Sitting of 9 December 1993

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

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Battery Farms
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the welfare of chickens in battery farms.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Commission has been reviewing the battery hens directive. We await its proposals for a revision of the directive and for new standards for other systems. The Government wish to see the highest welfare standards set on a Community basis for laying hens in all systems of production.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that it is illegal to keep birds in cages that are too small to allow them to spread their wings? The only exception to that law involves battery chickens. Does he agree that battery chickens deserve the same protection from cruelty as other birds? As part of his review, will he consider extending the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 accordingly?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The Government's position is plain: we wish to see the highest welfare standards set on a Community basis. We will not take unilateral action because to do so would place our egg producers at a great disadvantage. We are conscious of the need to improve the general welfare standards of battery chickens and will bear the hon. Lady's point in mind.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend are making considerable efforts to get a Europewide agreement on animal welfare, particularly in regard to battery hens. Does he agree that it would be absolute folly for our domestic markets if we were to take unilateral action?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is completely right. My right hon. Friend has no intention of doing such a thing. We have made it plain that improvements to the systems must be on a Europewide basis, thereby not disadvantaging producers, who have been under a great deal of pressure and have had difficulties for many years. We will do all that we can to help the egg production systems of this country and, at the same time, improve the welfare of battery hens.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister agree with the egg producers in my constituency who say that they will be put out of business if they are forced to implement the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, which come into force next year, unless they contain a certain amount of flexibility? They will be forced into massive capital expenditure to make the relatively small changes to the floors of battery cages which many of their European competitors have already made. That would put our farmers at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We will issue guidance to the industry on the implementation of the

    469
    Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, they will come fully into force on 1 January next year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that he will assure his egg farmers—that those rules and regulations will be enforced in a sensible, pragmatic and consistent manner. If he has any reason to complain, he should get in touch with me at once.

    Pest Control
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to secure safe, efficient and humane methods of pest control.
    Mr. Soames: Responsibility for pest control lies with individual landowners and occupiers, who are free to use any legal method of control, including shooting, approved pesticides and traps.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, from a conservation point of view, it is very important to control vermin in the countryside? Does he agree that one of the most effective and least cruel ways of controlling the fox population is hunting foxes with hounds—and does he agree that, from a national point of view, one of the most effective ways of controlling the pest population is ensuring that we have as few Labour Members as possible in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has made an important and serious point. The control of pests and vermin in the countryside is indeed very important. It is not good enough to turn a blind eye and allow vocal minority groups to try to force unsatisfactory practices on the countryside.
    As my hon. Friend knows, the Government remain neutral on fox hunting. For my own part, however, I whole heartedly agree with what he has said: hunting plays a very important part in the life of the countryside and the whole nation would be irreparably the worse without it.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has the Minister had any discussions with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment about the cost of eliminating pesticides from the water supply? Does he think it right for that cost to continue to fall on the water rate payers, rather than on the polluters?
    Mr. Soames: That is really a question for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment. The hon. Lady may be assured, however, that we work very closely with the Department on such matters. As she knows, Government policy is that the use of pesticides should be limited to the absolute minimum that is necessary for effective use—for the effective control of pests, compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. We feel that arbitrary reduction targets would not be helpful.
    I assure the hon. Lady that I will mention what she has said to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.

    Fishing, Thames Estuary
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about the allocation of fishing quotas to fishermen in the Thames estuary; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Officials meet industry representatives on a regular basis to discuss the monthly quota management arrangements for white fish stocks. We are aware of the concern about availability of North sea cod in the Thames estuary and of my hon. Friend's constituents' concerns about the very tight monthly catch restrictions for North sea sole.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that fishermen in the Thames estuary—for instance, those operating from Mersea island in my constituency—have been allocated a quota for sole of about 100 kg a month, which yields about £200? The cost of maintaining a boat may approach £2,000 a month. Does my hon. Friend accept that quotas of that size make fishing almost unviable for my constituents? Will he consider whether they can be given any help and, in particular, will he consider establishing a separate quota for the Thames estuary?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is indeed a friend to the fishermen in raising that point, but I feel that his question goes to the heart of a wider issue—the overall problem, in all Community waters, of the current pressure on our white fish stocks. I am well aware of that problem, but, as my hon. Friend will know, our efforts to secure a year-round fishery in his area for both sole and cod have meant evening out the availability of those species throughout the year. The view was taken that it was better to allow some fishermen to catch sole all year round and retain seasonal fisheries than not to allow them to fish at all; however, I note what my hon. Friend has said and will bear it in mind in the coming negotiations.

    Horticultural Products
    Mr. Pickles: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to improve the marketing of British horticultural products.
    Mr. Jack: Help to improve the marketing of British horticultural produce will come from the new marketing development grant and a study that my right hon. Friend has asked me to undertake of ways in which the sector's performance can be strengthened.
    Mr. Pickles: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that growers of broadleaf and salad vegetables in my constituency are gravely concerned about the proposed EC directives on nitrates? Is he aware that, given the preponderance of vegetables grown under glass—in my constituency and throughout the country—the viability of the industry is threatened? The proposed directive is not really based on scientific justification and smacks of anti-competitive practice. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to protect British growers?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—he does a service to the glasshouse industry. As he may know, before I came to the House I was involved in the fresh produce industry and therefore fully appreciate the seriousness of what he says. Our officials have been working extremely hard in their discussions in Europe to try to ensure that the United Kingdom's view on the way in which the directive affects our glasshouse growers prevails. We are currently without support on that matter,

    471
    but we take my hon. Friend's point so seriously that my right hon. Friend the Minister plans to raise it in the next Agriculture Council
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the marketing of horticultural products took a severe knock with last night's vote in the House and that thousands of greengrocer shops that have been opening on Sunday mornings will now find that the competition from Tesco and Sainsbury will force them to shut every Sunday? The Conservative party is supposed to be the party of small business men, yet it was predominantly its vote last night that will shut those greengrocer shops, especially on Sundays.
    Mr. Jack: What the hon. Gentleman says is an insult to the small specialist greengrocers, who, with their expertise and knowledge of markets and different varieties, serve, whether six or seven days a week, with tremendous professionalism, those who buy vegetables and salads. Long may they continue to trade in that way.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that effective marketing of horticultural produce requires markets to be as open as possible? In that light, has any progress been made on the agricultural and horticultural aspects of the GATT negotiations? Will he and our right hon. Friend the Minister make absolutely sure that no special interest groups in other countries are allowed to get in the way of a satisfactory settlement?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend knows that many members of the Government have, in their own way, been working extremely hard to help to secure a general agreement on tariffs and trade. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make her contribution to that next week.

    Animal Transportation
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EC.
    Mr. Soames: We have maintained strict national controls to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport both within this country and for export. Further detailed Community rules are being discussed and we are pressing for our own very high standards to be adopted.
    Dr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the export of livestock for slaughter is completely unnecessary and causes immense suffering to the animals concerned? Even if the Minister is not able to ban all such exports, should not she be taking immediate action to ban the export of sheep to Spain until we have a guarantee and are completely satisfied that the Spanish have stopped their appalling slaughterhouse practices, such as stabbing fully conscious animals with screwdrivers and short-bladed knives, as was recently revealed by the RSPCA?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Plainly, the practices that were shown on the RSPCA video from Spain are completely unacceptable. My right hon. Friend has mentioned those matters not only to the Spanish Agriculture Minister but to the Farm Commissioner in Brussels. Banning the export of sheep to Spain is riot possible under the single market agreement. As the hon. Lady knows, we did not allow animals to go to Spain for slaughter before 1 January this year. We have an agreement
    472
    with the Spanish authorities on a chief vet to chief vet basis that our animals will go only to plants that are known to be fully approved to EC standards. I assure the hon. Lady that no animals go to any plant of the type that was shown in the RSPCA video.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I hope that I can assume that my hon. Friend has read the comprehensive and unanimous report on that subject by the all-party Select Committee on Agriculture. Will he bear in mind two important factors: first, that it is in no one's interest to take live animals any further than is absolutely necessary and, secondly, that it is particularly in the interests of the owners of those animals to ensure that they arrive in good condition? That is a crucial factor in considering all those matters.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right and his Select Committee made those points clear in its admirable report. This involves not only a humanitarian and ethical issue, which the British people instinctively and rightly wish to support, but the perfectly proper commercial consideration that if animals are improperly and inhumanely treated on their way to slaughter, they will not be in a fit state to be slaughtered when they get there, to the commercial disadvantage of those who wish to sell that meat. We have written to all those involved in the transport of animals reminding them of those important obligations. I assure my hon. Friend, his Committee and the House that at the Agriculture Council in Brussels next week my right hon. Friend the Minister will be fighting for a proper, honourable and sensible programme, which can be enforced, for the welfare of animals travelling here and on the continent.
    Mr. Morley: The Opposition support the Minister's representations to the Spanish on those despicable practices, but did not the former Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), give an assurance that British livestock would be sent to only 68 of the best Spanish slaughterhouses—an assurance which was broken in that it was changed to EC-approved slaughterhouses? Is not it also true that, despite the Minister's assurances, there is no way of knowing to which plants in Spain livestock is going?
    The Government have rightly agreed a derogation for horses from Britain going for slaughter, thus establishing the principle that the EC regulations can be changed. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that animals from Britain can travel for as long as 60 hours simply to go to a slaughterhouse in Spain?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman and I had a good long canter round this course in Committee yesterday and he knows perfectly well that the Government take these matters extremely seriously. We have full confidence in the arrangements that have been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government on the basis of chief vet to chief vet. After the RSPCA video, we took immediate steps to ensure that all the guarantees given to the Government by the Spanish chief vet were still in place and would remain in place, and we are confident that that is the case.
    I completely agree that the unsupervised and unregulated transport of animals is unacceptable, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that it is no good parroting on as if the British Government were at fault. The problems occur not in Britain but in Spain, Greece, France

    473
    and elsewhere on the continent, and it is to continental Governments that the hon. Gentleman should make known his strictures. We know exactly where we have to go and how to get there, but we must take our European partners with us in order to ensure proper enforcement of the rules, without which they are nothing.
    Mr. Bellingham: Not so long ago, the Minister told the House that if animals were fit enough to travel, they should travel. Most hon. Members will agree with that, but is my hon. Friend aware that on many journeys animals are not properly watered or fed or given proper rests? Would not it make sense to have a compulsory rest period every eight hours or so?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. He is well informed on these matters, so I am sure that he knows the state of play in the negotiations, which are very much concerned with rest periods and journey times. However, those matters must be part of a package. No rules are worth the paper that they are written on unless the countries that are party to the agreement are prepared to enforce, on a proper and decent basis, all the rules to which they have signed up. When we achieve that, we shall have secured a real improvement in the standards of animal welfare, which everyone in Britain rightly wants to see.

    Farm Incomes
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average farm income for mostly sheep producers in the severely disadvantaged areas of (a) England and (b) Wales.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Details of incomes for specialist sheep produces in the severely disadvantaged areas of England and Wales are contained in the 1993 autumn review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands, a copy of which is in the House Library.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware that 57 per cent. of mostly sheep farmers in less-favoured areas in England, and 47 per cent. in similar areas in Wales, had to exist last year on an average income of less than £10,000? Does the Minister think that that is an adequate living for farmers who have a difficult job to do trying to farm in areas that are particularly difficult to turn into productive profit?
    Mrs. Shephard: Of course, I recogise the importance in economic, social and environmental terms of farming in the hills. I remind the hon. Lady that the details of farm incomes were agreed by the farm unions. This year, we simply could not ignore the evidence of a rise in farm incomes of about 41 per cent. in England and 55 per cent.—admittedly on a lower base—in Wales. Also, although hill livestock compensatory allowances have been reduced by £25 million as a result of the public expenditure survey round, income from other sources to people who farm in the hills has increased by £100 million. That is not the sort of evidence which one can ignore when considering those arrangements.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the income of sheep farmers in severely disadvantaged areas such as the North Yorkshire moors national park has risen over the past years is the 30 per cent. increase in the export of sheep to the continent?
    474
    Is not it hypocritical of hon. Members to argue in one breath that we should provide more money for hill farmers and in the next breath say that we should cut off the very source of that increase in income by banning the export of live animals?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes a good point because he knows the way in which farming works in his constituency. It is right that sheep farmers have benefited from the devaluation of the green pound, not only in terms of exports, but because the devaluation has increased the value of the support payments that they get by almost 16 per cent.
    Mr. Beith: Is not the Minister using the one-off devaluation of the green pound to justify a severe reduction in the incomes of hill farms that are at the margin of viability? Is that to be the pattern for future years, or will the Minister seriously consider the future incomes of hill farmers and the danger to the whole conservation and life of hill areas if those farms go to the wall?
    Mrs. Shephard: HLCAs continue to play a vital part in the viability of hill farms and incomes of hill farmers. As I have already explained, this year we could not ignore rising national incomes, which were agreed by the farming unions. Those aspects are looked at year on year and trends in farming incomes are always examined as we come up to the public expenditure survey round. Of course, I will review the position as we approach next year's arrangements.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that good financial years are necessary not only to offset the years that are less good, but to enable the farmer to make necessary investment? Does my right hon. Friend realise that hill farmers make a positive contribution not only to the overall pattern of farming, but to the rural economy of those areas?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, indeed. That is precisely why I stress the importance of hill farming to the economic and environmental well-being of the whole country. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to know that a couple of years ago, the average level of direct subsidies to hill livestock farmers in England was about £19,000. It is forecast that it will be £27,000 next year. That is a real increase and a real commitment to farming in hill areas which I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate.
    Dr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that between 1988 and 1990, hill farm incomes halved and that the figures that she has quoted today have to be set against that background? Will she accept that hill farmers require special assistance and that in many of the remotest parts of the country, the tourist industry is dependent on successful hill farming?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am happy to confirm again my understanding of the importance of hill farming in those areas, in economic, environmental and social terms. But I should also remind the hon. Gentleman—it is a figure worth remembering—that there are some 67,000 hill farmers and next year they will benefit from a total of some £550 million worth of help through subsidies. That is a real commitment.

    Agriculture Markets (India)
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures her Department has taken to open new markets for British agricultural-related businesses in India.
    Mr. Jack: As part of the Indo-British partnership initiative announcement in January by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I led a British mission to India in September with representatives of the British food and horticulture industry. They were able to identify new business opportunities, which are now being followed up.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and also for his visit and the good that it has done. Does he agree that the Indo-British partnership agreement has laid the way open for British technology in the food and horticulture industry? Will he now do all that he can to follow it up and ensure that British industry takes full advantage of that, to the benefit of British jobs and of India?
    Mr. Jack: The point that my hon. Friend makes is vital, because the Indo-British partnership initiative has opened doors, both at high level in the Indian Government and in Indian business, for the whole of our food and agriculture industry to take advantage, particularly, of the economic reforms in India. I plan to hold a seminar at the beginning of next year, when those who went on the mission will report on their progress and have an opportunity to talk to others in the food and farming industry about possibilities for further export success with India.

