region in terms of benefits payments and lost tax and national insurance contributions.
  277
  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for benefit expenditure on the unemployed people are set out in figure 9 on page 8 of the DSS departmental report (Cm. 1914). A regional breakdown for this expenditure is not available. The effects on tax revenues and national insurance contributions cannot be calculated reliably.

  European Community
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of civil servants in his Department whose main task is work related wholly or mainly to the European Community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: There are currently 35 civil servants in the Treasury whose main task is work related wholly or mainly to the European Community.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Football
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Football Association regarding unfair practices in football; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. But I deplore unfair practices in all sports. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in developing the Council of Europe's code of sports ethics, the basic principle of which is that ethical considerations and fair play are integral elements of all sports activities. The enforcement of discipline is a matter for the governing bodies of sport.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham of 28 October,Official Report, column 690, whether the national lottery and football pools are to be regarded as equivalent forms of gambling; and whether controls will be the same.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. Lotteries are a game of chance, while football pools are a game of skill and judgment which depend on the outcome of a sporting event. The national lottery will need its own system of regulation. Details of the control regime for the national lottery will be announced when the Bill is published.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Lancashire, West constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Colin Pickthall, dated 3 November 1992:
  278
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many households in the West Lancashire constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Lancashire West constituency is covered by the Agency's South West Lancashire District. It is not possible to give an exact figure of how many customers would qualify for a Cold Weather Payment except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in November 1991, it is estimated that approximately 15,000 customers in the South West Lancashire District may qualify for a Cold Weather Payment should the area be triggered. The constituency and District boundaries do not, however, correspond and a proportion of these will live outside the constituency.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what dates cold weather payments were made in Lancashire, West in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what was the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Colin Pickthall, dated 3 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking on what dates cold weather payments were made in West Lancashire in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what was the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Neither of the weather stations which give information for the area covered by the constituency declared a forecast period of cold weather from 1 November 1991 to date. Details of dates where payments were made in response to a recorded period of cold weather are available in the Library.

  It is not possible to give the exact time taken for payments to be made. However, the average time taken to identify all eligible customers is 6·5 days. The preparation of payments starts immediately after identification, but it may take a few days further before they are posted depending on the volumes.

  A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report.

  Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 3 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many households in the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  The Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency is covered by Gwyneddigion, Mid Wales and Maelor, and North Wales Coast Districts. It is not possible to give an exact figure of how

  279
  many customers would qualify for a Cold Weather Payment except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in November 1991, it is estimated that approximately 36,200 customers claiming from those Districts may qualify for a Cold Weather Payment, should the area be triggered. Parliamentary constituencies and District boundaries do not correspond however and therefore a proportion of these will live outside the constituency boundaries.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Falkirk, East constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Michael Connarty, dated 3 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many households in the Falkirk East constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Falkirk East constituency is covered by the Forth Valley District. It is not possible to give an exact figure of how many customers would qualify for a Cold Weather Payment except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in November 1991 it is estimated that approximately 11,900 customers in the Forth Valley District may qualify for a Cold Weather Payment should the area be triggered. The constituency and District boundaries do not correspond, however, and a proportion of these will live outside the constituency boundaries.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the chief executive of the Benefits, Agency acknowledged case MOB/172/8898 pursued by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (ref. DB102919); when a reply was received; and what was the reason for the time taken;

  (2) when the chief executive of the Benefits Agency will send an acknowledgement and reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East to a letter sent on 14 September concerning the case of the person with the national insurance number JE 54 08 98 C;

  (3) when the chief executive of the Benefits Agency will send acknowledgements and replies to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East for letters sent on 7 August, 14 and 16 September concerning the case of the person with the national insurance number ZT 349 447A;

  (4) when the chief executive of the Benefits Agency will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 6 July concerning case NM 139 765A and acknowledged by the Benefits Agency on 27 July under its reference DB 103229; when there will be a follow up to his Department's reference S6/3193/5 of 5 August on
  280
  this case; and what record he holds of the number of telephone calls that have been made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East in connection with this matter.

  Mr. Scott
  Correspondence about operational matters is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 3 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security relating to the replies to letters you had sent about individual constituents.

  All four letters relate to disability benefits processed at the Fylde Benefits Directorate. Regrettably because of the heavy workload at the Directorate following the introduction of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and the volume of correspondence this has generated there have been some delays in replying to Members' letters about these benefits. I can assure you that all the cases are receiving urgent attention but replies are sometimes delayed whilst the individual case is resolved. Once the backlog of claims has been cleared it will be possible to respond to correspondence much more promptly. In the meantime I apologise for the delays on the cases referred to in your questions.

  The situation on each of these is as follows:—

  Case MOB/172/8898

  An acknowledgement is not normally sent by the Benefits Agency when a Minister has written to the Member confirming a letter has been passed to me to reply. In this case an interim reply was sent on 10 June explaining that a full reply was not yet possible. A final reply was sent on 19 August. The delay in replying was due to the heavy workload at the DLA Unit.

  Case JE540898C

  I apologise that your letter to me of 14 September was not acknowledged. I replied to you on 28 October with full details of the award made to this customer.

  Case ZT349447A

  Again I am sorry that your letters were not acknowledged. This was a mistake on the part of my correspondence section. I replied to your letter on 2 November.

  Case NM139765A

  I replied to your letter on 2 November with full details of the award made to this customer. The DLA Unit has a record of five telephone calls from your office about this case.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Earnings
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates of the number of part-time and full-time employees earning(a) below the PAYE threshold and (b) below the national insurance lower earnings limit, in (i) 1989, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1991 and (iv) the current year, respectively.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.
  281

  Estimated numbers (millions) earnings less than

  PAYE threshold

  National insurance lower earnings limit

  1989

  3·50

  3·00

  1990

  3·50

  3·00

  1991

  3·50

  3·25

  1992

  3·75

  3·25

  Notes:

  1. Figures are broad estimates based on the annual New Earnings Survey and estimates of the number of employees in employment.

  2. It is estimated that around one tenth of these employees are full-time, most of whom fell below the thresholds because their earnings were affected by absence in the survey period.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy that retirement pensions shall continue to be uprated annually in line with the retail prices index.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The plans for the uprating of benefits will be announced to the House in due course.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy that retirement pensions shall continue to be free of a means test.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes.

  Drug and Alcohol Problems
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the expected total expenditure on allowances towards the cost of residential rehabilitation services for persons with drug or alcohol problems during the current financial year.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated income support payable in the current financial year to people in independent residential care and nursing homes claiming the drug or alcohol abuse limit is about £20 million.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of money discovered to have been fraudulently claimed from his Department by benefit claimants in 1991 and the current year to the most recent practicable date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 27 October 1992, at column 640. The Benefits Agency's estimated fraud savings for 1991–92 were £427 million. For the first half of 1992–93 the estimated savings were £268 million.

  Contributors Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, as part of his quality service objectives, he will require the publication of the responses of all bodies consulted in the preparation of the contributors charter and the employers charter.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The responses received from organisations during consultations with service users in 282
  the course of production of the contributor's and employer's charters is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Miss A. Chant to Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, dated 4 November 1992.

  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, Miss Ann Chant is responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. However, in her absence I, as Deputy Chief Executive, have been asked to reply to the points raised in your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about the publication of responses from service users following consultations undertaken during the course of preparation of the Charters.

  You will recall from the answer to your previous question on our consultations about the proposed Contributor's Charter and Employer's Charter that we approached 36 organisations with whom we are in regular contact for their comments, advice and assistance. Nineteen of them replied some in writing.

  They were very helpful and constructive in their responses, but it had never been suggested to them that our exchanges would be publicised. I think it would be quite inappropriate for me to do so now.

  I do not see any connection between publicising all the details of this consultation exercise and quality service objectives. But if you have any specific concern in mind, or would like to know the gist of some of the suggestions that were made, please let me know and I will be pleased to try and help.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effect of the increase in office costs allowance on the working practices of hon. Members.

  Mr. Newton
  No such assessment has been made.

SCOTLAND

  Retirement Flats
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from owners of retirement flats concerning uncontrolled increases in service charges imposed by development companies after sale; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office has received a number of representations, particularly in recent months, from owners, and persons or bodies representing owners, about the management of private sheltered housing, including increases in service charges. Our general view has been that it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in contracts freely entered into between buyers and sellers of retirement flats. However, the Scottish Law Commission is engaged in a comprehensive review of property law in Scotland and we shall shall study carefully any recommendations that the commission makes for legislative or other action in this area.

  Scottish Borders Enterprise
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reasons for the £15,000 reduction in the grant to Scottish Borders
  283
  Enterprise for employment training and youth training programmes in the region; and what has been the subsequent reduction in available training places.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland, responsibility for management of youth training and employment training and for allocation of funds to the local enterprise companies for their delivery lies with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the right hon. Member with the information he has requested.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Fishermen
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of(a) the number of professional fishermen who will have to conform to the regulations contained in the Salmon (Definition of Methods of Net Fishing and Construction of Nets) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 and (b) in which rivers and estuaries they fish; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have made no estimate of the number of professional fishermen who will be required to conform to the new regulations. Salmon net fisheries are, or could be, operated on most of Scotland's rivers and estuaries, and on the open sea coast. The regulations will apply to all salmon nets, except landing nets; every person who fishes for salmon by net will have to conform to them.

  UV-B Monitoring Systems
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce regional UV-B monitoring systems; what initiative he has undertaken to encourage Scottish industry to switch to non-ozone depleting substances; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: Plans are under way to extend the monitoring network set up by the National Radiological Protection Board in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of the terrestrial solar UV levels over United Kingdom latitudes.

  As part of an awareness-raising strategy, a series of booklets entitled "Protecting the Ozone Layer and Safeguarding your Business" has been produced. These urge industry to take immediate action to reduce dependency on ozone-depleting substances and provide information about the main alternative technologies currently available. Regular meetings with representatives of United Kingdom producers and users of ozone-depleting substances are also held to ensure that the
  284
  implications of international negotiations on the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances and the options for switching to alternatives are as widely understood as possible.

  Timber (Tariff Rebates)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the forestry or paper and pulp industry concerning the reinstatement of the tariff rebate which was withdrawn from the movement of goods by ship in July 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Consideration is at present being given to a proposal for support, under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme, of a new project for the shipment of timber from remote and relatively inaccessible locations. An announcement will be made in due course once a decision has been reached.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many mentally ill patients are in secure institutions referred there by the courts; and how many were released in each of the past five years back into the community;

  (2) how many female mentally ill patients are in secure institutions referred there by the courts; and how many were released in each of the past five years back into the community.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: There are currently 115 patients—eight of them female—in the state hospital at Carstairs who have been referred by the criminal courts and a further 30 patients, all male, who have been transferred from Scottish prisons for treatment.

  At any given time, there will also be individuals in prison suffering from various forms of mental disorder but not requiring treatment in hospital. Numbers are not recorded centrally.

  Most detained patients moving from state hospital are transferred first to local mental illness hospitals for further rehabilitation and, if appropriate, discharge. However, the numbers discharged direct to the community with appropriate support and supervision were as follows:

  male

  female

  1987

  3

  1

  1988

  3

  1

  1989

  5

  1

  1990

  4

  3

  1991

  3

  3

  Prisoners
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women are serving life sentences in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: As at Thursday 29 October 1992, there were six women, all adult prisoners, serving life sentences in Scottish prisons.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average time spent in prison of(a) male and

  285
  (b) female prisoners convicted of the crime of murder and all other serious offences giving details of the offence and the time served in each category.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: I regret that the information is not

  Years detained in custody

  Year of release

  6–7

  7–8

  8–9

  9–10

  10–11

  11–12

  12–13

  13–14

  Over 14

  1987

  —

  —

  1

  4

  6

  2>

  —

  1

  1

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  4

  8

  5

  4

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  3

  7

  6

  4

  2

  4

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  4

  2

  1

  10

  Total

  —

  —

  1

  10

  25

  19

  15

  10

  20

  The source of this information is the report of the Parole Board for Scotland 1991.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to ADAS, the Central Science Laboratory, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, the Intervention Board Executive Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. I have asked their respective chief executives to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from P. Stanley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) I confirm that during the last 12 months I have carried out fact finding visits to the Universities of Reading, Leeds, Lancaster and York, to explore their scientific capabilities and to establish whether CSI, should develop longer-term relationships with these Universities. The outcome is that CSL will continue to be associated with all four Universities and will seek to develop closer links with Leeds, Lancaster and York in relation to the move of CSL to York in 1996/97.

  In addition, I have carried out fact finding visits to other agencies, including the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, Central Veterinary Laboratory, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, and the Defence Research Agency, to identify how they are progressing and to gather information about the services offered by other research-based agencies. My findings were that CSL has a clearly identified role in providing statutory support and R & D to MAFF, but needs to be competitive in terms of cost, quality and delivery of services.

  Letter from B. Mills to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:

  As you know the Minister has asked that Chief Executives of executive agencies for which he is responsible write to you direct with their answer to your question.

  Dr. Little our Chief Executive is away at the moment. I know that he has made visits to a number of organisations during this period, but in particular to offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are our parent Department, and for whom about 85 per cent. of our work is undertaken.

  Letter from J. Rutter to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:

  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, if he will list the fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by
  286
  readily available in the form requested, but the average time spent in prison by prisoners serving life sentences who were released from prison in the five years 1987 to 1991 was as in the table:

  the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  In his reply to the above question about Executive Agencies in MAFF, the Minister said that as this was a matter which was the direct responsibility of Chief Executives, he would ask them to write to you direct. I am doing so as Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

  I maintain frequent contact throughout the year with representatives of the animal health industry, the veterinary profession and the veterinary pharmaceutical companies. During the last 12 months I have also spoken at national and international meetings on matters related to veterinary medicines, held regular meetings with the National Office of Animal Health and the British Veterinary Association, and initiated meetings with consumer representatives to discuss matters of common interest.

  These visits and meetings are particularly useful in increasing the transparency and understanding of the licensing arrangements for veterinary medicines in the UK. They help maintain good relations with our customers and provide valuable feedback on the work of the Directorate to help improve the quality of service we offer to our customers.

  Letter from J. Walsh to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  The Chief Executive of ADAS, Dr. Julia Walsh, makes on average two fact finding visits to customers and staff per month. It is considered by Dr. Walsh essential to conduct these visits to ensure the provision of quality services to ADAS customers and to transmit ideas from staff through the organisation to Director level.

  Letter from G. Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he would list the fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he was responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit. Although the Intervention Board is a separate Government Department, I am resposible to the four Agriculture Ministers, and as this matter falls within the operational responsibility of this Agency, he has asked me to reply.

  Between October 1991 and September 1992 I had a, considerable number of discussions with the Agency's customers and with organisations with whom we work, both on and off the Agency's premises. The only ones which might be described as fact-finding visits were two I made in May, to a scientific establishment providing services to the Agency and to a firm deboning beef for intervention storage. In each case the visit enabled me to familiarise myself with the processes involved.

  I am sending a copy of this letter to the Library of the House.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to ADAS, the Central Science Laboratory, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, the Intervention Board Executive Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. I have asked their respective chief executives to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from G. Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he would list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible. Although the Intervention Board is a separate Government Department, I am responsible to the four Agriculture Ministers, and as this is a matter within the operational responsibility of this Agency, he has asked me to reply.

  As a layman, I have published no scientific papers. The Intervention Board, however, published the following material between October 1991 and September 1992:

  Corporate Plan 1992–93 to 1996–97

  July 1992

  Annual Report 1991–92

  July 1992

  Scheme Leaflets:

  CD 2

  Flax Subsidies (revise)

  March 1992

  CD 15

  Support Buying of Cereals (revise)

  October 1991

  ET 11

  Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (revise)

  December 1991

  ET 12

  Processed Fruit and Vegetables (revise)

  November 1991

  ET 15

  Wine (revise)

  November 1991

  ET 17

  Processed Goods (revise)

  December 1991

  ET 19

  Community Victualling (revise)

  December 1991

  FD 2

  Securities and Guarantees

  October 1991

  LP 12

  Aid for the Private Storage of Butter (revise)

  February 1992

  LP 18

  Subsidy on Butter Supplied to Non-Profit-Making Organisations

  November 1991

  LP 43

  Milk Corresponsibility Levy Disbursement

  November 1991

  LP 46

  Surplus Food Scheme

  May 1992

  I am sending a copy of this letter to the Library of the House.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992:

  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the Chief Executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  In his reply to the above question about Executive Agencies in MAFF, the Minister said that as this was a matter which was the direct responsibility of Chief Executives, he would ask them to write to you direct. I am doing so as Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

  All papers published by the staff of the VMD, including myself, are recorded in the Annual Report and Accounts of the Directorate. That for the financial year 1991–92 was published on 29 July 1992 as House of Commons paper 174 and a copy placed in the Library. I enclose a further copy for your information. Details of publications are given in Appendix IX, with those by staff listed on pages 64 and 65.

  In the period since 1 April 1992, I have had two further letters published in the Veterinary Record:

  Rutter, J. M. (1992) Availability of medicines. Veterinary Record, 130,

  Rutter, J. M. (1992) Availability of medicines. Veterinary Record, 130,

  Letter from J. Walsh to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992
  288
  The Chief Executive of ADAS, Dr. Julia M. Walsh was appointed in June 1991. Dr. Walsh has not personally published any papers in the ensuing period. However, the nationally and internationally recognised Research and Development branch of the ADAS Executive Agency regularly publishes scientific papers and could supply specific details if required.

  Letter from T. Little to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  As you know the Minister has asked that Chief Executives of executive agencies for which he is responsible write to you direct with their answer to your question.

  During the period in question I have published only one paper and that is:

  Little, T. W. A., Hathaway, S. C., Broughton, E. S., Seawright, D. Control of Leptospira hardjo infection in beef cattle by whole herd vaccination.

  Veterinary Record (1992) Volume 131, Issue 5, Pages 90–92.

  Letter from P. Stanley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Central Science Laboratory, I confirm that I have not personally had any paper published during the past 12 month period. The Central Science Laboratory, however, has published a number of papers and I enclose for your information a copy of CSL's listing of Scientific Publications 1985–91, together with an update covering publications since the launch of the Agency in April 1992.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to complete his consideration of the need for comprehensive food labelling.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government issued on 4 August 1992 their final response to the recommendations arising from the Food Advisory Committee's report of its comprehensive review of food labelling legislation and practices. Most of the recommendations were accepted and most will require action at EC level. Proposals to amend the EC Food Labelling Directive are currently before the Council of Ministers and would introduce requirements concerning quantitative declaration of ingredients, ingredient listing of alcoholic drinks and revised provisions on the name of the food. We expect the Commission shortly to make proposals to control claims made in food labelling and advertising. On nutrition labelling, the Government have recently issued for consultation draft regulations implementing the EC Nutrition Labelling Directive. These are due to take effect in October 1993.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and what was the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Food Premises
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is currently undertaken by his Department to monitor the quality of inspections carried out by local enforcement authorities to food premises under the Food Safety Act 1990 code of practice.

  Mr. Curry
  I obtain quarterly returns from local enforcement authorities of the inspections and other actions that they have undertaken in connection with their responsibilities under the Food Safety Act. My officials examine those returns to see whether the requirements set out in the codes of practice issued under section 40 of the Act are being met.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the most recent research available to him on the possibility of vertical transmission of BSE.

  Country/Region

  January (4 January to 31 January)

  February (1 February to 28 February)

  March (29 February to 27 March)

  April (28 March to 1 May)

  May (2 May to 29 May)

  England

  Avon

  49

  37

  55

  63

  46

  Bedfordshire

  6

  3

  2

  13

  8

  Berkshire

  16

  13

  5

  20

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  24

  18

  28

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  14

  4

  8

  10

  Cheshire

  82

  76

  48

  101

  176

  Cleveland

  5

  1

  4

  3

  4

  Cornwall

  167

  190

  172

  212

  258

  Cumbria

  91

  84

  53

  103

  103

  Derbyshire

  71

  67

  60

  60

  109

  Devon

  177

  277

  227

  267

  343

  Dorset

  176

  180

  174

  198

  164

  Durham

  9

  10

  12

  4

  19

  Essex

  6

  8

  14

  24

  6

  Gloucestershire

  52

  38

  42

  56

  49

  Hampshire

  57

  60

  31

  78

  42

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  31

  26

  40

  57

  56

  Hertfordshire

  5

  4

  4

  9

  5

  Humberside

  7

  10

  12

  3

  15

  Isle of Wight

  13

  8

  8

  16

  11

  Kent

  45

  33

  15

  37

  38

  Lancashire

  70

  89

  68

  120

  103

  Leicestershire

  64

  45

  43

  35

  58

  Lincolnshire

  13

  15

  13

  22

  11

  London

  2

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Manchester

  3

  6

  3

  4

  0

  Merseyside

  3

  3

  4

  5

  2

  Norfolk

  73

  64

  21

  81

  75

  Northamptonshire

  28

  26

  10

  30

  24

  Northumberland

  7

  11

  11

  21

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  21

  7

  10

  24

  Oxfordshire

  55

  52

  24

  45

  42

  Shropshire

  48

  40

  70

  65

  81

  Somerset

  232

  250

  213

  251

  209

  Staffordshire1

  37

  64

  58

  100

  95

  Suffolk

  32

  32

  11

  34

  27

  Surrey

  19

  27

  14

  29

  22

  Sussex East

  37

  35

  18

  43

  24

  Sussex West

  66

  57

  36

  74

  52

  Tyne and Wear

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  19

  20

  18

  23

  30

  West Midlands

  1

  0

  4

  0

  3

  Wiltshire

  117

  111

  121

  142

  104

  Yorkshire North

  95

  97

  103

  96

  152

  Yorkshire South

  4

  6

  11

  10

  6

  Yorkshire West

  12

  10

  18

  11

  24

  Wales:

  Clwyd

  28

  34

  26

  68

  52

  Dyfed

  140

  148

  126

  151

  199

  290
  Mr. Gummer
  A formal study comparing the incidence of BSE in over 300 offspring of confirmed BSE cases with an equal number of controls has not yet produced any results. All the evidence continues to suggest that feed is the mechanism of infection.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 11 May,Official Report, columns 29–30, if he will list the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county, in each month from January to May.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of cases confirmed for England, Wales and Scotland for the periods requested is as follows. Many of these cases will have a date of clinical onset of disease and date of report before 4 January (18 January for Northern Ireland).
  291

  Country/Region

  January (4 January to 31 January)

  February (1 February to 28 February)

  March (29 February to 27 March)

  April (28 March to 1 May)

  May (2 May to 29 May)

  Glamorgan Mid

  7

  2>

  1

  5

  2

  Glamorgan South

  10

  7

  11

  9

  11

  Glamorgan West

  2

  0

  1

  2

  2

  Gwent

  15

  16

  21

  27

  21

  Gwynedd

  7

  6

  7

  14

  14

  Powys

  27

  20

  23

  34

  59

  Scotland:

  Borders

  11

  8

  5

  6

  10

  Central

  4

  4

  1

  1

  1

  Dumfries

  67

  40

  36

  26

  22

  Fife

  3

  4

  6

  4

  5

  Grampian

  15

  14

  14

  26

  14

  Highland

  4

  2

  6

  5

  4

  Lothian

  6

  0

  2

  4

  7

  Orkney

  0

  3

  0

  2

  2

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Strathclyde

  41

  34

  21

  22

  25

  Tayside

  3

  11

  4

  7

  6

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (18–31 January) Northern Ireland:

  Antrim

  1

  11

  9

  12

  8

  Armagh

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  Down

  1

  6

  3

  5

  1

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  3

  2

  2

  Londonderry

  1

  4

  4

  3

  3

  Tyrone

  2

  4

  6

  4

  3

  1 The total number of cases in Staffordshire given in the earlier reply for the period 3 January to 1 May 1992 should have read 259 not 482.

  Beef Premiums
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, column 684, by what date he expects to announce the transitional arrangements for payment of beef premiums.

  Mr. Curry
  I will announce the transitional arrangements for the new beef special premium scheme when they have been agreed by the European Commission.

HEALTH

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the inquiry into the events surrounding the illegal obtaining and export of RU486 from this country to the United States of America about which the hon. Member for Congleton wrote to her; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The alleged RU486 tablets illegally imported into the USA and purporting to come from the United Kingdom are not the strength licensed for use in the United Kingdom. Nor are they the tablets used for clinical trials in the United Kingdom. It is unlikely these tablets originated from the United Kingdom but investigations are continuing in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all of the reports her Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the 292
  past three years; for each of the past three years, how many reports from external consultants to her Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department let 229 contracts for external management consultancies in 1990–91, 174 in 1991–92 and 82 so far in the current year. We do not keep a record centrally of which consultancies resulted in reports and which led to further consultancy work being commissioned. The Department's purchasing and supply manual, which has been issued to all who commission consultants, stated that goods and services should be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Details of the consultancy contracts have been placed in the Library.

  Patients' Records (Carers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration is being given to encouraging general practitioners to ensure that patients' records indicate whether a patient is also a carer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Every general practitioner needs to use professional judgement to decide what his or her patient's medical records need to contain to help with diagnosis, treatment and health care. We have no plans to intervene in these professional decisions.

  AIDS/HIV
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total sums spent on publicity and information to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV in the
  293
  national health service every year since 1984 and the percentage of the total budget for health promotion that these figures represent.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between 1985–86 and 1992–93 the Government have allocated over £73 million to the development of the national AIDS public education campaign.

  The table shows the Department of Health and Health Education Authority spend for the development of the national HIV and AIDS public education work including the running costs of the national AIDS helpline and related telephone information services. Not shown in the table are the sums spent by other Government Departments on HIV prevention work within their own spheres of interest.

  HIV/AIDS public education

  Year

  Department of Health £ million

  Health Education Authority £ million

  1984–85

  Nil

  —

  1985–86

  0·52

  —

  1986–87

  7·60

  —

  1987–88

  6·74

  4·47

  1988–89

  —

  10·00

  1989–90

  —

  12·00

  1990–91

  —

  10·00

  1991–92

  —

  11·00

  1992–93

  —

  11·225

  Since 1989–90 contributions have also been made towards the costs incurred by regional and district health authorities in the development of local HIV prevention initiatives. Regional AIDS (Control) Act reports since 1989–90 record expenditure on local HIV prevention initiatives as follows:

  1989–90—£13·4 million

  1990–91—£23·4 million

  1991–92—£27·95 million

  Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available though they are expected to reflect a steady increase in the development of district based HIV prevention work.

  Figures recording the total spend on all aspects of health promotion are not collected centrally. However, the Government continue to spend more on HIV and AIDS education than on any other single health promotion programme.

  Private Hospital Beds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure by each London health authority per year on private hospital beds since 1983.

  Mr. Sackville
  The annual accounts of health authorities do not separately identify expenditure incurred specifically with private hospitals and the information is not otherwise collected centrally.

  Ambulance Response Time
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the list of ambulance response times over the past six months; and on what occasions they have breached Orcon standards.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is collected on a financial year basis. The latest figures, covering the 294
  year 1991–92, are currently being assembled for publication. I will arrange for a copy of the summary tables to be sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Library as soon as these are available.

  Air Ambulance Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 71, who is evaluating the air ambulance services; what account is being taken of local fund raising in the terms of reference; and when she expects the evaluation to be completed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The long-term evaluation of the costs, performance and benefits of air ambulances is being undertaken by Professor Williams of the university of Sheffield medical school. An interim report is expected towards the end of this year, with the final report following in early 1994. The source of funding for air ambulance services does not form part of the study.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health services authorities have now given direct employment to dentists, and how many individual dentists are involved.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are currently 66 salaried dentists employed in 14 family health services authorities.

  Community Care
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Health, what steps she is taking to strengthen the process of consultation on community care plans and to ensure that the independent sector providers of community care services are fully consulted.

  Mr. Yeo
  Independent sector providers, voluntary sector organisations and users and carers have a great deal of knowledge and experience to contribute to the development of community care. Authorities must form strong partnerships with all three if they are to develop services which are best suited to meeting people's needs and which provide a real choice. Community care planning is an important part of that process.

  We have today issued for consultation with local authorities and other interested parties a draft statutory direction under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and accompanying guidance. Copies are available in the Library. Local authorities are already required to consult a wide range of people including voluntary sector organisations representing the interests of users and carers as well as statutory bodies in preparing their community care plans. The proposed direction extends that requirement to include representatives of independent sector providers. It will also require authorities to include in their plans a statement on how they intend to conduct the process of consultation in the next round.

  The direction and guidance are intended to ensure that the consultation process allows all concerned to make their views known as effectively as possible and in a way which is helpful both to the authority and those being consulted. They will also ensure that independent sector providers are properly involved in community care planning. There are

  295
  obvious problems for authorities in seeking to consult many separate individual providers. To have an effective voice independent sector providers must make their views known collectively through representatives rather than individually. The direction encourages them to do this.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of regional authorities who were appointed between I January 1980 and 31 December 1991 were employees or directors engaged in the supply of, or consultancy related to, information technology; and if she will list them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will reply to the letters she has received, dated 7 May and 12 August, from Mr. F. Wilcox, consultant gynaecologist, regarding the purchase of computer systems in the national health service; and if she will place a copy of her reply in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no record of receiving the letters to which the hon. Member refers. If he will furnish me with copies, I shall arrange for a full reply.

  Free Treatment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will outline the criteria for who is eligible for free treatment under the national health service;

  (2) if she will estimate how much money is lost each year through treating patients who are not eligible for free national health service treatment;

  (3) if she will make a statement on the safeguards to minimise the number of people using the national health service who are not eligible for free national health service treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Eligibility for free national health service hospital treatment is based on United Kingdom residence. Patients who are not ordinarily resident are liable for payment unless exempted, for example, by reciprocal arrangements. In 1990–91 non payment of £765,000 (England) was written-off. Comprehensive guidance on entitlement to free national health service treatment makes it clear that where there is doubt, subject to immediate clinical need, evidence to support eligibility or a full deposit should be sought.

  Alcohol and Drug Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate she has made of the implications of the decision not to ring fence specific funding for residential alcohol and drug services within the community care funding available from next April;

  (2) what advice she proposes to give to local authorities concerning the priority to be given to the funding of residential alcohol and drug services within the ring fenced community care funding available from next April.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend announced on 2 October that we are proposing to make available to local authorities next year a special transitional grant for their new responsibilities for community care. This will give them the freedom to determine the appropriate level of 296
  funding for all services, including residential care for alcohol and drugs misusers. Guidance to local authorities reminding them of the need to give proper weight to the provision of alcohol and drug services is being prepared and will be issued shortly.

  NHS Management Guidance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to the NHS by the NHS management executive on 9 September regarding the standards of management and conduct.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The letter issued on 9 September advised the national health service that revised guidelines on standards of business conduct for national health service staff would follow. This guidance will be issued shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of adults in the city of Southampton identified in the census return for 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of people aged 18 or over recorded by the census on 21 April 1991 as usually resident in Southampton was 152,921. The number of residents meeting the definition of adult used in census statistics (people aged 16 or over who are not dependent children) was 151,947.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to visit Bart's hospital as part of her follow-up to the Tomlinson report; and what proposals she has to give Bart's hospital time and facilities to prepare their case before making her visit.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that at least two ministerial visits are made to the Smithfield site of St. Bartholomew's hospital during the period of consultation on the Tomlinson report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall be visiting St. Bartholomew's hospital shortly including the Homerton Hospital and St. Mark's hospital, which form part of the Bart's acute unit. There will be ample opportunity for St. Bartholomew's and other hospitals to make known their views on Sir Bernard Tomlinson's recommendations before we bring forward detailed proposals.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the 10 minutes isochrone for Bart's hospital was calculated by Professor Tomlinson; who calculated it; and at what time of the day it was calculated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that this analysis was undertaken by Sir Bernard Tomlinson by a firm of consultants, Centre for Analysis and Modelling Ltd., that it was based upon standard computerised geographical and transport data, and that it assumed road transport at Monday to Friday daytime off-peak road speeds. I have asked Sir Bernard to write directly to the hon. Member giving a more detailed explanation of the methodology, and shall ensure that a copy of his letter is placed in the Library.
  297
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the dates so far arranged for ministerial visits to hospitals proposed for closure or merger in the Tomlinson report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall ensure that hon. Members are informed in the normal way prior to any ministerial visits to hospitals in their constituencies.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recent case in Nottingham where a child sex offender was unable to continue treatment at Gracewell clinic because of lack of funds; and what proposals he has to fund such treatment in future.

  Mr. Yeo
  The funding of such services is a matter of local determination and I understand that local arrangements have been made to fund the person concerned at the Gracewell clinic.

EMPLOYMENT

  Work Noise
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the visits to Wales by the Health and Safety Executive's roadshow on noise at work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive's roadshow on noise at work has yet to visit Wales. However, a number of visits are scheduled for November. The roadshow will be in the city centre, Cardiff from 2 to 7 November; in St. John's Street, Newport from 9 to 11 November; and in St. John's Forest square, Ebbw Vale from 12 to 14 November. It will also visit Wrexham in March 1993.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether trainees on European social fund training courses are treated as employees for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; what statutory health and safety obligations ESF providers have with respect to their trainees; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  For the purposes of health and safety legislation, trainees—including those on courses funded by the European social fund—are treated as employees if they engage in relevant training, as defined by the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1990. Relevant training is defined as work experience provided as part of a training course or programme, or training for employment, or both.

  Where instruction is provided to trainees in an educational establishment or technical institute, employers have responsibilities towards this group as laid down under sections 3 and 4 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974.

  These arrangements apply irrespective of whether the course in question is in receipt of support from the European social fund.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether trainees on European social fund 298
  training courses are covered by her Department's analogous industrial injuries compensation scheme; what statutory benefits a trainee who suffered an industrial injury whilst participating in an ESF course may claim; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unemployed people on Government-sponsored training courses such as youth training and employment training are covered by the analogous industrial injuries scheme.

  Trainees on other courses are covered by statutory arrangements. Their entitlement to statutory industrial injury benefit depends upon their status and in particular on whether the trainees are classed as "employed earners".

  These arrangements apply irrespective of whether the course in question is in receipt of support from the European social fund.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has made of the likely increased demand for training programmes over the next six months; and if she will make a statement on the proposals for meeting this demand.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The provision of training programmes and demand for them are kept under constant review. Potential colliery closures may lead to increased demand. Up to £75 million will be made available to the areas affected. The training and enterprise councils concerned have been asked to co-ordinate action plans for new measures to alleviate the effects of the closures.

  A statement about overall resources for training from April 1993 will be made when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces this year's public expenditure settlement.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to extend the use of training credits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on the Floor of the House on 3 November 1992,Official Report, columns 130–31.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the lowest legal rates of pay for adults in wages councils covering more than 10,000 people and what are the lowest agreed rates of pay in(a) the civil service, (b) in local government service, (c) in nationalised industries and (d) in military service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The lowest legal rates of pay in wages councils covering more than 10,000 people are shown in the table:

  £ per hour

  Clothing manufacture

  2·6375

  General waste materials reclamation

  2·60

  Hairdressing undertakings

  2·78

  Laundry

  2·91

  Licensed non-residential

  2·91

  Licenced residential and licensed restaurant

  2·92

  Retail food and allied trades

  3·08

  Retail trades non-food

  3·06

  Toy manufacturing

  2·63

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  2·92

  299
  An administrative assistant in the civil service on adult rates is paid £6,483 a year. In the military service, a private committed to less than six years service is paid £7,774·50 a year.

  The lowest agreed rates of pay in local government and nationalised industries is not readily available. There is no agreement covering all local authorities and each nationalised industry negotiates its own agreements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 825, if she will list the studies or other evidence that illustrate or quantify the link asserted between pay and jobs at statutory minimum rates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Among the studies considered are the following:

  (i) United Kingdom studies on the link between pay and jobs at national level.

  —Her Majesty's Treasury, (1985). "The relationship between employment and wages". London: HMSO. [This is the most comprehensive survey of the evidence on the link between pay and jobs at national level].

  —Wells, W. (1983)."The relative pay and employment of young people", Department of Employment research paper No. 42.

  (ii) United Kingdom studies on the employment effects of proposals for a national minimum wage.

  —Bazen, S. (1990). "On the employment effects of introducing a National Minimum Wage in the UK", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1990.

  —Dennison, S. R. and Forrest, D. (1984). "Low pay or no pay; a review of the theory and practice of minimum wage laws" Institute of Economic Affairs, Hobart paper No. 101.

  —Gregg, P. (1992). "National minimum wage", in the National Institute Economic Review, February 1992.

  —Minford, P. (1989). "The effects in the UK of EEC wage proposals in the social charter", in the Liverpool Quarterly Economic Bulletin, December 1989.

  —UBS Phillips and Drew (1991). Economic Briefing, June 1991.

  (iii) Studies of the employment effects of the wages boards and councils.

  —Canning, D. and Tarling, R. (1985). "A report on the Department of Employment's study 'Wages floors in the clothing industry 1950–1981", Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge, 1985.

  —Craig, C. and Wilkinson, F. (1986). "Pay and employment in four retail trades", Department of Employment research paper No. 51.

  —Kaufman, R. (1989): "The effects on statutory minimum rates of pay on employment in Great Britain", Economic Journal, December 1989.

  —Lund, P., Morris, T., Temple, J. and Watson, J. (1982). "Wages and employment in agriculture 1960–1980", GES working paper No. 52.

  —Machin, S. and Manning, A. (1992). "Minimum wages, wage dispersion and employment: evidence from the UK wages councils", LSE working paper No. 221.

  —Morgan, P., Paterson, D. and Barrie. R. (1986). "Wage floors in the clothing industry 1950–81", Department of Employment research paper No. 52.

  —Neuburger, H. (1984). "From the dole queue to the sweatshop", London: Low Pay Unit.

  (iv) Studies on the employment effects of the United States minimum wage.

  —Brown, C., Gilroy, C., Kohen, A. (1982). "The effect of the minimum wage on employment and unemployment." Journal of Economic Literature, vol.XX. [This contains a survey of the US evidence]

  300

  —Card, D. (1991). "Do minimum wages reduce employment? A case study of California, 1987–89." NBER working paper No. 3710.

  —Castillo Freeman, A and Freeman, R.B. (1991). "Minimum Wages in Puerto Rico." NBER working paper No. 3759.

  —Katz, L, and Krueger, A. (1991). "The effect of the new minimum wage law in a low wage labour market." Princeton university working paper No. 280.

  —Neumark, D, and Wascher, W. (1991). "Evidence on employment effects of minimum wages and subminimum wage provisions from panel data on state minimum wage laws". NBER working paper No. 3859.

  Report of the Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981), Vol. 1. [This report contains an assessment of the employment effects of the federal minimum based on a large number of studies]

  —Walsh, K. (1991). "A comparative review of minimum wage systems" in "Minimum Wage-An analysis of the Issues". Institute for Personnel Management.

  (v) References to International evidence of the employment effects of minimum wage legislation in work conducted by the ILO and the OECD.

  —ILO (1992). "Minimum wages, wage fixing machinery, application and supervision", International Labour Office.

  —OECD (1991), "1990–91 OECD Economic Surveys, France".

  —OECD (1989), "1988–89 Economic Surveys, Netherlands".

  ·OECD (1990), "Labour market policies for the 1990s".

  —Starr, G. (1981). "Minimum wage fixing", International Labour Office.

  (vi) Other articles and correspondence concerning the debate about the employment effects of the wages councils. For example, a recent Fabian Society pamphlet by Fred Bayliss; and various publications by the Low Pay Unit.

  Toxic Substances
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will bring forward proposals to ensure in relation to industrial major accident hazard sites situated within 25 km of international airports(a) that all vessels containing scheduled toxic substances stored under pressure are constructed so as to prevent rupture in the event of direct impact by a large aircraft and (b) that off-site emergency plans fully address the consequences of catastrophic failure of pressure vessels consequent on direct impact by large aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to introduce requirements for such pressure vessels to withstand this kind of impact. Installations which are assessed by the Health and Safety Executive as representing a potential major hazard are constructed and operated within a strict legislative regime.The probability of such impacts is assessed as being very small.

  Local authorities with installations governed by the Control of Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH) Regulations 1984 within their boundaries are required to prepare detailed emergency off-site plans which would take account of the catastrophic failure of pressure vessels.

  Departmental Staff (Wages)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the minimum equivalent rate of hourly pay for her Department's staff aged 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 years; and the numbers employed at each age.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The table shows minimum basic hourly rates of pay for industrial and non-industrial staff in the Employment Department group:

  Non-industrial National Rate

  Non-industrial London Rate

  Industrial National Rate

  Age 16

  2·39

  2·63

  2·00

  Age 17

  2·56

  2·82

  2·66

  Age 18

  3·14

  3·45

  3·33

  Age 19

  3·36

  3·69

  3·55

  Age 20

  3·36

  3·69

  3·89

  Age 21

  3·36

  3·69

  4·00

  The number of ED group staff in post at 1 October 1992, at ages 21 and below, is in the table.

  Age

  All staff

  Permanent staff only

  16

  10

  2

  17

  114

  54

  18

  389

  230

  19

  1,078

  732

  20

  1,481

  1,091

  21

  1,560

  1,222

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the amounts being given to each training and enterprise council as part of the recently announced pit closure programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  An additional sum of up to £75 million will be made available in areas affected by potential colliery closures depending on the scale of the job losses in prospect. The TECs concerned have been asked to coordinate action plans for new measures to alleviate the effects of closures. The actual amount available to each TEC will depend on the action plan that is finally agreed.

  Work Sites (Tap Water)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions are laid down regarding requirements of access to tap water at work sites under health and safety regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no requirements for tap water as such in health and safety legislation. The Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 require drinking water and running water for washing to be provided at conveniently accessible places in premises subject to those Acts. Separate legislation covering construction work, mines and quarries, agriculture, and work with asbestos, lead and ionising radiations contains similar provisions.

  Vehicle Building
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment is she will make a statement on the number of jobs lost in the vehicle building industry in the current year.
  302
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between August 1991 and August 1992, the number of employees in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts in Great Britain fell by 1,000.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the change in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry, by standard planning region, in the past 13 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is shown in the table.

  Employees in employment in manufacturing1 Change June 1979 to June 1992

  Region

  Thousands

  South East (including Greater London)

  –756

  East Anglia

  –41

  South West

  –117

  West Midlands

  –416

  East Midlands

  –161

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  –248

  North West

  –399

  North

  –156

  England

  –2,285

  Wales

  –95

  Scotland

  –236

  Northern Ireland

  –48

  United Kingdom

  –2,664

  1 Not seasonally adjusted.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have sought and been granted dispensation from the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd,dated 4 November 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question, about Training and Enterprise Councils and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. The day to day administration of the procedures which flow from the 1944 Act is something which falls within the responsibility delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  You asked how many training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) have been granted dispensations from the Act. I regret that data is not collected centrally on the extent to which permits are issued, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to particular kinds of employer.

  As you may know, the 1944 Act established the Quota Scheme for the employment of registered disabled people, under which employers who have twenty or more workers have a duty to employ a quota of registered disabled people. The standard quota is currently 3 per cent. of an employer's total workforce. Employers not meeting the quota have a further duty under the Act, to engage suitable registered disabled people, if any are available, to fill vacancies which arise. A below quota employer must not engage anyone other than a registered disabled person without first obtaining a

  303
  permit to do so, and must not discharge a registered disabled worker without reasonable cause. The issue of a permit does not grant the employer exemption from their duties and obligations under the Act.

  My placing Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTs) do monitor the extent to which employers in their areas are complying with the requirements, including keeping details of permits issued by my Disability Employment Advisers to below quota employers. Each year PACTs provide a statistical return on quota compliance in their areas. These, in turn, are used by my Head Office to produce national data. However this geographical information does not enable data to be extracted centrally in respect of particular sectors or types of employer. Therefore, I am not able to provide the information you have asked for in relation to TECs.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has in regard to the number and source of comments submitted to the Health and Safety Commission in response to the HSC draft on proposed United Kingdom regulations developed pursuant to EC directive 89/618/EEC on public information and radiation emergencies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive is in the process of producing a publication entitled "A Guide to the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations". The draft guidance was sent out to approximately 180 organisations and individuals inviting comments. There were some 36 replies received of which 13 said that they had no comments to offer. The majority of replies came from nuclear operators, local authorities or their associations, organisations representing emergency service personnel and Government Departments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to complete his review of the assisted areas map.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to alter the assisted area boundaries.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to complete his review of the map of assisted areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The consultation paper on the assisted areas review stated that the Government's aim was to implement a revised map early in 1993, following the necessary clearance with the European Commission. This remains our intention.

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the effect upon the current review of assisted area status of his announcement that certain coal mining areas will receive assisted area status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government have made a specific commitment that Barnsley, Doncaster and Mansfield will 304
  be given enhanced status. This will not affect the careful consideration that will be given to other areas in the light of the extensive process of consultation.

  National Energy Strategy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to respond to the call for a national energy strategy in the Energy Committee's fifth report of Session 1990–91 on clean coal technology and the coal market after 1993, HC 208.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend announced on 26 October the scope of the review which we will be conducting of the proposed closure of 21 pits, within the context of the Government's energy policy.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects all of the directives relative to the European Single Act to be completed.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of 257 out of the 282 measures in the Commission's White Paper "Completing the Internal Market" have been agreed. The Single European Act will continue in force as a basis for legislation.

  Investment
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the percentage of investment by Japanese companies in the European Community which has been made in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information published by the Japanese Ministry of Finance, indicates that the United Kingdom has almost 41 per cent. of the stock of Japanese foreign direct investment in the European Community.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with international companies on the subject of inward investment into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Officials of my Department, and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are in constant contact with a large number of companies in all the major investing countries.

  Firework Safety
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current year's firework safety campaign.

  Mr. Leigh
  This year's firework safety campaign was launched on 15 October. The aim of the campaign is to make sure that all those handling fireworks, whether as retailers or as users, are aware of their legal obligations and of the precautions that they should take to make sure of an accident-free Guy Fawkes night.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect that a European standard for fireworks will have on British safety standards.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is not certain at this stage what effect a European standard for fireworks will have on British
  305
  safety standards. Negotiations will continue for some considerable time as our aim is to ensure that any European standard for fireworks is consistent with standards of safety in the United Kingdom.

  Coal
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent inquiries he has received from the private sector about buying coal waste.

  Mr. Heseltine
  None. This is a matter for the owners of coal waste, including British Coal.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his statement of 19 October, if he will set out a disaggregated breakdown of the £18 billion investment he stated has been made in the British coal industry since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  Financial assistance made available to the coal industry from 1979–80 to 1991–92 inclusive was as follows:

  £ million

  Deficit grant

  4,748

  Deficiency grant

  6,153

  Operating grant

  95

  Social and restructuring grants

  4,414

  Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme

  2,477

  Total

  17,887

  The Government have approved capital expenditure by British Coal of nearly £8 billion over this period.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of coal were sold by British Coal to customers other than the Central Electricity Generating Board, National Power and PowerGen in each of the last five years, giving a separate figure for exports in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Figures for sales to the United Kingdom market, excluding power stations and exports are as follows:

  million tonnes

  United Kingdom Consumption, excluding Power Stations

  Exports

  1987–88

  29·3

  2·2

  1988–89

  28·3

  1·8

  1989–90

  26·7

  2·6

  1990–91

  26·8

  2·1

  1991–92

  24·5

  1·4

  Requirements for coal in United Kingdom sectors other than electricity generation have been declining steadily for many years and have fallen by 16 per cent. in the past five years alone.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnages of coal were imported by(a) the electricity authorities and (b) private generators in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of coal imported by the major electricity generators in the United Kingdom in 1991 was 7,260,000 tonnes. Figures for coal imports by small, private, industrial generators are not available.
  306
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amounts of coal, and from which countries, have been imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 30 October 1992, Official Report, column 956.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current prices of coal, gas and nuclear-generated electricity; and what are the projected costs of these fuels over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department will be assessing the relative costs of coal-fired and other sources of generation as part of the Government's coal review.

  As far as electricity purchased by the regional electricity companies is concerned, it is for the Director General of Electricity Supply to ensure that the companies comply with their economic purchasing obligations.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the financial viability of Trentham colliery and the other nine pits marked for closure.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations of that kind. Such representations are, however, best made to British Coal since it is currently engaged in the statutory consultation process relating to the 10 pits.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the considerations which led to the Point of Ayr colliery being added to the original closure list of 31 pits at a late stage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and I accepted British Coal's advice that, in order to meet its estimate of its potential market economically, it needed to reduce its present levels of production urgently and substantially. We also accepted British Coal's advice as to the particular pits that should be closed.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest position over pit closures.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subject to the outcome of the statutory consultation process, British Coal is proceeding with the closure of the 10 pits which it told my right hon. Friend are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future.

  The other 21 pits originally proposed for closure by British Coal remain the subject of a moratorium until early in the New Year, during which time we shall be carrying out a full and wide-ranging review of its prospects.

  Civilian Aircraft
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what incentives he is providing to the British civilian aircraft industry.
  307
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since 1979, the Department of Trade and Industry has provided over £.1·5 billion in support to the United Kingdom aerospace industry.

  Business Failures
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the number of business failures in 1992 to date.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of company and individual insolvencies in England and Wales in the first six months of 1992 totalled 29,204—on a seasonally adjusted basis. This represents a 12 per cent. increase over the previous six months. These figures should be considered in the context of some 3 million United Kingdom businesses in total and the large number of business start-ups and closures each year.

  Petrochemical Industry
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to assist the petrochemical industry through the present recession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are committed to helping British industry to succeed in world markets. They are doing this by creating a climate within which industry can thrive and by ensuring that the policies of both DTI and the rest of Government take the needs of business into account. Our chemicals and biotechnology division, which was set up in July, is in close touch with the petrochemical industry.

  Swan Hunter
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will agree to intervention funding from the European Commission being made available to Swan Hunter Shipbuilders to enable it to diversify into the merchant shipbuilding sector.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our agreement with the Commission prevents us from providing a subsidy to those companies which were privatised as warship builders.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the programme for Parcelforce privatisation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am discussing with consultants' their advice on the best method and timing for the sale of Parcelforce. I look forward to seeing Parcelforce in the private sector at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to announce new proposals to improve manufacturing output; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  We will continue to announce new proposals as and when we reach appropriate decisions.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to support the supply side of the economy with particular regard to manufacturing and the drive for exports.
  308
  Mr. Needham
  The Government are committed to strengthening the supply side of the economy by the control of inflation, by tax rates that provide real incentives, by reducing the burden of Government, by providing high-class advisory services, and by keeping markets, both at home and abroad, fair and competitive.

  Private Industry (Secondees)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many secondees to his Department from private industry have been appointed; how many applied; and when he expects to have 100 secondees in place.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 37 inward secondees from the private sector currently working in the DTI. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced his intention to increase substantially that number by recruiting additional secondees to help in the Department's new industry sector divisions and a further 100 secondees to assist with the promotion of United Kingdom exports.

  My right hon. Friend is inviting companies to identify suitable people for these secondments and his aim is to have them in place quickly.

  Electricity
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the electricity prices charged to heavy industry bulk users of electric power.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is in dialogue with large electricity users concerning electricity prices.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of electricity consumption was produced by sources other than(a) gas, (b) coal, (c) oil and (d) nuclear power, in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The proportion of electricity consumption in the United Kingdom that was produced by sources other than gas, coal, oil and nuclear power was about 2 per cent. in each of the last three years. This figure includes generation by hydro-electric power, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study has been made of the relationship between fuel prices and the price of electricity supplied to British industry; and if he will publish a table, for each of the past 10 years, of the average price charged by the United Kingdom and the German electricity supply industries to major users.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the Director General of Electricity Supply to ensure the proper functioning of the market for electricity. In addition, my Department is in dialogue with large electricity users concerning electricity prices.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Industrial electricity prices

  pence per kwh excluding VAT

  Year

  United Kingdom

  Germany

  1982

  3·44

  2·96

  1983

  3·46

  3·37

  1984

  3·46

  3·53

  309

  Year

  United Kingdom

  Germany

  1985

  3·58

  3·67

  1986

  3·63

  4·49

  1987

  3·52

  5·00

  1988

  3·70

  4·70

  1989

  3·73

  4·82

  1990

  3·83

  5·10

  1991

  4·05

  4·99

  Source: International Energy Agency: "Energy Prices and Taxes".

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of uranium and plutonium would be produced by reprocessing spent fuel from United Kingdom nuclear power stations under existing contracts with the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under its existing contracts for operating the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield up to the year 2002, British Nuclear Fuels plc estimates that some 2,000 tonnes of uranium and some 8,000 tonnes of plutonium will arise from the reprocessing of spent fuel from nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.

  Correspondence
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines are issued to his Department for the processing of correspondence from hon. Members; and what is the average delay between receipt of correspondence from, and the date of response to, an hon. Member.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department of Trade and Industry has an explicit performance target for all ministerial correspondence as set out by the citizens charter unit. When DTI Ministers themselves reply to letters from Members of Parliament or members of the public, they aim to do so within ten working days of receipt of the incoming letter. This target was met, in the year ending 31 December 1991, in 91·5 per cent. of cases.

  Maxwell Communications Corporation plc
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the Mirror Group Newspapers prospectus; what is the expected date for publication of the report; and what consideration the inspectors are giving to statements made by the directors in the prospectus about the Maxwell Communications Corporation plc works pension scheme.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors have commenced interviewing witnesses, but it is too early to give a realistic estimate as to when they will complete their investigation. I am sure that they will consider all aspects of the company's affairs relevant to their task. It is the policy to publish reports on the affairs of public companies, but a decision cannot be made until the report is received and its contents have been studied.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the interests in and ownership of shares in Maxwell Communications Corporation plc and the 310
  expected date for publication of the report; and whether the report will include sections concerning breach of trust where shares were acquired by or funded by pension funds without proper authority.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department is not carrying out any inquiry into Maxwell Communication Corporation plc.

  Gas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate, on the basis of available known reserves of gas on the United Kingdom continental shelf, how long United Kingdom gas reserves would last if all the proposed gas-generated electricity stations were to come into operation using domestic reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  For details of the Department's most recent estimate of UKCS gas reserves I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 28 October 1992,Official Report, columns 680–81.

  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told the House on 21 October, he will be producing for the House the conclusions we draw from our estimates of reserves, and will report on the scale of gas-generated power stations in production, in build and in the planning process.

  Insurance Exhibition
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Association of British Insurers to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I understand that, under the procedures agreed with the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 9 to 13 November.

  Guinness (Report)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the inspectors' report relating to Guinness.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors have submitted an interim report. This has not been published because of the possibility of prejudice to the criminal proceedings. The inspectors will submit their final report following the conclusion of these proceedings. Consideration of publication of that report must await its receipt.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost of preparing the inspectors' report relating to Guinness; and when payout was made.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The investigation into the affairs and membership of Guinness plc has cost £1,793,000 to date. Payments have been made to the inspectors against invoices issued from time to time.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the accountancy firms which have been criticised in his Department's inspectors' reports since 1990.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since 1990, six inspectors' reports have been published containing criticism of accountancy firms:

  Name of Company

  Date of Publication of Report

  Name of Accountancy Firm

  Minet Holdings plc and WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.

  29 August 1990

  Black Geognegan and Till

  Jocelyne Layton-Bennett &Co.

  Arthur Young McClelland Moores & Co.

  Alexander Howden Holdings plc

  29 August 1990

  Jocelyne Layton-Bennet & Code Paula Turner Lake & Co

  Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co

  Bermuda

  Arthur Young McClelland Moores & Co

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  20 March 1991

  Levy Gee Spicer & Pegler Gibraltar

  Sound Diffusion plc

  1 May 1991

  Arthur Young McClelland Moores & Co

  Rotaprint plc

  24 July 1991

  Arthur Young Ernst & Whinney

  The Milford Docks Company

  16 January 1992

  Coopers & Lybrand

  British Coal (Privatisation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the accountancy firms which are advising him on privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Touche Ross was appointed as accountancy adviser on the privatisation of British Coal on 12 June 1991.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce departmental investigations of a sample of company accounts whenever the auditors issue a major qualification.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department's investigatory powers can only be exercised when there is good reason to do so, primarily when there are grounds to suggest fraud, misfeasance, or serious misconduct; or where shareholders have been denied reasonable information.

  Companies Acts Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names and the business connections of the individuals who are currently acting as inspectors under the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:312

  D. Donaldson QC

  I. Watt FCA of KPMG Peat Marwick, Chartered Accountants

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  P. Foss FCA of Moores Rowland, Chartered Accountants

  L. Ziman of Nabarro Nathanson, Solicitors

  W. Hoffman FCA of Baker Tilly, Chartered Accountants

  P. Heslop QC

  R. Lewis FCA of Kidsons Impey, Chartered Accountants

  E. W. Hamilton QC

  J. A. Scott FCA of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered Accountants

  C. P. F. Rimer QC

  J. White FCA of KPMG Peat Marwick, Chartered Accountants

  W. M. Gage QC

  A. H. Gilroy FCA of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered Accountants

  R. G. B. McCombe QC

  J. K. Heywood LLB FCA of Price Waterhouse, Chartered Accountants

  A. H. S. Robertshaw of DTI

  C. K. B. Mayhew of DTI

  M. Crystal QC

  V. B. A. Temple, Barrister

  D. L. Spence of Grant Thorton, Chartered Accountants

  R. J. L. Thomas QC

  R. T. Turner FCA of Neville Russell, Chartered Accountants

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much finance he has provided to the Financial Reporting Council for each of the years since its inception.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The amounts of grant in aid paid to the Financial Reporting Council have been:

  £

  1990–91

  886,317

  1991–92

  907,793

  11992–93

  254,000

  1 To date.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to appoint inspectors to investigate the role of auditors in the collapse of the BCCI.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The accountancy profession's joint disciplinary scheme announced in April that it had appointed a committee of inquiry at the request of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to look into the conduct and competence of members and member firms in relation to the collapse of BCCI. The committee is chaired by Sir John Bailey KCB. I have no plans to appoint inspectors.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost of the liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International in terms of(a) liquidators' fees and (b) legal fees.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: My Department does not have this information; this is a matter for the liquidators.
  313
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many loans have been written off by the liquidators of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: My Department does not have this information; this is a matter for the liquidators.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many captive insurance companies have been created under the supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry during 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department authorised one captive insurance company in 1990 and none in 1989 and 1991.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of United Nations sanctions against Libya on British trade.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom exports to Libya were just under £90 million from April—when limited sanctions came into force—to August 1992. It is impossible to say what additional trade might have occurred if United Nations sanctions had not been in force during that period.

  Toyota
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with Toyota Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd., to discuss further investment programmes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Toyota Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd. has already committed £840 million to its current investment programme in the United Kingdom. There are no current discussions with the company regarding further investment.

  Municipal Mutual Insurance Company
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the affairs of the Municipal Mutual Insurance company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have been made aware of the concerns of policyholders, including private individuals and local authorities, and employees of Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd. I have their interests very much in mind when considering the discharge of my Department's responsibilities under the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  Paper Production
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department has conducted to establish the environmental energy balance through a cradle-to-grave analysis of paper production from virgin fibre and paper production using recycled materials; and what conclusions have been drawn.
  314
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Warren Spring Laboratory, an agency of my Department, carried out a review of the environmental impact of recycling processes calling on known, available, published cradle-tograve analysis data and reported its findings in July 1992. The report, entitled "A Review of: The Environmental Impact of Recycling" concludes that, taking into account the whole lifecycle, there are very significant savings in energy consumption—ranging from 28 per cent. to 70 per cent.—and reductions in emissions to be gained by recycling paper. It notes, however, that there will always be a need for virgin fibre to replace shortened fibres lost as fines and that, in certain situations, there is a case for incineration with energy recovery of waste paper, particularly when in mixed, contaminated form. It also highlights the imbalance between United Kingdom consumption and production of paper and board as a major barrier to increased levels of recycling. I will arrange for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Further work on the environmental impacts from cradle-to-grave of a range of paper products, both virgin and recycled fibre based, is being carried out on behalf of the EC Commission by the Danish National Agency of Environmental Protection. The results of this work, which have yet to be published, will be used in the preparation of criteria for the EC ecolabelling scheme.

  Coal Faces (Visits)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those coal faces which he has visited since taking office as President of the Board of Trade; on what dates those visits took place; and what estimate had been made in each case at that time of the probable life and potential tonnage of that coal face.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: I have not visited any collieries since taking up my present office. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy visited Ollerton and Rufford collieries on 13 May and Whitemoor colliery on 17 July. My noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, visited Silverwood colliery on 28 August. They had wide-ranging exchanges with local managers and members of the work force about the particular pits and issues affecting the industry more generally.

  Coal and Cereals
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase in coal and cereal production since 1968 and in the amount imported and exported.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: Figures for the production, imports and exports of coal and cereals in 1968 and 1991, and the percentage changes of each over the intervening period, were:

  315

  Million tonnes

  Coal

  Cereal

  1968

  1991

  Per cent, change

  1968–691

  1991

  Percent, change

  Production

  169·9

  96·1

  -43

  13·1

  22·6

  +72

  Imports

  —

  19·5

  (+)

  8·6

  2·5

  -71

  Exports

  2·7

  1·7

  -39

  0·1

  6·0

  (+)

  Percentage changes have been calculated from unrounded figures.

  1 Data on crop year basis, I July 1968 to 30 June 1969.

  Sources:Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  European Community
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of civil servants in his Department whose main task is work related wholly or mainly to the European Community.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: My Department has 59 officials wholly engaged in work related to the European Community. There is no central register of officials mainly or partially engaged in such work.

  EC Perifra Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved for submission to the EC Perifra programme together with the dates he expects approval to be given and work under the programme to commence in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: On 5 June 1992, the United Kingdom sent 12 proposals to the European Commission for funding under the Perifra scheme. On 7 August 1992, the European Commission announced the approval of eight of them. These are as follows:

  Region/project

  Borders Regional Council

  Textile design and innovation centre.

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Todmorden area regeneration initiative.

  Chorley Borough Council/Lancashire Enterprises

  Technology centre to support redeployment of defence jobs

  316

  Dyfed/West Wales Task Force

  Employment/training initiative.

  Fife Regional Council

  Product Innovation Centre.

  Hertfordshire TEC/Hertfordshire County Council

  Development of alternative employment through support and training.

  Leeds City Council

  Clothing Resource Centre.

  Royal British Legion, Wiltshire

  Design and construction of a training centre.

  The timing of the start of work on the projects is a matter for the sponsors.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the output in financial terms of the United Kingdom's pharmaceutical industry(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1991;

  (2) what were the export earnings of the pharmaceutical industry in (a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: The information available is shown in the table.

  United Kingdom Pharmaceutical Industry

  £ million

  11979

  21991

  Total sales of pharmaceutical products

  1,705

  6,167

  Exports of pharmaceutical products

  599

  2,716

  Source: Business Monitor 2570.

  1 1979 figures are based on SIC 1968.

  2 1991 figures are based on SIC 1980.

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.

Lord Plant of Highfield
Raymond Plant, Esquire, having been created Baron Plant of Highfield, of Weelsby in the County of Humberside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Underhill and the Baroness Hollis of Heigham.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar
The Right Honourable Sir Ian Hedworth John Little Gilmour, having been created Baron Gilmour of Craigmillar, of Craigmillar in the District of the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and the Lord Weinstock.
Lord Bullock Lord Bullock—Took the oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation from the Prime Minister to attend a lunch in honour of the President of Russia on Monday 9th November. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Monday 9th November.

Hong Kong: Democracy
2.59 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government: What is their policy concerning democracy in Hong Kong.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Governor of Hong Kong has said that his aim is to extend the participation of' individual citizens in public affairs, and to ensure that the 1995 Legislative Council elections are broadly based, open and fair. We share those aims and fully support his proposals which he announced to the Legislative Council last month. Discussions with the Chinese Government have only just started. We look forward to continuing this dialogue.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is widespread goodwill and support for the Governor in his immensely demanding task? Does she agree that our commitment is not simply to the success of the economy and the stock market, vital
1424
though those are as ends in themselves, but to the millions of people who make the community of Hong Kong? Does she agree that if that responsibility is to be discharged, human rights, of which democracy is the guarantee, must remain on the agenda? Can she explain how the strengthened executive will help in that respect after 1997?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may first answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. We continue to believe that the simplest way to develop democracy in Hong Kong is to increase the number of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary put that to the Chinese Foreign Minister when they met in New York in September. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I value his remarks. We greatly support Mr. Patten's proposals. We are convinced that they represent the best way forward for Hong Kong. Mr. Patten has emphasised that he wishes to continue discussing his proposals with the Chinese side. Our aim is to reach as much agreement as possible.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the publication last week of previously confidential correspondence between the British and Chinese Foreign Ministers in January and February 1990 shows clearly two things; first, that in no way can the Chinese claim that the proposals of the present Governor of Hong Kong betray any agreement privately made in 1990, and, secondly, that in negotiations carried out in 1990 Britain was fighting just as doughtily for the rights of democracy in Hong Kong behind the scenes as the Governor of Hong Kong is doing at present rather more publicly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that have already answered to a degree part of my noble friend's question. We have always supported the future of democracy in Hong Kong. As regards the release of the exchange of messages which took place in early 1990 between the Foreign Secretary and the Chinese Foreign Minister, China proposed that we should do so and referred to them in public. We wanted to set the record straight. The documents
make clear that there was no secret deal over any aspect of the 1995 elections in Hong Kong.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I accept entirely what the noble Baroness says, can she confirm that the speech made by the Governor, Mr. Christopher Patten, on 7th October in the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, conforms with the Basic Law? If it does not conform precisely, do Her Majesty's Government propose to reopen negotiations with the Chinese Government?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there was a dialogue between the British and Chinese governments while the Basic Law was being drawn up. That took nearly five years and involved Hong Kong's people as well. We regard it as a generally acceptable reflection of the Joint Declaration but, as we made clear at the time, there were a number of provisions which we did not particularly like. The limit of 20 on

1425
the number of directly elected seats to be allowed in the first post-1997 Legislative Council is one of them. The Chinese Foreign Minister has suggested that talks should continue in the joint liaison group and we are following this up with the Chinese side.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Governor's task—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue my point so that there may be complete clarity. Is the noble Baroness now saying that the Basic Law, as it exists, was not agreed completely between Her Majesty's Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Government? If that is the case, is she saying that Her Majesty's Government will reopen negotiations so that the Governor's proposals may be included in the Basic Law?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, properly the first time around. I had better try again. In our view, Mr. Patten's proposals are within the terms of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law and they have been very well received by the people of Hong Kong.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, while I greatly admire the way in which Mr. Patten has endeared himself to people in Hong Kong in such a very short time, will the Government keep firmly in mind the fact that the reforms that he has proposed will be quite valueless to the people of Hong Kong in the long term unless they can be carried through 1997? Having so much in common with the Chinese Government over Hong Kong, is it not a great pity that this dispute over electoral matters should have developed into what amounts to a major confrontation? Will the Government bear in mind the admirable dictum of Chou En-Lai,"Let us set aside differences and concentrate on points in common"?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, who should know better than the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose? We want to provide the maximum possible continuity for Hong Kong when sovereignty is transferred in 1997, but Hong Kong is a dynamic society, as the noble Lord knows only too well. It cannot stand still either politically or economically if it is to maintain its vitality. The Governor's proposals are still receiving a remarkably high degree of support in Hong Kong in spite of sustained hostile campaigns in the pro-China press. Markets and international confidence remain strong. We do not seek a row.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is it not the case that the response to Mr. Patten's proposals has to come from the Chinese Government and that it is not for us to appease them but to stick by the proposal that he has made? We hope that Her Majesty's Government will support him in the ingenious plan that he has put forward and in the courage with which he has supported it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, the Chinese Foreign Minister has suggested that talks could continue in the joint liaison group.

British Rail: Fare Increases
3.7 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with British Rail concerning increases in rail fares.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Ministers were consulted on the British Rail fares increase due to come into effect on 3rd January 1993 in view of their role in setting British Rail's financial framework and objectives.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but it begs some obvious questions. Why did the Government apparently not question these horrendous increases of up to 9.5 per cent. at the same time as contemplating limiting the wage increases of commuters to 1 per cent.? Why should the cost of the recession, which I understand was one of the reasons for these increases, be borne by the commuters who are in no way responsible for the recession, which is quite clearly the Government's responsibility? Is it not a fact that between them the Government and British Rail have made an outrageous mess of the whole British Rail service?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, increases above the rate of inflation are justified by the needs of British Rail and London Transport for additional revenue to help to meet the costs of maintaining services and investment. It is only fair that travellers should make their contribution.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, with respect, the Government's main policy is to control inflation. It is hard for us to believe that they did not say to British Rail,"Look, keep the fare increases to the rate of inflation or below it". Instead of that they have allowed the fare increases in some instances—I have a number in mind—to go well above the rate of inflation. Why?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the increases in fares are required for investment in British Rail. That is the primary reason.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, are the complicated and complex proposals for the privatisation of British Rail likely to result in increases or decreases in fares? Has any cost benefit analysis been made of these proposals?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the aim behind the privatisation programme is to encourage efficiency and innovation. These benefits should come through the system to the fare-paying traveller.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive my Clinton croak—too much campaigning is the problem. Is the Minister aware that, quite apart from the new increases contemplated, British Rail charges just about the highest fares in Western

1427
Europe? Is he further aware that we have just about the oldest stock on our railways and just about the lowest investment? Is that not a matter of great concern to the Government? Is it not far more important than the question of the ownership of British Rail'? What are the Government proposing to do about it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, fare levels reflect the proportion of costs met by the fare-payer rather than by the taxpayer through subsidy. We do not accept that the international examples of more heavily subsidised systems are the right model to follow.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not what was said by the noble Lord opposite as to the state of British Rail the most powerful argument for getting on quickly with denationalisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree, as a world expert on railways and transport, that the French railways are in many ways more efficient than the British railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier. We believe that the other international and more heavily subsidised systems are not the correct model for us to follow.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister really saying, as I understood him to say, that it is the Government's policy that the fare paying passenger should not merely carry the additional day-to-day expenses of British Rail but should also be responsible for its capital expenditure? Is that the Government's policy?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are committed to a high quality, safe and efficient rail service. But this service must be paid for. This is a question of the distribution of the burden between the rail traveller and the taxpayer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the explanation is that the fare increases were allowed because investment was needed, why did not the Government permit a larger fare increase to allow the even higher investment that is also needed?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the reason is that this is a question of balance.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend referred to privatisation. Can he say whether in any of these privatisation agreements a mechanism for the control of fares will be built into those arrangements?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, where there has been more than one operator on a route, competition will keep fares low. The fares of operators which enjoy monopoly power will be controlled through the franchise contract.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact that, under the franchise contracts, for a very long period of
1428
time subsidies will be paid by the taxpayer through the Government to those franchisees? Is that an equitable way of doing this?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed it is.

Student Fees: Tax Relief
3.14 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I declare an interest in that I am a student of the Open University.
The Question was as follows:
Whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to make university and college fees paid by students, particularly those who are pensioners, tax deductible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, tax relief is already available for certain course fees paid by students. In particular, relief is available for further and higher education courses leading to national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications up to level 4. Her Majesty's Government have no proposals to extend those reliefs.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that certain education relief grants are rather dependent on local authorities whereas nationwide tax relief could help a great deal when many people considering changing jobs are seeking new qualifications?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the rest of the House in congratulating my noble friend on his Open University course and wishing him success in the future. There are certain reliefs but we believe that before we extend any reliefs further in this field we must be sure that there is a need for extending them to provide further incentives to individuals to participate in particular courses. We see no such need.
Baroness David: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that there is a tremendous need for more qualified people and that a great many of these people are over the age of 25? Tax concessions and help through grants for younger people are of course available but it is older people who very much need such tax concessions. Am I not right in thinking that pensioners are not eligible for loans?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right regarding pensioners not being eligible for loans. In fact no one over the age of 50 is eligible for a loan. But that is another question. We are talking purely about fees. Anyone taking a full-time first degree course will be eligible for having fees being paid by the LEA. So we are only talking about those taking postgraduate courses, other forms of higher or further education or part-time courses. There has been a great expansion over the past 10 or 12 years in the number of people following those courses; therefore it does not appear that there is need for such an incentive.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are also partly talking about the Open University where fees are charged and where students are not eligible for help, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, will undoubtedly tell us if he rises a second time. Surely the fundamental point is that people who invest in their own education are raising their productivity just as much as firms which invest in capital equipment. Is it not the case that they should be treated in exactly the same way from a tax standpoint? I understand that with the present state of the Government's finances the Treasury cannot make any concessions, but in terms of fundamental principles, surely it must be right that in the end one ought to be able to allow the costs of one's education against tax.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. It depends really on how far he is prepared to see any extension go. If the extension were to include all self-funded fees, the cost—the figures must have a large health warning as they are very broad range—would be something of the order of £50 million. If the extension were to embrace all private school fees—I do not necessarily see the distinction—the cost could be something of the order of £500 million.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a practical problem in terms of money. I am simply asking whether he will at least concede the principle that investment should be treated on all fours regardless of the part of the economy one is dealing with.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have accepted the principle on certain occasions where there is need for that incentive. Hence the concessions that I announced in my original Answer and the various other concessions—the non-statutory concessions—operated by the Inland Revenue. However, if we take purely the Open University, there is no evidence that lack of any tax relief has acted as a discouragement to people taking up an Open University course.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the reaction of the Government would be to the proposals being mooted in some universities to charge top-up fees? What line would the Government take with the Universities Funding Council regarding those proposals?
Lord Henley: My Lords, without notice I cannot answer that question. The Question on the Order Paper is specifically related to tax relief for fees. I have given my answer. If the noble Lord wishes to put down another Question on top-up fees, no doubt the Government would be prepared to answer it.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister really have evidence that no one has fallen out of an Open University course because of inability to pay the fees'? My understanding is quite different.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness should consider the vastly increased number of postgraduates—the figure rose by something like 50 per cent. during the 1980s—or the number of part-time students who
1430
increased by about 34 per cent. during the same period. It occurs to me that there is not a disincentive. I do not see tax reliefs as being the way forward.