    Agricultural Wages Board
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning the future of the Agricultural wages board.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The consultation period on the future of the Agricultural wages board ended at the beginning of November, a period which I had extended by two months. I am still considering the many responses.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Agricultural wages board has a far wider role than simply setting terms and conditions of employment in the agricultural industry? It has an important role in maintaining the excellent industrial relations in agriculture, in careeer structures and in training. Does she accept the views of the National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Workers Union that it is essential that the Agricultural wages board is retained?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am still considering the numerous responses, many of which contained the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost everyone associated with agriculture in Staffordshire is anxious that the board should remain? Will she take that carefully into account?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that she has received 3,566 responses to her consultation paper and 14 petitions and that, of all those responses, only
    476
    11 favour abolition? Does she now accept that the whole agriculture industry wants the wages board to continue and that the sooner she announces that, the better?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has availed himself of the consultation documents, which have been placed in the Ministry library. The figures are more or less as he says and I will certainly take them all into account.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has just said about farmers in his constituency also applies to my constituency of Harborough? The farm workers, farm owners and landowners are adamant that the AWB should stay in place, but all three groups are equally adamant that a Labour Government should not ruin the best thing about this country—its agricultural business.
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall say yes to all that.

    Organic Farming
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she has taken to help those farmers using organic methods; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Ministry provides a broad range of help to farmers using organic methods, including a substantial research and development programme. An organic aid scheme is planned under the agri-environment programme.
    Ms Hoey: The Secretary of State will be aware that nearly 70 per cent. of organic food consumed in this country is imported from Europe. Is not that deplorable? Why is this country not doing more to help organic farmers? In particular, in the new aid scheme that she has announced, why have the pioneers of the organic movement, who have pioneered methods, been excluded from help while it is being given to people who will now make money from the fact that they have been polluting their land for some time?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that organic farmers also benefit from the help currently available to all other farmers. I am also sure that she knows that I had an extremely amicable meeting with representatives of organic producers, which very thoroughly written up in this bulletin. From that, she will learn that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be meeting them again soon to discuss marketing arrangements—a matter with which they feel that they need help.
    As for helping organic farmers who are already in business, it was my view that it was better to use our resources to encourage more people to convert to organic farming if we were serious about increasing the number of people who farm in that way.
    Sir. Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if everyone in agriculture opted for organic farming the country would either starve or have to import vast quantities of food over and above what it imports today? Is she still of the opinion that we have been successful in reducing our cereal crop by 11 per cent., or 2 million tonnes, when the whole of the European Union has reduced

    477
    its harvest by only 2·6 per cent? Is she aware that more than half of our partners actually increased their production this year? Is she still satisfied that that is the way forward?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right to point out that organic farming is one way of reducing production. I do not want to sound ageist in any way, but some of us remember that before the war everyone was an organic farmer.
    As for set aside, which was the point of the second half of my hon. Friend's question, we should in the first year consider the intention of set aside, which involves the amount planted. My hon. Friend has an eye for these matters so I know that he will have noted a 7 per cent. reduction in cereal planting in the EC as a whole. There has been an increase in production in some cases because of the base year that was taken and the fact that some countries in the EC, such as Denmark, had a bad year because of drought the previous year. We need to consider the figures over a period of time. I agree with my hon. Friend that they will need watching.

    Dairy Farming
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I regularly meet representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.
    Sir David Knox: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will take an early decision about the milk marketing boards' reorganisation scheme in order to ensure continuity and income stability for dairy farmers?
    Mrs. Shephard: The consultation period on the MMB's reorganisation scheme ended last week. With the Secretary of State for Wales, I am closely examining the proposals in the scheme and the very large number of representations received in the associated consultation. I shall make an announcement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister next meets representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the specific question of set aside, to which she has just referred, will she remind them that the Queen and Prince Charles have had more than £250,000 from the scheme? Does she agree that that should be knocked off the Civil List?
    Mrs. Shephard: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do no such thing.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are her scientific priorities to ensure the future competitiveness of British horticulture.
    Mr. Jack: In the last financial year, we spent £15·4 million on research aimed at improving the industry's ability to meet the key market requirements of quality, flavour and availability.
    Mr. Greenway: Have the large amounts of taxpayers' money which have been spent on research in the horticultural industry yielded any practical results? If so, will my hon. Friend give some specific examples of achievements in that sphere?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question because we had a question earlier on the subject of pesticides and I can tell my hon. Friend that our research resulted in the awarding of a Queen's award for work on biological control agents for insects and pests, which will reduce the need for chemicals. The famous Ballerina apple tree was developed as a result of our research and 1 million of them have now been sold in Europe. A new forecasting system for apple scab—I know that the Opposition think of nothing else—was also a result of that splendid research work.

    Fishing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next hopes to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the state of the industry.
    Mr. Jack: I expect to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations next week as part of my preparation for the December Council of Fisheries Ministers.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear that the Minister's next meeting with the NFFO will not be in court, like the previous one. I hope that he will allow us to divert him from his wicked ways, now that the judges have given him the opportunity—which he should have taken ages ago—to rethink his position on the days-at-sea limitation. Is it not sensible to improve the decommissioning scheme, rather than making sulky noises about scrapping it; to impose the type of conservation measures that the NFFO has agreed and urged on the Minister, and to try to reduce the industry in that way; and, as a third step, to reduce the piratical Spanish fishing that is going on in our waters and conserve the catches effectively that way?
    Mr. Jack: On one point, the hon. Gentleman and I can jointly tread the path of righteousness, and that is on the subject of the Spanish. I have taken up the issue of enforcement on Spanish fishing in our waters, as the hon. Gentleman knows, with Commissioner Paleokrassas. We raised the subject of Spanish and Portuguese accession vehemently and robustly at the most recent Fisheries Council. However, the hon. Gentleman ought to study carefully the judgment in the recent case brought by the NFFO. It has brought uncertainty to the industry. The losers will be the fish. The judge made it clear that all parties concerned had an interest in the conservation and preservation of fish stocks under pressure. I am considering all aspects of that judgment for guidance on the matter as we proceed.
    Mr. Harris: I strongly support all the arguments that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Especially I ask, when does my hon. Friend expect to make a statement in the light of the setback that his policy undoubtedly received as a result of the recent court case? There is uncertainty, as he said. Surely he is not contemplating allowing that uncertainty to continue for possibly two years, now that the High Court has referred

    479
    the matter to the European Court. Surely he should consider the policies that have been suggested by the fishermen and accept them.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend does a singular service to the fishing communities that he represents in asking that question. I have to say to him, in all seriousness, that he knows as well as I do that we still have our community effort reduction targets to meet. I am considering carefully how we may go forward from that, but I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes about uncertainty. Had the action not been brought, we could have ended much of that uncertainty. Now we must think again and I hope that it will not be too long before I can respond to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister note that I also endorse the arguments that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which must make that something of an historic compromise in the fishing industry? Will the Minister have the grace to admit that it was not the fish that lost the court case; it was him? Would it not be the height of petulance to dump decommissioning as a reaction to his reverse in court? Would not a better course of action be to dump the days-at-sea legislation which is unwanted, and to keep decommissioning and expand it, because that is wanted?
    Mr. Jack: May I point out to the hon. Member—who also represents Scottish fishing interests extremely professionally—that the judgment did not decide winners or losers. The judgment turned on the fact that the court in the United Kingdom felt unable to decide on the issue and referred it to the European Court. I understand the hon. Member's argument. He knows that applications have been received under the existing decommissioning scheme, and those are progressing. I will take his views into account, and those of other hon. Members who have mentioned that argument. As I said a moment ago in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), I hope that it will not be too long before we can make the position clear.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the judgment, restrictions on days at sea are dead for at least two years, and that he should move forward in co-operation with the industry on conservation measures and net sizes, so that the uncertainty is removed?
    Mr. Jack: I spent most of the summer and early autumn talking to the industry and trying to establish a better dialogue on many of the matters that lie at the heart of my hon. Friend's question. That question raised many issues and, as I said in response to other questions, I hope that we can make our position clear in the next few days.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that, whatever else the court judgment did not do, it did not rule out the continuation of the decommissioning scheme? Will he make an early announcement to extend that scheme, in order to earn the reputation that he seeks to achieve as the friend of the fish?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman, at least for calling me the fisherman's friend. I am sure that my friends in Fleetwood would be glad to hear that. However, the clear message from the court case was that both sides agreed about the need to take the presure off the stocks under the greatest strain. The case also revealed that there
    480
    was no final outcome. I am considering what the hon. Gentleman and others have said and, as I have said, I hope that we shall be able to make our position on the matter clear in the next few days.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to Brussels for the European Council meting and other meetings. I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is also attending a meeting of socialist leaders in Brussels—the Brussels fringe. I am informed that he will sign a communiqué, but I have no information about whether he has read it.
    Mr. Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among some Conservative Members that our defence cuts may have gone too far, considering the situation in Russia and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology? Further cuts must mean a loss of capability. Surely, the lesson of the Gulf war was that it took almost all our Army and Royal Air Force logistic capability, ammunition and spare parts to keep only two brigades and a few RAF squadrons in being for a few days' fighting. Should not we review capabilities and commitments as well as costs?
    Mr. Newton: I believe that the Government have struck the right balance between our commitments, our resources and our capabilities. Our aim is to maintain the effectiveness of our front-line forces, while improving the efficiency of support services in Whitehall and elsewhere, and I think that that is what we shall achieve. We shall certainly not adopt the policy of the Labour party conference, which only three months ago voted to scrap our nuclear shield and to cut our defence spending by about £7·5 billion.
    Mrs. Beckett: Why, having run away from a debate on VAT on fuel this Tuesday—[Interruption.] The Lord President may not have heard me so I shall ask again: why, having run away from the debate on VAT on fuel this Tuesday, have the Government decided to run away next Tuesday from debates on statutory sick pay and on the increase in national insurance contributions?
    Mr. Newton: The Government are in no way running away from debate. We provided an extra day for the debate on the Budget, but even that extra time did not enable either the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen or their Whips to table the right motion at the right time. That was sheer parliamentary incompetence. Perhaps they were running away because they thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) might not be able to vote for what they tabled.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Lord President has run away yet again from the question that I asked him. Is not the Government's problem that those two measures expose their hypocrisy and deceit? They claim that they are lifting

    481
    the burdens on business when really they are piling them on. They claim to be the party of low taxes, although they have imposed the biggest tax hike in British industry. Is that why they are running away from proper scrutiny of the Bills?
    Mr. Newton: It is quite clear that another reason why Labour Members did not get their amendment right is that they simply had not done their homework on the proposals. The combination of the SSP proposals and our proposals for employer contributions brings about a net reduction in the costs to British industry.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Lord President realise that these are important Bills which the British people will expect to hear debated? Does he not know that in the eyes of the British people the Government already stand convicted of deceit and incompetence, and now they are adding cowardice to the charge?
    Mr. Newton: These are important Bills and we will ensure that they get appropriate time for debate in a way that is consistent with carrying through the responsible and effective policies in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one country in Europe above all in recent years has faithfully followed the Delors prescription of ever-mounting labour market regulation, ever greater public spending, growing public sector debt and ever more intervention and meddling in industry? Spain suffers from 22 per cent. unemployment as a result of those policies. Is it any surprise that both the socialist manifesto in Europe and the shadow Chancellor espouse exactly those policies?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend might have added that that self-same Spain is one of the countries that have a national minimum wage, and it has 22 per cent. unemployment. My hon. Friend is right that what Europe needs above all is to cut its costs and develop more flexible labour markets. That is what we have been seeking successfully to do.
    The way to increase unemployment is to espouse the policies of Labour Members, who have signed up to a 35-hour working week, a minimum wage and raising business taxes to the levels in other European countries. Heaven knows what else the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is signing up to in Brussels this afternoon.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his Government were elected in 1979 with a law and order platform, recorded crimes in Leicestershire have increased by 237 per cent. but the Government have permitted the number of police officers to increase by only
    482
    7 per cent? Is not it a scandal that in those circumstances the Government have announced a second year in which the number of police officers is to be frozen? Is not it a scandal that all that the Home Secretary can call for is individual citizens to fight crime in the street? The Government have become one not of law and order but of crime and disorder.
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend has set out a range of policies to support the police, to release from paperwork into practical action against crime a large number of police and to take effective action in the criminal justice field along lines which I hope Labour Members will support but which their record is one of consistently opposing.
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Twinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Japanese ambassador said that Great Britain is a trail blazer for free trade in Europe? Will he ensure that the Prime Minister and all the Government continue to put Britain, together with free trade, at the heart of Europe?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend points out accurately and encouragingly what the Japanese ambassador said. The ambassador went on to say:
    "I see no reason why Britain should not remain the most favoured location for Japanese investment in Europe as long as the factors which have attracted this investment remain in place."
    Those factors will remain as long as this Government have anything to do with them. They would be destroyed only if we were unlucky enough to be inflicted with a Labour Government.
    Mr. Barnes: Why am I having to put down question after question after question—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Barnes: When will I get answers to the questions that I have tabled about what is going on in the meetings of the Council of Ministers in Europe? There have been two Heads of State meetings, one in Edinburgh and one in Brussels. At those meetings, it was said that there would be transparency and openness, and that reports would be made to the House as to what the voting arrangements are in the Council of Ministers where the decisions are made.
    The Prime Minister has promised that all Departments will give that information in answers, but that has not been done. The matter has been raised with the Leader of the House during business questions, but it has not been answered. The right hon. Gentleman will not even answer the letters that I wrote to him in June and in November. Can the House have an answer now?
    Mr. Newton: The Edinburgh decision meant that the Council's rules of procedure had to be changed and that has taken longer in some respects than we would have wished. Our purpose remains precisely as was stated. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend will report to the House in the wake of the Council that is about to take place.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Given that the virtue of capitalism is that it harnesses private energy for the public good, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of Leyland-DAF to give £200 worth of shares to each of its employees for Christmas? Does not the success of that company in turning itself around prove that private enterprise and not socialist subsidy is the best recipe?
    Mr. Newton: All right hon. and hon. Friends will be as pleased by that news as is my hon. Friend, who might have added that Leyland-DAF vans has also announced an £8 million development programme.
    I am not surprised, but I thought that we might have heard from the Opposition given their concern about Leyland-DAF a few months ago. The Opposition like to broadcast only bad news. My hon. Friend will recall that the Labour party wanted the Government to pump millions of pounds of subsidy into Leyland-DAF, as had the Dutch and Belgian Governments. As it is, the Dutch Government spent £100 million of taxpayers' money in subsidies and it has saved fewer jobs proportionately than we have.
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Llwyd: Yesterday at Station road in Llanrwst in my constituency, a serious flooding incident devastated eight or 10 businesses as a direct result of negligence by contractors which were employed by the Welsh office. Will the Leader of the House impress on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the need for full and urgent compensation for those businesses?
    Mr. Newton: First, on behalf of the whole House and through the hon. Gentleman I express sympathy to his constituents for their unhappy experience. I think that all hon. Members would want to join in that.
    Beyond that, I do not wish to comment in detail on something that I have not had a chance to look into. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, my right hon. Friend is in the Chamber and I am sure that he will examine what he has said.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the latest local government ombudsman's report, which shows that maladministration by council housing departments is the biggest single cause of complaint? Does he agree that this Government have done more than any other to promote private ownership? Is he aware that the Opposition now agree that the private rented sector badly needs a boost?
    Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long and welcome interest in housing. Of course, I am well aware of his new pamphlet and, by some happy chance, I have a copy with me. It is yet another example of fresh thinking in housing, and I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, who wrote a foreword to the report, will want to discuss the ideas in my hon. Friend's pamphlet with him.
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Olner: Is the Lord President aware that due to the inclement weather yesterday in the midlands and the north there have been no trains through my constituency of Nuneaton from Liverpool and Manchester? Does not that show the frailty of the infrastructure on the west coast main line, which is being stretched to breaking point? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that what was said in the Budget was only a promise that might be fulfilled in two years? Will the Government now pump prime the infrastructure of that line by putting money into it?
    Mr. Newton: Given what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the time of the public expenditure announcements in respect of the west coast main line, that is one of the most ungenerous questions that I have heard for some time. It also bears out the old joke that the Government even get blamed for the weather.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 DECEMBER—Estimates Day (1st allotted day).
There will be a debate on external relations, in so far as they relate to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's support for peacekeeping operations, followed by a debate on measures relating to individual industries, in so far as they relate to the Department of Trade and Industry's aerospace support. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Money resolution relating to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the civil and defence votes on account and the outstanding winter supplementary estimates.
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER—Timetable motion on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill and the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
Debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.
THURSDAY 16 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.
FRIDAY 17 DECEMBER—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 December to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee A, document No. 6888/93 relating to the Court of Auditors' Report on Fishing Fleets capacity; and document No. 7378/93 relating to the Fishing Fleet Transitional Guidance Programme 1992.
Committee B, document No. 9268/93 relating to own resources.
[Monday 13 December:
Estimates Day
1.
Class II, Vote 2, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: other external relations, in so far as it relates to support for peacekeeping operations.
The Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on The Expanding Role of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy (HC 235) and the Government Observations thereon (Cm 2382) are relevant.
The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1992–93 on United Kingdom Peacekeeping and Intervention Forces (HC 188 and 369) and the Sixth Special Report from the Committee of Session 1992–93, containing the Government's observations on the Committee's Report (HC 988) are also relevant.
2.
Class IV, Vote 2, Department of Trade and Industry; measures relating to individual industries, in so far as it relates to aerospace support
The Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1992–93 on the British Aerospace Industry (HC 563) is relevant.
Wednesday 15 December:
European Standing Committee A-Relevant European Community documents: (a) 6888/93, Court of Auditors Report on Fishing Fleets Capacity; (b) 7378/93, Fishing Fleet Transitional Guidance Programme 1992. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC79-xxxvii (1992–93); (b) HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93) HC 48-i (1993–94). European Standing Committee B-Relevant European Community document: 9268/93, The Communities' Own Resources; Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-i (1993–94).]
Mrs. Beckett: Will the Lord President confirm that his announcement means that the Government are not only guillotining the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill but intend to deal with all stages of those Bills in the House and in another place by giving precisely one day for the consideration of each Bill?
Since the Government decide the dates of the recess and the timetable for business here and in another place, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that no one will believe that it is not because the Government want the minimum public scrutiny and awareness of these proposals that they are making arrangements for the debates that are as extraordinary as they are disgraceful? Does he acknowledge that the Statutory Sick Pay Bill loads extra bureaucracy on employers and that the Bill about national insurance will raise taxes for every working person, resulting in revenue to the tune of £2,000 million a year? Is not that one of the worst examples yet of the Government's insolence and utter contempt for the democratic process?
Mr. Newton: As I told the right hon. Lady in one of our exchanges in different capacities about 10 minutes ago, the combined effect of what we propose on employers' contributions and on statutory sick pay will reduce, not increase, the burdens on industry.
On the main thrust of the right hon. Lady's points about the timetable motion, I naturally regret that it did not prove possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on ways of handling those Bills. Such agreement would have corresponded to what we, and I think industry, believe to be the need to make speedy progress with these aspects of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget so that the necessary arrangements can be made and put in place in time for industry to operate them in an orderly fashion from April. That is a sensible purpose.
Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the fact that a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations is just about the most important issue for the next decade and must be reached next week, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, whichever way it goes, a statement will be made to the House—hopefully, a successful one?
Mr. Newton: I accept my hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of the GATT negotiations, which is universally recognised in the House. Further progress will

487
be among the objectives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Brussels. I cannot at this stage give a definite undertaking about the formal timing of any statement, but as matters develop I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to various factors that have affected the farming income of livestock and arable producers, will the Leader of the House urgently find time to debate on the Floor of the House the hill livestock compensatory allowance changes and cuts, against which a prayer has been laid? The Government owe the industry an early debate on that very important subject.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to add an extra debate to the business that I announced for next week. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that next week's Consolidated Fund and Adjournment debates will present a number of opportunities for such matters to be raised. Apart from that, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind.
Sir Terence Higgins: Given that the intention of the so-called unified Budget was to produce more focused debate—although at one stage members of the Opposition Front Bench thought that the House was still debating the Loyal Address—may we have an early debate on the report of the Procedure Committee which published the Government's comments on the Budget procedure and its rebuttal of them so that the House may learn from the experience of the past few days and reach a more sensible arrangement?
Mr. Newton: After studying the Procedure Committee's report and responding to a number of questions in the House, it seemed sensible to me and to the Government to review that procedure in this cycle before reaching conclusions about further changes that might be made. I doubt that there will be time for that in the next week or two. We should see how the process works with the Finance Bill and the like, but I have it in mind that we should at some appropriate moment take the opportunity to review the position in the light of this year's experience.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early day motion 218.
[That this House, recalls that after the Marchioness disaster, and despite widespread and continued calls for a public inquiry, Her Majesty's Government refused such requests, but instead referred the inquiry to its own Marine Accident Investigation Branch; congratulates Channel 4 television on its "Despatches" programme concerning those events, which demonstrated the secret, inadequate and incomplete nature of that investigation; and thus calls on Her Majesty's Government to initiate forthwith a public inquiry into the disaster, comparable to those held into the King's Cross and Clapham tragedies and, after consultation, to make proposals for an investigation into the failure of public procedures, bodies and persons in respect of those events and into the means of ensuring safety of navigation on the River Thames.]
Consequent upon last night's programme on Channel 4, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the official report into that terrible happening was published two years after the event and that the programme showed it to be inadequate, incomplete, incompetent, inefficient and
488
probably incorrect? In view of Government policy relating to open government, if that early day motion were debated next week, what possible grounds could there be for opposing it?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a comprehensive inquiry by the marine accident investigation branch, and another was undertaken under the chairmanship of Mr. John Hayes. They made a number of recommendations that led to changes on the River Thames and other United Kingdom waters. I am advised that no new evidence has been produced to warrant a further inquiry and that the evidence cited in the television programme covered no ground that was not examined during the MAIB investigation.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the villages of this country are facing a growing crisis? Warwickshire county council, for example, has produced a plan that would virtually eliminate rural schools—and last night's decision on Sunday trading, about which I make no complaint, will place extra pressure on village shops. In view of those and other factors, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is time to examine that matter in detail?
Mr. Newton: As can be seen from what we said when concern was expressed about rural sub-post offices, the Government attach great importance to these matters, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the incredible and already discredited report by the National Radiological Protection Board into the effects of radiation on veterans of British nuclear tests? Does not he think that it is disgraceful and scandalous that the Secretary of State for Defence has had neither the courtesy nor the courage to come to the House today to hold himself accountable for the ridiculous position in which it seems that American, Canadian and Australian service men can contract cancer when exposed to nuclear bombs, but British service men cannot? The House and those service men surely deserve better than that shoddy treatment.
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in these matters, and I am not accusing him of being irresponsible, but I am not quite sure on what grounds he based his suggestion that the report has been discredited. It has not yet been published, but is due to appear in the British Medical Journal this weekend. I suggest that he and others concerned with this unhappy and difficult matter should read what is said before jumping to conclusions.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a full-scale debate on the subject of drug abuse? There is growing concern in my constituency about the number of burglaries and serious crimes against old people in their own homes which are linked to the crime of drug abuse. It is leading my constituents to question whether we are doing enough about this serious subject, which is causing a great deal of increased crime.
Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government share her concern that we should be as effective as possible in these matters and we are currently

489
reviewing various aspects of how they are tackled. I cannot promise her a debate in quite the terms that she seeks, but I draw her attention to the fact that it sounds like a good subject on which she could bid for a debate on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Leader of the House consult his right hon. Friends with a view to a statement being made before the end of next week which will reassure the United Kingdom engineering steel industry that it will not be allowed to suffer further harm as a result of sharp and official practice by the Governments of other member states?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have consistently argued for policies that I think are in line with what he wishes. I cannot promise him a debate or a statement next week, but I can assure him that the Government will continue taking what we believe to be the right stance on these matters in Europe.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on education in view of the recent chief inspector's report which reveals that, although standards are generally good, they suffer in some minority areas? The debate might provide an opportunity to underscore the importance of the Government maintaining performance league tables to ensure that standards are increased.
Mr. Newton: I should like to direct my hon. Friend to the possibility that he, too, could apply for a debate on the Consolidated Fund. Also, he may have an opportunity to make his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education who is due to be in the House on Tuesday. My hon. Friend will have been pleased at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's indication earlier in the week that we now intend to move on to tables which will cover the number of hours taught each week in each school, which will be further useful information.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise with the Prime Minister the conduct of certain of his Ministers? Is he aware that there is a long-standing tradition in the House that any Minister, or Member, who reveals any aspect of the Budget before the Chancellor has spoken had to resign? That was in the good old days when conduct of government was more honest. More recently, such people have had to apologise. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for Education, having been summoned to the House by Madam Speaker to hear her reprimand, did not have the courtesy—[Interruption.] You silly boy.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Faulds: I am glad that you are listening, Madam Speaker. I wish others would join in.
In view of the reprimand, instead of slinking away—undistinguished gentleman that he is—the right hon. Gentleman should have had the courtesy to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the House. Will the Leader of the House try to resurrect some form of proper conduct towards the House in Ministers?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend behaved entirely properly. He explained what had happened and acknowledged what you, Madam Speaker, had said. Of all my colleagues, he is the least appropriate to be described as "slinking", which I think was the word that the hon. Gentleman used.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate early next week on the draft EEC proposal concerning the transport to slaughter of horses? The French proposals—which will have to be considered by the Government by the middle of next week—are that horses should be watered only every 15 hours and fed only every 22 hours. Bearing in mind that equines need to be fed and watered little and often if they are to survive in good health, ought we not to debate the matter so that the Government can be pressed to support horses, as they have always done?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has good reason to know that the Government have consistently sought to advance the cause of animal welfare in Europe. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of what he has said this afternoon.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate next week, for greater clarity and the avoidance of ambiguity, about what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), as chairman of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary group, said when he was speaking to journalists in Dublin last week? He gave the impression that it was his view that there should be a united Ireland, but that the Unionists should be brought gently along that road. May we have a debate to clarify that that is not the view of the Government or of the House, and that it is certainly not the view of the majority of people in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friends will note the hon. Gentleman's comments. Despite the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman views the matter, it would be difficult for any Leader of the House to get involved in promising debates about what was said by individual Members, as distinct from Ministers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was possible to debate statutory sick pay last week? The Government cannot be accused of refusing sufficient time to debate it because the Budget debate was a day longer than usual. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will arrange a seminar on procedure for the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Newton: It might be worth arranging a seminar in view of the Opposition's failure to table the right amendment at the right time. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he is right: the statutory sick pay proposals, being public expenditure proposals, were absolutely in order during the course of the debate.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the Marchioness, will he look again at the question of safety at sea, instead of waving the banner of deregulation every day