Gibraltar Airport: EC Regulations
3.20 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Court of Justice has decided upon the admissibility of the action taken by the Gibraltar Government against Council Regulation No.87/602/EEC and the further action taken under Regulation (EEC) No.2343/90 by the Gibraltar Development Corporation in so far as these regulations affect access by air to Gibraltar airport.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no. The European Court of Justice has yet to reach a decision on the matter.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does she recall that in a Written Answer in Hansard of 22nd October 1991 (Col. WA.129), her noble friend Lord Caithness said:
"This case is still under preliminary consideration by the European Court of Justice. We would expect a decision on the admissibility of the case in the next 12 months"?
Further, does my noble friend agree that it is somewhat unjust that the application of the provisions of the regulations to Gibraltar airport should be suspended, thus excluding it from the air transport liberalisation measures of the European Community, as the Gibraltar Government were not involved during the three-year period of negotiations culminating in the joint declaration of December 2nd 1987 on the expanded use of the airport?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend Lord Merrivale that the ball is in Gibraltar's court. Gibraltar has only to implement the airport agreement to lift suspension. Gibraltar's inclusion in EC aviation liberalisation regulations is not possible until it implements the airport agreement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government support the case which the Gibraltar Government have made to the European Court of Justice?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the airport agreement cannot come into force without the concurrence of the Gibraltar House of Assembly, that its members represent the people and that her noble friend Lady Chalker said in October 1988 that,
"we will not attempt to impose it on the people of Gibraltar". —[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/88; col.966.]
Will Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to expedite the course of justice?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the court of justice, there is not much we can do to hurry it up. We believe that it is in Gibraltar's interest to accept the airport agreement. They have only to do

1431
so and their suspension from the air liberalisation measures will be lifted. Gibraltar's concerns about concessions on sovereignty are unfounded: the airport would remain under British control, through close UK-Spanish consultation and co-ordination which is obviously needed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the date upon which the most recent consultations took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord—no, hold it! The answer is no.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister understood my question. I asked her for the date upon which the last and most recent consultation by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar took place. The answer cannot be "yes" or "no". Will the noble Baroness just give the date?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer was, no, I cannot give the date. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the Gibraltar Government were fully consulted over the airport agreement. The then Chief Minister, Hassan, was present during the negotiations and at its signing; but I am sorry I do not know the last consultation date.

Economic Recovery
3.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the measures needed for sustainable economic recovery; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that perhaps it can be agreed that we have today chosen a subject of importance and topicality. We have also not so much chosen, as had allocated to us, a day with a certain number of competing excitements taking place both along the Corridor in the other place and across the Atlantic—urbi et orbi, as it were. However, we decided that it was right not to make our debate time limited. That would have put a considerable restriction on the times of speeches. But, if I may be permitted to say so, I hope that that will not lead to too much expansiveness. I shall endeavour to set a good—or, at any rate, a fairly good—example, especially to the Opposition Front Bench.
On Monday, the Governor of the Bank of England said that he felt more uncertain about the state of the real economy than at any time he could remember. The governor occasionally suffers from a little myopia, but I thought that on that occasion he was fully justified, and if had also added more uncertainty about the state of the Government's economic policy, he would have been even more justified.
After the Chancellor of the Exchequer finished singing in his bath about the collapse of what he said in July was essential to avoid economic perdition, he was obviously told that a period of silence from him would be most welcome. We heard nothing more from
1432
him until his evening in the Guildhall among the pikemen. While I can feel a certain retrospective sympathy for anyone who finds that particular atmosphere a little hostile to scintillation, nonetheless, I did not find that he had anything very illuminating to say—nor, presumably, did the Governor of the Bank of England who was sitting next but one from him at the time.
When a difficult choice has to be made, I am now quite uncertain as to what are the Government's major economic objectives and what are the methods—I am in favour of several methods and not with obsession with a particular instrument or dial—by which they are to be attained. Is the reduction of inflation still the overriding objective? Is unemployment, in the words (I think last summer) of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, still a price well worth paying for it? Is zero inflation still a goal within the Government's sights? It could hardly be taken seriously in view of the fact that we now have a devaluation of significantly over 20 per cent. which is not yet over but which is almost half as big again as the traumatic one of 1967. But it is part of this Government's trouble that the fact that something is not serious does not prevent their propounding it, although I doubt whether Mr. Major is now devoting much time to his July hope of sterling replacing the deutschmark as Europe's premier currency.
What about the new emphasis on growth, if there is one? Is it to be given a new priority over inflation? If so, how is that to be achieved? Alternatively, is the Government's main counter-recessionary measure to be the restricting of public expenditure? If that now sounds almost ridiculous, let us not forget that that was precisely the doctrine not only in the Titanic days of July but also when the band still played on at the Conservative Party Conference.
I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about how all those objectives—that is, low or very low inflation, a strong pound, lowering interest rates, falling unemployment and reviving growth and business confidence—are all continuing objectives to which we are asked to believe the Government will lead us; and that any choice would send out the wrong signals. I do not know what sort of signals have been emerging recently. Unrealistic objectives, pursued by unclear methods, are a certain recipe for the continuing drift and confusion which we have seen since September and which are all too likely to lead to further humiliations of the type we have experienced. When that happens, it is the Government who get the egg on their face, of which they have recently had a good deal. Before we laugh too loudly, we should remember that it is the nation whose economic future is further undermined and imperilled.
We have therefore to make some firm policy choices based on more than a combination of wishful thinking, shot through with the remnants of the Right-wing Anglo-American dogmas of the 1980s. Without government stimulus, the recession will not cure itself in a tolerable timescale. That is to some extent true throughout the developed world, although our position is one of the worst because of: first,

1433
endemic declining competitiveness and a much more than average built-in tendency to high inflation; secondly, a massive balance of payments deficit, even in the depths of a recession, and the prospect made still worse by the fact that there is still a cushion of oil which is bound to be removed at some stage in the future; thirdly, a deliberately reduced manufacturing capacity which is now manifestly inadequate; and, fourthly, the great and unusual volume of private indebtedness which lies like a cloud blocking the revival of the housing or consumer durables market.
Everyone is up to their ears in debt. That is a strange product of a decade of so-called Victorian values. There is, however, one respect in which the United Kingdom is relatively favourably placed. Although the public sector deficit is currently large and growing, mainly because of the massive costs of unemployment, the dead weight or aggregate debt as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in Europe. It is only marginally below that of Germany, France and Spain, but it is massively below that of Belgium, Italy, Ireland and even the Netherlands
I do not suggest that that should make us careless about the size of the public sector deficit, although there are considerable anomalies about the way in which it is calculated. But it does suggest that it should not be our major obsession, particularly when the evidence is so clear that attempting direct and immediate reductions in public sector borrowing, at a time of recession and mounting unemployment, is not only misguided but is a self-defeating process.
I should therefore be prepared to take a calculated and limited risk here. As it happens, as the only Chancellor since the war who, until the oil flush of the mid-1980s, ever had a public sector surplus, I cannot be accused of natural profligacy in that respect. Circumstances in 1969– 70 were clearly very different, with unemployment under 600,000. I now envisage a considerable short-term increase in public sector borrowing, provided that it is directed specifically at desirable infrastructure investment. I should be careful that there was no long-term slipping towards what one might call the Italian position, in which debt becomes over 100 per cent. of GDP and in which its servicing, as in Italy, takes 15 per cent. of GDP and the position begins to look so hopeless that it hardly seems worth doing anything about it.
We are miles away from that position. Before we become too superior vis à vis the Italians, it is worth bearing in mind that there are many other strengths in the Italian economy which we do not have, and, as a result, rather strangely—I notice in passing that we have been in a de facto monetary union with the Italians for decades past—stirling and the lira have marched more or less in step with each other for 30 or 40 years, with neither keeping near the deutschmark, or, more recently, the French franc.
But I do not want a communality of debt experience. In embarking upon that programme of extra borrowing I should lay down firmly that the budget should be brought back into balance during
1434
the next economic upswing and that there should be a willingness to use taxation—preferably direct taxation—if it is necessary to achieve that aim.
The 1980s saw a massive switch of relative resources from poor to rich. It would be intolerable if on top of that cuts in benefit or increases in regressive charges, at which the Government have been adept, were to be used to pay for, say, the Jubilee Line or other necessary pieces of railway investment.
The anti-tax dogma has done a great deal of recent harm in the Western world. It blighted German reunification. It hobbled a responsible handling of the United States deficit and was a big contributory factor to the excuses—rather I should say the "excesses" because we all have an opportunity to read the excuses—of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, from which we are still suffering. But there are changes afoot. We shall no longer have to read the lips of Mr. Bush.
I do not believe that in this country taxation increases are currently called for, but I would not hesitate to use them if they became necessary. That, I guess, would be not out of touch with the mood of much of the battered, bewildered but fundamentally civic-minded British people at the present time."Two years' hard slog" was a phrase I ventured to use, with some realistic light at the end of the tunnel, many years ago. I guess that that might get a better response today than the false complacency of the general election message.
A recovery programme for Britain will obviously have a better chance of success if it can take place within a co-ordinated international framework, although we must, in my view, attempt it anyway. Maybe today, of all days, we can at least temporarily think,"Westward, look, the land is bright". We should certainly try to get the European Community to work out with President Clinton a co-ordinated expansion programme which could be adopted before or at the next Western economic summit. It was done at the economic summit in Bonn in 1978 and might, I believe, have brought significant benefit had it not been aborted by the second oil crisis which came in the six months following that.
However, the first essential is to reach a GATT agreement. I agree that the French are being immensely tiresome, but the key to dealing with that in hard, realistic terms is the Germans, both because of the strength of the Franco-German partnership, which our combination of weakness and petulance has made still closer this autumn, and because of the natural balance in Europe, almost an ecological balance, in which the German interest in an open trading system balances and has frequently overcome French inherent protectionism. From this, as well as from many other points of view, a reversal of the irresponsible post-Black Wednesday quarrel with Germany is a vital and central British interest.
A general European pick-up would be of enormous benefit not only economically but for the battered morale of Europe. I thought it a mistake that Mr. Major did not try to get the non-summit at Birmingham to address itself to the problem. I am a

1435
strong believer in the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and I am delighted that my party in the other place is voting as it is.
No one can doubt my opposition—sometimes I am sorry to say almost my contempt—for the present policies of Her Majesty's Government. But I do not believe that the right way to defeat them is to vote against one's convictions. Those who live by tactics are liable to die by tactics. I saw the Labour Party beginning to die as a great party of government on this issue in the early 1970s. I am sorry and surprised that it has not learnt more from the experiences then. However, that is for another day.
Now we need both Maastricht and a general European pick-up. I do not believe that we shall get one without the other, but the general European pick-up would of course make a much more popular impact. Equally, our ratification of Maastricht, while desirable, will not solve our own economic problems, though if it were abandoned our economic prospects would become immensely worse from the point of view of inward investment, inflation from a plummeting exchange rate and business confidence.
The external framework is important to create the conditions for success, but we shall nonetheless remain dependent upon our own efforts. These require the rejection of a great deal of the nonsense we inherited from the 1980s. First, the miracle did not take place. Secondly, there are worse evils than a moderate increase in taxation. Thirdly, it is not a necessary test of being a good citizen to own one's own house, whether or not it suits one's circumstances or one's pocket-book. Fourthly, privatisation at all costs, so as, for instance, in the case of the electricity industry, to close down the coal industry as a by-product of the obfuscation of relative costs, is not desirable. Fifthly, a strong manufacturing base is of vital importance. To pretend that it does not matter provided we have enough oil and enough financial services is a form of unilateral disarmament at least as damaging as that which was advocated by CND. Sixthly, training schemes are vital to our competitive position and should be seen not just as a form of massaging the unemployment figures. So is investment in education generally.
The short-term need is to create hope and confidence almost in a Rooseveltian sense, to give a feeling that this country is starting something—some major investment projects—and not just closing down everything in sight.
The medium-term need is to rebuild our manufacturing base and increase the skill and qualifications of our workforce. The overall need is to create a sense of consistency of purpose. It used to be said that the assumptions on which business had to work change violently and damagingly every four years. That has passed. The problem with the Conservative Party, as I said the other day, has not been winning elections but providing a decent government when it wins them. We are now lucky if we have consistency for six weeks at a time. Since September the Government have had no policy. They must find one quickly and then stick to it. I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government believe that sustainable growth needs to be based on low inflation. That is not an optional extra but a prerequisite for a better and more prosperous Britain.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has just said, it is clear that we need to continue the achievements of the 1980s—the years of growth. In that decade we would not have been able to increase the health service budget by one-third in real terms, build over 3,000 miles of motorways and bypasses, increase spending on education and training by 17 per cent. in real terms—all achievements warmly welcomed by your Lordships—unless we had attained those years of growth.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, in GDP growth, whereas we were bottom of the league in the 1960s and 1970s, in the 1980s we grew faster than every major EC country except Spain. It was the first decade since the war in which the UK grew faster than Germany, France and Italy. In manufacturing productivity in the 1980s the UK's growth was the fastest of the G7 economies, whereas in the 1960s and 1970s we had the slowest growth. In that same decade our business investment growth was second only to Japan among the G7 countries.
We need to return to that kind of growth on a sustainable basis and therefore I welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the opportunity to discuss the important issue of sustainable economic recovery. I should also like to take the opportunity to welcome the fact that we have four maiden speakers today and I shall listen particularly closely to my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston. He brings to your Lordships' House enormous experience in this area.
I should also like to add my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. He knows that I shall not be able to be present for much of the debate this evening as I have been summoned to be with His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei. I apologise to the House for not being here but I shall of course read with great care the record of what has been said in the Official Report. As your Lordships will be aware, I am constrained to some extent in setting out the Government's position because we all await the Autumn Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present on 12th November. However, what I can say is that firm control over public expenditure remains a major tenet of the Government's policy.
What we have said for many months is now much clearer. It is not just our own economy but that of the wider world that faces economic difficulties. Expectations about growth in the major economies have weakened. It is sad to see the announcements of 32,500 job losses in the motor industry, with another 7,500 in aerospace; that capital equipment manufacturers expect production to be 5 per cent. down on 1991; that industrial production has fallen in six out of the last seven months and that in a large part of the country it is estimated that only half the labour force is productively employed and that same area needs an

1437
injection of funds of about £60 billion per annum for the foreseeable future. Germany is having to contend with a rapid weakening of its economy. In Italy there have been more than 100,000 business bankruptcies so far this year; that is a higher rate than in Britain.
However, the problems are not confined to Europe. The Japanese economy, too, has slowed sharply. Fujitso, Japan's biggest computer company, has just reported its worst results ever. Its parent company's pre-tax profits are down 86.5 per cent., while capital spending plans for next year are to be reduced by 44 per cent. Nissan motor company has announced its first pre-tax loss since World War II. In the US business and consumer confidence remain weak despite low interest rates.
It is against that background and the damaging blows to confidence at home, in particular the uncertainty following our withdrawal from the ERM, that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have spelt out the Government's ambitions for growth. With domestic inflationary pressures abating it is now clear that the balance of risks facing our economy has indeed changed.
Let us first reflect on the relaxation of policy that has already been made. A lower exchange rate gives British exporters greater strength in competing for foreign markets even though they, too, face enormous difficulties. Our industry should take that opportunity and not squander it on higher wages and prices as some have done in the past. The greater flexibility outside the ERM, together with a prospective loosening of German monetary policy, has enabled the Government to take a further two percentage points off interest rates, making our interest rates the lowest in the EC.
These measures have already opened up new opportunities for British business at home and abroad. However, there is more to be done. Confidence has to be restored so that business has a thriving home market to sell to. Confidence comes from the private sector, from individuals' spending decisions and from firms' investment and employment decisions. However, the Government can and should work with industry to restore confidence and we will ensure that every aspect of policy will be supportive of industry.
The Autumn Statement on November 12th will outline new public expenditure plans. Within the constraints of a sound fiscal position of broad balance over the medium term the Government will seek to direct public money towards projects which promote growth. That means a greater share of resources for capital spending. In his Mansion House speech last week my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reinforced this commitment by announcing that, from the first Unified Budget in December 1993, the government accounts should be drawn up to make a proper distinction between current and capital spending. This should help to underpin our determination to maintain long-term infrastructure investment notwithstanding the immediate requirements of the fiscal position. I am sure your Lordships
1438
will welcome the fact that we shall also be looking at ways of allowing private sector financing, alongside that of the public sector, for large capital projects.
This is a new emphasis for industry and for growth but it is not a break with the past. The goal of government policy has never been the defeat of inflation alone, but rather low inflation as a means to sustained growth and prosperity. Just as real growth can be undermined by too lax a policy, so too can it be threatened by too tight a policy. Towards the end of our ERM membership policy had become tighter than necessary to keep inflation coming down. The Government judged this worthwhile because of the long-term benefits from low inflation. However, the opportunities arising from sterling's suspension, together with the changes in the balance of risks I referred to earlier, make it appropriate that that policy should be rebalanced to take more account of growth.
Some businessmen tell me that the word "inflation" does not feature in their dictionaries today but we know from past experience that in looking further ahead we need to be careful. Inflation has the potential to rise again and threaten all our hard won gains. So let there be no doubt that low inflation remains central to macro-economic policy. It is the basis for the sustained growth and secure employment which the Government are determined to achieve. Much has been achieved already. The increase in underlying inflation over the past year has been only 4 per cent. That is good progress. But we must build on that achievement. Why must we do so? It is because even now over half our manufacturing exports go to countries which have inflation rates lower than ours. Thus the Government's objective for underlying inflation during this Parliament is a demanding 1 to 4 per cent. per year. In the longer term the aim is to bring inflation down towards the lower end of that range. The UK's inflation performance must match the best in Europe if we are to compete successfully with our main trading partners. Of course, to succeed, the Government must maintain a tight fiscal position and that means firm control of public spending. As I have already indicated, my right honourable friend the Chancellor will be giving priority to maintaining spending on the infrastructure to promote recovery and long-term prosperity. The Autumn Statement will seek to balance these aims against the need to ensure that the Government's fiscal plans are sound.
However, monetary policy retains its importance and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently spelt out more details about how it will operate outside the ERM. The Government continue to take account of the exchange rate in assessing monetary conditions. Some noble Lords may be uncomfortable with that, and argue that the pound should be allowed to find its own level. But changes in the exchange rate may reflect market perceptions of an easing in policy. They can influence the tightness or looseness of conditions under which UK businesses operate. They can directly affect import prices—not just consumer goods but the raw materials and components industry needs. Even though the Government have no specific target for the exchange rate they clearly cannot ignore it.

1439
The Government will also be guided by a range of domestic indicators. The growth of the "narrow" monetary aggregate MO has proved to be a timely and reliable indicator of economic conditions. We have had a target range for its growth for several years now and the present range of 0 to 4 per cent. will he retained. For the broader monetary aggregate, M4, the position is less straightforward. The behaviour of this series of data has been harder to interpret. So the Chancellor will set a "monitoring range" for M4 annual growth. That will give some idea of those rates of growth beyond which we should have cause for concern.
The behaviour of asset prices, and especially house prices, will be taken into account. Various market rates of interest and the relationship between them will then he monitored. These can often be a source of useful indicators on inflationary expectations. As important as the policy itself, however, is the credibility of that policy. The Chancellor is therefore moving towards greater openness in decision taking. The Government will now publish regularly details of the indicators being studied and will explain fully changes in interest rates.
I have set out the Government's positive strategy. It is a strategy for growth and for prosperity. The monetary framework, which I have outlined in some detail, will provide the security of low inflation. The Autumn Statement to be announced in the House next week will set out plans for public expenditure fully consistent with our inflation objective but which encourage and promote the economy's recovery from this recession.
Since we left the ERM there has been a substantial but justified easing of monetary conditions. Partly, that is the result of the fall in the external value of the pound. But interest rates have also been reduced by two percentage points to 8 per cent. The cuts were in line with the Government's target for low inflation and benefit UK industry and consumers. The full effect of each one percentage point cut is worth over £1.25 billion gross to business and, if lenders follow suit, reduces repayments on a typical £30,000 mortgage by over £15 a month.
British industry must not let a lower pound distract it from making necessary structural adjustments. In order to sell in this world we must be competitive. No one will buy our goods just because they are British. They need to be the best goods, the most competitive goods, the goods people want and they need to be delivered on time. There is no reason why British industry cannot now take advantage of the lowest interest rates in the EC and the very competitive exchange rate, provided it keeps costs down. Industry must turn its attention to the creation of real wealth and permanent jobs. If that could be done by waving a magic wand it would have been. It needs a clear strategy, commitment and hard work.
We know that conditions are difficult, both at home and in our export markets. Our focus should not be just on Europe, important though that is. It should be on every market in the world. We regret that the GATT talks between the US and the EC have broken off without agreement. Nevertheless, the two sides are
1440
clearly very close together and we still hope that talks can be resumed to resolve the remaining differences. At stake is a boost of some 200 billion dollars per annum to world output. The recent news on GATT is not encouraging, but this is an opportunity which should not he sabotaged. Neither the US nor the EC will benefit from a trade war.
We want our industry to flourish. We want it to take advantage of the opportunities. For their part, the Government will continue to devote their monetary policy to providing the necessary framework of low inflation.
4 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. It is no exaggeration to say that we needed such a discussion in your Lordships' House as a matter of urgency. However, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that there is a limit to what we can discuss in advance of the Autumn Statement.
I look forward to the contributions of all the maiden speakers. I am sure that they will add to the quality of the deliberations of those of us who concentrate on economic matters. In particular I must refer to my noble friend Lord Eatwell. Your Lordships' House has lacked a Cambridge academic economist for some years. My noble friend follows in the footsteps of one of the greatest economists of our time. I am sure that he will be equal to the task before him.
I shall start with some acerbic remarks. I must warn your Lordships that I shall then get really nasty. Those of a weak disposition should leave now.
I am aware that I am not alone in contrasting the behaviour of the head of the London Ambulance Service with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. Mr. John Wilby said, in connection with a certain problem:
"I am deeply conscious of the lack of public confidence which has been expressed following service failures… I have decided that the honourable course of action is to offer my resignation".
While not under-estimating what happened to London ambulances, Mr. Wilby's failure is tiny compared with the failures of the two gentlemen I have mentioned. One presided over the BCCI debacle, the other over the biggest economic disaster of recent times. They are still in post and, so far as I know, have not even apologised. Even worse, in my judgment their continuation in office is the most serious obstacle to any improvement in the economy. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, policy, especially anti-inflationary policy, depends on credibility. How can someone who says one thing one day and the diametric opposite the next expect anybody to believe anything he says at any time?
My point is not to deny that we get things wrong. We all do that. My point is that we must recognise our errors and pay the consequences. That is especially so in the case of the Chancellor whose errors were wilful. I have pointed out for a long time the seriousness of our economic predicament. I pointed it out before the election. I pleaded with the Government to recognise that fact as a first step to putting matters right, and

1441
that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically refused to do. He was always looking on the bright side. What is so appalling, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, is that he continues to do so.
Our defeat by the speculators was as significant, in economic terms, as the Norway catastrophe of 1940. It is extraordinary that the people who led us to that defeat are still there and that they are unapologetic. Some people say that defeat was unavoidable, that there was a tidal wave of speculation and that we could do nothing about it. I disagree with that view totally. I have always argued in relation to speculation in foreign exchange that speculators sell currencies which they do not have in order to buy currencies they do not want. They do so in the hope that they can buy them back at a lower price than the price at which they sold them. They cannot possibly maintain that position for other than the shortest period of time. That means that so long as the central banks of the world are willing to outlast them—and central banks can always settle later than the speculators—they can always defeat the speculators. In other words, in my judgment the central banks were not overwhelmed by an unstoppable tide. That is simply not credible.
The essence of the matter is co-operation by the central banks, which is supposedly a central element of the exchange rate mechanism. That particular argument does not depend on the exchange rate being sustainable in the long run; it is always sustainable in the short run by central banks which are determined to beat the speculators. Therefore, my conclusion is a fairly obvious one. The Bundesbank must have decided not to provide limitless funds to the Bank of England; or the Bank of England must have decided not to request such support. As someone who is completely outside the system, I suggest that possibly one or both of them wanted a realignment; one or both of them intended to achieve that their own way, if not by persuasion then by force.
My problem is that the Government have not told us what actually happened. So far as I and most noble Lords are concerned the 30-year rule means that we shall never know what actually happened—although the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may well look forward to finding out. I have my suspicions. My central point is that allowing the speculators to make the money they did has nothing but deleterious consequences. In other than the short run it is bound to raise our interest rates and it is bound to make the control of inflation harder.
I turn to a different but related theme. It was not my intention to say a word about Maastricht, but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, felt that it was appropriate to attack me and my colleagues. I find the attitude of the Liberal Democrats on the matter more than mildly irritating. I have stated my support for the Maastricht Treaty fully and seriously, as have my colleagues. I do not doubt the Liberal Democrats' support for the treaty. It is my view that the saboteurs of the treaty are the Conservative Party, including its leader. It is they who have gone for the opt-out clauses. The aspects from which they seek to opt out
1442
are the essential parts of the treaty. Having left the ERM we have no commitment to rejoining it. If we have no commitment to rejoining the ERM, then EMU, which is the central economic part of the treaty, is finished. I am somewhat surprised that the other place is to go through all the details of the treaty when, in practical terms, the treaty is dead in the water.
Furthermore, perhaps I may remind the Liberal Democrats of yesterday's response by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Mr. Bangemann's comment on the political future of the EC. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrat view of the political future of the EC is precisely Mr. Bangemann's view of the treaty. However, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary immediately said,"Nothing doing". How the Liberal Democrats can support them and attack us is beyond me. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, once wrote a fascinating book on your Lordships' House entitled Mr. Balfour's Poodle. The Liberal Democrats and their leader may now be seen as Mr. Major's poodles.
Let us now assume that we had a serious government in power. What economic steps should they take? For that matter, what should they avoid? There is one rather dotty proposal of the Chancellor's which I can deal with immediately. The Treasury employs a large number of economists; it also has an academic panel to comment on its forecasting work. It is now proposed to bring in even more economists, of widely differing views, to reinforce that. The only possible rationale must be the monkeys and typewriters principle. While I accept that given enough time the monkeys can write the works of Shakespeare I do not believe that that number of economists can in any amount of time come up with an agreed policy, let alone a sensible one. I stand second to none in my advocacy of employment-creation programmes for fellow economists, but in this case if the Treasury is unhappy with the economic advice it is getting the best thing to do is to fire the existing staff and hire new people.
In commenting on economic policy one problem is whether we can take seriously what the Chancellor has to say. What are we to make of someone who is unaware that his original objective of zero inflation was much more stringent than his present one of achieving an inflation rate equal to the average of our competitors? I do not object to the change. Noble Lords will have heard me argue not long ago that that is precisely the objective we should have on inflation. My difficulty is that I can say that because I believe in it. But how can the Chancellor suddenly switch to that view? How are we to interpret his view that raising public expenditure does not help economic growth? If that were universally true, given the state of the public finances why does he not cut public expenditure drastically and balance the budget? On his argument it would have no deleterious effect on employment or growth. How can we have confidence in someone who believes in the expansionary benefits of a devaluation of more than 15 per cent.—it has become more than 20 per cent. since I wrote these lines—and simultaneously says that he believes in high inflation, as he said last week? It may not matter that I and

1443
others of your Lordships cannot follow the subtleties of the Chancellor's mental processes, but I notice that leading businessmen have avowed that they approve of what the Chancellor said last week. I can only suppose that they are the same businessmen who just before the election wrote to The Times to say that all that was needed for economic recovery was the return of a Tory administration. At least this time we have been spared the crocodile tears of sorrow at the necessity for men and women to lose their jobs for the greater good of defeating inflation.
The policy of giving greater weight to growth is correct. However, it represents a fundamental change in the Government's previous position that inflation was all that mattered but, more to the point, that technically output and employment would take care of themselves. That was the essence of the policy. That was not just a matter of the political position of the Ministers; it was also the technical economic advice advocated by the Treasury. I for one cannot wait to hear what officials have to say when they next appear before the Treasury Select Committee.
As far as inflation is concerned, I believe that those—including one or two of my colleagues—who say that devaluation and interest rate cuts make things easy are mistaken. Unless we go to the other extreme and say that inflation has no weight whatever—I cannot think of any rational person who takes that view—we must have an anti-inflation policy. I have not budged.1 believe in a fixed nominal exchange rate as the way to anchor down the economy. If I could I would have stuck to that policy; I do not resile. I know that at least analytically and theoretically the alternative would be strict control of the money supply. That is the only other way I know of controlling inflation. Unfortunately, it is difficult if not impossible in a sophisticated open financial system such as ours. What to me is not acceptable is a government who do not appear to believe in either the exchange rate anchor or the money supply anchor but in a set of indicators that, speaking as a Keynesian, seems to be Keynesian economics gone completely barmy.
We should not be led into any kind of complacency by the fact that the inflation rate is currently rather low. I do not believe for one moment that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was saying that; but we must not be. One does not have to listen to a Keynesian like myself to accept that view. I remind you of the views of the late Professor Hayek. He emphasised not only the inflation proneness of government; he said also that the time to be on one's guard was when inflation was low because that was exactly the moment when governments decided to go for growth and take risks. That is precisely what the present Government are doing.
The international position is gloomy. The main point is exactly that to which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, drew attention. It is not merely the case that we have difficulties. Several of our main markets have difficulties; Germany, France and maybe others. The worry is that the possible benefits from devaluation—I have emphasised I am not a devaluer—will not be realised because there will not be the
1444
markets in which to sell the goods. That is the nature of the problem. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that if we are now to take risks we must take them on the side of an expansionary fiscal package. I believe that in the depths of this depression, or recession, that is what we have to do. I am, however, alarmed by the state of the public finances. Most forecasters seem to believe that the deficit will rise to something of the order of 6 per cent. of GDP. There is a good deal of talk about balancing the budget over the cycle. In terms of all the work I am doing I cannot see the budget becoming balanced even to start with, let alone producing a surplus, before the turn of the century. Even the EMU prerequisite of stabilising the deficit at 3 per cent. of GDP is not easy to attain.
The irony of all this—which must trouble the Treasury as much as anyone—is that if we can only restore full employment, unemployment and related benefits will fall drastically and the public finances will be in extremely good shape. To use a cliche, we have a vicious circle: everything gets worse making things worse still. What we need is a path back. For the moment, I think that we have to take fiscal risks to find that path but I recognise that it is not easy.
I conclude as I began. I believe that the essence of policy is credibility and that what has happened in the past few weeks not only makes the Government incredible but regrettably means that we will be stuck with an incredible government for the next four years.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, this will be the third maiden speech I have made in the Palace of Westminster. I made one when I was Member for Nottingham South. Unfortunately, I lost that seat. I stood for East Surrey and made a second maiden speech. And here I am endeavouring to make another maiden speech today. It could be said that I have some experience in the matter. I understand that I must not be controversial. Perhaps therefore I have picked the wrong subject on which to speak because it is very difficult not to be controversial.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He was right to remind us that when he was Chancellor in a Labour Government he managed to balance the books. Of course he forgot to tell us that under Conservative governments Chancellors not only balanced the books on occasion but repaid a substantial amount of the national debt.
I believe that we take the temperature of the economy far too often. As soon as any statistic comes out there is always a forecast or projection made as to what is wrong with the patient. I believe that on many occasions silence would be welcome. The Government have reduced the base rate from 15 to 10 and then 8 per cent. Before very long the chances are that it will go down to 7 or possibly 6 per cent.—as my noble friend said, the lowest in the European Community.
The Government can never unilaterally reduce the base rate particularly when operating within the ERM. I have never understood why countries such as Italy, France, Spain, and, to a certain extent, Germany have too high a base rate. I would have

1445
thought that concerted action over the whole field whereby the base rate of each country was reduced by four or five points would leave those currencies in the same competitive position but at a lower rate and that this would help industry throughout the Community. Obviously, if we had taken unilateral action sterling would not have been able to withstand it.
One factor we overlook is the cost of the reunification of Germany. In my opinion the bankers got it wrong. The rate was first one deutschmark to one ostmark and then one for two over a certain figure. That was at a time when the ostmark was hardly negotiable. If a buyer could be found one might have got one deutschmark for 12 or 13 ostmarks. So the rate of one for one and one for two was obviously wrong.
There was another thing wrong. Although bankers knew how many ostmarks were in various deposit accounts in Eastern Germany, what they did not realise and could not estimate was how many ostmarks lay under the mattress. In those countries, particularly countries behind the Iron Curtain as it then was, the general public had a fear of banks and always kept some of their money liquid. They did not put it in the bank. That meant that the sums were wrong and the money supply in Germany escalated. I should have thought that that would have brought into question the so-called independence of the Bundesbank. In my view, the rate of one for one and one for two must have been a political decision. It could not have been a decision of the bankers.
As my noble friend said, we await the Autumn Statement next week. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has reiterated that capital investment will remain intact. However, two factors in our economy are continually overlooked. In many cases the small businessman runs a very profitable company. His one difficulty is cash flow. There are late payers who deliberately keep small businessmen waiting for their money. It is high time to look at the possibility that, after the agreed credit terms have expired, it should be mandatory for interest, say, four or five points over the base rate, to be charged. Many large stores—Harrods is an example—automatically add interest to a bill left unpaid by a certain date.
I hope that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will also look at capital allowances. Capital allowance stood at 100 per cent. That 100 per cent. was then abolished. At the same time corporation tax was reduced and we now have one of the lowest corporation taxes in the world. But we must have another look at the matter. At the moment, with 25 per cent. capital allowance on a reducing basis, it takes just over nine years to write off an investment. Consideration should at least be given to a straight line capital allowance of 25 per cent. each year. As a result businessmen would be able to recoup their money within four years. These days I would go further and say that for the first year it should be 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. in each of the two following years. One would then recoup in three years.
We hear too much in the media of what I call the gloom-mongers who always talk down the UK. It is
1446
high time that we started to talk about our achievements. My noble friend mentioned some of them. Manufacturing output is up; exports are at a record level; inflation, as we know, is down. My one fear is that unless we start to talk more about our achievements and less about gloom and doom, the recession could last even longer.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, it is my particular good fortune to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. I overlapped with him for upwards of 20 years in another place. I always found him informed, forthcoming and suitably controversial. He has started in that way in this House today and I am sure that he will continue to make lively contributions to our debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that we all make mistakes from time to time. And it is always painful to be reminded of them. I have been reminding myself of my remarks in the debate on the Address which took place less than six months ago. I said then:
"It would be churlish at the beginning of a new Parliament not to wish the Government well in their central economic policies … With good economic management … it is possible, given the stabilising influence of convergence within the European Community, that we shall achieve a growth rate of 2.5 per cent. to 3 per cent. over the lifetime of this Government".—[Official Report,13/5/92; col.364.]
I was naive and I was wrong. Goodwill in politics—I was feeling very warm toward the new Leader of the House—is dangerous. It catches one off guard. But I believe that it was possible at that time, only six months ago, to accept that the Government at least had a sense of direction and that the important argument might eventually be how to spend the product of success; whether, for example, by improving public services (the overwhelming preference on these Benches) or by reducing direct taxation still further. All that has now gone. There is no sense of direction, no optimism and no confidence. There is only a frightening sense of drift. Certainly nothing said by the noble Earl today has brought this House much comfort.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the debate on the Address in another place is now a wry entertainment. He said:
"the British people have given a ringing endorsement of the Government's economic policies".—[Official Report, Commons,13/5/92; col.628.]
In so far as the British people now know what such policies are, the polls give no endorsement of them whatsoever. The Chancellor added boldly (col.632) that:
"In the years to come … we will continue with the same policies that brought us a fourth successive election victory".
The litany then went on (633):
"with the election behind us, with confidence coming back and with interest rates lower, Britain's economic future is certainly brighter".
As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead said, the overriding preoccupation of the Government at that time was with inflation. Indeed, in the latter part of the speech there were nine separate references to it in less than three column inches, which must surely be a record. It was low; it was getting lower; and the