491
of the week? Will he also look at the question of safety on our rivers, where some of the most basic requirements are obviously being ignored?
Mr. Newton: I will take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, while the Government wish to deregulate wherever possible, there is no question that we intend to do so in ways that would be seen as jeopardising people's safety. That is not our purpose at all.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his decision to apply a timetable motion to the national insurance contributions legislation will be welcomed by businesses in my constituency, who will welcome the opportunity to plan with certainty for next year's contributions in an orderly way? Further, does he agree that the proposals can hardly be said to have been rushed through the House because they were announced in the Budget nine months ago?
Mr. Newton: It is true that the proposal was in the last Budget, although it is also part of the judgment made in the current one.
My hon. Friend's first point was absolutely right. As I tried to explain to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), we need to make speedy progress with the legislation if the changes are to operate from April in an orderly way.
Mr. Alan Williams: In view of today's Public Accounts Committee report, may we have a debate on why £40 million that should have been spent on patients was wasted by Wessex health authority; why the Government ignored the fact that the authority had broken its own rules, the Department of Health's rules, the Treasury's rules, EC rules and GATT rules—its behaviour was ultra vires, and verging on the corrupt; and why its chairman, who, having given a commitment to his Secretary of State, then told the authority's solicitor to ignore that commitment, was "punished" by being knighted and being promoted to the chairmanship of a £4 billion national health service executive?
Mr. Newton: We welcome the PAC's very thorough report on the so-called RISP project in Wessex regional health authority. It will be considered very carefully, and in due course a formal response will be issued in the appropriate way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that a considerable amount has already been done to put matters right, in the wake of what happened in the Wessex authority.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: The World Health Organisation has recognised the crucial importance of targets in relation to the "Health of the Nation" strategy that the Government have rightly put into practice. There is increasing concern about the greater incidence of asthma nowadays: it kills some 1,500 people each year. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in which we can discuss whether asthma should be included in the health target policy?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may wish to raise the matter next week; he will have several opportunities to do so. I shall, however, draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I have had some experience of the problems of asthma in my own family.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Members of all parties will welcome the opportunity next week to discuss aspects of the common fisheries policy. Is the Leader of the House aware that, earlier today, the Minister responsible for fisheries said that a statement would be issued indicating the Government's stance on particular aspects of that policy, including the days-at-sea issue? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital for such a statement to be made before the debate, and before the deliberations of Standing Committee A? Otherwise, hon. Members will be debating in a vacuum, and we shall do a gross disservice to a vital industry and to the communities and families who depend on it.
Mr. Newton: I am glad that I have been able to respond to some of the representations made by the hon. Lady, among others, asking for such a debate. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Lady's request about the timing of any announcement that the Government are able to make in response to the court case.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that the British Waterways Bill—an opposed private Bill—was in Committee for 13 weeks during the last Session. However, because it has appeared on the Order Paper in the current Session and has been opposed on each occasion, there will be no opportunity to debate it in Committee. Is that not unfair to its promoters, and expensive for people who are, ultimately, taxpayers? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House so that the Bill can make progress?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know of the responsibilities of the Chairman of Ways and Means in respect of private Bills, but I will certainly look into the point that he has raised.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Given the enormous importance of the matter and the nearness of the holiday season, will the Leader of the House give us an absolute guarantee that hon. Members will be given at least 48 hours' notice before the Government's decision on THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—is announced?
Mr. Newton: My colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are still considering the issue in the wake of the further consultation that was undertaken. I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman specific undertakings in regard to the timing of any announcement that they are able to make.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week about the application of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for objective 2 status for areas of the United Kingdom under the European Community's infrastructural funds? In that debate we could highlight the underhand attempts of Labour Members of the European Parliament to knock out London and north Kent from the applications.
Mr. Newton: Both the relevant parts of London and Kent that the Government put forward in that context have a good case, otherwise the Government would not have put them forward. I believe that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is pressing the case in Brussels this very day.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House assure us that the debate on Monday on the estimates will be wide enough to go beyond the subject of peacekeeping operations so that we may raise the question of human rights in Turkey and ask what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is prepared to do for British citizens such as the three lorry drivers, one of whom, Mr. Tony Quinn, a constituent of mine, was detained without charge for eight days on matters for which he had no responsibility and in appalling conditions? Indeed, he still remains in prison. His family is extremely worried. It is important that we should have a debate so that his family know what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is able to do to get those people reunited with their families for Christmas.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and can assure him that our consular officials are doing what they can to provide advice and establish precisely what the position is. As to his question about a debate, I would want to take advice before advising him on your behalf, Madam Speaker, on what might or might not be in order during the estimates debate. If by some chance it is not in order, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the opportunities afforded by the Consolidated Fund and Adjournment debates.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, earlier this week, the Select Committee on Social Security published its report on the Child Support Agency and said that the Government's general policy was correct and right and proper in ensuring that the children of this country are properly supported, if need be by absent parents, with adequate maintenance. In consequence, it was favourably received by the Secretary of State for Social Security. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is enough time in the timetable next week before Christmas for an urgent statement, by the Secretary of State for Social Security if necessary, announcing that he will accept, or partially accept, the recommendations of the Select Committee?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking about the timing of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, but he is certainly right to say that the Government welcome its support for the general principles on which the Child Support Act 1991 is based and that the Government will consider the recommendations carefully.
Mr. David Winnick: Before the House rises for the Christmas recess, may we have a statement next week about the German general who is held responsible for the massacre of many British prisoners of war in France in 1940 and who will not be brought to justice? Is not it a very odd situation—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised the matter many times—that a notorious Nazi mass murderer can get away with that, be a successful business man in Germany, have an army pension of more than £20,000 a year and not be brought to justice for a notorious crime against humanity, a crime against our fellow citizens? What sort of British Government will not put the utmost pressure on the Germans to ensure that that Nazi is brought to justice at long last?
Mr. Newton: I must make the basic point that Britain has no jurisdiction over foreign nationals unless they are in the United Kingdom. The German authorities have been
494
investigating the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the British Government have given them every assistance, including full access to all the British files on the subject.
Mr. Eric Illsley: In the light of recent reports that four out of every five personal pension plans that have been sold in the country have been based on inadequate information and will leave future pensioners without adequate provision, will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the matter so that we may debate the failure of the Government's policies?
Mr. Newton: It is clear that some poor advice was given, particularly to those transferring from occupational to personal pensions, but that is only a relatively small proportion of the total number of personal pension holders and at least 4·5 million are not in that category. It is not clear on what scale that has happened, nor how far investors have been disadvantaged. The hon. Gentleman will know that the matter is being actively and vigorously investigated by the Securities and Investments Board. Its approach is the right way to tackle those concerns, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made it clear to the board that those concerns must be investigated and remedies put in place.
Ms Jean Corston: Will the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement to the House about his Department's practice in replying to parliamentary questions? In written answers to me, three dated 16 July 1992 and one on 28 October 1992, 16 November 1992, 20 July 1993 and 26 July 1993, I was told, through Hansard, that the information that I requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost or that it was not departmental practice to give information in the form in which it was requested. However, at a meeting that I attended with Mr. McLennan, the head of the Government Statistical Service, and departmental statisticians on 2 December, I was told that the information that I had requested could be made available to me in any form in which I wanted it. Surely, if it is available to me now, it could have been printed in Hansard. Therefore, will the Leader of the House, who represents a Government who profess a commitment to open government, and in view of the public interest aspect of this, arrange for an early statement?
Mr. Newton: Happily, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not present, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is and he has heard what the hon. Lady has said and has undertaken, in a whisper to me, to look carefully into what she has said.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend arrange at the earliest opportunity a debate on the west coast main line to allow many hon. Members to welcome the Government's Budget decision on that and so that we may explain to the House that we appreciate that this is a major step forward and a recognition of the importance of that line to all parts of the United Kingdom from the Province of Ulster, through the west of Scotland and down the north-west and the west midlands? There is much to do beyond what the Government have already announced, but no responsible person could do other than welcome that.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His remarks stand in marked contrast to a question put to me earlier today when I was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. Even so, I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Now that we have seen the total demise of the coal industry in the north-east of England as a result of the Government's policy, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the rising unemployment in the north-east and the situation in which some miners find themselves?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman the debate that he seeks, but, having had some considerable experience of the north-east in the year that I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, I think that he might at least acknowledge that the Government have done a huge amount, not least in attracting overseas investment here, to provide new employment opportunities in the north-east.
Mr. George Mudie: The Leader of the House will have caused grave alarm by the complacency of his answer on the Child Support Agency. Is he aware that thousands of decent people face Christmas going deeper into debt and genuine despair because of the workings of the Child Support Act 1991? On behalf of many lion. Members, I appeal for an early debate on the Select Committee's report. This is a worrying problem to many people.
Mr. Newton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no complacency—certainly no intended complacency—in my reply. I acknowledged that the report needs to be examined. It will be carefully examined and there will be no unnecessary delay in coming to conclusions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not it nothing short of outrageous that the Government have introduced guillotines on two important measures when during the course of the calendar year they have arranged business in only seven months? Does the Leader of the House recall that on Friday we had a vote to ensure that the Session continued a week longer up to Christmas and he got all the Tory Members of Parliament to back him to lengthen the holidays and shorten the time for debate? We could have been debating the social security arrangements for two more days rather than introducing a guillotine. It shows the Government's utter arrogance and contempt not only for the House of Commons but for millions of people who will suffer because of the changes to national insurance contributions and sick pay. They stink to high heaven.
Mr. Newton: While I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have persistently made such a point, it is notable that they have not been universally supported by all Opposition Members. Generally, I am under constant pressure in the House to announce recess dates as far ahead as possible and to give Members adequate time for duties in their constituencies, as I have sought to do. As I said earlier, we have just spent six days debating the Budget and
496
those matters could have been discussed in that time. Next week the House will have a chance to vote on two of the proposals.
Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the health service, especially in the light of the British Medical Association survey published today confirming that patients of GP fundholders, even those who are less seriously ill than patients of non-GP fundholders, are treated first?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the suggestion about a two-tier service, but, in any event, I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate next week.
Ms Joan Walley: Is the Leader of the House aware that in north Staffordshire there is a special orthopaedic clinic that is available only to patients of GP fundholders? May I also draw to his attention the fact that about 70 people who are employed by the ambulance service in Staffordshire are soon to be transferred to the west midlands and are to lose around £65 from their weekly wage? Will he give an assurance that there will be an early debate on the health service in the west midlands so that the Secretary of State for Health can come to the House and be accountable and responsible for the way in which the Government and the fragmented health service are flouting the law in respect of the transfer of undertakings and the European directive?
Mr. Newton: I draw the attention of the hon. Lady to the debate on the Consolidated Fund and other opportunities next week to raise such issues. I cannot promise a debate, but I shall bring her remarks about specific cases to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early day motion No. 5?
[That this House calls for a change in the regulations affecting the operation of teachers' superannuation schemes so that a dependant's pension can pass to the spouse of a retired female teacher upon her death on the same basis as occurs for the widow of a male teacher; notes that this anomaly has only been rectified in connection with female teachers who retired in 1988 or afterwards; and calls for equality of treatment between male and female teachers, especially as their superannuation contributions have been made on a common basis.]
It concerns the equality of treatment in teachers' superannuation schemes and the rights of female teachers who retired before 1988 to ensure that a dependant's pension can pass to their spouse in the way in which it would to any other female teacher who retired after 1988 or to a male teacher. Could he arrange a debate?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is due to answer questions on Tuesday 14 December. I gather that the position is rather complicated and goes back to 1972 when the facility was consistent with the arrangements for male teachers. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Consolidated Fund Bill and Christmas Adjournment
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday 14 December. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Monday 13 December. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later in the day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer and up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
May I also take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 17 December, up to eight Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you clarify the nationality requirement for membership of this House? Should one be a citizen of the United Kingdom to be elected a Member? If so, will you look into the growing practice of Members travelling to the EC having attached to their luggage labels declaring, "My country is Europe"? I believe that statement to be fallacious. It is an insult to Members that that is plastered on their luggage.
Madam Speaker: What the hon. Lady said in the first place is not quite correct. In my time as a Member of this House, there was a Member who was not a British citizen.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In what way can you preserve the rights of Back Benchers by preventing the Government from encroaching on the time that is normally allocated to the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill? It appears that on Tuesday evening the social security legislation and guillotine motion will soak up all the time for debate and that the Consolidated Fund debate may not start until 10 o'clock or even later.
I should be grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, on whether you are prepared to tell the Government that the usual amount of time for the Consolidated Fund debate will be preserved by you, because it is an important occasion for Back Benchers to raise subjects. Indeed, the Leader of the House has continuously used it as an excuse not to provide debating time. It would be unfair if, unknown, the Government were eroding that important debating time.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Let me first try to help the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). His point of order is a business question which he might have raised with the Leader of the House a few moments ago. However, I am concerned about the eroding of private Members' time and I take seriously the matter that he has just raised with me.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleagues and I abstained in the voting in the Chamber yesterday evening, basically because we considered that English Members were perfectly capable of deciding whether English shops should open on Sundays; England deserves that measure of self-government. Will you confirm that it would be perfectly in order for English Members of Parliament to exercise a similar self-denying ordinance over Scottish local government, a Bill relating to which stands on the Order Paper today, particularly given the resentment and anger that there will be in Scotland if Scottish local democracy were determined by English Conservative Members parachuted on to Committees dealing exclusively with Scottish legislation?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that all Members of the House are free either to vote or to abstain whenever they wish. It is not for me to speculate about their reasons for voting or abstaining; it is up to individual Members.
Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have explained on a

499
number of occasions that you are not responsible for Ministers' words. However, I should be grateful if you would use your good offices to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that his answer in response to an intervention that I made two days ago was inaccurate—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but he began his point of order—which is not a point of order for me at all—by saying that it is not my business. Indeed, it is not my business to comment on what Ministers or Back Benchers say in the House. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must find another opportunity to pursue that matter.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Your statement may have provided at least some of the guidance that I seek. You may recall that, yesterday, I raised a point of order pointing out that a report was to be published today into the effects of radiation on British nuclear test veterans. You helpfully advised me that Members of the Treasury Bench had heard what I said. They may have heard it, but they certainly did not act on it as the statement was made today outside the House and inside the House by means of a planted question.
In his reply to my business question, the Leader of the House expressed surprise that I had claimed that the report was already discredited. I should like the opportunity to explain to him and to other hon. Members why I believe that it is discredited. What action can I take?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me, I might be able to advise him, but I cannot advise on procedural matters across the Floor of the House. He will know that there may be an opportunity for him to raise the matter next week and he may consider it at that time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), you said that you were worried about arrangements for the Consolidated Fund debate. In view of the short time available for hon. Members to enter the ballot for the debate, will you, in accordance with what happens with Adjournment debates, extend the application time from 9 am, when few people will have travelled down to Westminster, although I shall be here, to 10 pm?
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is always here in good time but
500
that, although he will be here at 9 am, many others who have a long way to come will not be. I am therefore prepared to extend the application time until 1 pm.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETC. (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Lang, supported by Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Allan Stewart and Sir Hector Monro, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities; to make amendments in relation to local government finance, local authority accounts and the records of local authorities; to establish a Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority for the purposes of the Transport Act 1968; to provide for the establishment of new water and sewerage authorities; to provide for the establishment of a council to represent the interests of customers and potential customers of those new authorities; to provide for the vesting in those new authorities of the property, rights and liabilities of the Central Scotland Water Development Board and of such property, rights and liabilities of regional and islands councils as those councils have as water authorities, as providers of sewerage and in relation to dealing with the contents of sewers; to provide for the dissolution of that Board; to cancel certain obligations to contribute towards expenses which have been incurred by local authorities in making provision for sewerage or disposal of sewage in rural localities; to create an office of Principal Reporter and transfer to him the functions of reporters to children's hearings; to establish a body to facilitate the performance by the Principal Reporter of his functions; to amend the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 in relation to reports made with a view to and for the purposes of children's hearings; to amend section 21 of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989; to amend the law relating to roads and the placing of traffic signs on roads; to make amendments in relation to valuation and rating; to abolish the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council; to empower local authorities to make grants to ethnic minorities; to confer on local authorities the function of promoting economic development; to provide for the establishment of area tourist boards; to make amendments in relation to lieutenancies; all as respects Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

European Communities
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6203/93, Annual report from the Commission on the fight against fraud in 1992 and its action programme for 1993, 8366/93, Commission proposal and supplementary report on regulation 386/90, 8340/92, on Sweden's application for EC membership, 5725/93, on Finland's application for EC membership, 7839/93, on Cyprus's application for EC membership, 7838/93, on Malta's application for EC membership, and 9806/93, on the Edinburgh Growth Initiative, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 23rd November 1993 (HC 28-i).]
Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to two points relating to the motion? First, excluding a number of documents about the Budget, there are, by my count, at least eight distinct documents dealing with other matters. That is, of course, in order, although it may not be desirable for the purpose of orderly debate and scrutiny.
The second point, irrespective of the volume of material, which I believe that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will illustrate, concerns the question of notification of documents which are to be debated and their availability in the Vote Office. They are technically available, as they have arrived in the past 36 hours. I understand that the Government have undertaken to debate matters that are to be on the agenda of the European Council which is to start tomorrow. Unless we debate the matters that are likely to be raised then, which may place the Government in difficulties with regard to documentation, we shall not have the opportunity to influence whatever may be said there by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. If we do not have sufficient time to peruse even a few documents and determine what they are, let alone those before us, what chance is there of an orderly debate to allow us to influence the deliberations, however marginally?
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider those points and perhaps to give some guidance to the House, because, without improved procedures, we shall surely not be able to exercise our democratic rights in what is supposed to be a democratic Community.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully and with considerable sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman says about the complexity of the business before us. Indeed, I have the papers on my desk and I am familiar with the task before hon. Members in going through such documents. In particular, I am concerned that some papers mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have only recently been available to the Select Committee itself and to the House as a whole. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my direct responsibility as Speaker is to rule on whether today's debate is in order. I can confirm that it is.
As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's point, it will be for Ministers, during the course of the debate, to justify and to explain the form and timing of the motion that they have tabled and give the reasons for them.
4.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, July to December 1992 (Cm. 2168), the White Paper on developments in the European Community, January to June 1993 (Cm. 2369), the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 6th December 1993 on the Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines for economic policies under Article 103(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, European Community Documents Nos. COM (93)700, the Commission's White Book on growth, competitiveness and employment, COM (93)545, the Commission's report to the European Council on subsidiarity, 7194/93, on reinforcing the effectiveness of the internal market, 7665/93, the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1994, 9303/93, the letter of amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 1994, 8012/93, the Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1994, and 9922/93, the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 22nd November 1993, relating to the Council's decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 2nd November 1993, relating to the revision of the Financial Perspective for 1994, and OJ C309, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1992, together with the replies of the Institutions.
I am sorry not to be able to stay to the end of the debate, because I have to go to the European Council with which it is partly concerned, and that is part of the dilemma to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has just drawn our attention. I will deal with one of the most important papers later. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come hotfoot after me to Brussels, but he will be primed with the arguments made in the debate, which he will wind up.
This is the first main debate on Europe since the battle of Maastricht was brought to an end at the end of July. That battle, in which we all engaged for many months, was conducted at a level of debate—parliamentary gamesmanship, I suppose—which made it difficult from time to time to focus exactly on what was at stake for Britain and for Europe. Now we can do that.
Is the treaty of Maastricht, in the plain light of day, the nightmare that was described night after night through our long debates?
Mr. Bob Cryer: Yes; it is.
Mr. Hurd: A few hon. Members persist for a little longer in saying that it is, but, of course, it is not. On the contrary, the treaty and what now follows mark, I believe, a new realism. The declaration that marked the treaty's entry into force was agreed at the special European Council in October. The declaration said:
"Ratification has been the occasion for a true public debate on the construction of Europe, its aims and its methods. That debate has been salutary. It has revealed weaknesses. There are many to whom Europe seemed distant, anonymous and interfering. For that reason, we wish to introduce greater transparency, openness and decentralisation in our procedures. We want a Europe close to the citizen and intervening only where necessary to pursue our common interests. The unity of our action can and must be reconciled with the diversity of our traditions. Effectiveness can and must be reconciled with democracy."
A few years ago, only the British representative at the Council could have produced and uttered a paragraph of that kind. In October, it was agreed by all 12 Heads of State and Government. That is what I mean by saying not that

503
the debate on those matters is over, but that it is beginning to move in the direction with which most people in the House would be sympathetic.
Mr. David Winnick rose——
Mr. Hurd: I should like to get on a little bit; then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
For many, the dream of a European Union was pursued on the continent as if it were a holy grail. No one could define it and it was a sacrilege to question it. As Hilaire Belloc said of the microbe:
"Oh let us never never doubt
What nobody is sure about".
There was that feeling about European Union.
Now we have begun, in the treaty, to achieve a surer sense of the balance between the nations of Europe and its common institutions. We are trying to preserve what is best about sovereign nations—their history, identity, culture, pride; while overcoming what is worst—xenophobia, swollen nationalism, trade barriers, even war. No one pretends—or no one sensibly pretends—that the treaty provides a permanent answer. The debate continues; the argument moves on; but certain important principles are now established. We shall remain nation states within our common enterprise, with separate identities.
The most recent important organisation in Europe to pronounce on the treaty was the German constitutional court in Karsruhe. It put it this way in October:
"the Maastricht Treaty … founds an association of states with the goal of an ever-closer Union of European peoples organised as states, and not a (single) state based on a European people".
So the Community is not a belt, moving us slowly and inexorably towards a super-state. Of course, there are some people who would like it to be; there are even some people in the House who would like it to be. I have just seen a rather remarkable speech that was made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) this morning.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it a petition?
Mr. Hurd: No; it is not. It is a vision. The right hon. Gentleman has visions, rather in the same way as St. Joan had voices. He has several a day. They do him a certain amount of good between elections, but not much good at general elections. He had a vision this morning. What is more, it was a positive vision, because he told us so. As part of that vision, he wanted to see the European Parliament catch up with the Council of Ministers in power, with equal law-making rights over more issues—one could argue about that. Then he said:
"We want the Ministers to make decisions in public without single nation vetoes".
I do not know what that means. I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who is to speak for the Liberal Democrats today, say that before. Do they want majority voting on everything—on immigration, and on all matters of foreign policy? Is that the policy of the Liberal Democrats, the policy which they will parade before the country in the lead-up to the elections in June?
That is almost as bad as the policy that the Leader of the Opposition signed with his own fair hand when he was attending the Socialist International in Brussels a few weeks ago.
Mr. Charles Kennedy rose——
Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is going to speak. Before he intervenes, I trust that he is acquainted with the vision.
Mr. Kennedy: The Foreign Secretary is in no position to talk about visions, in view of the "war of attrition" speech that he delivered the last time that we debated matters European, at the end of the Maastricht process-I notice that all the old faces are back today.
As the right hon. Gentleman is beginning his speech in rather an odd way for a British Foreign Secretary, in asking questions about Labour and Liberal Democrat policy, and our links with other European parties, may I ask him about British Conservative links with the European People's party and its commitment to federalism, to which the Conservative Members of the European Parliament wish to subscribe for the forthcoming Euro-elections? Is that the Foreign Secretary's policy? It seems to be the policy of his MEPs.
Mr. Hurd: That is not the policy of the Foreign Secretary or that of the MEPs. It is a policy of the people with whom they are in alliance. That is entirely different from the Leader of the Opposition going to Brussels and subscribing personally to a policy, and from the right hon. Member for Yeovil having visions and describing them. That is an entirely different proposition—
Dr. John Cunningham rose——
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment; I am dealing with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye at the moment.
We shall be happy to debate those matters from time to time and at greater length.
Dr. Cunningham: We shall deal with the manifesto of the European People's party later—and, for that matter, the friendly attitude of M. Le Pen towards the opt-out from the social chapter, which is so far the sole province of British Ministers. Before the Foreign Secretary reads two errors about my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition into the record, may I correct him? First, there was no meeting of the Socialist International; he was wrong about that; it was the party of European socialists. Secondly, we signed no manifesto committing ourselves to a federal Europe.
Mr. Hurd: I do not have the Leader of the Opposition's vision in my hand now, but it was a striking and positive one. The Conservative MEPs and all our candidates will fight on a manifesto being fashioned now—a process in which I may have some part. It will be a British Conservative European manifesto. Neither the leader of the Liberal Democrats nor the leader of the Labour party will be able to make a similar claim about their independence of thought in such matters.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Can we clarify the issue and put it beyond debate? Is it true that all the Conservative MEPs were present in Athens from 11 to 13 November, where astonishing proposals were drawn up, including taxation by the EC? The press were led to believe that all except one had agreed to the proposals. If we could clear up that matter we could put it back to sleep. Is it not true that the MEPs were in Athens, and approved the document?
Mr. Hurd: I advise my hon. Friend to wait and see the manifesto on which all our candidates will fight the election, and then to contrast it with the vision announced by the right hon. Member for Yeovil today, and with the European socialist document to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) personally put his name a few weeks ago in Brussels.
Mr. Winnick rose——
Mr. Mike Gapes rose——
Mr. Hurd: I must make some progress, but I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and I shall do so later.
There are areas of policy for which we believe the mechanisms of Community decision making were not designed—this is the whole point. The Maastricht treaty—I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to focus on this—recognises that there are many areas of European work for which the Community mechanisms are not designed. That is why there are two pillars in the Maastricht treaty establishing intergovernmental pillars of co-operation.
But there is more than that. Even where the Community has a role, action at European level must be the exception, not the rule. That is the principle of subsidiarity now enshrined in the treaty as article 3b. I am well aware, from all the debates we had about subsidiarity, that some people, including perhaps my hon. Friend, regarded this as a bit of an ugly duckling. But I am happy to say that it is developing slowly into quite an impressive swan. [Interruption.] I shall develop that thought.
In Brussels tomorrow and on Saturday, the European Council will consider the Commission's report on subsidiarity. The report is much more impressive than one would have thought likely a year or so ago. It is a substantial call for the simplification, revision or repeal of unnecessary or over-prescriptive legislation. It is a report from the Commission which was once widely seen as the custodian of the centralising faith.
The Commission has recommended that the infamous drinking and bathing water directives need a complete overhaul. They are over-prescriptive and in some cases scientifically outdated. Hon. Members may remember the nonsense about the Community classifying carrots as fruit in a directive on jam. The Commission is now moving right away from its attempt to say what should and should not be in particular foods. Its only concern should be to ensure that safe, properly labelled products are freely traded in the Community under the single market. Food legislation needs to focus on that simple objective. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is taking his bisque a bit—does he want to intervene again?
Dr. John Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary talked about water and water quality directives. If what he said is true, why did the Conservative manifesto for the European elections in 1989 say that the directives would apply tough new controls over the quality of drinking water, including stringent limits on levels of nitrates, and ensure that all our bathing waters meet relative European Community standards? Why did the Government promise the electors that they would implement the directives if they have now changed their mind?
Mr. Hurd: While the directives are there, we must make every effort to implement them. What we are saying is that they are excessively complicated and should be simplified. We are not the only ones saying that—the Commission is also saying that. The right hon. Gentleman has inadvertently given me the proof of my point. The argument has moved on. Whereas in 1989 it was regarded as being perfectly natural that there should be all these detailed regulations, it is not so regarded in 1993, even by the Commission. That is good news and the right hon. Gentleman should welcome it, rather than deprecate it.
The Commission's proposal affects about one quarter of all EC legislation and takes on board 16 out of the 24 suggestions put to the Commission by the British and French Governments. Some of the legislation will be scrapped altogether and some will be simplified. The Commission recognises the need to do less, to do it better and to do it with a lighter touch. We shall say that more should be done. At the summit, we shall urge that the suggestions made by the Commission, welcome in so far as they go, should be acted on by the Community immediately.
The process of subsidiarity is under way. But it is a process. It will not be completed this year and it will not be completed next year. It is a constant process of simplification, rationalisation and repeal.
Mr. Gapes: In the process of considering subsidiarity, does the Foreign Secretary agree that,
"the functioning of the market remains subordinate to general welfare and social justice"?
Those words are taken from the draft manifesto of the European People's party and were reported in The Times yesterday. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the functioning of the market remains subordinate?
Mr. Hurd: No. I believe that the functioning of the market is the most effective way of ensuring their prosperity. As I shall prove shortly, that is a growing view on the continent, as it is in the House. Only the British Labour party seems to lag behind, as the right hon. Member for Copeland proved again with his remarks about the social chapter. When the right hon. Gentleman started to praise the social chapter, he was in the swim and was with the fashionable current. He does not seem to know what is happening on the continent now. He does not seem to know that people on the continent are worried about competitiveness and about labour costs being heaped on employers. The right hon. Gentleman is drifting out of touch.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: I must get on.
The post-war centralising tendency of Europe has been carried beyond the point of public acceptance, not just in Britain but in Denmark, France and Germany. There has been a widespread perception that what the summit said in October—the declaration of all 12 nations—was that the Community interferes too much in national affairs. If that is true, we must be more selective in the future. We must work together effectively, but on a more selective basis and in areas where there is public support for the process.
At the top of tomorrow's agenda will be the European economy.
Mr. David Howell: It is nice to have lists of powers that the Commission might divest or might centralise back to the nation states. Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable input should be given to suggestions that things that should be repatriated or decentralised should come from national Governments and national legislatures? Does he support moves that could be devised to pull together lists of competences that can be removed from the centre at the suggestion of nation states and Parliaments?
Mr. Hurd: Those lists are not of competences, but of what the Community should do within those competences. Of course, the EC has to respect the competences that were laid down in the treaty. The competences will come under review probably in 1996, when another look will be taken at the treaty.
We are talking about what use the Community makes of those competences. My right hon. Friend was right to say that those procedures are not just for the Commission, and it is up to member Governments, advised by their Parliaments, to put in suggestions. That is what we and the French have done. We made 24 suggestions, of which the Commission has taken up 16. The Germans put in a list, and they were not satisfied with the response. They will be pressing for more, as we will be pressing for more.
My right hon. Friend is quite right about the procedures. Nation states make suggestions which the Commission considers and, in this case, accepts 16 out of 24.
Mr. Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: I am going to get on, but I have the hon. Gentleman in my sights if he persists.
At the top of tomorrow's agenda will be the economic debate, and that is as it should be. We have argued consistently that the Community should address the issues that are of real concern to the people of Europe, and not just get absorbed in institutional introspection.
Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I must get on.
We all now agree that the Community must turn its energies towards contributing prosperity and the creation of jobs. The Commission's paper on growth, competitiveness and employment arrived late, as was pointed out with some zest and force by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in Brussels a few days ago. That was too late, either to allow a proper and informed debate in the House or to allow the Heads of State to give it the consideration that it deserves during the next 48 hours.
We agree with a good deal of what the paper says. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will want to say more on that when he winds up, but much of the analysis is right. The Commission has moved a long way in the past year or so. It has moved well beyond the British Labour party in analysing why Europe has failed to create jobs to the same extent as the United States and Japan, let alone the new Asian competitors.
The Commission is now drawing attention to the costs of employment in Europe and contrasting those increases in costs with the relative increases in other countries. It has not yet drawn the conclusion that we should like and said to Commissioner Flynn that he and the Social Council should no longer do what the British Labour party wants them to do. That would make Europe less competitive and hinder the creation of jobs. The Commission has no longer
508
drawn the logical conclusion of its analysis, but at least it is a good thing that it now shares the type of analysis that we have been making from these Benches for some time.
Mr. John Butcher: My right hon. Friend shows his customary courtesy by giving way. I fully agree with him on the issue of costs. Does he agree that the greatest distorter of costs in the recent past was the workings of a fixed exchange rate? I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Prime Minister's article in The Economist in which he said that he did not wish to,
"pursue sellotape policies—patching together the unmendable —or to play the politics of illusion—pretending that it was never broken."
He was speaking about the ERM. At the coming Euro-summit, will we still oppose either official or unofficial attempts to reintroduce fixed exchange rates?
Mr. Hurd: I did not appreciate that that was an issue. I shall be surprised if anyone at the summit tries to push in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor may wish to comment on that. For the time being, reality has imposed a sudden silence on that area of policy.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Hurd: I have a long speech and wish to make progress but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
Mr. Winnick: The Foreign Secretary said that Maastricht is no longer an issue. Is he not aware that there is not the slightest sign that the British people are any more enthusiastic or supportive of the treaty than they were when we debated it? Mass unemployment is a curse in the Community countries and, whatever the document says and whatever good we hope that it may do, it will be constantly undermined by the deflationary criteria of the treaty itself—the issue that so many of us tried to emphasise in our debates. That type of economic convergence can only produce more unemployment, not less.
Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he is simply making speeches that he has made before. We believe in convergence. It is desirable for all member states, which form our main market, to pursue what we and the Council regard as sensible financial policies. We must not think that we can breeze our way out of recession simply by spending more, let alone by putting up trade barriers. There are differences between the two sides of the House, and that is certainly one of them. We agree with the treaty about the convergence criteria, although we do not agree that they should be compulsory. We agree with much of the White Paper's analysis but not with its prescriptions.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way before he moves on?
Mr. Hurd: I have moved on.
We are not attracted by the idea of the Commission's borrowing large new sums to help finance trans-European networks. Access to capital is not the problem. There is a good deal of headroom in the European Investment Bank as a result of last year's Edinburgh agreement. It is not right to encourage new borrowing at a time when the Commission has rightly stressed the need to reduce