1447
Chancellor promised to push it down still further. It seemed like an obsession and a dangerous one. But, foolish or not, the policy again was clear.
Then in September came the crash and withdrawal from the ERM. I shall not dwell on the details of that because your Lordships debated the course of events six weeks ago on 24th September. However, what was so extraordinary was the ability of the Chancellor, after a few glum moments, to behave as if defeat actually meant a welcome dash for freedom.
I have been reading a new biography—not that of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, although I hope to come to it—which deals among other things with a previous devaluation. The author says that, when it happened, the Prime Minister of the day was:
"at the very least expected to put on a show of mourning. Very oddly he declined to do so. It was not just the Cabinet which found him incongruously cheerful".
Soon after that, as we know, the nation was led to believe that the pound in its pocket had not been devalued. For the Prime Minister of exactly 25 years ago in November 1967, read the Chancellor in September. The term "cheerful" may be going too far, but "relieved", and "liberated"—yes. As for the pound in your pocket, from the Chancellor we hear the phrase,
"the opportunity to rebalance our policy".
That is a euphemism for,"We have been forced to think again". It is a form of words used again by the noble Earl today. They are now buzzwords; and I believe that they will be remembered as much as, and in the same way as, the reference to the pound in our pocket not having been devalued. How much better it would have been if the Government had stated plainly that their policy had collapsed. But knowledge of that was damaging to confidence in Britain at home and abroad. How much better to have conceded that at that stage there was no alternative policy.
We are now led to believe that the Government have had time to gather their thoughts—although on the basis of what we have heard today what those thoughts are remains to be seen. We have to assume that Parliament must wait for the Autumn Statement next week to hear the story from the Chancellor. Meanwhile, apart from closing down the coalmines and putting another 30,000 men out of work, all we know about the new policy was contained in the Chancellor's Mansion House/Guildhall, speech."One cheer for the Chancellor" said the Financial Times."Welcome but only as a first step," stated the Independent."Norman Lamont now has a half decent economic policy," granted the Guardian with unusual generosity. There were other remarks in a similar vein.
However, if the Government seem to be pointed in the right direction, it is still very unclear how they expect to achieve their target. In his Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that Government and industry need to work together to rebuild confidence. But what does that mean? Industry is certainly not responsible for the loss of confidence. For the most part it is a victim of it. Much of industry has been destroyed by this Government, and nearly 3 million men and women are out of work. If Government are genuinely asking for partnership with industry, they
1448
must start listening. They must then respond to the wishes of industry and not reject intervention out of hand as if the market will solve all.
There have been references to a debate in another place tonight. I do not intend to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I thought that he tied himself in knots trying to explain the position of his party. If the explanation was clear to the noble Lord, it was clear to him alone. I hope that he will find an opportunity of explaining it with the same lack of clarity at a further debate. However, I am glad that the Government are pressing ahead with their Motion. Industry does not believe—it is a central consideration—that it will survive and prosper in a Britain half in and half out of the European Community, with Britain acting as a constant brake on progress. For the most part industry believes that being in the ERM was a measure of Britain's European commitment. I agree with the Chancellor that we are likely to remain out for some time. But working together with industry means getting back in at the right exchange rate as soon as possible and not being mealy-mouthed about it.
It would he doubly disastrous if the future of our domestic industry was further undermined and at the same time inward investment turned elsewhere because Britain was no longer seen as a gateway to the rest of Europe. If the Chancellor has an instinctive dislike of the European Community and is frightened of the ERM, the sooner he goes the better. I agree with those who have said—and others will join in—that no single act could do more to restore confidence than for the Chancellor to resign.
In the meantime, how could working together in partnership be applied to industry, and in particular a single industry—construction? We all know the facts. They have been set out on a number of occasions. Over 450,000 people have left the industry in just over three years. In my own day-to-day activities, I am made painfully aware of the gross under-employment, declining earnings and real hardship among architects. That is quite outside their previous experience.
If the construction industry is to be put back on its feet, if there is to be partnership between government and industry, there must be a response in the Autumn Statement next week. In the first instance, government must protect all existing capital programmes from public expenditure cuts. Secondly, they should increase spending on social housing by releasing the accumulated capital reserves of local authorities. Thirdly, also primarily in the field of housing, they should provide incentives for a massive programme of energy conservation measures of the kind which would soon pay for themselves. Fourthly, the Government should bring forward at the earliest convenience a new capital programme for hospitals and schools and other essential community services. Fifthly, they should stop dithering about the Jubilee Line and talking nonsense about getting landlords to pay when the nation as a whole will be the beneficiary of its completion. It is a very dangerous principle, and to the best of my knowledge a new one, that major new transport projects in the national interest should be pursued only when a private sector godfather is

1449
available to share the costs. Other similar projects, such as Crossrail in London and new light urban railways elsewhere in the country, should go ahead.
I take for granted that lower interest rates are desirable. However, after the Government left the ERM, I did not share the euphoria that interest rates would fall steadily and painlessly and stay down. I would be surprised if over the next couple of years they are on average lower than in the two years up to September. Therefore the Government must not hold out the promise of lower interest rates to the construction industry or to anyone else as a substitute for taking other steps towards recovery, especially in the public sector.
The Government have lost the confidence of the country and deserve to lose the confidence of Parliament. It will require a vision and competence that the Government have previously lacked, and a remarkable Autumn Statement, before many of us can wish them well again.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, perhaps I may first express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peston for his kind remarks and for his having called a temporary truce between the London School of Economics and the Cambridge Economics Faculty. I shall try to do Cambridge justice.
I am faced with a dilemma. It is the custom of your Lordships' House that maiden speeches should be non-controversial. But it is also customary that maiden speakers should address matters within their field of competence. As a professional economist, I confess that I find those two requirements difficult to reconcile. However, my task is made easier by two factors. First, the Prime Minister has told us that he is "going for growth". I could not agree more with that sentiment. I know that we all look forward to actions which match the words. Secondly, there is general agreement as to one of the sources of our current economic troubles—the deregulation of the financial sector. For example, Mr. Norman Lamont, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote earlier in the year that in the late 1980s the overall balance of the economy,
"was being threatened by one of the Government's micro-economic reforms, deregulation of the financial sector. There was an explosion in bank lending in the late 1980s which sent broad money growth soaring into the high teens. That unleashed a boom in asset prices, particularly homes, which generated an unprecedented and unsustainable surge in consumer spending".
The sharp increase in lending to which the Chancellor refers led in turn to an historically unprecedented increase in the debt burden of families and of companies, particularly property companies. It is that burden of debt, combined with sharp falls in asset prices, which is today stifling any increase in spending and disabling all the traditional levers of economic management. As American experience has shown, with debt/income ratios at all time high levels, cutting interest rates, even to as little as 3 per cent., does little to stimulate consumer spending.
1450
But without a boost to consumer demand private investment will remain depressed. There is no potential for growth there. And with the world economy sliding towards recession there will not be much of an increase in export demand either, however much the pound is devalued. That means that the only possible source of that increase in demand which is so desperately needed to pull the economy out of recession is increased public spending. Cutting public expenditure in such circumstances would, as I am sure your Lordships agree, be the height of folly—for it would only prolong the recession and so ultimately weaken the public finances. But whenever the recovery in spending comes, and wherever it may come from, simply expanding demand will not create sustainable growth in our economy. Keynesianism is not enough.
When in the depths of a recession we are running a current account deficit of £1 billion every month, and when we know that any recovery in the domestic economy will inevitably be accompanied by a sharp increase in that deficit, everyone will be aware of the difficulty of attaining, let along sustaining, a rate of growth that will even begin to reduce unemployment. The growth which we need will lead to a volume of imports that we cannot afford.
The current account deficit, and our persistent need to borrow abroad to cover the deficit, is a measure of our inability to pay our way in the world. It is the true measure of the uncompetitiveness of our economy. At the very heart of our competitive difficulties lies the performance of our manufacturing industry, which still accounts for well over half our trade.
For the past 40 years a persistent trend has eaten away at the foundations of our manufacturing prosperity. On average, year after year, the share of manufactured imports in national product has risen at roughly twice the speed of the share of manufactured exports. At first, back in the 'fiftees and 'sixties, that did not matter very much. The volume of our manufactured exports was huge in comparison to imports; for example, the absolute value of a 1 per cent. increase in exports would far outweigh a 2 per cent. increase in imports. But year after year the inexorable trends have continued—imports always growing faster than exports. Eventually, in 1983, and in contravention of Aesop's fable, the import hare caught the export tortoise—and since then the hare has raced ahead.
Unless we can reverse those trends, unless we can restore our competitive position in manufacturing, the long-run economic prospects for this country are bleak indeed. Yet for far too long the needs of manufacturing industry and the means of increasing the competitive strength of manufacturing have been persistently neglected.
Modern industrial competition is not just about price competition or about ever cheapening the cost of production; it is today also about quality, design and product and process innovation. Competitiveness is about the skills of the labour force and about size and quality of the R& D department. In other words, modern competitiveness is about a sustained commitment of resources to long-term development.

1451
Therefore, any coherent industrial policy must consist of measures which will encourage and reinforce that long-term commitment.
As regards government action, it is now widely accepted that there must be an expansion of public investment in education and training, in support for R& D and in infrastructure of all kinds. But the success of manufacturing in our major competitors is not based only on governments who take a long-term view as regards their own actions; it is also based on a market framework, an institutional framework, in which the private wealth-creating sector is induced to make long-term investments and receives backing from the financial sector in that long-term endeavour.
In Germany and in Japan such a framework exists. It consists of a supportive government, of a rational framework of collective bargaining and relationships between finance and industry which bias decision making toward the long term. Of course, it would be folly to suggest that we can simply replicate German and Japanese institutions here. We cannot do so. But we do need a fundamental reform of corporate structures and of financial institutions in order to replicate, within a British context, the results achieved in Germany and Japan.
That is the key to a successful industrial policy. It is not government intervention in decision making but government creation of a market environment in which private decision making is strongly biased toward long-term investment. Regrettably, the framework of financial institutions within which our industry operates today does nothing to encourage the long-term commitment which is so vital. The short-termism of finance is exceeded only by the short-termism of government. And the financial deregulation of the 1980s which helped create our short-term problems has exacerbated our long-term problems. It has left this country with too much debt, too many office buildings and not enough factories. A commitment to the long term is desperately needed to replace the endemic short-termism which has done so much damage to our economy.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on his maiden speech. It was packed full with analysis and with proposals which many of us will wish to discuss, no doubt in some cases to be persuaded by him during the years to come. We thoroughly welcome his presence even though he adds to the number of economists in this House. We believe that he may enjoy his life more now that he is free from the job of advising the holder of that most difficult task in Her Majesty's Kingdom; namely, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. It is in the nature of that job and that of his—or her—adviser that one wants the country to do well and the Government to do badly. It is a constant exercise in schizophrenia and therefore we hope that the noble Lord will now enjoy his time in this House as much as we shall enjoy his membership.
I wish to take issue with the noble Lord on one point. I do not believe that the misjudgments made
1452
during the late 1980s, which led to the sustaining of a boom and in turn led to the troubles of inflation and overheating, were a reflection on the deregulation of the financial markets so much as a reflection on the judgment of people, some of whom were elected and some of whom came from his own profession, in interpreting the condition of the time. However, that is only to quarrel with one part of the noble Lord's interpretation.
I wish to take issue with a wider sphere of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said. It is true that it would be a vast over-generalisation to describe the 1980s as a period of miracle. But certainly elements of it could justly be described as miraculous considering what had gone before. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord elements such as the unshackling of trade union power; the growth in productivity which resulted partly from that; the freedom from controls—pay, price, dividend and exchange; most privatisations; and even the benefits to the rich of which he spoke. After all, the rich were previously perversely over-taxed and the revenue from that sector of the population has risen as a proportion of total revenue since the top levels of tax were reduced. I therefore take issue with the noble Lord in that, while he is unavoidably right to criticise some aspects of the 1980s, much of what was achieved by governments during that time under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher was in the nature of miracles, considering what had gone before.
I turn now to the Motion before your Lordships. Much has been made—quite rightly—of the ignominious repetition of the same mistakes decade after decade. The phrase was used,"Stop-go". We are certainly back with a "Stop" now. The sequence of the phrase misleads. The real sequence should be "Go-stop", because the initiation of a "Stop" is a premature, over-prolonged or misjudged "Go". That is what we are now suffering from.
To remedy a repetition in the future of yet another "Go-stop" cycle—from which many in this House have suffered, or have seen the nation suffer, not twice but three times, if not more—we need to return to the concept of monetarism. I wish we had labelled it "monetary continence". Scholars tell us that the concept of monetarism does not lie to the credit of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, nor to the credit of my noble friend Lord Howe or the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. It lies to the credit of the noble Lords, Lord Healey and Lord Callaghan, who under the influence of the IMF in the mid-1970s introduced, albeit covertly, albeit furtively, the concept that later became known as monetarism.
We are lucky to have in the House the biographer of the great Lord Keynes. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky will be speaking later and I hope that in the second volume of his biography—which we look forward to reading when it is published later this month—he will tell us whether Lord Keynes was a monetarist. I believe that Lord Keynes was far nearer a monetarist than many of his disciples. I am not an economist and cannot analyse these matters in detail but I believe that he would have prevented some of the episodes of "Stop-go" by drawing attention to them.

1453
In the light of the emphasis in this debate, let alone elsewhere, on the Prime Minister's articulation of a government policy that will, in his phrase,"Go for growth", we are given an uncomfortable resonance from previous periods that historians now tell us resembled not so much "going for growth" but "dashing for growth". In the light of that danger and the airy assumptions of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, of all the things that should be done and announced in next week's public expenditure statement, and other assumptions made by previous speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, there is a danger that we may reinvigorate inflation before long.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right to remind us that Hayek had urged governments to remember that the time to worry about inflation is precisely when inflation is falling. In my view therefore we need a framework. Perhaps what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the Mansion House and what my noble friend Lord Caithness said today represents the beginning of the formulation of a framework—a Middle Term Financial Strategy announcing what the Government would watch, M3 and M4. We are now told that the Chancellor will watch all kinds of things, including M0, M3 and M4. It is essential, if we are to avoid another "Go-stop" situation in a few years' time, to produce a framework within which interest rates, public spending and all the other activities conditioned by government can be judged by the public as well as by ministers.
I welcome the steps being taken towards a Middle Term Financial Strategy. I shall be told that it is much harder to judge what is the real meaning of growth in different descriptions of money supply now that there is deregulation. That is true. It must be much more difficult. But the Bundesbank and France seem to manage it. Why should not we? I admit that it is hard and that the Bundesbank operates within a culture far more hostile to inflation because of recent German history than the Bank of England would operate here. Nevertheless, I am sure that it can be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, used the powerful phrase,"Keynesianism is not enough". I used the phrase in the 1970s that "monetarism is not enough". If Keynesianism is not enough and if monetarism is not enough, what else matters? The noble Lord had the answer to that also. He said that competitiveness matters. Of course he is right that design, marketing and research matter desperately. But what matters also—though it is unpopular to say, no doubt, for the Benches opposite—is that the growth in productivity that for 10 years we have been witnessing in this country should not be nullified by earning growth that exceeds the growth of productivity. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with that. How to achieve it is a different matter. I believe that managers hold the responsibility for securing understanding by their colleagues in the workforces that it is in their interests to allow prices to be competitive and profits to he made, to co-operate in keeping prices steady by not demanding excessive pay increases to, in many cases, go far beyond productivity.
1454
I come to my final points. In the current circumstances where the Government want to encourage benign growth, they should take seriously the possibility of underfunding part of the deficit. I am not an expert in these subjects but I gather that normally a deficit, to avoid inflationary consequences, must be funded by the non-bank community. To allow underfunding would mean that the banks would be allowed to fund part of the deficit and thus to reduce the risk of crowding out corporate borrowers who may want to clean up their balance sheets from excessive debt by transforming it into equity.
I turn to my King Charles head, with which some noble Lords will be wearily familiar. Within the framework of what I hope will be a Middle Term Financial Strategy we must release the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. If we do that, we should look again at how our rival countries conduct their capital gains tax policies. The Germans have a sharp capital gains tax for gains made within six months. Fine, but I believe I am right in saying that they have no capital gains tax for gains made after six months. Something of that kind may be far more suitable to release the animal spirits of our entrepreneurs as times and conditions permit.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, provoked me to say something in regard to the ERM. He said that it was important. Yes. He said that it was important because it was on the way to EMU. Yes. He did not say that EMU means a single central bank and in the view of many of us that means a single central government. That is why Herr Bangemann yesterday hit the nail on the head when he spoke of the federal aims of the European colleagues. I do not believe that the ERM is such an innocent device. We must deal with the control of our money supply by our own understanding and efforts.
It only remains for me to wish the Government well in designing the least bad policies now available to achieve and sustain low inflation and yet achieve sustainable growth.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the House is indeed fortunate today to have heard two such notable maiden speeches from, first, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, to whom I listened with great pleasure. I was particularly glad to hear him say what he did about the economic consequences of German reunification. That is not often enough said: I hope that the House heard it.
I listened with equally great pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who had so many interesting things to say. I shall read them with great care tomorrow. I agreed particularly with what he said about action on interest rates not being enough and about our needing not just an increase in consumer spending but a real revival of manufacturing industry. I hope that it will be our privilege to hear both noble Lords on very many future occasions.
Somehow or other—I shall not speculate from where—the idea has got into the air that there is some kind of conflict between our allegiance to the European Community and our economic recovery.

1455
There is going around the phrase,"control of our economic destiny." I am not quite sure what is meant by that. We are a trading nation. We have a convertible currency. What happens to the economies of our trading partners is necessarily of importance to us whether we are formally linked with them or not. What people outside this country who may buy or sell our currency happen to think of our economy gives them power over us whether we are formally linked with them or not.
This notion of having control over one's own economic destiny gives me some problems. In fact, since the war I can think of only one country that has had control over its economic destiny. That country is Albania, where Mr. Hoxha was, I believe, the only world statesman I have ever come across who actually agreed with Plato that nothing more disastrous can happen to a state than to have a large export trade. I do not believe that Mr. Hoxha's example suggests that it is really a good idea to follow it.
We live in an international market. The notion of control of our economic destiny always was a pipe dream. It is about time that we lived in the real world. In that real world I have a vivid memory of the period between 1979 and 1984 when the floating pound turned into the cork pound. In the United States I was living on a salary paid in dollars and having to be in this country for about three months of the year to do research. When I had to take decisions about my summer spend some time in February or March, I never knew within 30 per cent. how much my money was going to be worth when I brought it over here. That gave me a very lively sympathy with the constant reiteration from industry that it cannot manage without stable exchange rates. For me 30 per cent. may have been simply the difference between pleasure and pain. But in any normal business if 30 per cent. is not the difference between a profit and a loss, then it ought to be. One is making grossly excessive profits if it is not. That is why I am in full and strong agreement with my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank about the need to be back inside the exchange rate mechanism as soon as we conveniently can. I see no other way.
On the wider problem, I cannot help agreeing with the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, expressed of having been here before. A great deal of this situation has a depressingly familiar note about it. Over and over again we have tried to bring down inflation. We have taken money out of the economy, and we have reduced production in proportion. Time and again we have tried to revive the economy. We have put money into it without increasing production in proportion. I believe that the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about inflation was well taken. We should not change from thinking that inflation is the only factor that matters to believing that it is the only thing that does not matter.
If we want money in the economy we want it to be translated into the production of goods. We do not simply want it to go either into inflation or higher import prices. Here I wish that I were the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel—whom I wish good health—with his matchsticks. I cannot help thinking that the
1456
present methods of trying to reduce inflation are like trying to level a pair of steps by planing them down from the bottom. One does not get them level until they are destroyed.
We need to think about increasing the marginal propensity to produce. Over the past 30 years why is it that when we have had a little more money we have put it into services such as lending money to buy houses rather than investing it in manufacturing? It is for us to produce the answer. I happened to stumble across the answer, given with blinding simplicity in a speech in another place in 1624. It is what happens when interest rates are higher than profit margins. It is more profitable to lend the money than it is to invest it in producing anything. I do not believe that at the moment I need to convert the Chancellor to the importance of lowering interest rates, but we need to encourage him to think about increasing profit margins. That means lowering industrial costs. When I say that I do not mean doing so by lowering wages. First, that of itself has a recessionary effect. Secondly, if wages are lowered below a certain point the bill simply tends to be transferred to the state in the form of housing benefits and other provisions. One simply puts up public spending.
I am concerned with rather more direct ways of looking at industrial costs. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, said what he did about business taxation. I would start with an urgent review of the uniform business rate. I would go on from there to the repeal of the statutory sick pay legislation placing extra costs on industry right at the beginning of this recession. When I looked at the infrastructure I would be looking at ways in which work on it could keep industrial costs down. It has made a very deep impression on me that the CBI says that the costs of congestion in London to its members is in the region of £15 billion a year. That figure is some years old and is probably due for uprating.
I agree with the Chancellor that the present levels of sterling create export opportunities. It would be a great deal easier to take those opportunities if money were being spent on a Channel Tunnel rail link. I would also want us to look at the fact that we should not be relying on industry to do things in the financing of our public services which ought to be the proper responsibility of government. Pushing those provisions on to industry increases industrial costs, and that is not what we need to be doing.
I am extremely glad that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead said what he did about the public sector borrowing requirement. We should recognise it for what it is. It is not a problem of excessive spending but of insufficient revenue. It is caused by the fall in revenue as a result of unemployment. That is something on which the Treasury was taken by surprise. It happened because the Treasury did not compile the necessary figures. The Treasury does not keep figures of loss of revenue as a consequence of unemployment.
That brings me to the subject of forecasting. At the moment it is fashionable to blame the forecaster and indeed the forecasts have not been very good. I believe that there may be an element of shooting the

1457
messenger. The forecaster cannot do any better than the statistics which he has to feed into his forecast. If wrong information goes in, wrong forecasts will come out. I remember clearly a debate in this House on 13th March 1991 on government statistics. A strong case was made for having an independent statistical service. If we did that, by getting away from the Rayner principle—that the Government collect only the information that they want to know—I think that we might get much better economic forecasts. We would have had estimates of future loss of revenue as a result of rising unemployment and we would not have been taken by surprise.
I do not want to reopen the endless argument about what is the correct unemployment figure; I shall repeat that what is the correct figure may depend on what one wants to know. The Government perfectly properly want to know how many people are on unemployment benefit. There is nothing wrong with keeping a figure for that. However, if one is making a forecast, that may not be exactly the information that one most needs to know. If we ran through the economic forecasts since 1988 again, feeding in instead the levels of unemployment that have been calculated by the Unemployment Unit, which are about 3 per cent. higher, I should be very interested to know whether our forecasts would have been more or less accurate. If we had an independent statistical service, these questions could be looked at without too much partisan input.
The final thing that I want to consider is a point that I have returned to many times: the cost of unemployment. The number of people who have to live on the public purse because they do not have work is rising. According to a Written Answer that I received the day before yesterday,10.6 per cent. of all adults in this country are on income support. In England,21 per cent. of all children are dependent on income support and in Scotland the figure is 23 per cent. of all children. That is a very considerable load that we are carrying—a very considerable number of people who cannot make a productive contribution. Although they do not get very much each, it is an awful lot of money when one adds it all together.
We had information in a report published by the National Children's Home last week that people on benefit were spending on average £9.10 a head on food each week and 62p on clothes. Those figures must have a relevance to the recession. If I were in the clothes manufacturing business and I saw that figure of £0.62 applying to well over 4 million people, I would be thinking of reducing staff. That is why if there were any further cuts in benefit levels the recessionary impact would be very severe indeed.
My noble kinsman told me last week that we could not afford any increase. If that is so, he is conceding what I have been telling him for some time—that in the literal cash sense, we cannot afford this level of unemployment. When we set our new priorities for government, which I think and hope is being done now, preventing inflation should share pride of place with preventing unemployment. If that is not done, we shall not get anywhere.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, first I must crave indulgence as being the third member of the Baring family to subject your Lordships to a maiden speech during the past year. Coming from a family that over several years past has had an involvement in the commercial life of this country, I am as anxious as any to try and pinpoint the elixir which will result in sustainable economic growth in this country.
To understand how this goal has been so elusive we need to look back in history. One hundred and forty years ago the Great Exhibition of 1851 showed Britain's vast advances in science and industry, supremacy in machinery and immense new range of factory products. But what has happened since? We have allowed the United States, the Far East and Germany to outstrip us economically. Some would say that this was inevitable following the decline of the Empire. They would say that we exported manufacturing to our colonies, used their cheap labour, but gave all this away when they became independent. Others would claim that Britain has always been a great inventor of products but far less skilled in selling them. A third category might say that the ability of the Germans and Japanese in particular to start rebuilding their industry from scratch after World War II gave them a great advantage over our mainly Victorian factories. Their workers' greater emphasis on training and acceptance of cheaper wages helped to make them much more economically competitive.
In the UK, on the other hand, the Victorians in a sense did too well. They were responsible for much domestic and commercial infrastructure and every generation since has fed off their energy and sacrifice. They built many of the factories and warehouses; they gave the country gas mains and piped water; and they created heavy industry. But for much of the 20th century commercial attitudes have been very different. Companies have decided that capital investment has a low priority. This attitude has continued even in recent years. Since 1975 British companies have on average retained 45 per cent. of their earnings for reinvestment. Over the same period American firms have retained 54 per cent., Japanese firms 63 per cent. and German firms 68 per cent.
Such lack of reinvestment may be reflected in the different economic growth rate of the UK compared to other countries. Between 1960 and 1980, economic growth in Britain averaged a mere 2.3 per cent; in the former West Germany 3.7 per cent; in America 3.5 per cent. and in Japan no less than 7.7 per cent. It is notable that during those years UK companies tended to make investment abroad where more productive assets could be had for the money. As a result, old factories here carried on unchanged. In this period the average age of UK factories was more than 35 years. Meanwhile, in Japan this figure had been whittled down to six years as old has been continually replaced by new.
Yet suddenly in the 1980s everything seemed to change. The free-for-all in deregulation and privatisation, along with cuts in subsidies to loss-making enterprises, tax reform and trade union curbs all seemed revolutionary at the time and did mark a

1459
major and exciting break from the past. The most favourable business climate was created for many years and, as a result, real domestic demand surged by 4.6 per cent. in 1986.5.2 per cent. in 1987 and 7.5 per cent. in 1988. Yet there were more unforeseen problems ahead.
The Government's reaction to the exceptional circumstances of the 1987 stock market crash, although based on the best of intentions to avoid a repeat of the 1930s depression, was to loosen credit further. The timing of the cut in the top rate of tax from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. may have helped stoke up credit more. The theory was that by cutting taxes and getting the Government off people's backs an era of sustainable growth would be achievable. By freeing up credit controls a huge boom was created in consumer spending with banks falling over themselves to lend to individuals and companies. People borrowed not only to pay for houses and cars but also holidays, school fees, new clothes and consumer gadgets galore. Property prices went through the roof as credit spilled everywhere.
From a City viewpoint the major mistake during those years was the failure of the authorities to watch M3 money supply growth more carefully. I am no economist, but I remember being worried at the time by the explosive growth in this figure of broad money supply. While not totally supporting monetarist theories, it seemed an ill omen when it was advised that no further attention would be paid to this important indicator which was way above its target range. The subsequent inflation which followed was triggered to a considerable extent, in my view, by the excess money supply growth, and inflation reached a peak of about 11 per cent. in the out-turn of 1990. The blunt instrument of interest rates, which rose from 7.5 per cent. to 15 per cent. in an overkill measure to repress it, has been a major cause of the present recession. Therefore, how can we seek to regain the hard-won benefits of the 1980s; how can we avoid the economy becoming overheated and inflation once again running out of control? What can be done to get us away from a stop-go cycle?
First, I believe that more care must be taken about the collection and interpretation of economic statistics. I welcome the Chancellor's decision as announced in the Mansion House Speech to set up an independent forecasting panel separate from the Treasury. I am more concerned about the accuracy of the statistics that are collected. For instance, it was not until two years ago that the sales figures from a leading store chain was looked at as part of the Government's retail data. This seemed a rather surprising omission in looking at consumer spending patterns. Actual statistics must be looked at more carefully rather than relying on models of the economy. Governments must not be afraid to use data available from the City economic sources. Unfortunately, communication between politicians and the City seems to have deteriorated (not helped by the sight of screaming foreign exchange dealers on the evening television news) but there does exist
1460
independent expertise in addition to these dealers which can be usefully consulted without jeopardising the confidentiality of the economic strategy.
Secondly, I believe in a more powerful role for the Bank of England in the model of the Bundesbank or the Federal Reserve. Both the latter institutions are able to operate on an independent basis; and whatever one thinks of the Bundesbank, it is certainly good at putting internal economic conditions at the heart of the strategy at the expense of outside influences.
Thirdly, I believe in selective support for industry. In the 1980s there was a widespread feeling that manufacturing was not important. Experts pointed out that there was a fundamental shift in the economy from one based predominantly on large enterprises to one relying more on small firms: from heavy dependence on manufacturing to greater reliance on services. The boom in financial and information services was going to usher in a post-industrial world. In spite of my family's background in the City, even at the time I did not believe that view, noting that manufacturing still provides more than half Britain's export earnings.
The 1980s did achieve one thing for manufacturers—greater productivity improvements. But the easy part has now been done; axing jobs and closing plants. British firms now have to do the difficult part: matching their foreign competitors' investment rate. This is where selectively government can help. Very few subsidies are given to manufacturing industry compared with other areas. Capital allowances should be reintroduced in full to help reinvestment in machinery. Urgent attention should be directed to whether the unemployed could be trained to help with infrastructure projects rather than being unable to find any work. Overall, I believe the President of the Board of Trade has seen the wisdom of selected industrial intervention, and I welcome that.
Finally, the features of economic cycles should be more readily recognised by governments. Economic growth does not go on for ever and warning signs have to be watched more carefully. Money supply, retail sales, industrial production and balance of trade figures need to be continually monitored to look for changes in the cycle. Monetary policy should not just be determined by interest rates: credit controls should be considered and tax increases even when necessary to curb demand. Like a barge in a canal, the economy needs watchful steering; a particular turn on the tiller can take much longer to have an effect than expected and therefore needs to be implemented in good time. But it is too easy to overcompensate for bad steering and to head off-course into yet more trouble. The margin for error can be narrow before the boat strikes the side.
My Lords, sustainable economic growth is much easier sought after than achieved. Both Germany and Japan have done so much economically since the war by paying greater attention to these last two principles—selected intervention and pragmatic economic management. We must make sure we put into practice what we have learnt from their success.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, on an excellent maiden speech. I am sure that all who heard it will have appreciated it very much indeed. I hope to return later in my speech to some of the excellent points he made.
I want to start with the fact that the Government have occasionally been criticised about the U-turns they have made in recent weeks and months. They were called relaxations by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I want to make it quite clear that I do not regret the U-turns that have been made. Indeed, in some cases—I shall refer to them—I welcome the U-turns as a positive movement in the right direction. I should like to list some of the U-turns, say why I agree with them and put forward some more which I think the Government might usefully make. I do not mind if they call them relaxations. They can call them what they like so long as they make them.
Perhaps I may refer first to the exchange rate mechanism. We were told by the Government very firmly and clearly of the benefits of being inside the exchange rate mechanism. That was the view of the Government when we were within the exchange rate mechanism. Now we are told with even more emphasis of the great benefits of being outside the exchange rate mechanism. I oppose the idea that the exchange rate mechanism was a fixed rate mechanism. It was nothing of the kind. It set fixed but adjustable rates. I am bound to say that I disagreed with at least part of what my noble friend Lord Peston said in this regard. I see my noble friend nodding in agreement with my disagreement. I think that that is what he is doing. I do not often disagree with him because, as always, he made an excellent speech.
The point has been made in the debate that for there to be a single market and for Maastricht to be implemented, even without economic and monetary union, a start needs to be made fairly quickly on being inside the exchange rate mechanism. It is far from clear to me how we can join a single market and be at the heart of it without being also in the exchange rate mechanism on the way to economic and monetary union and a single currency. I hasten to add—and here I might agree with my noble friend Lord Peston—that
I see the difficulties of our achieving all the criteria of a single currency let alone other member states. For example, it is difficult to see Italy achieving some of the criteria unless it uses some of the moneys that are not clearly visible.
I was sorry about the U-turn of leaving the exchange rate mechanism. I am not bothered whether the Germans did or did not offer us a realignment. We could have asked for a realignment and we would have got it. We could have got a realignment. If the Government were offended by the idea of calling it a devaluation, we could have called it a realignment and stayed within the exchange rate mechanism. Indeed, if the objective was to bring down the rate of inflation, as we were always told when inside the exchange rate mechanism, what on earth are we now saying about
1462
how long it will take to get back within it when we could have stayed in it. I very much regret the fact that we came out.
I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that devaluation occurred because there was clearly a lack of convergence between ourselves, the Germans in particular and others as well. That lack of convergence caused us to devalue. There was no choice in the matter. Nor was it caused by speculators. My noble friend's shorthand version of the word "speculators" was—I hate to use the word specious—not entirely an accurate description of the kind of people who were speculating. After all, there are people in the City who buy and sell currencies not out of love for the idea—they make some money—but in the main because they are acting on behalf of institutions, companies, pension funds and others and it is in the best interests of their clients that they take the best possible steps. When they see that that is what is going to happen, they would not be doing their job if they did not do so. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I gladly give way.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. I hope that he realises that I did not make a single critical remark about speculators; I fully accept that that is the business they are in. My critical remarks were about the banks—namely, the Bank of England and the Bundesbank—which is a different matter. I do not blame anyone who is in the business of making money for trying to do so.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his correction.
I shall now leave aside the exchange rate mechanism and the Government's U-turn and focus on the third of the U-turns; namely, what they said about devaluation requiring higher interest rates. In practice, we are now told—and we have seen—that what will happen is lower interest rates. It is fairly obvious. We now have them and they are about to go even lower, not that they are the answer to all our problems. But it certainly would be a movement in the right direction. I am personally very happy about going for lower interest rates of possibly 6 per cent. or 7 per cent., but it is certainly not the answer to our economic problems, as we have seen in other countries. For example, in the United States they have a much lower rate of interest but they still have a recession about which we all know. That was one of the reasons for the change of government. Perhaps if we get down to a level of 3 per cent. in this country we might get another change, but that might be going too far.
I turn now to the fourth U-turn that the Government have made in relation to the zero rate of inflation. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke today about low inflation. I welcome that U-turn. I am delighted to hear that we are no longer aiming for zero inflation. That is the way to madness and it certainly would not meet the objective of going for economic growth; indeed, it would delay any economic growth almost indefinitely. Even assuming

1463
that we could ever achieve zero inflation, it was crazy to even talk about it let alone put it forward as a target.
I now come to what I call the next U-turn, flexibility or whatever; namely, the strategy for growth. Again, I welcome it. I am delighted that the Government have now got a strategy for growth. However, I wish that they would tell us what it is and how they propose to achieve it. I am delighted to hear that they are proposing such a strategy, although a week before we heard about the strategy for growth from the Prime Minister we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there will be no kick-start to the economy. I am not sure how we can achieve a strategy for growth in the short term without some kind of kick-start to the economy. I am sure that one could call it something else and that, given the flexibility within government, another form of words to replace "kick-start" could be found.
As I said, I welcome that U-turn. That brings me to what I believe would be the biggest U-turn and kick-start towards achieving economic growth. I refer to public expenditure. What effectively is needed is a dropping of the rigid and inflexible target of £244.5 billion for 1993– 94. In current circumstances it is crazy still to aim for that kind of target. The Government have told us,"We don't mind borrowing more money for capital expenditure". I am not suggesting that they should borrow more money for current expenditure. We are told that in December 1993 we shall have balance sheets which will separate out, quite rightly, the difference between current and capital expenditure. That must make sense. But why wait until December 1993? We desperately need expenditure now on capital investment. In his maiden speech the noble Lord referred to that. I entirely agree with him. Of course that is what we need. I hope that they will drop that particular target. It would be the best U-turn or relaxation that the Government could effect or have yet done.
I gather from some of the press reports that I have read that there is talk about some form of creative accounting. I speak as one who has done a little—in the five years that I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Fairly obviously, I have no objection to the Government having in mind some creative accounting. For example, I would be perfectly happy if they changed Treasury rules to allow local authorities to use more of the money that they receive from council house sales. Given the state of the construction industry, it is madness not to let them take more than 25 per cent. and ensure that it goes into the construction industry. You can make sure that it does and does not go into current expenditure. If they want to change those rules, God bless them. I would welcome it.
The other idea is a little more difficult but one which I would still go along with. I refer to a change in the Treasury rules to allow private companies or large public companies to spend money on public sector projects like, for example, the Jubilee Line. They would do so on the back of leasing it in advance to government. Whichever way you look at it, it is effectively borrowing. But if it enables the
1464
Government to get off the hook and spend the money on capital expenditure which is desperately needed, I would strongly support it. I am not suggesting that it would bring the recession to an end; but it would certainly help to move the economy in the direction which everyone is suggesting we should be moving.
I turn now to the public sector borrowing requirement. I believe that my noble friend Lord Eatwell said in his excellent maiden speech that as a percentage of GDP it is modest by comparison with many other countries in Europe. Therefore, to be concerned with that percentage this year, especially at a time of major recession, would in my view be quite wrong. Again, the Government would have my support if they allowed it to increase to finance capital investment. Having said that, I must make it quite clear that all that alone will not massively reduce the level of unemployment. It will certainly not do so this year or, I guess, next year.
That brings me to my final U-turn; namely, intervention. We need to ensure that we take advantage of the lower exchange rate. Many speakers referred to what has happened in the past. I am not blaming any particular government because all governments have seen a reduction in capacity in manufacturing industry over many years. One has to face that fact. The Government will tell us, and they constantly have, that between 1979 and 1991 output increased by about 17 per cent. I do not dispute that figure. However, the problem is that consumer expenditure during the same period increased by 37 per cent. That is the major reason that we have such a huge deficit during the middle of a major recession.
If we are to move out of that, not immediately and not next year, we need to make a start on increasing capital investment. A number of speakers mentioned the issue; for example, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, in his maiden speech. I had a number of disagreements with him in the other place, but I shall not disagree with him today. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, also in his maiden speech, mentioned the need to do something about capital investment to provide for increased capital allowances. I would go further than both those speakers. In the short term I would go for 100 per cent. investment allowances, not necessarily for a long period of time but certainly for a short period. That would encourage companies to put their money into industrial investment which is so vitally needed now and not in a few years' time.
That is one measure that I would take. I turn now to the other. The President of the Board of Trade has promised us intervention for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I do not know when he has those meals, but he has not yet carried out much intervention. I hope that he has in mind to do it and to do it fairly quickly by investing and thus helping to kick-start companies' investment in research and development. That must be right at such a time. It can be done. Those are some of the things that I would do: some of the U-turns that the Government have made that I welcome; some of the additional U-turns or relaxations that the Government should make.
I repeat, I do not believe that what I or anybody else have said will provide a quick solution to the

1465
major problems that we face. It might get us moving in the direction of achieving what the Government have said that they want to see; namely, to move the economy towards a growth target. That is what I, the Government and everyone else, I hope, want to see.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Hothfield: My Lords, I am very honoured to be able to take part in a debate in this House amid so many distinguished speakers. I do not have the experience of my noble friend Lord Clark. This is my first maiden speech and, naturally, I feel a little anxious, like a diver who has just left the springboard, but I am much heartened to see your Lordships happily splashing about in the water below.
As a civil engineer, I make no apology for approaching the debate from that point of view. We have lately been hearing a great deal about the problems of the miners. There were mass demonstra-tions with unlikely alliances of solicitors, housewives and faceworkers, and every tint of the political spectrum. I have much sympathy with the miners, having worked in open-cast mining; but, the mining job losses being talked about are some 30,000. The construction industry is reckoned to have lost 450,000 jobs in the past three years and is expecting to lose another 50,000 in the next 10 weeks. That is an acceleration with no end in sight.
It is easy to see why there is so little public outcry for construction compared to mining: there is no concentration of redundant families as there is in the pit villages, but a uniform spread throughout the country. Construction workers, by the very fact that their contracts are fixed-term, are used to periods out of work and having to be mobile to find another job. But the health of the economy is very much bound up with the health of construction. It is hard to prosper when the infrastructure is neglected. Construction in the UK constitutes a major part of industry: approximately 8 per cent. of GNP. It is presently dying on its feet with unemployment levels of 23 per cent.—more than double the national average.
I have outlined the problem, but the debate is about solutions. Of course, I realise the difficulties facing any government in today's stringent conditions, with the need to contain inflation and control public spending. The world economy has, sometimes in the past, come to our aid, but every industrialised country looks to have its own problems. Certainly the USA, Japan and Germany are not immune. We have to take positive steps ourselves to improve our position. Vital to the solution is the restoration of some sort of confidence in ourselves, because there are some positive signs.
It is good to see that there is to he a change of emphasis in government towards industrial growth, and I for one shall not be adverse to economic gurus being replaced by more practical people. I mean no offence to any noble gurus. The recent reductions in interest rates are obviously healthy, with more cuts necessary to give further stimulus. The slide of the pound, though of no benefit to importers, is an opportunity for exporters to expand their businesses; and it is to be hoped that spending on capital projects
1466
will not be cut. We have had some assurance on that point. It would be a tremendous boost, for instance, if the Jubilee Line extension could be given the go-ahead. Those contracts are teed-up and ready to go. We have already spent £140 million on its design. As an investment, it should and would lead to further jobs and prosperity.
Another area for action is the housing market. That will benefit from the reduction in interest rates, but some further support, such as the raising of thresholds for tax relief, might just give the necessary push to help confidence to return.
For the longer term, we need to have an economic strategy so that, whatever the present hardships, people can see a route forwards leading to a stable economy. That strategy should be a framework, and not interventionist. It is not enough to have to rely upon market forces to pull one way or the other. Any publicly funded items such as roads, railways, schools, hospitals and training should be included. I leave out energy as being too controversial a subject.
In all of that, industry should be consulted so that practical policies emerge. The CBI would be the right vehicle for that. At present, service industries are more attractive than manufacturing industries to bright school-leavers. That trend will be reversed only if there is a prospect of stability and growth. There should be more consultation with manufacturers as to how to achieve that.
There are many other factors to be taken into account to achieve sustainable economic recovery—resolution of the GATT talks for one. There are others in the House, far more qualified than I am, to talk about those factors. Many noble Lords have already done so.
Before sitting down, I should like to touch upon two further points which I think are relevant. At a time like this, when jobs are scarce, I notice that directors' pay last year increased by 7.9 per cent.—almost double the rate of inflation. That is not a good example to set further down the line when trying to contain inflation.
My last point is that I am certain that being a part of the EC is essential to our future prosperity. Other speakers have mentioned that subject. There are, of course, objections to loss of sovereignty, to interference in our own affairs and to some of the new laws and regulations; but, overall, as an economic community, it is something we cannot afford to be without.
Lately, the focus of attention has been on Maastricht, and that has diverted attention from our own problems at home. Not only that, a continued wobble on commitment gives others no confidence in us and inhibits inward investment. That point was well put in a letter to The Times that many of your Lordships will have seen on Monday from 27 prominent businessmen. I therefore very much hope that the debate taking place in another place today will remove the current uncertainty from the European debate and allow us to resume our concentration on problems closer to home.

1467
I thank your Lordships for your patience during my speech and for the many kindnesses that have been shown to me in the House.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, on his maiden speech. He comes from a long line of forebears who have dignified this Chamber, and we can rest assured that he will carry forward those traditions with skill and authority. I hope that we shall hear from him on many future occasions.
Public and press comment in the past three months suggests that the economy is a large body that can be moved forwards or backwards merely by changing interest rates. Those are not the facts of life. The economy is an enormous machine with a multitude of different parts: invisibles, exports, imports, unemployment, supplies of energy, the availability of capital, the ability to compete, agriculture, vocational training, taxation and a host of others. Some of those are doing quite well but others are doing badly. Those that are doing badly are holding back our economy below that of our competitor nations. That is why we have been forced to devalue, and unless we take appropriate steps we shall devalue again.
The core of our economy is and has always been manufacturing industry. It is the very foundation upon which all our achievements have been based. In the past 40 years it has diminished alarmingly so that now the industrial base is too low to sustain our economy. Unless we can somehow revivify our manufacturing industry, the outlook for this country is bleak. It will be bleaker still for our children and grandchildren when oil and gas run out.
I should like to give the House three figures: between 1950 and 1970 the number of persons employed in manufacturing industry in this country was between 8 million and 9 million. At one point it even exceeded 9 million. By 1990 the number had fallen to just over 5 million, a fall of 40 per cent.
If those figures do not frighten noble Lords as they frighten me, let me ask the House to consider some other facts. In 1970 our exports of manufactured goods from this country exceeded our imported manufactured goods by £17 billion. By 1990 that surplus had been reduced to a deficit of £12 billion—a swing of £29 billion in one year.
If noble Lords are still impervious to fear and anxiety, let me quote a further set of figures. In 1970 our share of the total exports of the world was 9.1 per cent. By 1991 it had fallen to 6 per cent.—a catastrophic fall of 34 per cent. In that field we now rate below France, Germany, the United States and Japan. We are just above Italy. I beg noble Lords to consider the loss of wealth and wealth-creating activity that those figures disclose.
In recent years no government of this country have formulated an industrial policy which will halt this headlong decline and build for the future. The present crisis is a golden opportunity for the Government to restore their credibility by formulating a real
1468
industrial strategy which will build for the future. I believe it would be welcomed throughout the country and warmly supported.
I suggest that the way ahead is to select the objectives we wish to achieve and then take any steps which are necessary in the public interest to attain them. The two most obvious objectives are: first, to enlarge our industrial base, to stimulate new industries and to revivify those sectors of industry which have faded. The second is to increase productivity by training, substantial new investment, better use of research and development and taxation and other incentives. The Government will need the help of the CBI and the TUC, and I hope that we may also believe that the Opposition parties will at least afford tacit if not spoken approval. This is a national problem. It is not a subject to be bandied about in party politics.
There are of course numerous other measures which are needed for a rounded industrial policy, but time prevents any reference to them in detail tonight. I merely make the comment that in the past two years I have made various suggestions in that regard in this House.
I make one other point which sounds small but which is of overriding importance. It is that we should abolish the use of the word "non-intervention". It is the theme that dominates the Government's present industrial policy. The word can be used and interpreted in any way the speaker chooses. Industry is frightened of intervention, largely because of some imprudent Socialist policies which were attempted immediately after the last war and have long since been abandoned.
However, what is noticeable is that when crisis looms industry is among the first to cry for help from the Government. The Government use the word "non-intervention" to avoid responsibility for guidance and leadership which will revivify our industrial empire. Of course the Government must not engage in industry. They have neither the skill nor the knowledge to do so. But they have the power and responsibility to see that our manufacturing industry succeeds. The Government should think of themselves as the manager of a football club. Please do not think that I am being facetious. The Government must not enter the playing field, but from the sidelines they must provide the stimulus, guidance and leadership which turn defeat into victory.
There is one final point. If any industrial policy is to succeed in this country, the Government will have to import into their ranks, both at the political level and in the Civil Service, high quality personnel who are trained and experienced in industry and in its financial management. At present the resources available are far too few to deal with the formidable barriers that face us in the future.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the Government have aspirations, but they do not yet have policies to give effect to those aspirations; or if they do have such policies they have not revealed what they are. The aspirations are entirely admirable, but unless one has policies to give effect to the aspirations they do not

1469
take one anywhere. Because of that, the timing of this debate is singularly appropriate. It gives your Lordships an opportunity to place your collective wisdom at the disposal of the Government.
However, having paid tribute to the timely nature of the debate on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I must join my noble friend Lord Joseph in entirely rejecting the criticisms that he made of what happened in the 1980s. Of course mistakes were made, but equally there were great triumphs. Looking at the record as a whole, the 1980s were a much better decade than were the 1970s.
None of this is really important because we cannot go back and re-write the past. We can learn from the past and occasionally some people do. But even that is of limited value because we are now moving into a world which is totally different from that which existed in the 1960s,1970s and 1980s. The fall of the Berlin Wall three years ago, the decline and fall of the Soviet empire were not just political events, they brought about enormous economic change as well. It is as yet totally unproven whether the lessons of the 1970s and 1980s and the economic theory of those years, will stand us in good stead in the 1990s and into the years of the next century.
I shall not intervene in the interesting dispute between the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. All I would say is that it was well worth while listening to all 14 minutes of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said because of the jewel of wisdom which appeared at the end—namely, that we could look forward to another four years in office of the present Government. For that, we express great appreciation.
I wish to pick out three subjects to talk about in more detail. The first is the link between devaluation and inflation. Devaluation is an act of national impoverishment. Let us be quite clear and brutal about it. What devaluation means is that we sell our goods and services to foreigners for a lower price. At the same time, we are prepared to pay foreign suppliers more money for the goods and services that we import from them. Therefore, devaluation must reduce the standard of living in the country which devalues. That has always happened and, up to date, there is no reason to suppose that it will not happen. But what is worse is this: if the process stopped with the acceptance of the decline in living standards that devaluation represents, that would be unfortunate but at least it would be the end of the story. However, the world does not work like that because everybody in industry, the trade unions or the professions tries to protect themselves from the effects of the devaluation.
I have quoted the following figure before and I hope I may be forgiven for quoting it again. The first of the great oil price increases in the early 1970s would have put up the cost of living in this country by 4 per cent.; in fact it put it up by 400 per cent. That was the effect of this process under which inflation lives upon itself. We have a brief window of opportunity in the sense that it may be some months, or even a year, before the effects of the devaluation begin to feed through into prices and incomes in this country. That
1470
is why it is important in the end to know what policy the Government have. Their aspiration of growth and stable prices is entirely admirable, but one must know how that aspiration is to be achieved and how we break with the experience of the past as regards this issue. The only remedy that the past has ever suggested is a tight monetary and fiscal policy. I am not trying to differentiate between the two, but it is important to remember that a tight monetary and fiscal policy is not consistent with a high rate of growth. Therefore, there is a real problem here. There are various objectives we would like to serve, but the question is to what extent are those objectives compatible with one another.
I wish to say a few words about investment. That has become almost a theme of the moment but I suggest that what we need in this country is not investment per se but profitable investment. That is absolutely critical. The BBC, almost by accident, revealed the truth on this matter in a comment it made about 12 months ago at the time the Ford Motor Company announced massive redundancies. The BBC said the Ford Motor Company had an output per man of 28 motor cars per annum, Vauxhall an output of 30 motor cars per man per annum and Nissan in Sunderland had an output of 50 motor cars per man per annum, and were expecting in a year or two to raise that output to 60 motor cars per man per annum. That is not primarily because the Japanese are better managers than we are and it is not primarily because the workers in Sunderland are better workers than those in Dagenham, Coventry or Luton. Nissan's higher output is due to the fact that it has the latest and the finest technology and machinery. That means there must be massive investment. That investment must be profit driven.
The fundamental problem in this country is a simple one. We do not have an adequate amount of up-to-date capital equipment to keep all of our people employed at a profitable level of output. It is as simple as that. The problem is a simple one. The diagnosis is straightforward. The remedy rests with the Government and they have my sympathy. However, artificial ways of giving tax reliefs have been tried again and again and again and they always fail again and again and again. I almost came into this field in 1944 with Sir John Anderson who later became the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. He introduced the first special allowances on plant and machinery. What happens is that the benefit of the allowances ends up in the pockets of the bankers. I have nothing against bankers, particularly having regard to their reduced circumstances in present times, but nevertheless the objective of the allowances was not to relieve the bankers from paying taxation. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench may remember that some of our noble friends introduced special measures to tax the fortuitous profit the banks had made as a result of this business of giving special allowances.
I believe firmly that the key to this matter does not lie in artificial allowances at all but in the encouragement of profitability and a low overall rate of taxation because the driving force of investment is profitability but the sinews of investment come from

1471
retained profits. That is why I agree so heartily with what was said by one of my noble friends in his maiden speech; namely, that one of the tragedies in recent years has been the way that companies in this country, unlike companies in Germany and Japan, have tended to over-distribute their profits and have not therefore retained sufficient funds for the development of their businesses. Those are essentially what I would call matters of culture. They are not matters the Government can legislate on. One cannot legislate that companies should behave responsibly and sensibly. One has to develop a company management and an ethos and an attitude in the country which encourages companies to do this kind of thing.
That brings me immediately, because the answer is precisely the same, to the other great problem that has existed in the British economy ever since 1945. I refer to the inherent tendency for us to pay ourselves, whether in wages, in salaries or in professional earnings, significantly more than either the rate of inflation or the rise in productivity. We are still doing that today. I have every sympathy with the CBI when it says it wants to tell the Government how to run the economy and how to run the Government. However, at the same time some of us might be tempted to tell the CBI that it should also recognise that it, too, has responsibilities in this particular field.
Any attempt to deal with this matter by legislation has proved to be a complete and absolute failure. Unless people behave sensibly and properly, because that is the culture of the country, the only thing that can be done is to take monetary measures. Here I wish to make a purely technical point. I wish to compare the way in which the Bundesbank handles such matters and the way in which we do so. Twelve months ago when the metal workers produced a pay claim which would have resulted in a big rise in the rate of inflation, the Bundesbank promptly made it known that if that claim went through unmodified the Bundesbank would take immediate monetary measures to counteract it. In this country we do not do that. We wait. We say that such pay claims are wrong, that they are excessive and that they should not be made; but we do not do anything. We wait until the effects of those pay claims feed through and then we take monetary action. What then happens? The Government get blamed for the monetary restrictions and the people who are really responsible, having agreed the excessive rises in pay, criticise the Government for raising rates of interest or tightening credit. If the Government had what is technically called a "real time reaction" to these events, that might significantly improve the way that monetary policy operates.
The only final comment I wish to make is not about the Treaty of Maastricht as such. I believe that the importance of the treaty has been greatly exaggerated. Most of the argument about it is misconceived, but let us leave that on one side. The point I want to make is this. The single European market, the 1992 programme, does not depend in any way on the Treaty of Maastricht. It will go ahead. It will be completed, and it will be completed on time, whether or not the
1472
Maastricht Treaty is ratified. I support the Maastricht Treaty. I do not want any misunderstanding on that score. However, equally I consider that it is imperative that trade, industry and finance in this country should realise that the great opportunities opened up by the integrated European market are there and should be taken advantage of. There is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty, or in the future following the Maastricht Treaty, which would prevent this country making the best use of the opportunities which have been opened up.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the choice by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead of economic recovery as the subject for this debate has been amply justified by the positive debate which we have enjoyed so far this afternoon, and not least the notable contributions of the four maiden speakers. They will add greatly to the authority and expertise of the House when we return to this subject, as we often shall. The force and clarity of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, make him a daunting speaker to follow.
I should like to speak about the problems of British companies and British industry now. In this cloistered calm it is difficult to register the full extent of the problems which face British industry today. The clearing banks will tell you that their casualty wards are full of companies which they are trying to keep alive, and that with every point on interest rates and every fluctuation in the European debate from day to day those companies face the choice between continuing to trade or stopping trading altogether. The potential number of companies in this country which could go into liquidation is on a scale which the banks have not had to face before. Those are not only small companies; they include famous household names. We are in a precarious state and it is our companies which are taking the strain.
In this cloistered calm it is sometimes difficult to detect the noises from outside, but there is a noise now. It is not the noise of Back-Benchers revolting in another place, it is the noise of chickens coming home to roost. We are facing simultaneously the need to resolve a great many unresolved questions about the conduct of the British economy: questions about Europe; the balance of payments; our trading ability in a competitive world; our productivity; and our investment and capital formation in this country. All those questions, which have been deferred and delayed because they are difficult for the democratic political process to deal with, are coming home to roost simultaneously. That is not said in any hypocritical spirit from these Benches. The Government have an unenviable and difficult task because they are having to cope with the results of at least three decades of neglect.
It is notoriously true that in a crisis people tend to panic. Governments are not immune from that. Panic is the last thing that industry needs. There is a danger that the Government, buffeted as they are from pillar to post, harried by their once loyal friends in the press and given a hard time by their own Back-Benchers in

1473
another place, will grasp at whatever attractive phrase or immediate nostrum will get them through the next week. That is not what British industry needs. Industry needs continuity, stability and a firm definition of policy. There is a danger of the Government adopting what statisticians call a random walk—of government policy walking around randomly in no particular direction.
I should like to spend the few minutes which I have to address your Lordships on the questions of what the Government's economic policy should be and what the micro approach to the real economy might he. First, there is a danger that we over-estimate the role of macro-economics. That may be a danger to which all politicians are exposed. The levers of power are very seductive. There is a danger that, just as the Labour Party defines socialism as what the Labour Party does, we define economics as what the Treasury does. However, out there is a real world in which people are making and selling things and trying to do so profitably, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, reminded us. What we really want is economic management by the Government which comes much more from the boiler-room rather than the bridge. Instead of their playing with the levers and purporting to steer the ship, we want enabling government, government which helps the wealth creators to get on with their job.
Even with that qualification of the limits of macro-economic policy, it is right that the Government should have clear aims. I should like to address a theme which several noble Lords have already addressed in the debate. I do not believe that a consumer-led recovery, attractive as that might be in terms of immediate political pay-off, can conceivably be right. We have some hard years ahead of us. We ought to use those years to ensure that we have an investment-led recovery to repair our run-down technology and our capital and to allow us to tool up for a future in which we could be competitive in the world rather than continuing to stagger from pillar to post. Of course an investment-led recovery means deferred gratification. It means that we should not offer, however seductive and however great the pressures, the prospect of an early and easy consumer boom.
I believe that that is important not just in itself but because it could contribute to changing the culture of this country in the direction of long-termism, to which several noble Lords have referred during the debate. It could help to shift the time frame and give people the chance to understand that the problems are of many years making and will not be resolved quickly.
Before I leave the question of investment perhaps I may go so far as to suggest that the Government might consider setting investment targets as their main approach, not just in the public sector but by promulgating investment targets in the public sector encouraging investment by the utilities. The privatised utilities are the greatest potential source of capital investment outside government. On a smaller scale, private industry is also a source of capital investment.
1474
It may well be that investment grants on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, could be part of an investment-led, targeted strategy.
I believe that the other principal aim of the Government should be to adhere strongly to the policies of competition which they have developed over the past 13 or 14 years. I am by no means an admirer of this Government, but I believe that one of their achievements has been to get this country to face up more squarely to the need for competition as a basis for healthy economic performance. We need to continue and build on that. I do not believe that the privatised utilities are sufficiently competitive. The Government should do something about that restrictive practices Act they used to tell us about. They should sharpen up their competitive approach.
So we have two pillars—investment and com-petition—as a basis for long-term recovery. However, that can only apply in the context of absolute certainty about our European future. It is impossible to exaggerate the effect on inward investment that we have already experienced over the past six weeks as a result of the Government's wobble on Europe. The wobbling does not come from one party only; it comes from right across the political scene. We cannot afford to wobble. Japanese banks and companies, North American companies and Korean companies will not invest in this country unless it is quite clear that we are committed to a European future. It is for that reason that this debate and the debate in another place today are so important. If a message of uncertainty results we shall be playing with the future of British jobs and not dealing just with a Westminster squabble.
I should like to say a word about what I call the real economy: the world in which people make and sell things. How good it has been to hear during the debate that the superficial and erroneous notion peddled during the past decade that manufacturing was not really important and services were all that mattered is now being disposed of. Manufacturing does matter and is the key to our long-term future. It should go alongside a healthy service sector, but the two must march together. Manufacturing means real things; not just Treasury mandarins playing with computers, but skills, products, markets and adding value as a source of our competitiveness.
We have a choice. Are we to be a high value added economy based on skills and high quality inputs, or do we slowly but inexorably degenerate into a third world economy doing the humble jobs that other more skilled countries will not do? To be a high value economy implies two things. First, there has to be much greater emphasis on quality, to which other noble Lords have referred. Some noble Lords will recall the words of the wonderful hymn by George Herbert:
"Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws Makes that and th' action fine".
In this country we lack a culture in which people want to do things well for their own sake: professional people wanting to be as professional as they can be for its own sake and people making and selling things

1475
wanting to do it as well as it can be done. Therefore we have a rather second-rate economy, with second-rate goods and services.
When we get angry (as we all do) about the balance of payments deficit we should recognise the fundamental truth that people are buying foreign goods because they believe that they are better made and designed and that their functions more adequately reflect what they are looking for when they go out to buy them. It is no good exhorting people to buy British. The answer is to make British goods of higher quality. One may ask what that has got to do with the Government.
I believe that one role of the Government is to identify what somebody referred to earlier as the bright spots; to do some bench-marking (as it is called in industry) and to spread best practice and communicate around the industrial community what is working and how things can be done better so that the concept of total quality management applies to the whole of the British economy and not just to the few companies enlightened enough to apply it themselves. The role of government has to be very much more like that which the President elect of the United States, Governor Clinton, has called active government. I believe the days have gone when we want an invisible hand. The day has come when we need an active, not interfering, government to help industry with infrastructure, education and training, investment in research and development and particularly innovation.
I very much welcome what the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to do in communicating innovation. We need more of it. However, in relation to training perhaps I may ask the Minister in replying to reassure us that training will not be cut back. I realise that he does not want to say very much before the Autumn Statement, but I believe it to be of paramount importance that we continue to invest in the skills of people in this country and that whatever is cut—it may be some current expenditure needs to be cut—training will not be the victim of any random action.
During the American election Vice-President elect Gore expressed the thought that, far from the environment making life difficult for industry, it was a source of opportunity. Germany has found that to be the case. It has a billion pound industry making clean-up, pollution control and other equipment. Government can help. High environmental standards are not the enemy of industrial performance but can actually contribute to it.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that not only your Lordships' House but the Government and country should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for inaugurating this debate. It has enabled the immense reserves of experience, knowledge and economic wisdom re-presented in this House to be deployed in an extremely helpful and valuable debate. I am very glad that the noble Lord decided that this subject should be discussed this afternoon. I am particularly glad that he
1476
did not make it a time-limited debate. Having taken part in a number of debates, time limits introduce artificiality into speeches if one is rationed to whatever number of minutes it is. If I may say this without impertinence, the noble Lord showed good sense in not introducing time limits, which are coming to he accepted in your Lordships' House as almost a standard aspect of debates.
Having said that, I very much disagree with a number of things the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said in his speech. In particular, I disagree with his suggestion that taxation, particularly direct taxation, should be increased. I can imagine nothing more disastrous or damaging in the present situation than an increase particularly in direct taxation.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will recall I said that I did not see that an increase in taxation was called for at the present time but that if the accounts did not move back into balance on the upswing I would be prepared to use taxation. I thought that direct taxation would then be the preferable way of dealing with the problem.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that correction, but I think he must accept he was indicating that in the present situation if things did not improve an increase in direct taxation should be considered.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I said completely the reverse. I said I did not see any case for an increase in taxation at the present time. I talked about the position on the upswing perhaps in two years' time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord must recall (as Hansard will bring it to mind if necessary) that he touched on this subject. I am only too glad to see that he now appears to share my view that an increase in direct taxation in the present situation would be extremely harmful. One welcomes with enthusiasm his conversion to that view.
I was also very interested in the noble Lord's reference to various activities of the Government. With many of those references I wholly agree. I think he was right to suggest that the Government should pursue at this moment a more active policy if the country was to be led out of the present undoubtedly unsatisfactory economic situation. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will have more to say on that matter when he comes to reply. I realise that his relatively junior position in the Government makes it difficult for him to say these things, but your Lordships' House is entitled to hear them or it may well receive what I hope and believe is the erroneous impression that the Government have no policies in this direction.
Another matter to which I refer is the references to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that have been made not so much by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as by several noble Lords opposite. I believe that we have a very good Chancellor of the Exchequer and that the criticisms directed at him have been made in complete ignorance of the difficulties and dangers of that post at a time of recession. Only those like the

1477
noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who have served in the Treasury, can perhaps fully understand how difficult that situation is and in particular how difficult it is to secure a policy which balances two superficially conflicting considerations.
On the one hand there is the necessity for a degree of austerity which will undoubtedly prevent a return of inflation. It has been one of the great achievements of the Government that inflation has been brought down to the present level from the high levels at which it stood a year or two ago. On the other hand, there is the consideration of what needs to be done to stimulate the economy. I shall not use the horrible phrase "to kick-start the economy" since there is nothing of motor cycling about the management by the Treasury of the economy. It is obvious that most of your Lordships believe that there is a certain amount that should be done in that direction.
I beg noble Lords to consider the difficult problem, for those who have to decide, of holding the balance between those two conflicting considerations. If one goes a trifle too far in favour of expansion, one may bring back inflation and be forced to take restrictive measures once again to check it, which would be disastrous. On the other hand, if not enough is done, one may see the depression, recession or whatever one calls it, continuing for a considerable time. It is an extremely difficult job. I venture to say to the House—I have the happy advantage of knowing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is my successor as Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Thames—that we are very lucky to have a Chancellor of the Exchequer of such quality, balance and steadiness, who refuses to let himself be rattled or pushed about by extremists.
I turn to other issues that have been raised in the course of the debate, including the vexed subject of the ERM. I take the very daring step of venturing to disagree with my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who, as noble Lords will recall, made a most admirable speech on the question of devaluation. If I understood my noble friend aright, he believed that in all cases to lower the external value of one's currency was a mistake and therefore the ERM had a justification. However, it is all very well to say that if you lower the value of your currency you get less value for what you produce and sell. That argument depends on being able to continue to sell at all. One of the arguments for reducing the value of the currency, if necessary, is that exports become cheaper and therefore one is more likely to sell them or sell more of them.
The corollary is that imports become more expensive and your citizens are therefore discouraged from buying overseas products. I personally look at the ERM in that context, quite apart from the fact that a little time ago it demonstrated its complete unworkability. I believe that one should have a currency which can and does fluctuate in external value in accordance with the way the economy is working. If the economy is working successfully, industry is booming and exports are in full blast, it is very good to see the currency rise in value. But if the
1478
economy is not so strong, sometimes it is advantageous to discourage one's citizens from importing foreign goods.
In any event, whether or not one agrees with that proposition, the ERM was an extraordinary device because it did not tie our currency to any ascertainable and completely definite value. It tied it to a value related to the value of the German mark. To tie your currency, not to a firm figure, which is at least arguable, but to another currency which itself may and will fluctuate over the years seems to me to be a very unbalanced proceeding. Therefore I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply he will indicate that there is now no question of bringing back the ERM.
I know that those who want to see EMU (European Monetary Union) look upon it as a necessary condition precedent to that. I shall not weary your Lordships by discussing EMU because it is a long way off and many people believe that it may not happen. I feel that people in industry would be reassured if my noble friend the Minister could indicate that the ERM will not be restored and that it is to be left quietly in the waste paper basket.
I should like to leave with your Lordships my own suggestions for the situation. We should keep down public expenditure and be prepared to reduce it in many of the less essential areas. Quite frankly, one of those areas is legal aid; another is undoubtedly the amount of money we are now spending pointlessly and futilely on preparations for war crimes prosecutions. It would be sensible to save the £8 million or £9 million a year being spent on that by putting it into the waste paper basket.
I suggest that it would be desirable to look firmly at the cost of legal aid and in particular civil legal aid. It would be perfectly possible to adopt instead the American arrangement of allowing counsel or solicitors to take briefs on a pay-if-you-win basis. That would resolve any problem of public expenditure.
There are a number of directions in which further economies in public expenditure can be obtained. Having done so, surely we then have the enormous advantage of reducing taxation. There are two aspects of taxation to put to your Lordships. One is that VAT is a very inflationary tax. At 17.5 per cent. our VAT is the highest in Europe. By operating, as it does, not only on goods but also on services it is definitely inflationary, adds to costs and makes us less competitive. The Government should at least examine whether it is necessary to retain VAT at 17.5 per cent.
I return to the point at which I had a happy exchange of views with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. There is the question of direct taxation. There is simply no doubt that direct taxation at a high level is a discouragement to enterprise. If one wants people to take enterprising decisions in the hope, certainly, of profits, one must leave them with a feeling that if they are successful, they will be able to retain a reasonably large proportion of those profits. High taxation is the worst kind of discouragement to enterprise of that sort. Moreover, it is an encouragement to people with high potential earnings to go and earn abroad, where they will not be treated

1479
in that way or where they will not at any rate be liable to British taxation. People of great enterprise and drive who go abroad will thus cease to contribute to the British economy.
Having said that, I indeed hope that our Government will give a display of confidence and of courage. There is no reason whatever for depression. We have certain very cheering aspects of our economy as well as certain depressing ones. If the Government are prepared firmly to say that they will take a line of low taxation, of low interference in industry but giving the fullest possible encouragement to industry and those who go into industry, I know of no reason why in a year or two we should not see a very great recovery, when therefore we may all be able to offer our warm congratulations both to the Government and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, initiating the debate, we have had a good discussion today. We have had four good maiden speeches. However, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I single out the speech of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. He is a rare personality: he is a scholar and has applied his mind to practical problems. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I am somewhat sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is in this Chamber and not in Downing Street advising a Labour Prime Minister. But we cannot have everything that we wish and I live in hope. Perhaps something will happen soon—if not tonight.
Since I am not making a maiden speech,1 do not have to he uncontroversial. Therefore I shall plunge into controversy immediately. It seems to me astonishing that we did not recognise that our current problems began when the Government wobbled, lost control of their central economic policy and went out of the ERM. The ERM is not unworkable. We did not make it work. That is very different. It always surprises me that when we lose at cricket, it is because the Pakistanis have doctored the cricket ball. It is not our fault; it is someone else's fault. Every other country is able to make the ERM work. Of course there are costs. People should have known that there would be costs. When we entered the ERM, the CBI said that it would be a good discipline. It believed that the discipline would be on the workers, not on itself. Had that body studied the French and Irish experience and the experience of every other country in the ERM, it would have realised that the ERM provides a very tough discipline.
I have been advocating entry into the ERM since 1986 and increasingly so since the terrible economic policy between 1986 and 1989 when we had runaway inflation. I believe that one has to have some framework within which Chancellors of both parties may be made to behave themselves. Unfortunately, the ERM policy was badly managed by the Treasury and the Bank of England. I do not often disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, I cannot understand his praise for the Chancellor. A
1480
Chancellor who cannot handle a recession should not be a Chancellor. It is no excuse to say that he has problems; that is what the job is about.
The Chancellor did not heed the warnings that the divergence indicator of the ecu showed in the middle of August. The Chancellor did the worst thing possible. He came back from his holiday, appeared on the steps of the Treasury, and said,"We shall do whatever is necessary to protect the pound." He did not include raising interest rates. As soon as he failed to say that, the market knew that he did not have the guts to stay the course. He then borrowed 10 billion ecu. That is a clear signal to the market that one expects trouble; and when one expects trouble one will not raise interest rates by even half a percentage point. If one gives such perverse signals, those in the market, who are not stupid—they are not speculators; they are honest and hardworking—understand that if they trust the Chancellor their companies will lose money and therefore they abandon the pound, and quite rightly so.
We went out of the ERM. We did not choose to realign within the ERM. That would have been a good option. Since leaving the ERM, we have not chosen to say anything about rejoining. When we were saying,"Let us realign within the ERM", noble Lords on the opposite Benches used to say,"That is just a weasel word for devaluation. We shall not realign. If we realign inflation will occur." All those people are now saying,"This is not inflation. It is freedom. It is a rebalancing." Obviously, the situation was unbal-anced previously. The Chancellor says that he is now fighting for British interests. If he was not fighting for British interests before, what was he doing?
People have to have a systematic framework for economics. Economics may not be a science, but it is not witchcraft. One cannot pick up odd beliefs one morning and pretend that one has an economic policy. I believe that many of the Government's difficulties emanate from the time when they abandoned the ERM. They did not consider realignment within the ERM. Neither the Government, the Treasury civil servants, the Bank of England nor the Chancellor had any contingency plans. That is scandalous. People should have contingency plans should their best course fail. We have now had six weeks with no policy. Every time we seek a policy, we are told that there is another deadline at which the Chancellor will state a policy. The Prime Minister may appear on the ten o'clock news. The Chancellor attends the Mansion House. Then we are told that the Chancellor will make an Autumn Statement. All those factors do not add up to a coherent policy. We have no coherent policy; and it will be some time before we do.
It has been proudly proclaimed that there is no intention to re-enter the ERM. The Government signed an opt-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. Therefore I am surprised that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who do not wish to be half in and half out of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, support the Government because the Government are half in and half out of Europe. The Prime Minister recently stated that the preamble to the Maastricht Treaty was not to be believed; it was