509
deficits, as is stated in the treaty. As I have said, the Commission is right to listen carefully to advice from the British and other Governments and from other people.
Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Hurd: I should like to finish this point and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) who has been trying to intervene for some time.
There has been a groundswell of concern in this country and on the continent about a lack of competitiveness in Europe. A notable new voice is that of the European round table which represents leading industrials from all over Europe. In an unprecedented statement last week, it condemned the pernicious effect on employment of the EC social charter and the dangers of social regulation, which it said threatens to introduce protection levels higher than those in any member country which would hamper employment opportunities. That is what I mean when I speak about the new mood of realism in Europe.
Just a few weeks ago, the Commission toyed with plans to force companies to introduce compulsory work sharing schemes. Now the accent has moved—not totally but partly—to where it should be, on creating an environment in which companies can generate new jobs.
Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised matters relating to employment. What is going on in the GATT talks about the European airbus project? The right hon. Gentleman will know that more than 2,000 plane makers in my constituency make the wings for that magnificent aircraft. It appears that President Clinton has been seeking to gain advantage by telling employees in Seattle who make the Boeing airbus that our airbus, the wings for which are made in my constituency, is unfairly subsidised. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the work force that I represent that this project is safe in the GATT round? Will he assure them that he and his Cabinet colleagues have been able to safeguard the future of this great project, which is important not only to Britain and to my constituents—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that the Foreign Secretary has got the question by now.
Mr. Hurd: The airbus is a fine and successful plane. In the GATT negotiations, the issue of civil aircraft is one of the two that are outstanding between the European Community and the United States. I shall close my speech in a few minutes by speaking about GATT. Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan and Mickey Kantor, the US trade representative, are seeking to solve that and to have the agreement made general by all those involved in the GATT negotiations. All the European negotiators are well aware of the importance of that project to this country and to others, not least because of what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said about employment.
Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: I shall, and then I should like to move to other matters and conclude my speech.
Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend spoke about the Government's advice to the Commission. What is their advice on fixed exchange rates—are they said to be good or bad? Before my right hon. Friend answers that, would he care to consider that when Britain was on the gold standard between 1925 and 1931, unemployment more than doubled and that that was exactly what happened during our two years' membership of the exchange rate mechanism?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the Commission is seeking or that we are providing advice on that theoretical matter at present. Our view about the third stage of economic and monetary union has been illustrated, defended and supported in the House many times in the past year and is well known. However, it is not an issue, as the Prime Minister said in his article in The Economist, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher).
Mr. Gordon Brown: I should like to ask about the detail of the Delors White Paper. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that two of its major investment proposals are help for expediting the channel tunnel rail link and for improving water quality? What possible benefit to Britain is there to outright opposition this weekend to those proposals?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is going to the summit and will answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions in his winding-up speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hurd: I have a good deal of ground to cover in my own bailiwick and shall leave my right hon. and learned Friend to answer for matters that are in his.
The Maastricht treaty is not just about doing less at European level: it is also about doing more where that makes sense. An example is the common foreign and security policy. We have been co-operating with our European partners on foreign policy for years. In the treaty, that has now developed into the CFSP, the common foreign and security policy, in which we expect to play a leading role.
There are two ways of dealing with the matter, and one is purely rhetorical. One can say that it is marvellous and a new era and deal with it in purely generalised terms. I do not believe in that approach. I believe that we should tackle this brick by brick, case by case, and settle on matters that are decided unanimously in the Council of Ministers. That is what we have begun to do. Some of those matters are quite small and practical and they are immediate, such as sending parliamentary observers to the parliamentary elections in Russia on Sunday. That is action by Britain, but also on a European level, to encourage the democrats in Russia in one of the main tests of their future. We are all putting together our ideas for humanitarian aid to Bosnia. I shall not go into that in detail today.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been here for 28 years and I have never seen hon. Members talking to people in the Box. Is that allowed? I think that it is an outrage and a scandal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the normal courtesies of the House.
Mr. Hurd: Common action on Bosnia focuses on helping the UN to maintain humanitarian supplies, increasing the level of financial and personnel support and opening Tuzla airport to humanitarian supplies. This morning, I talked with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata. The latest news is somewhat better and more hopeful, because convoys are getting through. That owes much to her work and to that of British troops in central Bosnia—to which Mrs. Ogata paid tribute.
No right hon. or hon. Member who has listened to debates in the House can have any illusions about how much we can do in Bosnia. We cannot impose a settlement, for a solution must be worked out by the parties concerned. Only those who are doing the fighting can stop the fighting. However, a humanitarian effort is being made and there is a reasonable case for joint action by the European Union. The same is true of monitoring elections in South Africa next April.
Those are examples of ways that we can, brick by brick —and without losing any independence of action on our part—build on the work that is done by Europe. That is true not only of my areas of interest but of those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—asylum, immigration, the fight against terrorism, drugs and crime. They all cross borders and we shall not deal with them effectively if we seek to do so only within these islands. We must work together, and the treaty provides a way that we can do so—not under Community institutions but by co-operation between Governments.
The first ever meeting of the Council of Interior and Justice Ministers less than a fortnight ago showed how they want to secure those priorities, which will also be discussed at the summit. In the fight against drug trafficking and cross-border crime, we shall complete by next October negotiations on the convention establishing Europol, the start of Europol drugs unit operations early in the new year, a shared approach to asylum and more practical and effective arrangements covering extradition.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will deal with the Community's economic and monetary policy when he winds up this debate, but I will refer to a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and others have rightly harped on from time to time—fraud in the Community. It is a problem, and no one knows precisely how much it costs. When major problems occur within member states, they are difficult to stamp out because Community institutions do not have the power to exercise complete control over the implementation of Community policies at national level—and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would not want them to have those powers.
Part of the solution is to improve Community financial management and to ensure that spending is cost effective. The treaty expands the role of the Court of Auditors because we propose that it should do so. The problem of fraud goes further and requires a more active approach, and we expect the Commission to produce ideas soon.
Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: I have already given way to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should press on and allow other right hon. and hon. Members to enter the debate.
In a single market, too, people must believe that rules are applied firmly and fairly before they can be expected with good grace to submit themselves to new disciplines.
512
The onus must be primarily on national Governments to develop their own enforcement systems. We support the Commission's efforts to promote fair and even enforcement across the Community. The Department of Trade and Industry's single market compliance unit under my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) fights for British companies, which suffer if other member states do not apply Community legislation.
We are second only to Denmark in fulfilling our Community obligations, but we are careful not to over-regulate—as sometimes happened in the past. That is part of my hon. Friend's work, which is also concerned with the deregulation Bill mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
The Community's enlargement is one priority of British policy and will be tackled again at the summit in the next few days. Progress has been made. Negotiations are under way with four applicant countries—Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland—and they are reaching the difficult issues, including some relating to agriculture. Scandinavian agriculture tends to be more highly protected than continental or British agriculture. We will urge the Greek presidency to keep the momentum going. We want to complete negotiations by the beginning of March 1994, so that the four applicants may enter the Community at the beginning of 1995 if that is their decision. Meeting that timetable is a tall order but it is achievable.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of Macedonia and recognition of that name. Would he care to do so?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. There are many other matters on which I have not commented, and I do not want to say any more about that issue at the moment. I advise the hon. Gentleman to watch this space.
Mr. Enright: Or Cyprus?
Mr. Hurd: Or Cyprus, Kashmir or many other matters of great interest. I am not dealing with them today because it is just possible that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak.
The GATT negotiations are the most important international activity at present, and the summit will be dominated by continuing uncertainty. It is a drama, despite its technicalities and immense length. On Tuesday, we managed with difficulty to persuade the Council to allow the Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, to return to Geneva to get on with the negotiations. Some wanted him to hold back while we argued about this and that, but, at the end of the morning, it was agreed that Sir Leon should return.
It was an awkward moment, because negotiations with the United States, which had continued through the night, were incomplete. Sir Leon had to report to us on audio visual, films, television and civil aircraft—on which I answered a question earlier. There was still a gap, albeit not a huge one, between Europe and the United States. When that appeared, all the Ministers felt that they had to bring out of their pockets a lot of old demands. There was a great deal about textiles, maritime transport and Mediterranean products. We even heard about the tariff on shelled almonds. We had demands of our own. We should like to do more for our textile industry and to see American tariffs on woollens lowered more than has been offered. We shall continue to pursue that point, but there comes a time—and

513
we have reached it—when we must consider the fundamental reality of the negotiations as the clock ticks on.
Agreement comes from compromises, and they mean that particular interests must be subordinated to the general interest. In Europe and throughout the world, it is in the general interest to create jobs through more open trade. That is the essence of the negotiations.
The Heads of State and Government will be bound to discuss that issue when they debate the European economy tomorrow morning. It would be unreal to talk about President Delors's White Paper and economic and monetary matters without mentioning that uncertainty—the prospect either of a huge error that will put the world back into protectionism and a procession of trade fortresses, or of the huge prospect of success that could be gained this time next week if, after seven years, the negotiations are concluded.
The present plan is that detailed discussion within the Community will take place on Saturday afternoon or on Monday, in the Foreign Affairs Council. The French and others want to discuss matters not included in GATT, such as commercial defence instruments—the Community's machinery for dealing with unfair competition from outside, whether it be safeguards or anti-dumping.
There is the question also of agricultural spending. The Government's firm view is that agricultural spending by the Community must continue to be contained within the agricultural guidelines and own-resources ceiling agreed a year ago at Edinburgh.
The discussions among the 12 are continuing while our representative, Sir Leon Brittan, is negotiating at Geneva with Mr. Kantor, under the auspices of Peter Sutherland, the director-general of GATT. Those negotiations are going ahead in parallel. I do not know what the outcome will be, but I know that the stakes are high. I am more hopeful than I and some others were some weeks ago, but we are not there yet. It will be a huge test of the good sense of the world whether, in a week's time, we will be able to report to the House, in one way or another, that the negotiation has been successful after seven years. I do not think that there is any country round the table in Geneva that has more at stake than the open trading and worldwide trading country called Britain.
It is relevant to the sort of Europe that we want. If we can achieve a GATT agreement in the next few days, it will be a fine way of opening the new phase in the economic history of Europe. That new phase needs to be marked by reducing trade barriers and subsidies, whether in agriculture or elsewhere, and by increasing the openness of the European and world trading system.
5 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, at the end of the motion, to add
'but regrets that the approach of Her Majesty's Government to developments in the European Community has failed to advance Britain's interests.'.
In a moment of heat in July, at the end of the Maastricht debate, I recall the Foreign Secretary making a rash promise to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that in future he and his colleagues would be consulted closely about European matters. I assume that the Foreign Secretary's speech was the first product of that consultation
514
because it was disjointed and, in some places, he seemed more like a spectator of what is going on in the European Community than a player. Nowhere was that more obvious than when he talked about GATT. It would have been reassuring to the House and the country if he could have imparted some feeling that Britain is fighting for British interests, whether it is the airbus or something else, in the same way as the French are fighting for their interests during the final days of these important negotiations.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary about the importance of reaching an agreement. It is important not only for us, the rich and powerful economies, but, perhaps even more so, for the poorer nations of the world and the more than 100 countries which are desperately hanging on and hoping that we in the west can settle our differences and reach an agreement that will be beneficial to them.
It was difficult to reconcile the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Government creating a Europe that intervenes only when necessary with what we are discussing today. The pile of documents before us does not look to me like a Europe that intervenes only when necessary.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is the past.
Dr. Cunningham: It is not the past—it is the present and the future. Eurospeak comes in megabites rather than sound bites and we have plenty of evidence for that today. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right to protest to the Chair about the late arrival of documents and the reasonable inability of anyone to have read them all. On that point we can share some fellow feeling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know from his own admission that he never bothers to read European documents. He does not think that it is worth his while. He confessed that he did not read the Maastricht treaty. I have not had time to read all the documents either. It is not a sensible way for us to conduct important business for huge documents of this complexity and importance to land on our desks within hours of the start of the debate.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which were about procedural issues and not necessarily to do with merit. Will he take account of the fact that the Select Committee, which is charged by the House to look at the documents and to summarise them and assess their political and legal importance, was able to look at only some of them yesterday afternoon? Therefore, the reports arrived in the House only last night or this morning, making it difficult for hon. Members even to read the reports on the reports.
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I begin with a different set of priorities. I am not dismissing the Foreign Secretary's priorities as less important, but I want to talk about some of the external affairs of the Community which are discussed in the documents.
The Foreign Secretary referred briefly to Bosnia. He did not tell the House—I shall give him the opportunity now —what has changed in respect of the European Community's attitudes, policies and commitments in Bosnia since the last meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, from which there was a declaration. Has there been any additional response to the appeals of Mrs. Ogata for more aid finance? Has there been any response to the