1481
Euro-waffle. Why did the Prime Minister sign such a treaty if he did not believe in Euro-waffle? Why did the Prime Minister say that Herr Bangemann was completely wrong about Maastricht and that he, the Prime Minister, was right? How can he make such statements about fellow members of the Community? Ever since the Maastricht Treaty was signed, the Government have not made up their mind about their stance on Europe. They are looking behind their backs because that is where the danger lies. In order to contain the many factions within the Conservative Party, a different vision of Europe is being put before us every day.
To consider that such people are consistently European is nonsense. The debate in another place today is unnecessary. It has nothing to do with Maastricht. It has everything to do with the troubles in the ruling party. We on these Benches have an absolutely straightforward stance on Europe. It was passed by the Labour Party conference. We have a leader who has had a consistent stance on Europe for 20 or more years. We are the party for Europe; and we are the party which should be supported. Support us tonight, my Lords, and you will achieve one factor that is required to start the recovery, as my noble friend Lord Peston stated—the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and perhaps the Prime Minister too.
Let me now abandon such matters and turn to economic factors. With reference to the ERM, if we wish a sustainable recovery in this country devalua-tion cannot be an answer. We devalued steadily and consistently during the 20 years until 1990 when we joined the ERM. If devaluation could have solved the structural problems of our balance of trade deficit we should have been a richer country by now. Our problems do not lie in short run price manipulation, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said. They lie in problems of quality, competitiveness, innovation and research and development.
None of those problems will be tackled by devaluation and further devaluation. One can have devaluation by all means. After all, the party opposite has always been known for its dash for growth. We had Mr. Maudling, Mr. Barber and Mr. Lawson. They dashed for growth and fell flat on their faces: the Labour Party had to pick up the pieces. History will repeat itself. We must question a policy of devaluation and monetary laxity. Whatever is said by the party opposite about MO, M4 and asset prices, the Government appear to have decided to opt for monetary looseness and fiscal hardness. I share the belief of many of my noble friends that that is the wrong combination. It will not achieve short run recovery and if the recovery comes it will not be sustainable.
We need a proper framework of monetary stability with a proper exchange rate target. Within that target we can pursue a more sensible fiscal policy. If we were now to pursue an active fiscal policy we could achieve a quick recovery. Furthermore, if the recovery generated employment quickly the PSBR outcome would be better than is being forecast. The
1482
Government's present problem of a high PSBR arise because they have been passive in their exercise of fiscal policy. They have let unemployment rise and the increase in PSBR has been unplanned and passive. If the Government had pursued a policy of employment and had been more active they could have reduced unemployment. A great deal of money has been drained away in paying unemployment benefit and a great deal of money has been lost because people are not employed and paying taxes. I believe that it is possible to pursue an active fiscal policy within a strict monetary framework which would be beneficent to the PSBR rather than the reverse.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Mansion House speech, we look forward to a sensible set of budgetary accounts in 1993. I do not know why we have to delay for so long. For a long time we on this side of the House have suggested that we should have a separate capital account and separate revenue account. If that were the case the entire notion of PSBR would be shown to be the absurdity it is.
The name of Keynes has been mentioned many times today. I am glad that I shall be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who will correct me if I make a mistake. I believe that Keynes would have said that a deficit in the revenue account should be balanced over the cycle because it is possible for the revenue account to go into deficit in a recession. Keynes would not have said that if one has separate capital and revenue accounts the principles for borrowing on the capital account are entirely different from those for borrowing on current account. One must ask oneself whether the particular investment project is yielding an economic rate of return taking into account not only private costs but also social and benefit costs. One must ask: does this particular project yield me a rate of return above the rate at which I can borrow? If the answer is yes, there is no limit on how much one may want to borrow. There may be times when one will borrow a great deal and times when one will borrow little. There can be no dogma about 2 or 3 per cent. The 3 per cent. Maastricht rule is about revenue deficits and not about capital account deficits, and that is correct.
Therefore, before presenting a correct set of accounts the Government should have said—as I hope they will say next week, having one week, which should be long enough, to incorporate my views in the Autumn Statement—that they have certain projects ready on the shelf whose economic return exceeds the long-term rate of interest at which they are to borrow. Therefore, there can be no economic limit to borrowing on the capital account provided that the projects are profitable. That would be a sensible way in which to frame policy rather than being hung up on numbers which are not only irrational but are likely to be proved wrong if the Treasury has anything to do with estimating them.
As many noble Lords have said, today's recession is most peculiar. It is one of the deepest that we have had. When it was only six months to one year old, Ministers said,"Oh, this recession is caused by world-wide factors." All kinds of countries were invoked, including Finland at one stage. I remember it

1483
being said that we had a recession because Finland had a recession. Obviously, there are international influences but our recession started before those in other countries and it is deeper. Noble Lords who said that the US economy is in recession failed to tell us that last year the US economy grew by 2.25 per cent. It has a growth recession and not an absolute loss of output. We have an absolute loss of output, which is a serious matter. The fact that other countries are experiencing recession does not absolve us of our problems; it merely makes our solutions more difficult to find.
The first thing that we must state is that the most important element in the present recession is debt deflation. We must give careful thought to the way we shall solve that. I believe that the way to solve that deflation is not to inflate nor to encourage people to borrow more money. I recommend a mortgage "holiday". There should be a moratorium on paying hack mortgages for one year, as I have previously recommended. That will have the effect of releasing cash which people can spend. They will have to repay the debt and will not be encouraged to borrow more money. Not only will cash be released into the economy but the Government will gain as a result of not paying mortgage interest relief. As soon as a mortgage moratorium is introduced the Government will gain about £7 billion. The rest of the economy will also receive money. There must be an offsetting increase in M4 but that will be a one-off increase. I suggest that for a limited period of one year there should be a mortgage moratorium which includes new buyers. The Government will then be able to tackle deflation without causing serious problems by over burdening the debtors.
Secondly, I suggest that we decommission the Magnox reactors immediately. That will increase the demand for coal and stem the proposed closure of the mines. Although that will cost money it will have to be paid sooner or later when the reactors are decommissioned. We should do so now because it will have an immediate impact on the economy. It is necessary to think of such measures.
Thirdly, as my colleagues, Professor Bean and Professor Layard suggested in this morning's Financial Times, we need a proper framework for pay bargaining. It is no good stating that employers must be more responsible and so forth. Call it what you will—perhaps not an incomes policy but something else—we must have a proper framework for collective bargaining. The Bundesbank has a great reputation as a controller of inflation. It is not the wisdom of the Bundesbank which achieves that but the fact that it is sustained by a proper collective bargaining framework of which it can take advantage. That is why the central bank is so powerful.
I put forward those suggestions to your Lordships. I hope that sooner or later we shall have recovery. If that takes a change of government so be it.
7 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for opening a debate on "the measures needed for sustainable
1484
economic recovery". I am puzzled though that the word "sustainable" never crossed his lips in his opening address. That is not intended as a debating point. One of our chief problems has been the quantity of unsustainable recoveries that we have experienced. We have suffered, uniquely I believe, from a surfeit of "yo-yo" economics—boom-bust, stop-go (or go-stop as my noble friend Lord Joseph said). This used to be dignified with the title of "fine-tuning", but less tuning and more steadiness of purpose have served the British economy much better in the past.
I have been privileged to listen to three excellent maiden speeches. Unfortunately I missed the speech of my noble friend Lord Hothfield. I found myself in agreement with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and I congratulate him on a most lucid exposition of the problem. It is what he omitted to say that has always alarmed me about the party he supports.
I reply also to the question put by my noble friend Lord Joseph. Yes, Lord Keynes was a monetarist, in the sense that he believed that the quantity theory of money was probably true in the long run. But he also said that in the long run we are all dead and therefore it was not a good guide to problems in the short run.
Let me return to the question of sustainable growth. I should like to offer a definition. Growth is sustainable if growth today does not prove a hindrance to growth tomorrow or next year. If we now manufacture a great consumer boom, it will not be sustainable; it will only store up problems for a couple of years hence. That is what happened in the 1980s. The difference between output and expenditure in the 1980s was the result of booming consumerism on the back of over-inflated property prices. Mortgage tax reliefs aggravated the problem. That boom was not sustainable.
Sustainable recovery cannot be based on inflation either. I believe that is common ground. I agree that there is a danger in allowing the exchange rates to fall too low. The value of the pound needs to fall to a level which reflects its current attractiveness as a vehicle with which to purchase British goods and services, but no further than that. We must therefore try to re-enter the ERM as soon as recovery is under way and thus put back an anti-inflationary discipline in the context of building up the economy rather than cutting down.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, regarding the British membership of the ERM. It was not possible for us to remain in the ERM at the central parity of DM 2.95. I take the view that the pound was overvalued at that parity when we entered the ERM and thus the instrument was bound to break in our hands. One of the troubles of systems of fixed but adjustable exchange rates is that they tend to become more rigid over time, and that element of flexibility was not there.
Sustainable growth is also based on trade and diversification. Britain is extremely good at selling financial services and technology, but not so good at manufacturing. Of course, that is a problem of competitiveness. I do not know what to do about that and I do not believe that anyone else really does. We trot out the same old nostrums as we have been

1485
putting forward since 70 or 80 years ago, when the problem started to be diagnosed—more investment in training and so forth. No one can object to that. But it is not a golden road to competitiveness and will only start operating in the long term.
We know that for sustained growth we need specialisation so that we can compete effectively. An essential condition of specialisation is trade. That is why we need the single market. That is why the success of the current GATT negotiations is absolutely critical, not only to the world but also to the recovery of our own economy.
Finally, sustainable growth needs to be politically sustainable. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that growth cannot be based on activities which fail to employ 10 per cent. or more of the population. The social disturbances will become too great and the associated transfer payments will place too much strain on the budget. For recovery to get under way we need more investment. That requires pushing forward with public investment to lubricate the supply side of the economy in infrastructure. But we must be careful about that. We must also watch the government debt-to-GDP ratio. I agree with those noble Lords who pointed that out. Prudent finance is needed at this stage of the cycle in order to facilitate the transfer to lower long-term rates of interest.
The name of Lord Keynes was mentioned a number of times and it is important to note that when Britain left the Gold Standard in 1931 with its budget balanced at that time, Keynes did not initially oppose the policy of balancing the budget precisely on those grounds; that is, he thought that prudent finance was an essential prerequisite for lowering long-term interest rates. No one now would believe that the budget has to be balanced at all times. Later on Lord Keynes proposed unbalancing it but at that time, following a financial crisis and a loss of confidence in government, it was thought to be important. Therefore, to secure lower long-term interest rates, we must be prudent. So, while we should push ahead with capital projects, we should not think that we can simply spend our way out of the depression in any crude Keynesian manner.
In my view, noble Lords opposite have been too pessimistic about the effects of interest rate reductions. In the 1930s this country was floated off the depression by cheap money, which started a housing boom. Reduction of interest rates on mortgages, as interest rates come down, will do more than any other single action to revive consumer confidence and spending.
In the light of all those points I welcome the Chancellor's decision to maintain public spending on infrastructure. I welcome his determination to give the private sector a greater role in financing public capital projects. I welcome his determination to bear down on inflation, though I am still awaiting a convincing policy for that. I should like him to consider the possibility of tax relief for investment in equities—something that the Germans do. I also approve of the distinction he proposes to make between capital and current spending in the Government's Budget. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is quite right; that was
1486
proposed by Keynes 60 years ago. Had it been adopted, much of the discussion regarding the PSBR would have been clearer than it has been. It would be good for business confidence to see the Government's accounts run in a way which makes sense to the business community.
I very much share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in regard to adding to the current army of forecasters already available to the Government. When will Chancellors of the Exchequer realise that economics is not an exact science? A forecast is only as good as the material which goes into it and that material is constantly changing, often in unexpected ways, so that all forecasts are liable to go wrong except in the short term. It is judgment acting on data which makes for good policy, not blind faith and statistical manipulations. The Governor of the Bank of England at an earlier period used to say that his method was simply to take up all the forecasts and act on the basis of the average forecast. That method was as good as any other. I share the scepticism about that.
My final point is a more sombre one. We have had very little talk this afternoon about pay. But keeping money wages stable as output and prices recover is perhaps the most important requirement of all for sustainable recovery. We have to start thinking again about pay, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. That means thinking about the institutions of wage bargaining and the role of trade unions in the economy. All these factors have to be thought about or we will throw away the fruits of the recovery as it develops, as we have done time and time again.
The most important condition of a sustainable recovery is general agreement on how we should behave as a society in the economic sphere. Sooner or later we will have to start a grand discussion on it. We could call it a discussion on the moral basis of a free economy in a free society. The sooner we do that, the better, and the sooner we shall escape from the trap of yo-yo economics which has beset us ever since the Second World War.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the wide measure of apparent agreement between both noble Lords who preceded me as regards matters of economics, having read part one economics at Cambridge before the war and being a kind of Keynsian, I feel that there is nothing more that I can usefully say on the matter of economics in your Lordships' House. But, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter truly said, noble Lords on all sides of the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, irrespective of the measure of agreement with what he said, for introducing this Motion on,
"the measures needed for sustainable economic recovery".
When tabled this Motion assumed the ratification of Maastricht as the prerequisite measure to afford the basic framework within which other measures referred to in the Motion would be taken. So I intend to deal with Maastricht as I regard it as the essential factor in this debate on which so far there has been little discussion save by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.

1487
Ratification was common ground between all political parties until 26th October when the foreign affairs spokesman for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition suddenly changed tack and said,
"My view is that we should oppose it",
having said in September,
"I am not in favour of defeat of the Bill".
I say at once that the position of noble Lords who oppose ratification in principle such as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is wholly respected. The sincerity of their convictions is not called in question. But this isolationist approach is unrealistic, untenable and not understood. Those who oppose ratification only for extraneous reasons put their political credibility to the hazard, notwithstanding the most disarming advocacy of that much respected Keynsian economist, the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
It has to be said that these treaty obligations, although justiciable, are framed as policy intentions; that since Maastricht a gulf has widened between the Commission Eurocrats, the politicians and the peoples in many member states. It is a gulf which must be bridged, and which shall be bridged, so that the will of the people is accommodated. It comes to this: ratification of Maastricht cannot preclude subsequent negotiations for that is an ongoing process. The text of the treaty after ratification is not immutable as if it were, so to speak, set in a tablet of stone.
Unless the ERM ceases to exist—here I am not trying to be an economist, I have just been reading the treaty and the derogations—when convergence criteria allow, it is in our interests to return to the ERM and to seek no further devaluation within it. As I understand it, that is the position quite simply adopted by the CBI which conforms with our treaty obligations. If I have got it right, it is consistent with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
If we are to foster and maintain recovery, there is no viable alternative to ratification on offer because the volume of our exports could not be absorbed by the EFTA countries, the Commonwealth or anywhere else in the world if diverted from the member states by a Customs barrier. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, in a most interesting and authoritative speech, gave the figures which concern exports and our manufacturing industry's position which serve both as a warning and as a beacon of light for the recovery of those industries.
Indeed, a tribute is also due to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who by dint of his own sense of commitment and well prepared and well conducted negotiations obtained important derogations. No one who has read those derogations (I refer to the treaty publication HMSO Cm.1934 presented in May 1992) and understands that citizenship of the union under Article 8 of the treaty in no way abrogates the relationship between our Monarch and her subjects could fail to regard that achievement as other than of fundamental benefit and of crucial consequence.
Indeed, a French banker whom I met the other day and who voted no told me that he would have voted yes if France had sought and obtained those concessions. For the sake of the record, I refer quite
1488
shortly to the Protocol at pages 114 to 116 as specific derogations from the Protocol on transition to the third stage of EMU and to the Protocol at page 117 as derogations from the Social Charter in that context.
Without an alternative market for our exports there is no way that the scourge of unemployment may be redressed; that our standard of living may be maintained; that currency may be stabilised at an acceptable exchange rate; that inward investment in our industries may be sustained and promoted; and that international confidence may be restored.
We are Europeans, albeit perched on an island on the edge of the Continent. But on more than one occasion our insularity has saved the sovereign states of Europe from ruin and subjection. Our history of involvement in the affairs of Europe continues to shape our destiny. How could we foster and sustain recovery if (contrary to the long established traditions of our diplomacy) we were to opt out of Europe and relinquish influence over the negotiations which affect our economic revival? Where would we go for exports to redress the deficit in our balance of trade if we should go it alone? How could the City of London retain its pre-eminence as a financial institution?
If we fail to ratify—and Maastricht is at the root of this debate—the Franco-German-Benelux axis could well renege on the Rome Treaty, divide Europe and adopt an overtly federalist contingency plan. How could we negotiate the sharing of the burden of the cost and consequences of German reunification? The concept of an enlarged Community would inevitably suffer a similar fate to that of the "grand design" of King Henry of Navarre, King of France, and his great Minister, Sully.
As envisaged by the Motion (assuming ratification of Maastricht) irrespective of agreement on GATT, other measures must be taken to reflate the economy, provide employment and restore confidence. A fundamental reappraisal of financial, fiscal, economic and social policies is wholly requisite. I appreciate that it is a question of balancing one against another, but having heard what has been said by the economists in this debate, as I have said before, I am not in a position to offer any further views on how that balance should be cast. Noble Lords may well wish to reserve their position until after the Autumn Statement. In this my noble friend the Minister is in obvious difficulty as to how far he can assist this House, and I am certainly not asking from these Benches for any answer tonight.
In a sense today's debate is premature, but it nonetheless serves a most timely and valuable purpose, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said. In the wake of the ERM debacle, and it was a debacle—I am not making any personal criticism of anyone; I am just saying that it was a debacle—the ship of state has been seen as if to be wallowing at anchor to weather gale-force recession without motor power in the engine room.
A start has been made. The pit closure decision has been reversed. The idea that monetary compensation (however lavish) for loss of a job affords recompense or serves the community at a time when no other job is available is under review. There will he an objective

1489
reappraisal. A new energy strategy will be laid before Parliament. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is seeking to establish a new sense of partnership between government and trade unions, which has been mentioned as important by one noble Lord already, and interest rates have fallen.
But all is not well. There are massive insolvencies in large and small businesses. There are rows upon rows of empty shops wherever one goes; alarming dispossessions; general unease and a l ack of confidence. The building and other trades have sunk below the level of subsistence. Our labour force, particularly in the manufacturing industries—the seedcorn and the hope of recovery—is being scattered to the wind. Export guarantees and bank credits for manufacturers of exports do not match up to those available to our competitors. Due account has not been taken of the domino effect of rising unemployment upon the whole structure of life and commerce in-those stricken communities. Works on the infrastructure have not been commissioned, such as, for example, the Jubilee Line, on which the Government may well be playing cat and mouse with the banks. Nonetheless, this slights the prospect of employment and recovery in the construction industry.
To return to what I see as the fundamentals—the basis upon which this Motion was cast (the assumption which was made): the pre-requisite was that Maastricht should be ratified—failure to ratify could have dire consequences. The measures envisaged by this Motion could be rendered largely ineffective. The spectre of a divided Europe could presage for all the peoples of Europe yet another of those dark ages. It is not open to a Prime Minister of our country who has struck a bargain with other heads of state (a bargain acclaimed by all political parties when it was made) to seek to renegotiate and renege on his deal. On that I am totally behind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Not only for that reason, but because it is in the interests of the nation, we must ratify and so remain close to the heart of the peoples of Europe, a heart which beats steadily towards "closer union" without the implant of a Bangemann pacemaker.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Haisbury: My Lords, when we were recalled in September I addressed your Lordships on the economy in terms which can be read in Hansard by those so minded. I was gratified when about three weeks ago the content of what I told your Lordships on that occasion appeared as a leading article in the Sunday Times. Set alongside them, the Chancellor's speech at the recent banquet had a distinct family resemblance. A fourth member of the family chimed in this afternoon—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to whom we are all grateful for initiating the debate.
With your Lordships' leave, I should like to pursue the thoughts that I raised, since raised by others, on the equilibrium of the economy, starting with a simple example of something that one can read in Adam Smith. The price of anything in a shop is made up of
1490
three components: wages, bought-outs, and surplus. The price of the bought-outs is also made up of three components: wages, bought-outs and surplus. One can see what happens if one pursues the regress. The price of something in the shops is made up of nothing but wages and surplus. There are only two things that one can do with either of them—one can spend them or one can save them. That gives the conditions for the equilibrium of the economy. Total spendings must be equal to the output of the consumer goods industry at full employment, and total savings must be invested to equal the output of the capital goods industry at full employment. So what we are really troubled about is the disequilibrium of the economy. Why are those conditions not observed?
There are two factors which I think Adam Smith could not have foreseen. One was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—the very high cost and necessity of modern production techniques and their sensitivity to underemployment. Adam Smith could not have foreseen the rapid acceleration of production technology. Nor could he have foreseen the sophistication of our foreign trading and the world's currency circulation, a point referred to by my noble friend Lord Benson. I shall not deal with that point because I do not want to deliver a lecture on economics so much as to participate in your Lordships' debates.
One of the factors we notice as a symptom of this disequilibrium is inflation. But inflation is not the only enemy. Inflation is a consequence and not a cause. In trying to deal with the point I should like to introduce your Lordships to a recently propounded article of faith known as Wheeler's first law, which I read for the first time in a leading article in the New York Times.I quote it to your Lordships because I think it is rather fun. It reads as follows:
"On the malfunctioning of any sufficiently complex system, attack, however apparently intelligent, on a single element or symptom generally leads to a deterioration of the system as a whole".
I am at one on that basis with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on having nothing to do with kick starts to the economy.
What I really want to induce is the need for an earthquake at the Treasury and the Bank of England to make a clear discrimination in our national accounts between capital and revenue expenditure. As I have said before, it is wrong to borrow money to pay the housekeeping bills; but there is nothing wrong in borrowing money to build a house provided it is a new house and is an addition to the capital assets of the country.
The construction industry is at a standstill. Last night I attended the inauguration of this year's president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. It is agreed that the construction industry is at a standstill notwithstanding the fact that our housing stock is out of date, that we need new hospitals, new schools, better houses or hostels for the homeless and better provision for the increasingly large army of the elderly, in relation to the average age of the population, who will need attention in their old age. But action will never be taken unless it is foreseen in advance. Here I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord

1491
Desai. Unless one has contingency plans which can be switched into action forthwith it will take far too long to formulate them before something else happens and the economy either recovers or goes into another recession.
I remember addressing your Lordships a number of years ago on the topic that was occupying the House at the time—unemployment among recently graduat-ed young men. I said then that it would not do them any harm to get their hands dirty by doing an honest job and pointed out that there had been 250 years' destruction of environmental facilities and that repairs were overdue. I said that they should be taught to drive a bulldozer in order to take all the slagheaps away and that it would not do them any harm to learn how. However, I made the point that unless the bulldozers were mothballed awaiting such a contingency—based on the fact that it had been admitted all along that our economy was never in equilibrium and was merely going from one position of disequilibrium to another—nothing could be done about it.
There is another point to be made about inflation. Inflation benefits the debtor at the expense of the creditor. By and large the world consists of a very large number of little debtors and a substantially smaller number of large creditors. The big battalions will always be on the side of inflation. There will be no popular opposition to it because everyone imagines that they will beat inflation even if someone else does not. The whole economy has to be made to snowball upwards. If one loads the construction industry, the transformation of unemployment benefit into wages will load the high street, which will load its suppliers, which will load manufacturers and which will load the machine tool industry. The economy will snowball, which is what we all want to see. But for the time being we have to sweat it out, remembering that what we have to make is the right kind of capital investment for the future in the infrastructure of the country. Inflation will then take care of itself.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is an up side and a down side to being at the tail end of the batting. The down side is that many of one's best strokes have already been played. Indeed, if I repeat myself a little I am sure noble Lords will understand. The up side is that, with a little luck, one has watched some very stylish batting going on before. That is certainly what I have done sitting on this Bench today.
In particular—it is not something that happens often—I actually found myself able to understand almost all of the speeches of the professional economists that we heard today. Perhaps they ought to go away and have another look at what they are saying, as it may be that they are not allowed to be understood by mere ordinary mortals. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, started very well indeed and all the other professional economists seemed to take a leaf out of his book and speak in such a way that we could follow them. At least I did, which is something. I am not sure that I am quite in a position to say that
1492
I now see clearly what the Government ought to do, but certainly I see some of the pitfalls which are around.
When I knew I was going to speak in the debate I looked up an article I had read in a newspaper earlier in the week in which five of the country's leading economists talked of a "pronounced weakness in the economy" and spoke about budget deficits for 1993 which were likely to shoot well above forecast. The advisers were saying that taxes would have to increase—VAT and excise duty—and that government spending would have to be cut. There would be cuts in social welfare, unemployment benefit and holiday entitlement. I read that one of that country's biggest and most prestigious employers had shelved a plan to build a new £0.5 billion factory and instead was planning to trim its workforce over the next few years by some 20,000 employees—11 per cent. of its workforce. The country concerned was not the United Kingdom. The company was Mercedes Benz and the country was Germany.
France has around 3 million unemployed—10.3 per cent. of the workforce, a marginally greater percentage than that in the UK. There one sees a picture not dissimilar to what we have in this country. That, dare I remind noble Lords opposite, is with a socialist government. French interest rates are high—much higher than ours. Even Nissan, the world's number four car manufacturer, reports its first net loss for more than three decades. Its vice-president explains the cause as simultaneous depression in Japan, in the US and in the European communities. We all know about the United States today. The results of the problems in that economy are there for all of us to see with the defeat of President Bush, although I suspect that my noble friends on this side of the House ought to take note of the fact that the high profile part played by the extreme right in the Republican Party probably did not do President Bush's election chances much good either.
All our fellow members of the European Community, of the EEA and of the G7 are facing problems. Therefore it is naive to assume that only we are facing those problems and that by some magic policy we can get ourselves out of them when everyone else is still in them. Some years ago it was fashionable to join the ERM. We were not at that stage in it. I can remember in my previous role mouthing the words "we will it join when the time is right". Well, the promised land that everyone told me was to be attained just by joining the ERM did not actually turn out quite like that. However, I do think that there were sound reasons for joining and that there were, perhaps, sounder reasons for joining rather earlier than we did.
We ought to look back and see what effects the ERM had on our economy. Under the discipline of the ERM inflation fell from 10.9 per cent. to 3.6 per cent.; our interest rates fell by 5 per cent. and we had currency stability. I shall return to that issue later in my remarks. Unfortunately, the storms which gathered around the whole world economy earlier this year overwhelmed even those advantages. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He

1493
posed the question: why did we not realign inside the system? I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who said that one of the problems with a supposedly flexible system is that it ceases to be flexible. Undoubtedly, that portion of the ERM had ceased to exist. The idea that it was only our currency and that if we alone had realigned we would have solved the problem is simply not true. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested that realignment had worked for other countries. I beg leave to differ with him. Italy was first forced to devalue the lira and then found that that was not enough. That would probably have been our nightmare if we had tried to devalue within the system. If that had been insufficient the consequences would have been very serious. Of course, the lira was eventually forced to leave the ERM, the Spanish were obliged to devalue the peseta and to reintroduce exchange controls and the Irish had to increase interest rates markedly and to reintroduce exchange controls. We all know that the French were forced into a vigorous defence of the franc, which pushed up their interest rates. Moreover, I believe I read somewhere that they also had to reintroduce exchange controls. I am not quite sure how all of that matches up with some of the points about economic union and some of the converging factors that are supposed to arise.
I do not think that any of us on the outside should underestimate the problems confronting our Government that day in September—should they keep putting up interest rates, which would be extremely damaging to our economy, or should they in fact suspend our membership of the ERM? I believe that they did absolutely the right thing that day, although it cannot have been easy. I certainly was not impressed then by the Opposition's alternatives. Indeed, on September 14th, the day after the Italians devalued the lira, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, wanted our interest rates to be cut and for us to continue in membership of the ERM. It was not a Conservative who answered him, it was his colleague, Peter Shore, who said:
"What we hear from Labour's Treasury team is a point-blank refusal even to question the exchange rate at the same time as they call for lower interest rates. I do not reveal any new economic law when I say that this is simply nonsense".
So, what should we do? As I explained at the beginning of my speech, I think that I shall be covering much of the same ground that your Lordships have already considered. However, I make no apology for that fact because this is a most important debate on a most important issue. One of the first things that we must continue to try to do in our role as President of the EC is to get the GATT negotiations concluded. I have to say that I do not think the election of President Clinton will help in that respect, but we must keep on trying. I say that because any kind of trade war and any kind of protectionism around the world will be extremely damaging to our economy. Let us make no mistake about it: we are, and have always been, a major trading nation—and also a major producer of manufactured goods.
Too often—and, indeed, we have heard it in today's debate—there is a general philosophy which says,
1494
"We are no longer involved in manufacturing". I took the trouble to look at some statistics. I simply use those in respect of the Scottish economy, in which I am especially interested. In 1990, Scottish manufacturers exported £2.8 billion of goods, the highest ever recorded. That does not actually lie very easily with the suggestion that we no longer have a manufacture base. Since 1979, manufacturing exports in Scotland have increased by 26 per cent. in real terms. That is the same in the United Kingdom as a whole. So some of the Little Englanders here and in another place along the corridor (some of them, it should be said, are Little Scotlanders as well) should ponder our dependence on world trade and on European Community trade.
Here at home I believe, as indeed, do all your Lordships, that it is most important to keep interest rates down. However, I have to say—as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out—that the experience of the United States, where they have very low interest rates, is not all that encouraging to the idea that that, and that alone, might help us out of our problems. But it is an important factor: we must continue to keep interest rates down and preferably get them down a little further.
I do not believe that increasing taxation will be sensible. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, clarified his position to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I say that because, like my noble friend, I actually thought that the noble Lord did suggest that there might be tax increases. However, I accept that I must have misheard him. I cannot believe that tax increases would be sensible. It would take money out of people's pockets and leave them with less to spend. In the current climate, that cannot be sensible.
While I fully accept that governments have to control public expenditure, I believe that, inside the global sum that they fix—and I wonder whether the global sum fixed earlier in the summer is quite the right sum still to be targeting; but that is another point—it is important that we clearly identify capital expenditure and attempt not only to shield it but perhaps to expand it as a proportion of total public spending.
The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, mentioned the Jubilee Line, in which I have some small interest as my son is starting out on his career as a civil engineer. Undoubtedly that line may help to keep in him in interesting work for some time. However, it would also benefit all parts of the country. I believe too that we should encourage private funding. I am delighted to hear that the Government are thinking deeply about such funding in capital projects. I shall mention just one, which is in Scotland. It is the proposed bridge over the sea to Skye which is to be built with private capital. That will be most welcome, despite the fact that the usual people who oppose everything are opposing it.
We must also work to improve the workings of the ERM so that we can rejoin it in reasonable time. I say that because, undoubtedly, currency stability is very important for our manufacturers and exporters. On Monday night I was in the company of two men whom one would probably call "captains of

1495
industry": one is in the manufacturing sector in Scotland and the other is in the service sector. Both of them said that they had not had much difficulty at the 2.95 level and that they were not too worried about the value of it; but what they did need was currency stability. One of them said,"I am pricing goods for sale abroad for the second half of next year right now". The important point about the ERM was that it gave us currency stability and we must not lose sight of that fact. We must attempt to find ways in which we can remove some of the distortions which I suspect were due to the fact that the system was dominated by the German currency and, therefore, we all had to move in line with the needs of the German economy and not necessarily respond to the needs of our own economy or that of the Italians or the Spanish.
Above all, we must stop dithering over Europe. One of the terrific things about the last election was that for the first time in my memory we were no longer fighting across the political divide about our membership of the European Community. I un-derstand—and, to a certain extent, I sympathise with—the opportunist view that the Labour Party has taken this evening in the other place to vote against the Government. However, I am sorry to say that that will be seen outside this country, and in many places in this country where they do not understand the particular rules and manners of the House of Commons, as a vote against Europe. That is bad. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, can rightly be proud of the position that the Liberal Democrats have taken. It is especially sad to see some leading and long-time pro-Europeans in tandem with a handful of anti-European Little Englanders in my own party.
What appalls me is the behaviour and the somersault undertaken by some very senior figures in the Government of the 1980s who had the imagination to see the European single market as being of great importance to this country—and, indeed, to the whole continent—and who led us in. They should remember that when we are discussing the position over Maastricht. If the vote in the other place goes against continuing with the Maastricht Bill, we will be seen as semi-detached members of the European Community. That will damage the realisation of the single market, it will damage our position in Europe and it will further damage our economy. Foreign investors are already being told by our competitors,"Don't look to Britain for a stable position inside the Community". We would do the same if we were in their position. The first step for our economy is to back the Maastricht Bill and to get on with implementing it.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an old friend of mine. He and I cut our political teeth together. Many of us in the House will agree that in the past month or so there seems to have been something of a lacuna—I do not necessarily say vacuum—in the Government's economic policies. I am sure that my right honourable friend would not mind even his best friends telling him that. Equally, I believe that this debate will be valuable to him. I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to give
1496
detailed replies to what those of us who have presumed to speak have had to say, but I hope that he will persuade the Chancellor to spend a little time reading the report of the debate in Hansard.
I happen to believe that we have an extremely good opportunity to get Britain going again quite soon and quite quickly. Before I put forward my ideas, some of which coincide totally with those of others—I hope that may reinforce my ideas—I should like to say a word about what I believe to be the crucial aspect of the background. Britain, along with most of the world, is at present facing a severe deflationary prospect. We can all argue about monetarism and the extent to which the money supply is a cause of inflation. I believe that largely it is. We can perhaps all agree that monetary phenomena are good indicators of what is happening.
The indicator which shows the net contraction of the money supply in most countries is narrow money, and it is primarily the one over which the Government have control. When one finds that narrow money is growing at a lower rate than inflation, then one has a real deflationary pressure. That is the present position in the UK: M1 is rising at about 2 per cent, and inflation is at about 3.6 per cent. In France the position is even worse with M1 declining. In Japan, the situation is only slightly better. In America they are doing much better—over 13 per cent. against 3 per cent. inflation. That is because the Americans are doing their best to get their economy going. I believe they are right to do so.
There is a general deflationary picture in the world. The exception is Germany, as has been said, where the economic scene is different. Unification led to an increase of some 16 per cent. in the money supply. It is now somewhat lower. They have an inflationary problem which has led to great difficulties for us, as we know.
Apart from that, the main problem in the world, as I see it, is the contraction of the credit base. That is due to a whole series of most unwise actions taken by bankers throughout the world for a decade or so. Bankers are like lemmings. First, they all attempted to recycle the petro-currencies. Then, the great idea was to finance the consumer boom that came with deregulation. More recently, the bankers have entered into a series of extremely unwise ! endings against property values. The position is serious. Most of the Scandinavian banks are technically bust. The French banks are in a terrible state. The reason people do not realise that is that they are mostly nationalised. They are therefore a drain on the public coffers rather than a visible hazard to investors and depositors.
I can find very little good to say about our bankers. I can find almost nothing good to say about the Bank of England which has failed to regulate the banks in this country and failed in a great many other ways, one of which I shall discuss in a moment. Where does that leave us? First, I am looking forward with eager anticipation to the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. I am confident that that will be much more than a mere unveiling of the results of the public expenditure round. The Prime Minister has referred to a package of measures, and that is what we need.

1497
The original plan was that the first unified Budget was to be in December 1993. We should now hope for the first unified Budget to be on 12th November 1992. I hope that that will be one of the messages that the Chancellor and the Government will take from the debate. I believe that 12th November 1992 could be a turning point in the history of economic recovery.
Apart from wages—I shall say a word about those in a moment—the inflationary dangers in Britain are minimal at present. I speak as one who is committed to the supremacy of the priority of dealing with inflation. I like the idea of the 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. target. I hope that we can focus on 2 per cent. From that, it follows that interest rates can, and should, be cut considerably and rapidly. That, of course, is the great advantage of having left the ERM. It is an advantage, incidentally, which some of our main competitors, especially the French, do not have. It is always satisfying to score off the French. The Prime Minister said that I per cent. off the interest rate represents an extra £1 billion in companies' cash. That is important. It also filters through quickly to reducing the RPI, provided that it is passed on. The regulators must see that that happens.
I do not believe that we need worry too much about the exchange rate. The 20 per cent. depreciation which has already occurred should, as many speakers have said, give our exporters a considerable advantage. Import prices, with the notable exception of oil, are unlikely to be affected proportionately to the depreciation of our currency, mainly because of the threat of import substitution: exporters to Britain will be forced to cut their margins or lose markets.
The impression I receive from talking to people in the City—I do not know whether other people have gained the same impression—is that stimulation of the economy by cutting interest rates could lead to greater confidence in stirling. So, surprisingly, it may have a reverse effect. We need not be unduly worried by the level of the PSBR at present. A temporary increase in the PSBR is a means of countering the contraction of the credit base to which I have referred.
We have an external account problem. There are two ways of dealing with it. One way is to contract the economy and to reduce imports. That makes Britain smaller, and it is further deflation. Another is to grow our way out of the problem by seizing the advantages to which the lower exchange rate leads. I favour that route.
I must say a word about taxation. I, like other noble Lords, thought that I heard echoes from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—we are extremely grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to have this debate—that higher taxation would not be the end of the world. I do not believe that it is an opportune time to increase taxation in any shape or form; certainly not VAT which would go straight through to the RPI and not direct taxation, because at present this country has a good supply side position with a corporation tax rate of 33 per cent. and a top rate of personal tax of 40 per cent.
I should like to see (I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend, Lord Cockfield, on this) the
1498
reintroduction as soon as possible—I hope to see it announced on 12th November—of 100 per cent. capital allowances for a limited period, because we should remember that they have a powerful gearing effect. First, we are not giving a grant but merely giving people the opportunity to set off investment against profit; and, secondly, in so far as it sucks in imports, it is giving some compensation to manufacturers, who need to import goods for investment, for the fact that we have had a depreciation of the currency which would otherwise make them more expensive. I do not, of course, accept the traditional Treasury view that that distorts investment decisions. There are all too few investment decisions being made. As I said, I hope that such action is taken.
I turn to wages. We have the assumption in this country that the cost of living allowances are the norm, as are annual increments. I believe that that has been the basis of an inflationary psychology which is peculiar to Britain. For all kinds of reasons which we do not have time to go into, other countries simply do not have that attitude. I suggest that many people in the past 10 years have been over-compensated recently in terms of income and there is probably need for an adjustment. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Cockfield, I believe that we need to move rapidly towards performance-related pay. Companies are talking about it but they are doing it too slowly. This is the moment in the economic cycle when it should happen and there is no time to waste.
That should be coupled with a pay freeze in the public sector—again something I should like to see announced on 12th November. It also means a recognition by both employers and union leaders that many costs have reduced, particularly of housing, and, if anything, the current 3.6 per cent. increase in the RPI over-states the position of inflation. It means recognising that for most people increases in wages will mean a reduction in the number of jobs. I suggest that increases in wages now would be deflationary rather than reflationary, the opposite to what people normally assume.
There is room for more imagination in public spending. In general, I go along with the view about concentrating on capital spending, but we need to have more imagination. For example, English Heritage should give grants to the small building companies going bust all over the country in order to restore churches and other buildings in our heritage.
We must, of course, continue with restructuring industry. Obviously, voluntary early retirement is one approach to that. It is worth while and something in which the Government are a partner, by definition, because they take people from the employers' payroll on to their payroll. Provided it leads to expansion in other ways the payroll of the Government—that is, unemployment benefit—will not last for too long.
Of course, there are short-term social costs to this. I am sure we would all agree that the Government's handling of the massive coal mine closure programme was inept and insensitive. They even apologised for it. However, the restructuring of the coalmining industry has been a great success in the country. I recently visited County Durham where in 1951 there were 134

1499
pits employing over 100,000 miners; today there are only two pits employing fewer than 2,000. In general, that restructuring has been very successful. But one realises that against the present deflationary background it is much more difficult.
However, I do not accept the argument put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that we should use coal because it is a natural asset which is available for use. I should like to declare an interest and give an example of simple economics. I am a director of Eastern Electricity, the biggest of the distribution companies. It is not making a "dash for gas". It is planning to put in 600 megawatts of gas generation, which is only about one-tenth of the total electricity it distributes. But the plant it is putting up at Peterborough is 360 megawatts and it will generate electricity which may be sold at just over 2.5p per kilowatt hour. That is competitive even with the existing coal-fired generation using only marginal costs. It is certainly much more than competitive with anything that could be done using environmentally acceptable methods of burning coal in new power stations. We cannot turn our backs on that kind of restructuring. It has always been painful but every time it has been a great advantage.
On this front perhaps I may say that restructuring as represented by overseas investment in the country has been highly successful. I do not mind if the British motor car industry is managed by Japanese, if they are better at doing it. They seem to have proved in many cases that they are. I am told that Nissan, North-East on Tees-side, is more profitable than Nissan, Japan. That is terrific, let us have more of it.
I conclude by saying that traditionally since the war the managers of the British economy have made one mistake after another. My noble friend Lord Joseph referred to some: the maintenance of the war-time controls for far too long, including such things as exchange controls; the castration of the entrepreneurial economy by high tax rates; the perpetuation of archaic and uneconomic industrial structures, so easy and tempting to do but to be rejected; the maintenance of unreal exchange rates, first through Bretton Woods, for too long. It was a good idea when it started. Then there was subsequently the ERM, again a good idea. But I must come back to my point on the Bank of England: my goodness, what a mess the Bank of England made in advising the Government. The Treasury people are too frightened to talk to the markets and perhaps it is right that they should not, but what a mess the Bank made in advising the Government that they should go for support before they tried interest rates. If they had tried interest rates first, they would have seen that that would not work and they might have saved £2 billion of taxpayers' money.
I believe that we have a tremendous opportunity to get Britain going again in this deflationary period. I hope that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will show us that he can do it on 12th November.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it seems a long time ago now, but at the beginning of the debate there was something of a spat—if I may use so unparliamentary a word—between my noble friend Lord Jenkins and the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It may surprise noble Lords to know that I was brought up on the principle that a soft answer turneth away wrath. I fully understand that the Labour Party has great difficulty in appreciating the attitude of a party which has never wavered in its determination to support European union since 1957.
Lord Peston: Is that a soft answer?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at the beginning of the debate my noble friend also asked the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, a question. We understand and fully accept that the noble Earl had to go to an important engagement tonight, but he was asked what were the Government's priorities. The noble Earl gave us a number of desirable objectives which the Government wish to pursue—objectives to which we would all say,"Amen". However, what he did not give is the answer to the question that my noble friend asked. Some of the objectives are not compatible one with the other. What are the Government's priorities and, if one has to be sacrificed to the other, what goes down the drain? I did not receive any clear impression from what the noble Earl said as to what those priorities were. I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in answering would attempt to clarify the point as it was not clear in the reply to my noble friend.
However, what came out in the reply—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will not disagree with this—is that whatever else is important to the Government and whatever else comes in the order of priorities, the control of inflation remains very important indeed. I very much agree with that.
I also agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. He made the point that in a devalued situation we run a real danger of returning to inflation. We all know that in the J curve there is a honeymoon period when it looks as if things will be good in trading terms because the pound has a lower value. But that does not last. It may give us a short breathing space in which, if we are sensible and have the right policies, we may be able to set matters in train which will avoid the worst consequences. But the danger is undoubtedly there.
If the Government really mean that the control of inflation continues to be, as I believe it should be, one of the most important objectives, if not the most important, then they must take into account the danger that there will be a return to inflation. A falling pound, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made clear, leads to a fall in the standard of living. Unless action is taken against that, we suck in imports and that puts up prices. We are then back into all the horrors of a stop-go situation. We have experienced that situation again and again and again.
The Government's first job in terms of their own priorities is to take the action that is necessary to

1501
ensure that inflation does not return, combining that action, as they intend to do, with an improvement in growth and—presumably this is also a major objective—a fall in the level of unemployment. I believe there is agreement right across the House—my next point will warm the hearts of many of us who have urged this action over the years—that there should be greater attention paid to the needs of manufacturing industry. There is now no disagreement that I can detect across the House about the importance of manufacturing industry. We on these Benches, mild as we are, will not say."We told you so", having now said it.
There are a number of things the Government will have to do. One of the first things—curiously I believe this has not been mentioned today—for the Government to do is to establish an independent central bank. There has been a great deal of criticism of the activities of the Bank but no one has said that what is required is an independent central bank with the mandate to establish stable prices to control inflation. That measure is crying out to be implemented and there is no reason why it should not be implemented.
While the Government are establishing an independent central bank, they could also carry out the following measure. This is a much smaller measure but it is also extremely important in its own way. A noble Lord on the other side of the House mentioned this point. I am afraid I have forgotten his name. Let us also have an independent Central Statistical Office. A statistical office which is responsible to the Treasury is in an extremely weak position—I put it gently—to give the kind of information that ought to be given and on which the Government ought to be able to act. As we all know, garbage in is garbage out. If the wrong figures come from the Central Statistical Office the wrong decisions will be made.
Those noble Lords who, like me, are not uncritical supporters but still supporters of much that is written by Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times will have noticed how often he has pointed out quite gross errors in the statistical information which has been produced. Those errors in the information inevitably lead to gross mistakes being made in government policy. The provision of such information is the last way in which to set about tackling inflation and encouraging growth. Most ridiculous short-term economies have been made in the financing of the statistical office. We need the best and most independent Central Statistical Office that it is possible to have and then the Government might obtain the information they need. Without that information the Government cannot possibly make the right policies.
We also need to have stability. Every industrialist will tell you that what industry needs is to be sure, as far as it possibly can, that there will be stability in the economy and in prices. That is one reason why we need an independent central bank. When one has lead times for investment that spread over eight or 10
1502
years, how can a company make intelligent decisions when it has no idea what will happen to the value of the money it is putting into its investments?
Stability is linked with our position in Europe. It is a major reason why we went into the ERM and it is a major reason why, as soon as possible, we must re-enter the ERM. Floating rates cannot give industry the stability that it requires if it is to do the job that all of us tonight are saying it must do. We must not handicap industry from the beginning by denying it stability. If industry is to do its job we also need to find a way of restricting wage increases and salary increases. An important element in this is the control of inflation because in the past one of the things that has led to excessive pay claims has been the anticipation of inflation. Once people get it into their minds that the value of money will drop, they will bargain in anticipation for high wage increases and as a result of that they make the inflationary situation inevitably worse than it otherwise would be. There is an interaction here. The control of inflation helps to control excessive wage claims and the control of excessive wage claims helps to control inflation.
I am not arguing a return to an old style prices and incomes policy, but on an all-party basis, and in discussion with the unions, we should now talk seriously about how we can handle wages and salaries. I am not talking only about the public sector. It must be obvious to the Government that if they attempt to control public sector pay without doing anything about private sector pay they will run into serious trouble. This is not a matter that can be tackled on a single party basis. Surely at the present time we are moving towards a position where there should be more cross-party discussions about some of these issues which are of the greatest possible national importance.
One good way of starting that process would be somehow or other to curtail the excessively large salary increases paid to people at the top of industry. There are occasionally times when people who are in the international labour markets need to be paid high salaries to retain the handful of people who need to be retained. However, the great majority of the people I am discussing are not involved in the international labour markets. A Government who believe in markets, as we on these Benches believe in markets, should be able to stand up to those people who are not in the international labour markets but who are trying to get comparable pay with those in the international markets. We should be able to discuss that issue of pay along with the future of pay on an all-party basis.
I shall now discuss a much smaller point but one which for small companies is important. I wish to pick up the point which was made in the most interesting maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston. Noble Lords who come from the Commons are rather dubious maidens. Their claim to maidenhood is slightly bogus as they have been in the House of Commons. Nevertheless the noble Lord made an interesting speech. I particularly appreciated a point he made which sounds trivial but in fact is not trivial for people who are running a small business, that is the payment of debts.

1503
Small businesses are being ruined because large businesses and sometimes government departments do not pay their bills on time. Is it really impossible for those companies to be allowed to add interest automatically to their bills if they are not paid on time? Will the Government please consider this issue? It is such a simple issue but much unemployment has arisen through the collapse of small businesses. Not all of those collapses are inevitable. Some of them could be prevented through the prompt payment of bills. Such business collapses contribute enormously to the feeling of depression and lack of confidence as one small business after another goes down. The encouragement of the prompt payment of bills is an obvious way for the Government to help small businesses. I should not have thought it would be difficult to introduce legislation to achieve that.
Why do the Government not look at the uniform business rate? It concerns not only small businesses. Can that not be reduced quickly? Throughout all my remarks I wish to emphasise the importance of doing things swiftly. It is no good telling us that at the end of 1993 things may look better because some useful ideas will have been implemented. People want to feel that action is being taken now. If action were taken on the uniform business rate it would give great impetus to many people who run small and medium sized businesses and who are finding it extremely difficult to make both ends meet. Perhaps there will be something in the Autumn Statement about that. Such a provision in the Autumn Statement would be of great value.
Those are all measures the Government could implement to help industry in its day-to-day struggle, first, for survival and, secondly, for growth and recovery. However, the Government themselves must take action. It is quite clear that what we want is an investment-led recovery. We want a consumer-led recovery like a hole in the head. Let us get the distinction absolutely clear. Nothing could be worse than an attempt at a consumer-led recovery. It would put up debt, bring in imports and increase inflation. We want to discourage that. We want to take the indirect route of an investment-led recovery which, because it brings people back into employment, gives them money to spend.
The Government have to take a lead in that investment-led recovery. There is so much crying out to be done—schemes which are wealth-creating in the longer run, or in some cases in the shorter run. That is genuine investment. Many noble Lords have said this evening that borrowing for investment where there is a good pay-off in the end is acceptable on the part of government, as it is on the part of a company or individual. What is not acceptable is borrowing where there is no increase in wealth as a result and no return.
I would put improvements in the railways very high on the list. There should be improvements in the track and investment in high speed trains linking up with the Channel Tunnel. That would do a number of things. It would speed up the delivery of goods. If it were done properly and with an eye to that objective it would take lorries off the roads. If we could reduce congestion on the roads by improving the railways
1504
that would be the good opposite of a "double whammy", whatever that may be. It would have a double benefit. It would take lorries off the roads. A great deal of money is lost due to the congestion caused by road transport carrying goods which ought to be on the railways. Transferring those goods to the railways would pay off handsomely. Therefore, money should be put quickly into the railways to improve transport.
There should, of course, be money for housing. Investment in housing does not show an immediate return. In strict economic terms it does not show the return on investment that comes from investment on infrastructure, but we need it desperately. The money is there. Surely the Government can now release the money which the local authorities have and make a start on house building. That has been said over and over again. The pay-off in social terms would be tremendous. It would draw people back into employment and would have a great effect on confidence.
I turn now to the question of training. Other noble Lords have mentioned training. Again, the pay-off is long term. I do not pretend that there would be an immediate benefit, but training is essential. Can the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, confirm and reassure us that there will not be a cut in the money available for training? There ought to be an increase.
Whatever the recovery, there will not be jobs in this country for the unskilled. I believe that we all want the GATT round to succeed. It is bad news that the GATT round is still stumbling. A conclusion of the GATT round would mean much work going to developing countries. That is right. However, there will be less and less unskilled work in this country. I am absolutely convinced that there are plenty of people who, with the right training opportunities, are capable of filling the jobs that will be needed as soon as the economy picks up again. But they need training.
I should like to suggest a scheme which could be implemented quickly. It is not part of my party's policy; it is my policy, and none the worse for that. School leavers should be employed on the basis of two for each job. At any one time one of them would have time off for training and education. I have worked such a scheme in industry in the past. It works excellently. It may be necessary to subsidise employers for operating the scheme, but one would halve the youth unemployment problem and young people would be trained at the same time. It would be very cheap and much easier than letting them have time off for one or two days a week. Because there are two for each job, they are paired. It is employment combined with training. They might have to accept lower wages, but why not? They would have jobs and they would have training. I urge the Government to consider that scheme; it can work and could be extremely valuable. Money put into training can have short-term benefits in reducing youth unemployment, which is expensive not only in financial terms but also in social terms because youngsters are roaming about with nothing to do and getting into trouble and causing all sorts of problems.

1505
Finally, there is the question of identifying investment which can be implemented immediately. I understand that there are quite a number of schemes which are already prepared, with the plans made and in some cases with the planning permission granted, and which are only waiting for word to be received from the Government for them to go ahead. That is what we need. I return to the point that speed is of the essence. If the Government want to restore confidence, and we all know that lack of confidence is a major part of the problem, they must start now. It is no good leaving action for 18 months. They should ask the local authorities what schemes they have which they could put into operation within three months.
I understand, for example, that the plans for the high speed train to Heathrow are complete and have been approved. I am told that there is even a promise of 80 per cent. private sector collaboration. Cannot that be started straight away? All the preliminary work has been done. The Government should send out to organisations and ask them what plans they have in the top drawer waiting to be pulled out. The work should be started. That would do a great deal for the Government's ratings. Far more important, it would give a great boost to confidence and it would get the country really moving again.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this has been a valuable and well-timed debate, with many interesting contributions from noble Lords. In particular, as has been said, we have heard a series of maiden speeches of notable quality. I refer especially to the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. His Cambridge background has understandably drawn comment. Cambridge University is usually seen, certainly by me, as a remote fortress of reaction. Not surprisingly, it is not heavily represented on these Benches, where those great liberal institutions, Oxford, LSE, much of Welsh academe and, above all, the university of life normally illuminate our economic speeches. We shall look forward to more such radical views from the normally dank fens.
Even the severest critics of the Government's economic policy, or their recent absence of economic policy—and there has been no shortage of criticism today—should, in all fairness, acknowledge the scale of the present problems facing the Chancellor. He may have fallen at virtually every fence and the critics may have strong grounds to say "I told you so", but it has been a difficult course. The world economic climate is less helpful to Britain than at any point in my lifetime outside war. With economic activity now turning down in France, Italy, Spain and especially Germany—all crucial markets for our exports—the scenario ahead is no less daunting. We must all acknowledge those difficulties. Against that background we do not expect economic miracles.
We have not enjoyed any economic miracles under this Administration, and we do not expect one now. That would be unreasonable. However, the majority thrust of the debate supports the view that it would
1506
not be unreasonable to expect less spectacularly incompetent economic management than this country has suffered and this House has witnessed—with growing disbelief and indeed humiliation as patriotic Britons—in recent weeks. I should point out that we have devalued against the Irish punt: Murphy jokes are out from now on.
What we have witnessed has not just been failure. All governments, even Labour governments, experience failure. Even the delightful policy lacuna of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has existed before. However, this has been a total shambles. It makes the events of the IMF in 1976 and the winter of discontent of 1979 appear like periods of model crisis management by comparison. That is not just a partisan view from this side of the House; it is the view of everyone to whom I have talked in the City of London.
Nor is it just a question of economic mismanage-ment over only the past few months. The situation goes back several years. The economic financial shambles derives from misjudgments and mismanage-ments certainly dating back to 1986—and some before that time. It derives first from the blind pursuit of the crude doctrine of the free market, as if that was a magic potion to resolve all economic and industrial problems however complex and long standing. It derives from excessive deregulation, especially in the financial sector, which unleashed the credit balloon which has exploded in the faces of the debt-laden British people and the corporate sector. It derives from a narrow belief that the first priority of government should be to cut personal taxation and from the associated hostility to public expenditure and public investment which has left Britain's physical and social infrastructure totally inadequate for the needs and demands of an efficient economy. Above all, as underlined by the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, there has been damaging neglect of British manufacturing industry. This has left us with such a narrow industrial base that if the Chancellor's new growth policy actually works we shall immediately run into even more horrendous balance of payments deficits. Take those ingredients and mix them together in Great George Street, feed them to the British economy and the inevitable result is the kind of economic mess in which Britain finds itself.
To repeat the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in this Motion, what economic remedies do the Government present to us to get us out of the fine mess they have got us into? The Prime Minister, with his Chancellor limping behind some days afterwards, announced a wholly new economic policy: the pursuit of growth and the creation of jobs. Along with my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, that rather took my breath away when I heard it. Could it be that, having U-turned and abandoned virtually every domestic policy on which it had fought the election only seven months ago, the Prime Minister has turned in desperation to the economic policy advocated in the Labour Party's April election manifesto? That this Government should have growth and the creation of jobs at the centre of its

1507
macro-economic policy is a total contradiction of the orthodoxy which has prevailed during the entire period in office of this administration. The central tenet of Conservative economic strategy—which we have heard often over the past 13 years from the Front Bench opposite—has been that macro-economic policy cannot ensure sustained economic growth and create real jobs. Those can be achieved only by supply side factors and as a consequence of low inflation, macro-economic policy is only about reducing inflation and the rest is for the market.
Therefore, this must constitute the U-turn of all time, but where does it leave us? Do we really know what Government economic policy now is? Do the Government really know what their economic policy is? Was the central core of their policy wrong until three weeks ago? The questions tumble out as they have in this debate. I believe that all of them exemplify why the present economic regime has lost credibility. Does leaving the ERM and having a lower exchange rate have, as the Chancellor insisted only two months ago, inevitable and terrible inflationary consequences? If so, will the Minister tonight and the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement next week quantify those terrible consequences and what is the new policy to deal with them? We have left the ERM and have devalued by a massive 20 per cent. If those consequences do not exist why are the astrologers who forecast them—Ministers and officials—still in office? Is there no such thing as accountability?
I admit it is easy to criticise the Government, given the Laurel and Hardy script that they seem to have been following lately. It is perfectly fair for this House to expect critics to say what should be done as we approach a third year of recession and 3.25 million unemployed. I think one of the qualities of this debate is that noble Lords on all sides have attempted to make suggestions which seem to me to be relevant and valuable. None of us would choose to start from where the Government have placed us.
I think the Government should be warned that to rely simply on cuts in interest rates will not be enough. That may be like pulling on Keynes's piece of string. Cuts in interest rates are desirable but we must have real cuts. We have not had significant cuts in real interest rates so far. Real rates of interest have barely fallen over the past two years. The punishing burden is still at least 7 to 8 per cent. in real terms.
An equally important point concerns the differential impact of cuts in interest rates. Cutting rates involves a transfer of resources—that is, a transfer of liquidity from one social group to another. In the personal sector it means transferring liquidity from depositors to borrowers. Depositors are usually spenders. As many noble Lords or retired parents may know, cuts in interest rates reduce spending power. Borrowers in their present desperate situation do not usually spend all the benefits of cuts but use them to reduce debt. Therefore, cutting rates may not in the short term improve consumer demand and economic activity as much as hoped. It helps the corporate sector and is to be welcomed but it does not necessarily help consumer expenditure very much. If one looks at the United States one sees that a long
1508
period of lower interest rates has produced only the most fragile degree of recovery. I do not wholly accept the apparently total distinction made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, between consumer demand and industrial investment. I believe they are intrinsically linked.
My message is that one should not go on playing one-club golf with the single club of lower interest rates now replacing the single club of the ERM discipline. What is needed is a much more comprehensive range of economic and industrial policies. These should include cuts in real interest rates but should also match the complexity of the range of economic problems facing this country.
I pick up a number of themes and suggestions from many noble Lords. In particular, I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, was very impressive. First, there is a need for an industrial policy to restore British manufacturing industry to health. Many other noble Lords have referred to it. I believe that that policy should include support as advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Marlesford, for 100 per cent. capital allowances and investment in construction which has the lowest import content. It means a programme of accelerated investment in Britain's physical infrastructure, especially transport, which should be launched now. It also means an unprecedented programme of investment in education and training, adding value to our human infrastructure rather than paying it to stand idle. Finally, of most immediate urgency the nation needs leadership and credibility from those responsible for managing its economic affairs. I am sure that today many of us feel leaderless, with those in office pulled hither and thither by the winds of events.
My basic conclusion is that no successful economic policy can be built simply on rhetoric about growth—on mere words—nor on any single policy leg, whether it is defending an arbitrary exchange rate or cutting nominal interest rates. A successful policy must match the scale and complexity of the problems in our whole real economy. That is what we should like to hear from the Minister tonight and from the Chancellor next week. I fear, on past experience, that we shall be disappointed but hope, of course, springs eternal.
8.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I too join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for bringing this debate to the House and this particular subject to our attention. Like many noble Lords, I thoroughly enjoyed the debate. I suspect that it has been more lucid and illuminating than the debate taking place in another place.
We have indeed been lucky today. We have had four excellent maiden speakers. I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston, who brings to this House that very special ingredient of political experience. As chairman of the Back Bench Finance Committee from 1979 to 1992, it

1509
is clearly appropriate that he should have made his maiden speech in this particular debate. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, brings to us his academic experience and his political experience as the economic adviser to the Leader of the Opposition over the course of the past few years. He too made an interesting and most welcome speech. He will discover that I am not always so kind about speeches from Members of the Opposition. My noble friend Lord Northbrook, a banker, made an excellent start in the House, as did my noble friend Lord Hothfield, who as a civil engineer brings a special and different experience to the House. I am sure that everybody has benefited from the contributions of those noble Lords. We have seen an impressive range of relevant experience.
Whatever one's views on the events that led to the suspension of sterling's ERM membership on 16th September, there can be little doubt that it represented an event of notable importance and will prove to have been, in some respects at least, a turning point in our economic affairs. This debate provides a timely opportunity for us to review the implications of recent developments, the opportunities and dangers that they present and the policies that the Government intend to follow in their wake.
Much has been said about the current state of the economy. I share the very obvious concern felt in this House about the difficulties that continue to be faced by very many individuals, families and businesses. Those difficulties result from a recession that unquestionably has gone on longer than the Government expected would be the case. Even so, I have to say that the signals from the real economy over the course of this year have not justified the extent of the gloom often expressed either in this Chamber or in the media over recent months.
I have no doubt that in resisting that prevailing sense of pessimism and pointing to the more encouraging evidence that has accumulated in recent months, I shall be accused of being an eternal optimist. But I believe it is right to point out that manufacturing output, retail sales, business investment and car production were all showing encouraging trends, at least in the period up to Black Wednesday. Overall, the picture was one of activity being fairly flat during the first half of this year. Unquestionably there have been continued difficulties in the housing market and unemployment has continued to rise. So we have clearly not seen the recovery that the Government hoped for at the time of the budget.
But the continued progress that we have made in reducing inflationary pressures in the economy is now clear. Not only has RPI inflation fallen to less than a third of its peak in the autumn of 1990 and, excluding the effect of mortgage interest payments, to its lowest level for four-and-a-half years but we have also seen both producer output price inflation and average underlying earnings growth at their lowest levels for a generation. Manufacturing unit wage cost growth is
1510
now lower than in either Germany or Japan. All the evidence suggests that considerable downward pressure on wage growth truly exists.
The emphasis that we have placed on low inflation has often been criticised. But in a highly competitive world it is an illusion to believe that we can achieve growth by letting inflation rip and expect that growth to be sustainable.
The noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and my noble friend Lord Cockfield, as well as other noble Lords, asked about the clarity of government monetary policy. It was clearly set out in great detail by the Chancellor in his Mansion House speech. Our objectives are for underlying inflation of 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. a year, with a long-term aim of 2 per cent. or less, in line with the very best in Europe. We shall give full weight to the exchange rate in assessing the necessary conditions, as it can directly influence prices and can indicate tightness or looseness of conditions.
The Government will also be guided by domestic indicators. The target for MO growth will be retained. That has proved to have been a good and timely indicator. M4 is harder to interpret, but the Chancellor will set a monitoring range for guidance and we shall look at the relationship between various market rates of interest and asset prices, especially house prices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me about the priorities. I do not believe that there is any inconsistency between the objectives in our current circumstances. The Chancellor has made quite clear that he will not hesitate to raise interest rates if the inflation objectives are threatened. While replying to the noble Baroness perhaps I could just touch on the central bank. We do not feel that the pressures that we have felt over the course of the past few weeks would have been any less if the Bank of England had been independent. An independent bank would have no new tools at its disposal which are not available to the authorities now. Nor is there any reason to suppose that an independent bank would have got inflation down any faster over the past two years. What does matter is that the right policies are pursued and that there is a close and effective working relationship between government and the central bank. That is what I believe we already have in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked whether low inflation was still a higher priority than the new emphasis on growth. As my noble friend Lord Caithness explained, low inflation is not and never has been seen as simply an end in itself. Our post war experience has shown clearly that growth cannot be sustained if inflation is not also contained. It is therefore important that monetary policy is kept tight enough to prevent an escalation of inflationary pressures.
The Chancellor also made clear that we recognise that monetary policy can be too tight and that, too, can threaten prosperity. I believe that the disinflation-ary pressure already present in our economy does much to justify the relaxation of monetary policy that we have seen since 16th September. Those pressures

1511
mean that the measures taken to bring about a resumption of growth need not in any way imperil the clear inflation objectives that the Chancellor recently laid down.
The noble Lord went on to talk about the declining competitiveness and the continuing structural balance of payments problems, as did the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, my noble friend Lord Joseph, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Benson. We believe that the lower pound will do a great deal to help our exporters. But the key to competitiveness is the producers' ability to hold down their costs. Exports are at near record levels, despite the weakness of overseas markets. Our share of world trade in manufacturing stabilised during the course of the 1980s following decades of decline and is estimated to have risen more recently. As I said earlier, the growth in unit labour costs is slower than in both Germany and Japan on recent OECD estimates. There is no reason to believe that our trade performance will he a brake on growth.
My assessment of the state of the economy in the run up to 16th September would be that it was weaker than we had hoped for and expected but by no means as weak as some were suggesting. However, there is no doubt that the events leading up to the suspension of sterling's ERM membership and the continuing political uncertainty that followed has caused a severe jolt in confidence; and there is a danger that this fall in confidence could pose a real threat to the prospect for a gathering recovery in activity.
Many of the conditions for that recovery have been in place for some time. I shall not recite them again. However, recent interest rate cuts will help further, and the boost to competitiveness from the lower exchange rate will help exporters and firms competing against imports so long as they keep their costs down and their quality high. What is needed is greater confidence. Consumers need the confidence to spend. Businesses need the confidence to invest. I believe that the policies being followed are those that are needed to restore confidence and to bring about a return of sustainable non-inflationary growth.
Much has been mentioned about the exchange rate and the ERM. I shall not dwell in too much detail on the events which led to our suspension of sterling's ERM membership, which have been dealt with before. However, I shall address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He believed that he might have to wait 30 years before he found out what had occurred. I hope that I shall be able to illuminate him now.
The noble Lord suggested that the defeat by the speculators was catastrophic, that central banks were not overwhelmed by an unstoppable tide, but that the Bundesbank must have decided not to provide limitless funds. I am not sure that it is correct to suggest that exceptional conditions did not prevail on Black Wednesday. When President Mitterrand announced that there would be a referendum in France on 20th September the market speculation about a realignment became fixed on a particular date, making the flows in the exchange markets all the more difficult and disruptive as that date became nearer. Despite that disruption, we were able to keep sterling above its ERM floor until the evening of Tuesday 15th
1512
September. As is well known, on that evening the German newspaper Handelsblatt made available a report of an interview it had conducted that day with Dr. Schlesinger, the President of the Bundesbank, apparently indicating that he favoured a more general realignment than the line of devaluation that was agreed on 13th September. Although the Bundesbank disowned the report, it was not until Thursday 17th September, after we had left the ERM, that a fuller version of the interview was then published. The original partial report caused a lot of damage in the highly charged atmosphere prevailing in the week before the French referendum. We fell below our ERM floor in New York. We were on the floor when the European markets opened and our obligation to buy back unlimited quantities of sterling came into force. For a currency as widely traded as sterling, that was a very serious position indeed. The increase to 12 per cent. failed to push sterling off its floor. At 2.15 p.m., 15 per cent. rates were announced. Finally sterling left membership at 7.38 p.m. The Bundesbank fulfilled its obligations under the ERM agreements to provide deutschmarks to the Bank of England through the EMS's very short term finance arrangements. However, to be effective in exchange rate markets whose daily turnover is around 1 trillion dollars—that is, 1 million million dollars—they cannot rely on intervention alone. The markets have to be convinced that the speculations are inaccurate and that the relevant authorities will not countenance devaluation.
Sadly, the impression that the Bundesbank favoured a sterling devaluation was not stamped out, allowing the initial Handelsblatt reporting of its interview with Dr. Schlesinger to trigger the final assault on sterling. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can clarify two matters. First, I do not believe that that can be right in terms of economic analysis. The funds must not have been available. However, we can debate that on another occasion.
Am I to understand that the Minister's explanation is the Treasury's view of what occurred? Is that the Treasury's account of those events, even though I regard it as economically completely unpersuasive?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I found it rather persuasive. I thought that it was rather well put. Indeed, that is not just the Treasury's view, it is also the government's view of what occurred on Wednesday,16th September.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as it is a rather important matter, perhaps the noble Lord can clarify one point. Is he saying that the drop in value of the pound was not because of any lack of economic convergence? If so, why have we not gone back into the ERM at the rate that we were in it at the time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall certainly come to that point during the course of the next few minutes. I was explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the background on our ejection from the ERM which was compounded by false rumours and

1513
by the imminent date of the French referendum. That was also compounded by the fact that there was going to be an uncertain result which of course was then proven.
We did not seek our departure from the ERM. We did everything that we could to prevent it. Now that we are outside the mechanism it is clear that the background against which policies are determined has altered significantly. That was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. We have also seen a continued weakness in a number of overseas economies.
Many noble Lords asked about our commitment to rejoin the ERM. We will rejoin the ERM but only when we are satisfied that it is in our interest to do so. In particular we need to see, first, that the recent turbulence in the financial markets has come to an end; secondly, that the analysing of developments in capital markets in the European and world market systems has been taken forward; and, thirdly, and most importantly, that the requirements of the UK and German monetary policy come closer in line and that the wide interest rates between Germany and the US have narrowed. We have indicated that we do not think that those conditions are likely to be satisfied in the very near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, felt that we should have realigned within the ERM. But my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained why that would not have worked. Sterling devaluation would not have solved anything in those turbulent conditions. The markets would simply have taken our new lower limit as their target. That is exactly what happened to the lira. After a 7 per cent. devaluation on 13th September the lira membership of the ERM had to be suspended on 16th September and their interest rates which were put up at that period have not yet fallen back to the levels before 16th September.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to industry's need for stability within an exchange rate. I agree with the noble Earl that industry benefits from exchange rate stability as we had while we were in the ERM. Outside the ERM there is no specific target, but that does not mean that the Government do not care about its value. As I said, we will return to the ERM when the conditions are right.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on inflation caused by the plummeting exchange rates. Indeed, the point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The value of sterling was taken into account when making the decision to cut interest rates. We also took into account other indicators which clearly showed the abatement of inflationary pressures. The defeat of inflation is still of crucial importance. Interest rates will continue to be set with that in mind. The Government are confident that monetary policy remains tight enough to make progress, with the Government's inflation objective.
Whether all that is for good or ill it offers new opportunities as well as new dangers. It is important that the opportunities should be grasped. The Government have been accused of inconsistency and
1514
of changing course. However, as the Chancellor made clear last week, the aim of a macro-economic policy was never simply to defeat inflation. Low inflation is not just an end in itself; it is the means to sustainable growth and secure employment.
My noble friend Lord Clark asked whether we should legislate on late payers, to impose interest rate payments. The point was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In this year's Budget the Chancellor announced measures to encourage prompt payment but I doubt whether legislation in itself will work. Many small businesses are unlikely to make use of it for fear of losing future business. Matters might be made even worse if bills were in dispute or if the buyer were close to insolvency. I recognise that that is a substantial problem for many small businesses and no doubt one to which we shall return.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and other noble Lords asked about capital allowances. There appeared to be disagreement within the House about whether capital allowances were good. The Government believe that capital allowances distort the workings of the markets and therefore distort decisions. Many noble Lords paid lip-service to market forces but then went on to propose new distortions. The result of capital allowances is a lower quality investment as those projects with lower rates of return become profitable. I am not sure whether that is desirable. My noble friend Lord Cockfield made the point far better than I have, although my noble friend Lord Marlesford might not entirely agree with him.
The need to increase infrastructure spending was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and many others. We have made clear our intention to pay particular attention to the implications for industry of individual spending programmes in this year's public expenditure round. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the uniform business rate. Research that we have received from industry indicates that its main regard is interest rates. Some 80 per cent. of CBI firms indicated that interest rates are their major concern and not the uniform business rate. The noble Baroness will know that in the 1992 Budget we announced that no business would face an increase in its rates bill for 1992– 93. Businesses moving to lower bills will receive their gains in full in 1993– 94 and receive larger reductions in their 1992– 93 bills than previously announced. That package is worth £480 million in the current year and will be worth £590 million next year.
In an interesting speech my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that the United Kingdom has the highest VAT rate in the Community. Research which I inspired after he sat down shows that we have a lower standard rate of VAT than Italy, Belgium or France or, indeed, Greece, Denmark or Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, proposed an ingenious scheme—a mortgage holiday. I am not sure what is supposed to happen to the depositors and whether they should also take a holiday. No doubt the clever people in the Treasury will give me a proper reflection of the ideas behind the noble Lord's thinking.