515
United Nations' appeal for more troops in Bosnia? Has the European Union changed its position in any way since that Council meeting and its declaration in Brussels some weeks ago?
Have the Government changed the position that the Foreign Secretary enunciated during our debate on the Queen's Speech when he hinted that they were thinking of ending all aid to Bosnia? It seems unthinkable to many of us that in the middle of a bleak and horrendous winter, with millions of people relying on international aid and hundreds of thousands of them likely to be living well below subsistence level, we should be stopping our aid to those tortured people in Bosnia and elsewhere. We believe that the European Community should be increasing aid and support for those people. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is likely to happen?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. The most important thing that has happened as a result of the latest European decisions is a fresh round of intensive negotiations. We want to see whether the Serbs will add to the amount of territory from which they are prepared to withdraw and whether the Croats will allow the Muslims to have access to the sea. Those are crucial points and there is now revived discussion—I cannot say conclusions—of a sort that there has not been for some time.
I talked to Mrs. Ogata about aid. She paid high tribute to what is happening now in central Bosnia, where, with the help of British and other troops, convoys are once again getting through. That is a big advance. It is not yet enough and we want to open Tuzla airport. Mrs. Ogata believes that she has enough resources to last until the end of the year. I told her that we would be making an additional British contribution before the end of the year.
I never said that in the near future we intend to withdraw aid or troops. We are committed for the winter. I said simply, as have others—it is a statement of fact—that in the spring we will need to take stock. Those concerned with organising the fighting and profiting from the aid should not assume that the international community will continue month after month, year on year, with the present system and the present stationing of troops. It is not realistic for them to suppose that. That is not a threat; it is simply a statement of fact for next year.
Dr. Cunningham: I take it from that that the British Government intend to increase their aid finance to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It would have been helpful if the Foreign Secretary had been able to give us a figure.
Is it reasonable to be talking about ending sanctions against Serbia when the Serbs have 40,000 troops persecuting the population of Kosovo? They have thrown out the monitors from the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. The president of Kosovo was in London this week and I assume that the Foreign Secretary, like me, had an opportunity to meet President Rugova and his Prime Minister. Was the Foreign Secretary able to give them any assurances of support from the European Union about a concerted foreign policy to bring relief to them?
I want to deal with the middle east, not least because Chairman Arafat will be in London next week.
Mr. Butcher: What about the documents?
Dr. Cunningham: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "What about the documents?" I can assure him that, among many other things, aid to the occupied territories is referred to in those documents. He is demonstrating that he has obviously not read the documents and is unaware of that fact.
Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way on a sedentary intervention.
Chairman Arafat will be in London next week and will have discussions with the Foreign Secretary and, I expect, the Prime Minister. Will the Government give economic assistance to the emerging Palestinian Administration? Will the new organisation established by the Palestinians at the request of the international community—the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction—be assisted not only by cash but by expert help? They need consultancy and economic expert advice to enable them to use the assistance that they are seeking and will no doubt be given. I understand that they are seeking relatively small amounts to help them establish a modern management expertise within their reorganisation. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to respond positively to the request when it is made.
I was curious as to why we heard so much about the recent Maastricht treaty debates. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, more than any other, would have had his fill of that. There are more important Community developments to discuss and I will turn to some of them in a moment.
As to what the Foreign Secretary had to say about manifestos, the chairman of the Conservative party has put out a brief and, in the interests of greater accuracy, we all have a copy of it. He is hardly "Storming Norman"; "boring Norman" best describes him.
Among other things, the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to talk about socialist taxes in Europe. Next year, 1994, will be the year of Tory taxes in Britain: increased VAT, increased national insurance and more income tax on people's bills. I am surprised that the chairman of the Conservative party had the nerve to include anything about taxation in his brief.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the European Peoples party, this is what the chairman of the Conservative party says in his letter to Conservative Members:
"the European Peoples party will also meet to agree an Action Programme. We in the Conservative party are not members of the EPP."
It goes on:
"The alliance of Conservative MEPs with the EPP"—
Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I will in a moment.
"The alliance of Conservative MEPs with the EPP Parliamentary Group brings centre-right parties together".
It brings them together and they are in an alliance, but of course the right hon. Gentleman adds the caveat:
"We are not bound by any Manifesto or declaration of the EPP".
They are working together and it brings centre-right parties together, but they are pretending that they have nothing to do with them.
We all know why. The manifesto of the European People's party says:

517
"The social policy, which has as its goal the increasing prosperity of all branches of society, finds its inspiration and justification in the values which are the basis of society: justice and solidarity."
It is completely committed to the social dimension in Europe and says so in several other places in its manifesto.
The Foreign Secretary was advancing the thesis throughout his speech that, in Europe, people, parties and Governments were somehow coming round to his way of thinking. The only problem with that thesis is that every Conservative party in Europe endorses this manifesto, which in turn endorses the social chapter. Chancellor Kohl's party endorses it, the French Conservatives endorse it and all the other European Conservative parties endorse it. There is a fraud at the centre of the Foreign Secretary's argument because—as has always been the case—after a year of bluster, argument and charade the only political party in Europe that supports the British Conservative party is the French fascist party of Mr. Le Pen—perhaps we should say Mr. Poison Le Pen.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to gallop away. He failed to quote a key sentence in the right place. He quoted it a little later because he saw that some of us had it.
"We are not bound by any manifesto or declaration of the EPP."
The right hon. Gentleman left that sentence out and brought it in later only because he saw that we had it. That is the key question. It is the key difference between our position and that of the British Labour party in respect of the European socialists and the position of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who wants to abandon all national vetoes in the Community.
As to the social chapter, when the right hon. Gentleman first made that speech it was broadly accurate. Across the continent, employers in particular are waking up to the dangers that the orthodoxy—whether social democrat or christian democrat—has imposed upon jobs in those countries. That is the way in which the debate is going and I gave evidence of that in my speech.
Dr. Cunningham: All the bluff and bluster in the world cannot disguise the almost solitary position of the British Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman cannot name a single Government or Conservative party in Europe that shares his view. He should stop misleading the House and the British people by pretending that somehow soon Europe will cast aside a social dimension to the development of the European Community. It will not happen and it should not happen; nor do we want it to happen. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends are the only ones who want it to happen, as all the arguments, debates and documentation make clear.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to read, among all the other things he has tried to read, the contribution of the federal German Government to the Commission's White Paper? It says:
"Non-wage labour costs including social security contributions should be scrutinised closely since in Europe they have reached a high level in relation to wages. Social welfare expenditure, which burdens the economy as a whole, should be restrained".
The German Government document is virtually identical in language to the Government's submission to the Commission. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman
518
simply has not followed the way the debate has gone. We now have many friends among other Governments on the continent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that hon. Members want to get deeply involved in the debate, but interventions should be short.
Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way again if they are as long as that.
It is astonishing that that intervention comes from an hon. Member who has just voted for national insurance increases for the whole British population. He is telling us that the German Government warn against increased employment costs. He has just voted dramatically to increase employment costs and costs on employees. The Government have conned the British people. They promised in their manifesto that they would not increase national insurance charges, but it is the first thing that they did when they presented the first unified Budget—and the hon. Member for Esher voted for it. I could go on and mention VAT, increased fuel tax and sick pay—all loading extra costs on to employers, industry and commerce—and the hon. Gentleman is warning us of what the federal German Government is telling us. We do not need the warnings; we can see how the Government are loading employment costs on to employers and employees in this country.
Our partners in Europe are going ahead with the social dimension and with economic and monetary union. We have lost the European monetary institution of Frankfurt because of the Government's pig-headedness and the Tory party is now marginalised and isolated in Europe.
It is no good the Government telling us about lifting burdens. I have a copy of the review produced by their own committee of inquiry, staffed by their own civil servants. It is entitled "Review of the Implementation and Enforcement of EC Law in the United Kingdom". One of the committee's first findings is reported in paragraph 2 of the executive summary of the document, which states:
"We have found little evidence to support the allegation that the UK deliberately adds requirements when transposing EC law."
The report contains many more interesting observations, for instance:
"Officials felt that there was a failure to recognise the subtleties of negotiation in Brussels and thought that as a consequence they had not achieved all that they might have done."
It states delphically:
"Ministers should be aware of this problem."
What those officials are really saying is that Ministers' pig-headed, stubborn attitude in Brussels is costing the country dear.
The report also contains a section on costs and benefits and makes recommendations. It appears that our wonderfully inept Government found themselves in the ludicrous position of almost agreeing fire safety regulations that would cost this country an additional £2 billion, because of their obstinacy. The report says:
"had our recommendations been in place we estimate that nearly £300,000 of effort devoted to drafting unnecessary Fire Regulations would have been involved."
It continues:
"Ministers should be aware of the dangers of an inflexible negotiating position. We asked whether officials were content with the Ministerial steer they had been given … we encountered a significant number of instances where officials felt 'boxed in' by inflexible negotiating positions set by Ministers. They suggested that the `no, but' stance they were required to adopt in

519
negotiations marginalised the UK. This was confirmed by UKREP in Brussels and EC Commission officials to whom we spoke."
That was said by British civil servants working for the Government. They commented, in their own report, on the ineptitude and stupidity of their own political masters, who had made a mess of things in Brussels. It is no good the Foreign Secretary shaking his head; I have the document. A copy is in the Library, so that any hon. Member can read it. I do not know whether it has been hidden away from those currently occupying the Government Front Bench —they look a little puzzled—but I advise them to get hold of a copy: it makes very interesting bedtime reading.
The idea that it is all the fault of Brussels that we have problems because of the European Community is another of the myths and false arguments erected by the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. and hon. Friends. Brussels legislation is a burden: all those socialists in the European Community, dumping all this awful legislation on us. In fact, eight of the 12 member Governments are either Conservative or Conservative-led coalitions. The reality is even worse than it appears: the Foreign Secretary cannot even get his Tory friends in Brussels to agree with him on the British position. Even with the advantage of those eight Conservative Governments, the British Government cannot secure a decent deal for the United Kingdom. Their failure and ineptitude is at the heart of the difficulties in our relationship with the Community.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to speculate on the words that officials might have used if the Labour party had been negotiating in Maastricht two years ago, and had carried through the strategy that it then supported—that of backing full monetary union, with no subsequent parliamentary vote at the time when it was to come into force?
Dr. Cunningham: I will not speculate on what officials might have said, but I am certain that a Labour Government would have secured a much better deal for Britain and the British people than the incompetents on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No; I have just given way.
It is not just a question of what officials say about the impact of the Government's actions. The Equal Opportunities Commission has just commented on the changes in maternity pay and the proposals for implementing the European Community's pregnant workers directive. It states:
"The European Commission Pregnant Workers Directive therefore represents a welcome advance in UK maternity protection. However, the EC is concerned that the spirit of the Directive is being lost in its translation into UK legislation, an approach which we do not believe is in the best interests of women or their employers. The Commission wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment on three separate occasions during the passage of the Directive through the European Commission, urging the government to take the opportunity offered by the Directive to review UK maternity rights and introduce new framework legislation. We indicated that we would be willing to participate in the consultative process, which we recommended should be wide-ranging."
Although the Commission wrote to the Secretary of State three times, its advice was not acted on. The report continues:
"consequently, the opportunity to eliminate the underlying problems inherent in the current scheme, and to put in place a
520
simple, coherent and comprehensive scheme is being lost. Maternity leave and maternity pay will continue to be covered by separate legislation."
That is just another practical example—but perhaps a more important one—of how the interests of British people, in this case pregnant women, are being damaged by the Government's attitude to the European Community.
The Foreign Secretary and his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) mentioned labour and wage costs. Figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for 1991—the most recent that I could obtain—give the unit labour costs in manufacturing industry for various countries. If we take the United Kingdom figure as 100, the United States figure is 115, the Japanese figure 98, the German figure 124, the French figure 144 and the Italian figure 128. Apart from Japan, each of those countries has a higher figure than Britain.
Let us examine the productivity figures—again, taking the United Kingdom figure as 100. The United States figure is 175, the Japanese figure 150, the German figure 140, the French figure 139 and the Italian figure 121. Every other country has higher productivity per employee than the United Kingdom. If we examine unit labour costs—combining productivity and investment with output—we find that this country has the worst record of all, with the exception of Italy.
The real problem is not that our labour costs are higher than those of our competitors, or even that our added employment costs are higher. The problem is much more fundamental: it is lack of investment, skills and proper training. The idea that cutting labour costs, freezing wages or taking safety standards away from industry will somehow enable us to compete with Taiwan, Singapore, Korea or Hong Kong is absurd—not least because the same source reveals that, if our labour manufacturing costs are taken as 100, the Taiwan figure is 35, the Singapore and Korean figure 34 and the Hong Kong figure 27.
Who believes that it is realistic to expect us to get labour costs down to those in an advanced industrial economy? That is entirely the wrong way in which to approach the problem, as anyone with an ounce of sense, experience or knowledge of manufacturing industry will know. This is the stupid ideology of a party that has run out of ideas and almost run out of the political honesty to face up to the problems brought about by its 14 years in office.
Mr. Giles Radice: On that point, the Foreign Secretary quoted the Delors report and said that it supported his arguments, but the beginning of it says just what my right hon. Friend has been saying—that there is no miracle cure, nor a drastic cut in wages and a pruning of social protection to align our costs with those of our competitors in the developing countries. The report says that it is socially unacceptable and politically untenable. Such an approach would only worsen the crisis by depressing domestic demand which also contributes to growth and the maintenance of employment. So much for the Foreign Secretary.
Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased that I allowed my hon. Friend, who is my own Member of Parliament, to make that effective intervention.
There is a plethora of evidence on labour costs. I recommend that Ministers look at the latest survey of Swedish employers, which shows that Great Britain had the fifth lowest labour costs of the 17 major industrial countries surveyed in 1992. It further shows that 72 per