1515
I welcomed the support from my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, in particular his caution against successive debt growth which we might expect were the Government to follow the kind of fiscal expansions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, recognised the truism that inflation hurts creditors and benefits debtors. The damage which inflation causes to the value of earnings and the incomes of those on fixed incomes is a good reason for ensuring that it is kept as low as possible.
GATT was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is crucial that we reach an agreement. I understand that the two sides are close together. We must hope that during the next few days an agreement is reached.
The change in interest rates on 16th October was a cut. So was the previous change. Apart from Black Wednesday interest rates have been on a steady downward path for the past two years. In late 1990, interest rates stood at 15 per cent. They are now a full seven percentage points lower at 8 per cent. The full effect of that 7 per cent. reduction is to cut more than £9 billion off industry's interest payments and more than £110 per month from the repayment of a typical £30,000 mortgage. It will also boost consumer spending. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky understood the effects of that extremely well, as did my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
Obviously there is a limit to what I can say about public spending and fiscal policy in advance of next week's Autumn Statement. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked about training and education. I am not in a position to respond to the specific issues which were raised during the debate. However, it is useful to reiterate the point made by the Prime Minister that particular attention will be paid to the implications for industry of individual program-mes when deciding priorities in this year's spending round. That does not mean that difficult decisions will not have to be taken. Firm control of public finances continues to be an important element in our strategy, but I believe that that emphasis will be supported by the great majority of my noble friends.
I am sorry if I have not done justice to all your Lordships' speeches. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate and I believe that it has been most useful. Your Lordships may be sorry that I did not mention the Maastricht Treaty. However, noble Lords who wish to know what the Government's policy is can merely take a walk a few hundred yards to another place.
Perhaps the best way to conclude the debate is to paraphrase what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and my noble friends Lord Cockfield and Lord Skidelsky about the morality of the free market. If we really are serious about getting our economy on the right track we must remember pay restraint, responsible behaviour and pride in a job well done.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am never a great believer in a substantial second bite, particularly at this time of night. I therefore confine myself to thanking the 23 noble Lords who have taken part in
1516
the debate and, in particular, I congratulate the four noble Lords who made such striking maiden speeches. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his comprehensive reply, which was couched in a way which did not make us miss the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, at all. It was delivered with such confidence and aplomb that when, towards the end, he referred to "my Prime Minister" it did not seem entirely out of place.
A slight difficulty in that approach was that it made membership of the ERM—our brief and rather inglorious membership—seem as though it was something which we had graciously consented to try for a time but having found the French and the Germans rather monetarily inadequate we decided that we would have to withdraw until they behaved in a better way and produced currencies as strong and grand as our own.
Leaving that aside, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [H.L.]
9.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 [Provision of goods and services to qualified person with a disability]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved the amendment:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert:
("(4) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section shall render it unlawful for a person or body to decline to provide goods, facilities or services to a person whose behaviour is such as to cause alarm or distress to a majority of customers or employees at the place where such goods, facilities or services are provided.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the fact that the Bill is being moved fully two and three-quarters of an hour later than the Government Whips' Office estimated as recently as two days ago is a pity, but as it is clearly a consequence of a large number of people having made a last minute rush to join in a most interesting economic debate, one can hardly complain.
The amendment is a further attempt to deal with one potential problem inherent in the Bill as it stands. In our praiseworthy zeal to make things easier in many spheres of life for the disabled minority, it would surely be wrong to dismiss as being of little or no importance the interests and well-being of the majority on those luckily rare yet inevitable occasions when the two objectives are on a collision course.
The amendment is an attempt to achieve a fair and democratic balance between the well-being of the minority and that of the majority on those unfortunate but rare occasions. I must stress first that the amendment relates to specific individuals and not groups. In other words, a manager or proprietor of premises would not be allowed to refuse a group booking on the grounds that on past precedent one or two of the group may be likely to cause alarm and

1517
distress to a majority of the customers or staff. The booking would have to be accepted, and only when somebody behaved in an anti-social manner persis-tently would they be asked to leave or possibly go into a back room until the rest of the party were ready to leave.
The next safeguard built into the amendment is that the action of the manager or proprietor is limited to events which cause either alarm or distress. The word "alarm" is self-explanatory. It is a better word than "fear", which is a little too melodramatic, though of course they mean much the same thing. The word "distress" is also indicative of a fairly strong emotion. I specifically did not include what might be described as mild unease, mild embarrassment or mild annoyance. Distress is different. It is something that ruins one's entire evening or day.
Let me give some examples. Indecent exposure would trigger both alarm and distress in nearly all women. There may be a few psychiatric nurses who could shrug it off but nearly all women would be alarmed and distressed by such behaviour. It would not alarm men but it would distress a good many of them, particularly if they were accompanied by their wives, girl friends or sisters. Verbal violence both alarms and distresses people, especially when uttered by people who are obviously not in full control of themselves. There is always the expectation at the back of one's mind that verbal violence will lead suddenly to physical violence.
Leaving aside the question of alarm and concentrating on distress, let me return to my Report stage example of a piano recital where the talented but understandably nervous soloist is making her debut. Suppose there are 300 people in the audience of whom 297 are impeccably behaved, but the remaining three are not. The first of those is a young child, much too young to enjoy that kind of music but who has been dragged along by his parent or guardian who is dying to hear the music and can mentally shut his or her ears to the cries of the child.
The second is an adult of sound mind, as lawyers would say, but who is extremely drunk. The third is also an adult, in body at any rate, who is totally sober but who has a mental age of the child I mentioned in my first example. All these are obviously going to create some sort of disturbance during the perfor-mance, thereby causing great distress not only to the audience but most of all to the poor pianist.
As the law stands at present, all three, and naturally those who are accompanying them, could quite legally be requested to leave by the managers of the concert hall before the performance starts. However, were the Bill to be passed unamended only the first two plus those looking after them could legally be asked to leave. That deserves rectification.
There is one final safeguard built into the amendment to ensure fairness and equity. That is the requirement that the,
"behaviour is such as to cause alarm or distress to a majority of customers or employees".
In other words, it would not be good enough if two or three unusually sensitive or squeamish people were
1518
distressed. However, if the majority were greatly distressed, that would indicate that the behaviour was such that it could not reasonably be tolerated. I am reinforced in my belief that that is right by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals: I am sorry that he is not here tonight. He remarked:
"Is it not right that the views of the majority as opposed to the views of the minority should carry".—[Official Report,27/10/92; col.1017.]
Judging by the cheers of most, if by no means all, of his colleagues, the Labour Party in this House broadly takes that view. The noble Lord was referring to the unavoidable clash of views and interests between a minority of habitual smokers whose income is insufficient to allow them to travel by British Rail and who are as a result compelled to travel by long-distance coach—and who are now being forbidden to smoke even right at the rear of the coach on very long journeys—and the majority of those travelling by coach, who are non-smokers.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was fully entitled to take the view that the distress of the smokers—and it is a distress to heavy smokers, which I am not—was outweighed without question by the distress of the non-smokers if they were forced to share a coach and therefore that the views of the latter should prevail.
When we debated this matter at Report stage my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who I believed grasped what I was trying to achieve and, I sense, to some extent sympathised with the objective if not the wording of my amendment, suggested that it was unnecessary and that nothing in the Bill would prevent a manager or provider of an establishment from requesting someone to leave if he or she was behaving in the ways I have described. Would that that were so.
I have read the Bill again and again very thoroughly. I would like to believe that she is right but I find it very hard to do so. There are exceptions contained in a code of practice, but the latter does not have the force of law. Moreover, groups are referred to, not specific individuals. Somebody may be theoretically quite all right when in a group but may individually behave uncharacteristically and unacceptably to a majority. I feel that the owner, proprietor or manager of a building might fall foul of the law if he were to ask such a person to leave.
It would be quite inappropriate at Third Reading to press this amendment (which is perhaps technically imperfect for one reason or another) to a Division unless of course the House as a whole or the Government wish me to do so. Failing that I shall certainly beg leave to withdraw it. However, it is vital that the problem is aired so that the other place in Committee is given the full arguments setting out both sides of the case to enable it to consider the problem in great detail. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, whose sincerity in this matter is abundantly clear, I do not consider that his amendment is necessary. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, agrees with me that an amendment which begins with the words,
"For the avoidance of doubt",

1519
is one which should prima facie be rejected for this reason: the words of a Bill should always be so clear that we do not need subsections for the removal of doubt. In this particular case, I do not consider that we do so, because if we look at Clauses 6 and 7, which are pretty widely drawn, we find that Clause 6(3) reads:
"This section does not apply where compliance with it in relation to a … person with a disability would be impracticable or unsafe".
I do not need to read the rest of that subsection. Then we find that Clause 7(1) states:
"In determining for the purposes of section 6 above the reasonableness of any modification to rules, policies or practices … regard shall be had to whether such actions could be undertaken without undue hardship".
In my opinion, but I am open to challenge, those two provisions, which are already in the Bill, are pretty widely drawn and would cover most of the contingencies which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has mentioned in support of his amendment. However, there is one contingency which I think that he has overlooked: that the refusal of goods or services to a disabled person is more likely to give rise to behaviour which would cause alarm or distress than if we let the matter be dealt with within the terms of the Bill as it stands. I am afraid that this new subsection would encourage refusal and would therefore cause alarm or distress which might not otherwise be caused. That is yet another reason for not accepting the amendment. I hope that in view of those thoughts your Lordships will decide that the amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has spoken most persuasively on this amendment and I agree with what he has said wholeheartedly. Like the noble Lord, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on the very moderate way in which he moved the amendment. I am sure that we understand why he has done so. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about provisions beginning with the words,
"For the avoidance of doubt".
The amendment might almost be said to be "for the introduction of confusion" for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already adduced about Clauses 6 and 7. To those reasons I should add subsection (2) of Clause 1 on interpretation, which states:
"A person discriminates against another person on the ground of disability in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act".
The subsection to be inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which states in so many words that it is only for the purpose of Clause 6 goes against the implicit meaning of Clause 1(2). It would certainly make for difficulties of interpretation if both the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and Clause 1(2) were to rest in the Bill. Therefore, I would add those reasons to those of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for asking the House not to accept the amendment. I hope that, having made his point as an extension of his remarks on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I echo what my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton said about the moderate way in which my noble friend Lord Monson introduced this amendment. I very much hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment and I trust he will be persuaded that it is unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has given such a clear and learned response that my noble friend Lord Monson may already be persuaded, but since I was involved in the discussion of my noble friend's amendment at Report stage perhaps I may also say a word or two to try to reassure him further.
Yesterday I talked to a lawyer who is one of those who drafted the Bill. This was after he had looked at my noble friend's amendment. Yet another reassur-ance lies in the part of Clause 1(1) which is the first whole paragraph on page 2 of the Bill. It refers to the "qualified person with a disability" and the "essential eligibility requirements". The lawyer said that the structure of the legislation and the definition of those entitled to the new rights are designed to restrict the reasons that can be used to exclude or segregate people with disabilities only to those occasions where without such restrictions the service or facility would be totally undermined, which is very much what my noble friend was asking for. Thus what are or are not regarded as the essential eligibility requirements for participation will determine in each case how far a service provider must go to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and the consequences which their participation may have for the users of the facilities or programme.
The question of what are the essential eligibility requirements is highly relative and they will be different for different activities. For example, for a concert—my noble friend mentioned a piano recital—an essential eligibility requirement may very well be an ability to keep quiet, whereas as for a football match it would not. These are the kind of points which could very well be addressed in a code of practice because, as I think my noble friend will appreciate, they will perhaps run to several pages and are not appropriate for primary legislation. I very much hope that my noble friend will feel further reassured and will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I have not spoken on this Bill before simply because I was not a Member of this House. However, I should like to make a brief intervention.
I have a special interest in the Bill because I introduced the first anti-discrimination Bill in another place some 10 years ago following the report of the committee on restriction against access for disabled people which was set up by Alfred Morris, the first Minister for Disabled People. I am very keen on this Bill because I know there is widespread discrimination against many disabled people. Every severely disabled person knows that from his daily experience. That statement cannot be challenged. Those who say that they cannot find evidence of discrimination simply do not understand disability. Discrimination is wide-spread. I am keen on the Bill because persuasion and education have failed just as they failed with seat belts. Legislation was required on seat belts just as it is

1521
required on discrimination against disabled people. I am keen on the Bill because disabled people need rights. They should not need to rely on exhortation. For those three reasons I am anxious that the Bill should pass through both this House and another place.
I hope that the House will not be persuaded that it is legitimate to discriminate against someone if his behaviour causes distress. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, put his case with moderation, but as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that phrase is used by publicans to exclude disabled people from their pubs. It is used by people in seaside resorts to exclude people from those resorts. They say that their customers will be offended by disabled people being in their pub or being in their seaside resort. I hope that that argument will not be accepted. I hope that this evening we shall not hear the phrase "benevolent neutrality". There is no such thing. If one is neutral, one is not benevolent. One is not supporting the Bill. One is therefore hostile to the Bill. I hope that this evening we shall hear only from those who are for or against the Bill.
I wish to conclude by saying that tonight we should speak very clearly and uncompromisingly for new rights for disabled people. That is what the Bill gives to disabled people. We do not want sympathy or exhortation; we want new rights for disabled people. The Bill deserves every support.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, moved the amendment he said that he thought it might be technically imperfect. I believe that he is probably correct. I have read it carefully and the words which struck me were,
"alarm or distress to a majority".
He referred to the tricky situation at a concert. I am not sure how we find out what the majority feel. Does he mean a simple majority? Do we have an exhaustive ballot, or do we try proportional representation? Then, of course, it has to be either the customers or the employees. So, presumably, that means a majority of the customers could be happy and the majority of the employees unhappy or vice versa. That point needs to be cleared up if the subsection is to be introduced. The noble Lord then gave the very helpful explanation about "alarm" or "distress". Again, presumably the majority of the customers or the employees could be alarmed without being distressed or distressed without being alarmed. I found that extremely helpful.
When we discussed a similar amendment on Report, the noble Lord was critical about the wording of the Bill. He said:
"How on earth are any two people"
that is, just two people and not the majority
"going to be able to agree on 'undue hardship' or on what would 'unduly prejudice the operation' of a business. The lawyers would have a field day or a series of field days". [Official Report,15/7/92; col.295.]
If the amendment was introduced into the Bill, I am sure that lawyers would certainly have a field day, or a series of them, in deciding what was and what was not a majority and what was "alarm" and what was
1522
"distress". To put it at its kindest, I believe that the amendment is less than helpful. It would lead to considerable confusion. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, it has been most interesting to hear what noble Lords have said about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I agree with all the views expressed; indeed, they have been expressed so well that I do not want to dwell too long on the subject. However, I should like to make two points. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Following the debate on Report, I too consulted lawyers involved in the area. I am advised that Clause 1(1) would cover the very point that the noble Lord is seeking to make where people may indulge in unsocial behaviour or behaviour which would lead to the disruption of a service or proceedings.
Clause 1(1) says that a,
"'qualified person with a disability' means, in relation to the provision of goods, facilities or services covered by Part III of this Act, a person with a disability who… meets the essential eligibility requirements for the provision of goods, facilities or services".
If a person's behaviour was so disruptive, then I think it could be held that he or she does not qualify under the Bill. That would certainly cover the three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Indeed, the first point he made about indecent exposure would, I believe, be covered by criminal law as well as by this legislation. The other two points would also come into that category.
My second point is a most important one. I believe that it is very dangerous to insert the amendment in such legislation. I say that because the legislation is intended to give the same rights to disabled people as are enjoyed by other people. To include the words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would belittle that right. It would detract from the right that we are giving to disabled people. It would suggest that the providers of goods, facilities or services were the people to determine whether a disabled person qualified, whereas whoever determines whether a disabled person has qualified must be an independent body. Under the terms of the Bill, that would be the county court. The noble Lord said that he would not press the amendment. I hope that in the light of what has been said he will not press it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this interesting debate. That was the object of the exercise, because I hope that it will be studied in another place when the Bill goes there. No one is more scrupulous about drafting than the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and few people are better qualified in the law. I do not believe that his example of Clause 6(3) is apposite because it refers solely to what is impracticable or unsafe. I do not believe that any of the examples I mentioned fall into that category, although I suppose if a person were extremely violent he might be "unsafe".
The noble Lord hits the target, however, with Clause 7(2) and the phrase "without undue hardship". That is an important point. I am considerably

1523
reassured by that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for having taken such trouble with her researches. They have been most useful. Clause 1(2) (a) is also reassuring in that discrimination occurs only if someone treats a person with a disability less favourably than he would treat a person who does not have such a disability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, rather contradicted herself. She said that the intention of the Bill is that people with disabilities should have the same rights as others, but she appears to be asking for extra rights. Although someone without a disability could be expelled from a concert for making a noise, she seems to be suggesting that someone with a disability should have the additional right of not being expelled from the concert.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly. I say that in those circumstances a disabled person would be treated in the same way as an able bodied person.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving that explanation. I clearly misunderstood the import of what she was saying. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton who is also scrupulous in the matter of drafting. I did not want to start with the phrase,
"For the avoidance of doubt",
but it seemed a good way of explaining what was intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, disagreed with my use of the word "majority" and poked fun at the way the majority would be ascertained. It is purely common sense. If most people are offended, it is fairly indicative of something not being right. As I pointed out, his noble friend Lord Ennals made just such a use of the word "majority" in his intervention eight days ago. If it is not right for me to use the word, it cannot have been right for him to use it, but let us leave it at that.
What has been interesting is that the debate seems to have shown a slight division among the Bill's supporters. There are those who broadly support my objectives but believe that my method of going about it is unnecessary: I hope that they are right. Then there were one or two noble Lords who did not even support the objectives of the amendment—but there is probably no point going into that now.
I said at the outset that I would certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment unless there was an indication of support either from the Government or from the House. As that was not forthcoming, I shall withdraw it; but it is right that what we have said tonight should go on the record and be studied in another place when the Bill goes there.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 15th June. It was subsequent to a Second Reading debate
1524
on a similar Bill which took place on 21st February but the Bill fell because of the General Election. However, that is not its whole history. It had been introduced earlier in another place by my right honourable friend Alf Morris and it fell on procedural grounds. But again that is not the whole history. According to Dr. Colin Barnes of Leeds University, one of the few academic researchers in this field, over the past 10 years there have been 10 unsuccessful attempts to introduce anti-discrimination legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated to me that he could not be in his place this evening. Noble Lords will recall that at Second Reading he spoke of the numerous attempts he had made to introduce legislation for the disabled, starting in 1968. I believe I am right in saying that since 1968 all those attempts have had all-party support. This House has followed the same tradition. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the Bill. Some have already spoken this evening, others could not be present tonight for various reasons. I know that their good wishes are with us this evening and they all regret that they cannot be here. Some, like the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, have come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that persuasion is not enough; legislation is necessary. I think that that is the conclusion of most of your Lordships.
All the speeches, from whatever part of the House, have been supportive of the Bill, with two exceptions. Tonight for the second time we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Whatever we may have thought of them, his amendments have at least given us the opportunity to re-examine and check some of the details of the Bill. Unlike the noble Lord, I would not say that among the supporters of the Bill there is a discrepancy.
The second exception has been the Minister who put the Government's position that anti-discrimination legislation in this field is unnecessary and that persuasion is a better route. In support of that, the Government have not opposed but have been neutral in varying degrees throughout the proceedings.
Now that the Bill has reached its final stages in this House, I hope that the Government will reconsider their position before it arrives in another place. There is every reason for them to do so. While accepting that adverse discrimination against the disabled exists, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated on numerous occasions that nevertheless it was decreasing. I wonder on what evidence he bases that statement.
All the voluntary organisations working in the field have sent noble Lords masses of cases of discrimina-tion. Those organisations that operate an advice or counselling service are inundated with requests for help. Dr. Colin Barnes investigated the evidence and, in his report entitled Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti-Discrimination Legislation, he itemises much of the evidence. His report was published as a book in. December 1991.
Today the Law Society's employment law committee has published its report entitled Disability, Discrimination and Employment. That is an interesting

1525
report. The Law Society makes a number of points among its conclusions. I shall quote three of them. The Law Society states:
"education and voluntary approaches to improving matters are insufficient on their own".
The society further states:
"anti-discrimination legislation, similar to existing laws banning discrimination on grounds of sex and race, could be effective".
It also states:
"The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill could form the basis for the new law, but the matter is too significant for the Private Member's procedure—a Government Bill is needed".
In its press release on the report, the Law Society also states:
"The Committee believes that this is the first time a group of solicitors, experts in their field, have considered the legal feasibility of an anti-discrimination law to help people with disabilities at work".
That is a not inconsiderable conclusion, coming from the legal profession. It cannot be swept aside as unimportant. I hope the Government will take careful note of that report. I agree with the conclusion of the Law Society that the matter is too significant for the Private Member's procedure and that government support or a government Bill is needed. My right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Alf Morris, also holds that view. In a press release today my right honourable friend welcomed the Law Society's report. He said:
"If the Government is prepared to adopt the civil rights Bill … and help to facilitate its passage through the House of Commons, I shall be more than content. There will be an opportunity for the Government to do this when the Bill returns to the Commons".
I sincerely hope the Government will follow that course. If they were to do so, it would give great heart and encouragement to those people in our community who suffer from a disability of some kind or another. It would also give great heart and encouragement to the organisations which have so gallantly campaigned on behalf of those people. Of course an anti-discrimination Bill of itself would not immediately end discrimination. No one is claiming that. However, it would be the most powerful weapon against discrimination that Parliament could provide. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr said—this again is quoted in the Law Society's report—
"Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
It is in that spirit that I move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Lockwood.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass. In doing so I think we should congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for having got the Bill thus far and for the way in which she has played a part in our discussions on it. This is really a Bill of very moderate purpose and of very limited aims. It deals in a practical and reasonable way with only two kinds of discrimination against disabled people: first, discrimination with regard to employment and, secondly, discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services.
1526
I find it strange as well as wrong that such forms of discrimination are still not unlawful. I therefore suggest that the Bill is long overdue. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said this evening, he made attempts some 10 years ago in another place to put such a Bill on the statute book. It is extraordinary and not very creditable that there has been such opposition, or nonfeasance, ever since then when other attempts have been made. I hope that at last when the Bill reaches another place the Government will at least provide time for its discussion. The Government have power to do so in another place.
Better still, as the noble Baroness suggested, the Government could take on the Bill themselves and make it a Government Bill. After all the thought given to the matter in your Lordships' House I do not believe that many hours of discussion would be necessary in another place. There is plenty of time in this Session for the Bill to receive Royal Assent. I certainly hope that it will do so.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am delighted to support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that this Bill should now pass. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in congratulating her on the admirable way in which she has piloted the Bill through its various stages in this House.
In Committee I welcomed two amendments in particular. One had the effect of bringing the Bill into line with those on race and sex discrimination in obliging an alleged discriminator to show that the failure of a disabled person to comply with a requirement was unjustifiable rather than merely unreasonable. The other amendment made an industrial tribunal rather than a court the forum in which allegedly unjustifiable discrimination in employment matters would be judged. In the light of that amendment the Bill now accords with what is normal practice in the employment field.
I am glad that we have had this further opportunity to demonstrate that the Bill has the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has been able to contribute to the debate from the wealth of his experience.
Finally, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in expressing the hope that the Bill will now be given time, preferably by the Government themselves, and will find the support it deserves in another place.
Lord Monson: My Lords, all of us applaud the general objectives of the Bill. Where we differ is on the means to those ends. On the one hand there is the libertarian point of view which prefers education and persuasion, using coercion only rarely, if ever. On the other hand there is the liberal as opposed to the libertarian point of view or, more accurately, the American liberal point of view which has crept across the Atlantic over the past three decades. That has little patience with education and persuasion and leaps swiftly to coercion, in the use of the civil and criminal law. Both points of view are equally respectable and sincerely held. I shall not pursue that point further this evening.

1527
However, there is one aspect of the Bill which makes it quite different from all previous legislation dealing with discrimination, whether it be race, sex or religion in Northern Ireland: namely cost. By abolishing ladies only compartments on trains and ladies only waiting rooms—a silly thing to do, in my opinion, but then I am a libertarian—British Rail actually gained financially from equal opportunities legislation. Race relations and religious discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland was largely neutral in its financial effect upon industry and commerce.
In contrast, apart from encouraging a few minor improvements such as those my noble friend Lady Masham quite rightly pressed for—adjusting the height of telephones, and of knobs and buttons in garages, which is very much needed but does not require a lengthy piece of legislation because any self-respecting owner of a business will happily do it voluntarily if only the problem is pointed out to him—very large financial burdens will be imposed upon industry and commerce by legislation like this. For example, I know of one Labour-controlled council that is insisting that all of a large fleet of fairly newly acquired taxis should be scrapped and replaced by ones capable of carrying wheelchairs, even though perhaps only 1 per cent. of customers may wish to avail themselves of that facility. There is no point in labouring it but I think that is something the other place will want to look at. It probably explains why the Government are taking the libertarian rather than the liberal line on the Bill.
My final point is that titles, words and descriptions should be used with great care. The concept of rights should not be trivialised. Rights are basic and fundamental. Freedom of religion and speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and freedom to vote in national and local elections is universally acknow-ledged and there is no dispute about it. Admirable though the objectives of this Bill are, they are not rights in the universally-accepted sense, but desirable objectives.
I give an example. Some homosexuals maintain not only that they should be allowed to lead their private lives in dignity and immune from the attentions of the law—a proposition with which I am sure all of us would agree—but that employers should be forced to employ them whether or not they wish to do so and that that is a basic right which should be extended to them. Similarly, are old people who are not physically disabled in the conventional sense but may have great difficulty in getting upstairs going to ask that rights be granted to them so that every public building in the country more than one storey high should be adapted so that a lift is installed and they do not have to walk up one, two or three storeys? If one begins to extend the concept of basic rights to all those things the list is endless.
I do not object to any of the contents of the Bill at this moment but to the Title. I hope that the sponsors will consider altering the Short Title in the other place, which I believe is technically possible, to something like the Disabled Persons (Improved Amenities) Bill for two reasons. First, it would be more accurate, and
1528
secondly, it would help to dampen down any urgent demands to spread legislation of this kind across all sorts of other fields.
10 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing the Bill to a successful conclusion in this House. I think she has been the ideal Member of the House to be in charge of the Bill. It goes to another place in good form.
I should explain why I am speaking at Third Reading not previously having taken part in the Bill except for a word on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. My inertia was due to the fact that, although I am as keen as anyone that there should be legislation on the statute book against discrimination, I had an idea that it would be profitable to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee of this House or possibly both Houses of Parliament.
At the request of an organisation which is dedicated to the purposes of the Bill—the VOADL, Voluntary Organisations for Anti-Discrimination Legislation—I made an attempt to have the subject referred to a Select Committee in this House. I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who was then the Leader of the House, that the issue was one which would not go away and that this was perhaps one of the best ways of taking it forward and obtaining some kind of uniformity of view as to the best way of proceeding. For all I know, we might have accommodated the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to his satisfaction if we had proceeded in that way.
Unfortunately, as so often happens in these matters, a much more glamorous proposal was introduced by much more powerful people than myself; namely, the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, which took its place. So that event never happened. But it is at the back of my mind. I should like to say that if no time is found for this Bill in another place, either the Bill will be introduced again and again or it might prove a suitable subject for a Select Committee. Then we might even be able to convert the Government to the necessity for a Bill and it could perhaps go through under their aegis.
I have been proved wrong in my view that it was necessary for the Bill to go to a Select Committee because what we have here—the Alf Morris Bill as improved in this House under the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—seems to be a viable Bill, which could reasonably be converted into an Act with minimal attention from another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I very much hope that that will be the case and that eventually some measure to implement the ideas of Mr. Jack Ashley (as he then was) over 10 years ago will reach the statute book.
Therefore I am happy to endorse the Bill. As I said, I hope that time will be found in another place. As one looks at the debates on Second Reading, as I recently have, one does not get much hope from the utterance of the Minister. He was so far from being benevolently neutral as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, that he was not even neutral. Indeed, I would say—I do not

1529
think he would contradict it—that he was hostile or almost hostile and gave no hope of any kind of life after the Bill leaves this House.
I always entertain hope. I hope that the Minister may have changed his mind since the Second Reading and will be able to tell the House so. In any case, perhaps he will be so kind as to remind the Prime Minister that he was once the minister for disabled people, at which time he was—as I am sure he still is—very well disposed and sympathetic towards disabled people. I ask him to use his influence to find time for the Bill in another place. Perhaps he will reminisce and be mindful of his role when he was in that junior capacity in an earlier government. I ask him to remember that a Private Member's Bill of this kind which has support from all sides of both Houses should be given time in the other place and not either be talked out or have its neck wrung in one of the many ways which Whips can use to exert their dark arts. With that in mind, and with the absolute assurance that I can give noble Lords that the Bill is not the last that the Government will hear of this subject, which will reappear in future sessions of Parliament, I hope that he will avoid any prolonged agony and will impress on his friends in another place that the Bill should be given a fair hearing there.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wish to make this brief point. If opponents of the Bill want to place objections against it, they can find a thousand excuses to oppose it. The Bill is only against unjustifiable discrimination. When the committee on restrictions against disabled people met, it used the classical phrase,"We are not advocating blind bus drivers or deaf piano tuners; we are only against unjustifiable discrimination".
When I put forward my Bill in another place, I proposed that "unjustifiable discrimination" should be outlawed. The opponents of the Bill asked how one would define "unjustifiable". That was used as the reason to vote against the Bill. The same thing has occurred in this place. People have asked,"How do you define unjustifiable?". Therefore if one wishes to oppose the Bill one can do so quite easily. It is a matter of will and attitude.
The same arguments against a Bill were put forward in the United States. Year after year they were overcome. The United States Government have accepted a Bill. It is now an Act on the statute book. Such legislation should be an Act on our statute book. I know that the Minister sympathises with the Bill but he has a brief which he has to keep to. However, I hope that he will use his influence to assist with the Bill at the proper time, if not today. I hope that the Bill will be supported.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on her calm, competent and good-humoured handling of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in June, none of us disagrees with the much quoted words of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 31st January, which I shall pré cis vigorously. He stated that there is still
1530
too much unjustified discrimination, which is wrong, stupid and a waste of talent. As the Minister said on 15th June at col.102 of the Official Report:
"We are … sympathetic to the aims of the Bill and the ideas underlying it. Where we differ is on the means by which to achieve some very desirable ends".
The Government favour education and persuasion, as has already been said. They also are now in favour of selective legislation carefully targeted. However, it is well nigh impossible to foresee all the ways in which people may discriminate, be it wilfully or inadvertently. Targeted legislation tends to be a response to a problem or situation which has already arisen. If one has a backdrop of general anti-discrimination legislation, behaviour is guided by the existing law and action can be taken to avoid a situation or to sort out a problem.
I have become increasingly convinced, as have many others, since CORAD reported in 1982, that anti-discrimination law is necessary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, my noble friend Lord Snowdon now reluctantly believes that legislation is the only answer. The noble Baroness also referred to the report by the Law Society's employment committee which has come out in favour of anti-discrimination legislation.
Many noble Lords have spoken during the passage of the Bill about the strong feelings among organisations and individual people with disabilities that the time has come for positive action. Once again the person who put it best was the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We now have a new quotation. On 31st January at cols.1251 to 1252 of the Official Report, Commons, Mr. Nicholas Scott said:
"I have been particularly impressed by the gathering pace during the time I have had my present responsibilities and the determination of disabled people to control their own lives and no longer just quietly to accept what they are told is good for them. They are anxious to say, 'This is what we want. It is your duty to give it to us'."
I urge the Government to listen. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has on many occasions listened and come back with many positive solutions. I urge the Government to listen to the voice of disabled people to ensure that the Bill is given time and consideration in another place or, as other noble Lords have already suggested, to make it a government Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Lockwood for the way in which she introduced the Bill and for steering it so ably through the House. There is always a temptation at this stage to repeat one's Second Reading speech. I do not propose to do that; I shall be brief.
This is a good Bill which has received substantial support from both inside and outside the House. We improved it in Committee and on Report and we can all agree that the issues have been thoroughly explored. I do not apologise for repeating that since 1982 when my noble friend Lord Ashley first introduced legislation, this is the eleventh attempt to put legislation on the statute book. However, the Government still refuse to accept the need for legislation. The trouble is that the Government will never tell us what they will accept. We believe that the argument for legislation is strong. The noble

1531
Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), quoted what was said on 15th June by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at col.102 of Hansard.I too shall quote from that same column. The Minister said:
"At that time I argued that that Bill was not necessary and was not necessarily the right way forward at that time. That is still our view".—(Official Report,15/6/92; col.102.)
The trouble is that Ministers repeat that a Bill is not necessary but they will not tell us what is necessary. The phrase "benevolent neutrality"—whatever that means—has been repeated many times. In fact, we know that the Government are opposed to the Bill and have made it clear that they will not find time for it in another place. We must hope that sufficient Members in another place can change the Government's mind. I forecast that the campaign will not stop. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, we will not go away. I am confident that eventually there will be an Act on the statute book.
Perhaps I may repeat only a few words that I used at the end of my Second Reading speech. The first Motion that I moved in your Lordships' House drew attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In the debate I coined the phrase "the disabled divide" to describe the great gulf which exists in expectation and achievement between people with disabilities and those who are able-bodied. If enacted the Bill will go a long way towards bridging that divide.
This is a good Bill. I shall not repeat the arguments, which are unanswerable. Good arguments always win through in the end.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on her calm, competent and good humoured handling of the Bill through its various stages in this House. Perhaps I may also welcome personally the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to these debates. I made no apology—nor did my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People—for using the expression "benevolent neutrality". However, I assure the noble Lord that I shall not use it this evening. I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that I shall ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, a former distinguished Minister of State for Social Security. I am sure that he will be well aware of his former responsibilities and of the feelings of Members of this House.
It is four months since we last considered the Bill on Report. On that occasion, as on previous occasions, we in the Government said that we shared the aims of the Bill but we did not believe that it represented the right way forward at that time. That view has not changed, nor has the Government's resolve to continue to take appropriate action to reduce and to remove such discrimination. We believe, as do all noble Lords, that prejudice is nearly always caused by ignorance and that that can be fully overcome only by education, information and experience. But we also believe in combating discrimination in particular areas
1532
by introducing practical measures where it is clear that encouragement and persuasion are not working or are working too slowly.
We achieved that with targeted legislation aimed at freeing disabled people from particular restrictions which prevent them leading the life that they would choose. Perhaps I may give one or two examples. We have expanded the requirements to make accessible public buildings which most of us take for granted but which confront wheelchair users with insuperable obstacles. We have introduced a new benefit—the disabled working allowance—to remove the previous rigid distinction in the benefit system between ability and inability to work.
We brought in new regulations designed to improve the working of the orange badge scheme. We required all newly licensed taxis in London to be wheelchair accessible from 1989, and all taxis in the capital by January 2000. Local authorities in 60 or more other areas of the country have followed suit.
Only last Friday,30th October, the Education Bill was introduced in another place. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for the Welsh Office announced, among other proposals, a package designed to improve the education and integration of pupils with special educational needs. The proposals include important new resources for those pupils with new parental rights and appeal procedures, and new requirements for schools. The proposals contained in the Education Bill are examples of good, practical measures we are taking to tackle discrimination—getting to the root of the problem of inequity of treatment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. Of course we rejoice in the examples he is giving, but none of them deals with discrimination in employment or with the provision of goods, facilities and services, as mentioned in the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is a debate on Bill do now pass. I was trying to explain that we do not consider that the Bill is the right way forward at this time. However, as in the examples I have just given, certain pieces of targeted legislation can have effects in certain areas. I accept that it may not go as far as my noble friend wishes. However, we do not feel that it is the right time or place for the Bill.
Perhaps I may continue by saying that I am pleased to announce to the House that the Disability Unit, which supports my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Disabled People, is being transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Security and expanded. The unit's new structure and additional personnel will enable it to strengthen its contacts with other departments and other disability organisations and collect more information. The move is a reflection of the importance we attach to the interests of people with disabilities, and we are committed to keeping them high on the agenda.
I conclude by saying that we will continue to build on those achievements; we will take legislative action as and where appropriate and continue to work to improve the awareness and appreciation of the needs

1533
and abilities of people with disabilities. We do not believe that the Bill before us today is the best way to achieve our aims, and with considerable regret we cannot therefore support it. However, I do not seek to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at least in so far as he supports the general objectives of the Bill. The hour is late, otherwise I might be tempted even at this stage to take him up on one or two of the points he raised. However, I believe that I have said enough this evening.
I welcome the comments of the Minister regarding the targeted legislation. Of course that is helpful. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that does not cover the same areas as the Bill attempts to cover. It does not extend to disabled people the general rights that are available to the rest of us. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister will bring the Bill to the attention of his right honourable friend in another place and, I hope, of the Prime Minister himself.
1534
Should the Government not take up the Bill as their own or provide time for it, then the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Carter are absolutely right in saying that the subject will not go away. We shall be back time and again until it becomes an Act of Parliament. But I hope that it will not be necessary for us to come back to it again in this House except in the sense of dealing with a Bill which has come from the other place with the full support of the Government. I hope that your Lordships will accept the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Midland Metro Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee, with amendments.

Midland Metro (No.3) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  MAASTRICHT TREATY: DISSEMINATION
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: DISSEMINATION
  SOUTH CHINA SEA: DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVES
  SOUTH CHINA SEA: DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVES
  EUROTUNNEL: PASSENGER LIABILITY
  EUROTUNNEL: PASSENGER LIABILITY
  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES
  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: COPIES SOLD
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: COPIES SOLD
  WAGES COUNCILS AND EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN
  WAGES COUNCILS AND EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN
  ANIMAL FEEDINGSTUFFS AND BIRD PROTECTION: CHANGES TO CODES OF PRACTICE
  ANIMAL FEEDINGSTUFFS AND BIRD PROTECTION: CHANGES TO CODES OF PRACTICE
  BARN OWLS: IMPACT OF CHANGES TO CODE OF PRACTICE
  BARN OWLS: IMPACT OF CHANGES TO CODE OF PRACTICE
  EGGS: TESTING FOR SALMONELLA
  EGGS: TESTING FOR SALMONELLA
  BRITISH EGG INDUSTRY COUNCIL
  BRITISH EGG INDUSTRY COUNCIL