521
cent. of wage costs were wages and 28 per cent. were additional costs—the added-on costs to employment. Only in Ireland, Canada and Denmark are additional costs lower as a proportion than in the United Kingdom. That is another myth from the Tory party blown out of the water: that somehow we in Britain are pricing ourselves out of the market.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Dr. Cunningham: Not at the moment.
The tragedy is that, despite all that, we do not have a good trading record—far from it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: In a moment; I want to make the point because the two things are connected. Do not worry, I shall give way.
Who does not want to be efficient and more competitive? Of course everyone does. The bogus argument is that somehow, by working some trick with our employees' wages and conditions, we can bring it off. Despite that advantage—this is the point that I want to make before I allow the Chancellor to intervene—the Government manage, because of their incompetence, to sustain a trade surplus with the 10 poorest nations in the world and a trade deficit with the 10 richest nations of the world. It is an appalling record.
If we look at the OECD figures for the 17 largest—I think they are the largest—industrial nations, we have a trade deficit with every one of them in terms of visible trade.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The first point that I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is on wage costs. As he accepted with approval a quote from the White Paper, I am sure that he will accept that two themes come strongly through in the White Paper. Throughout Europe, it is necessary that wage increases should be below increases in productivity for the foreseeable future. There is also the argument in the White Paper, described under the heading of solidarity, which is how the Commission and the President usually describe it, that those in employment should accept considerable constraint in their wage increases for the foreseeable future because there are so many unemployed people.
In the forthcoming pay round in this country, if the Labour party is so instantly converted to the White Paper that appeared on Monday that it now has a policy on those issues, will the right hon. Gentleman commit the Labour party to the principles set out in the White Paper?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall come to the White Paper in a moment. [Interruption.] I shall make my own speech. If I had to rely on Conservative Members to make my speech for me, it would be a pretty shambolic affair. I shall make my own speech, if Conservative Members do not mind.
I notice that, despite the fact that the Chancellor said that he would intervene on the subject of wage costs, he did not refer to the figures that I quoted. Of course we are in favour of productivity and greater competitiveness—it would be mad to be otherwise—but the reality is that
522
productivity and improved competitiveness should not depend on low pay. Nor should it depend on taking away health and safety safeguards.
Competitive success should bring higher, not lower pay. It should bring higher rewards for skill and endeavour, not just higher dividends, as happens now under the Government. It should not bring largely inflated salaries for directors and board members, as continues to happen under the Government—the privatised water industry is an obvious example.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I have not finished with the right hon. and learned Gentleman yet.
In 1979, 50 per cent. of profits went into dividends in this country. Internationally, even that was a high level. Under the Conservatives, the figure has risen to 70 per cent., which is disastrous for long-term investment prospects. That figure is broadly twice as high as the figure for Japan and Germany, our principal competitors.
It is in those facts and figures that we find the reasons for the real failure of Britain as a manufacturing and trading nation—not in decent protection for people at work, or in the directives of the European Community, but in the 14 years of economic and industrial failure over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have presided and have voted for again in the past couple of weeks.
We cannot and will not accept that the major burden of change should be borne by the weakest—the low-paid, the unwaged and the unemployed. Nor will the British people accept the increasing burdens of the incompetence of the Government being heaped on them ever more frequently. A policy to promote productivity growth should be based on enhanced training and education, improved skills and technology, effective research and development, modern and sophisticated infrastructure and a far better level of investment than the British working population have ever enjoyed under the Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me whether I accept the broad arguments and thrust of the charter for Europe's industrial future—the report from the European round table of industrialists. Yes, I do. There is much in it with which we agree. For example, we certainly share the view that
"a return to more rapid and sustained economic growth should be the central target of policy. The second element of growth must be a substantial increase in investment".
We share the view that:
"Transport, energy, financial and other costs all require similar attention. Plans exist to modernise Europe's infrastructure but there is no sense of urgency to put them into action … one is to mobilise Europe's massive scientific resources",
but the Government have demobilised this country's scientific and technological effort more often than not.
"The second is to pay closer attention to lifelong education and training, raising the skills of everybody from young children to experienced working people."
The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an emphatic yes; we share all the aims and objectives of the proposals. [Interruption.] The Conservatives are the only people whom I have heard say that they do not want to see the social chapter implemented. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mutters "UNECE"—the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—but that is just not true. That is another of the misrepresentations that have frequently come from the Government Benches.

523
Finally, I shall turn to the Delors paper, which is similar both in analysis and prospectus to the employers' paper to which I have just been referring. It talks about the need for greater investment and more urgency. It talks about the ability of the European Union working together to tackle the horrendous and rising levels of unemployment in Europe. It talks about the need for social cohesion and solidarity.
I would add to the paper the need for the European Union to start confronting more actively the horrendous outbreaks of racism and fascism that we are seeing, including that in this country. I am not one of those apologists for Britain who says that it is going on in France, Germany and Italy but not here. That is not true either. That is one reason why we support the appointment of a European Commissioner for racial equality. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Conservative Members say no, but why should we not have a commissioner with responsibility for racial equality in Europe? They should ask some of the members of the ethnic minority communities in our towns and cities. They would soon find out that they want more effective action to protect themselves and their families from the squalid abuse, intimidation and violence from which some of them suffer daily.
In the European Community now there is a real opportunity. It began, after much argument and debate, at Edinburgh in the final days of the British presidency. It was built upon at Copenhagen. It is being built upon to promote the use of information technologies, to provide basic trans-European services, to continue to create an appropriate regulatory framework, to develop training on new technologies, and to improve industrial technological performance.
Within the new package of proposals before the summit this weekend there are proposals to accelerate the financing and development of high-speed transport links between Heathrow, London and Dover. The Foreign Secretary ducked a question on that from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). There are proposals to help us to finance the cost of meeting the EC drinking and bathing water quality directives.
Will the Government tell the British people that they will vote against those proposals and turn down this opportunity—that appears to be the answer—all for the sake of an extra 8 billion ecu in new money? That is what is being proposed in the White Paper.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No, I am just coming to the end of my remarks.
How does that, and for that matter everything else, square with all the promises made in the Tory European election manifesto of 1989? It does not. In that the Tories specifically promised that they would ensure that all our bathing waters met relevant EC standards. In case the Foreign Secretary wants his officials to check, that is on page 47. They say that they will
"apply tough new controls over the quality of drinking water".
There are a few more amusing comments in the document. The Government will not be writing these things next year. They certainly will not be claiming:
"We have put the torch to a bonfire of controls."
They certainly will not be claiming:
"We have put Britain's finances in order".
They certainly will not be claiming:
524
"An active and whole-hearted approach to the Community has breathed new life into our partnership with our neighbours."
They will not get away with any such drivel in 1994.
The vital debate for the future of Europe to which the success of Britain is inextricably linked will go on in 1994 and, as ever, the divisions in the Tory party will damage Britain's interests in Europe and the Government's redundant ideology will damage the British people.
The Opposition are committed to their European ideals and policies for Europe, which have been well established for long enough now. We will take these arguments to the people in the European elections in 1994 and I am confident that we shall win.
5.42 pm
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: It is some time since I addressed the House from the Back Benches and the House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to regale it with personal experiences, anecdotes or justifications of my time in Government.
I was privileged to serve under my noble Friend Lady Thatcher for eight years. It was her leadership and faith which restored the belief in economic liberalism, not just in Britain but beyond in the wider world. It was her instinct which sensed the historic importance of perestroika and was instrumental in rallying western support for that important process. My noble Friend is entitled to take full credit for that—and, indeed, she does. I was also fortunate to serve for two and a half years under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
The very success of the Conservative party during the past decade has wiped off the slate most of the big issues that we have debated in the House in recent years.
The cold war has become, in Sir Michael Howard's phrase, a chill peace. Socialism—and its more exuberant form of expression, communism—has been revealed as the political junk bonds of the 1980s.
As for the European Union, the subject of our debate today, at least for those who saw it as an inevitable march towards a single European state, it will never be "glad confident morning again".
But history has not ended here. If anything, it has become much more difficult and, I believe, much more hopeful. A new agenda must be set, a more matter-of-fact agenda perhaps; a new agenda with a rather low-on-rhetoric count than the one to which we have become accustomed. In my judgment, no man in Britain is better qualified to set out that agenda and take it forward than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I stand on these Benches as a volunteer, not as a conscript. Therefore, I hope that the House will believe me if, looking back on my career, I say, "Je ne regrette rien." Nor do I expect to have any regrets in the future when I give my right hon. Friend and his Administration the unswerving support that they deserve.
I want to make just two main points about the subject of our debate today: first, on the upcoming European Council itself and, then, on how the new European Union offers a prospect of a Tory agenda for Europe around which the Conservative party can unite.
I welcome the subsidiarity report that President Delors is putting forward to the European Council, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred. At first glance, it would seem to open the prospect of repeal or

525
amendment of at least 25 per cent. of the current statute book, including, in addition to those mentioned by my right hon. Friend, the acquired rights directive.
The inclusion of article 3b in the Maastricht treaty, the follow up to it by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during our presidency, and now this excellent report are tributes to my right hon. Friend's negotiating skills and as good an example as one can find of why the Maastricht treaty is a substantial improvement on the Single European Act.
The action plan for Home Office Ministers on interior justice matters is also extremely welcome. I shall return to that later in my remarks, but suffice it to say that our commitment to law and order in the United Kingdom is not sufficient in itself. The report provides the Government with an opportunity to take the battle for law and order into the same international arena as that in which criminals themselves operate.
It is extremely encouraging that the ECOFIN report on broad economic policy guidelines does not set out unreasonable country-specific targets for interest rates, unemployment levels and so on, but rather concentrates in a non-binding way on setting out prudent policies that seek to reduce deficits and to nudge our respective economies towards convergence.
The so-called growth paper, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred, is clearly an attempt at a Commission bounce, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his German colleague, supported by most other Finance Ministers, have every intention of sitting on it firmly.
There must be no question of the Commission's being authorised to borrow in the markets and then lend on to finance the sort of infrastructure projects to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Such off-budget expenditure would drive a horse and carriage through the financial perspectives agreed at Edinburgh.
The common positions agreed on South Africa and on the humanitarian aid to Bosnia are good news. I very much hope that Britain will be in the lead in pushing ahead and it will not be too long before we are able to agree common positions on the middle east process and on the so-called Balladur principle. I shall return to why I believe that the common foreign and security policy gives added value to Britain's foreign policy efforts. I hope that the House will forgive me for taking advantage of this glass of water as I am becoming ill with 'flu. It appears that the upcoming Council is one in which the agenda is increasingly sensible and pragmatic and where Britain finds herself either in the pack or leading it.
I turn to my second and more general point about Britain's future role in the new European Union. The European Community was founded by men who saw that the greatest post-war challenge was to bring about reconciliation and prosperity to the nations that were ravaged by war. They saw a united, single European state —what we call federalism—as the goal.
Britain, a late entrant, although ravaged by that war, was not humiliated by it and, therefore, we have no ghosts to bury. We have never looked to the Community as a guarantor of our liberties—we look to the House and our own constitutional history for that. That is why the whole
526
thrust of the finalité politique is one which few of us in Britain have been able to embrace with enthusiasm. Without the idealism of Schumann, Monnet, and, if I may say so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the European Community would not have succeeded as I believe it has now done in burying those ghosts. I mean no disrespect when I say that the period that future historians will no doubt describe as "the European Community—the early years" is drawing to a close. The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
The Maastricht treaty and the events that followed marked that turning point. The challenge—quite as great as the one that faced Schumann and Monnet—is to bring the wider European family together after the ravages of communism and to find the instruments for working together so that the wider European Union may be a bastion for democracy and an influence for good in the world. Maastricht gives us the tools to do just that.
I shall outline in shorthand a Tory agenda for Europe —based on the Maastricht treaty—which can unite us all on the Conservative Benches and unite the growing number who think as we do in our sister parties in Europe. Our first priority must be to make intergovernmentalism work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has rightly placed law and order high on our national agenda, but the fight against crime, drug trafficking, fraud and illegal immigration is a trans-frontier fight and we must carry that banner on a Europewide basis with exactly the same enthusiasm and commitment with which we have carried it here.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On that point, is the right hon. Member satisfied that the arrangement into which the police forces and, above all, the security services are entering on an intergovernmental level will guarantee the protection of civil rights for all people inside the European boundaries?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that question, as it leads me directly to my next point. I stress to the House that intergovernmentalism, jargon for the co-operation between member states, outside the mechanisms of what we call the Community proper and not under any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice —any change in the law would be made in this House—is a relatively new departure. If we do not make it work and show results, the federalists will be back, eager to move the whole pillar into the single structure. I shall comment later on how the House should scrutinise that. That is a top priority for Britain and especially for Conservative Members.
The common foreign and security policy is not an entirely new concept. Like so much else, we owe it to my noble Friend Lady Thatcher and to the Single European Act. The common foreign and security policy simply takes what was called European political co-operation a stage further. Of course we must retain, and do retain, the ability to act alone, but we should not lose sight of the fact that acting together—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did with such effect on the safe havens policy in northern Iraq—we can achieve an added value for our own foreign policy.
The European defence dimension is contained, outside the Union, but in the Western European Union. The WEU's relationship with NATO and with the European Union involves a good deal of theology, with which I shall

527
not burden the House. Britain's policy is straightforward. NATO is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our defence. At the same time, we must work hard with our European allies to ensure that the WEU becomes more and more capable of reaching those parts that NATO cannot or may not wish to reach, but we must not allow well-meaning Euro-enthusiasm to blind us to the fact that NATO, and NATO alone, has the command structures, the logistical communications and lift capacity to defend the values in which we believe.
All that has relevance to current negotiations on enlargement. No one has been stauncher than Britain in advocating the admission of those EFTA countries that wish to join the Union or in defending their right as neutrals to join. As they face up to the need to adjust their neutrality to the changed world, we must make it clear to them—and discuss it with our allies, the United States—that joining the WEU is not a soft option and a sort of Euro-friendly defence package. A WEU agreement to defend Finland or Austria means nothing. Defence is an area where one jolly well should mean what one says.
I shall comment on the new priorities in the classical pillar of the Union—the Common Market itself—the first being parliamentary democracy. The treaty contains a declaration on the involvement of national Parliaments. The House needs to continue to improve the working of the excellent new Committees that scrutinise EC legislation.
We also need—the point to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred in her helpful intervention—to find a proper way, especially in home affairs and interior judicial matters, of scrutinising the intergovernmental work and to seek ways in which national Parliaments can work together in partnership with the European Parliament in the scrutiny of classical EC legislation once it has left the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—in consultation with others, because it is a non-party and general House of Commons matter—will take a lead and encourage other national Parliaments to join us.
In taking forward the enlargement negotiations, we must seek to ensure that there is no dilution in qualified majority voting, especially the way in which the blocking minority is now put together. I regard that as a matter of crucial importance. I certainly do not want to see a Union dominated by the larger member states. The present weighting is already favourable to the smaller nations. The EU is in a state of permanent negotiation. I believe that Lord Monckton said that if one wants successful negotiation, one must ensure that the lions get the lions' share.
As President Delors said on the subject of subsidiarity and the role of the Commission, the presumption from now on is that competences lie with member states, unless they are specifically transferred to the Union. Our task, as I said earlier—this is why the report of the Council is so encouraging—is to make that a reality. If we do, much of the suspicion that has rightly built up around the Commission in this country in recent years will disappear.
If the Commission takes heed of the new post-Maastricht mood, stops trying to be a 13th member state and gets on with the task of acting in the areas in which its competence is clear, using its advantage in not being a member state to broke deals and break down member states' vested interests, it will find that it has a strong ally and supporter in Britain.
528
The European Council—the organisation to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling this evening—has always seemed to me the most British institution in the Community. It is intergovernmental; it stands above the whole Union; it has no set procedures, other than those of custom and practice; and, above all, its writ runs in every corner of the Community. It can make anything happen and, importantly, it can stop anything happening. Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers meet on their own—no officials attend. I hope that I will not offend the House if I say that it is rather like the House of Commons—idiosyncratic but supreme. British Prime Ministers—Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon—have tended to do extremely well at European Council meetings. They are well briefed, hardened by battle in the House, and take a lot of tricks.
The Council should meet more often and give more guidance to the institutions of the Union. If the Prime Minister can meet his Cabinet in the United Kingdom once a week, surely he can find a more regular slot to meet his European counterparts in the Community.
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so those are just a few of the areas where there is a real Tory agenda under the new European Union. The time has come when we must stop arguing about whether we like the Union. That is like arguing about whether we like Whitehall. It exists, and we must make it work as best we can in the interests of our people and our country.
I spoke at the outset about the old agenda. There, the instincts of Conservative Members were right. We were right on defence, on the model of society, and on Europe. We now face the challenges of setting and winning the new agenda. I am as happy as anyone else on the Conservative side of the House to wallow in a nice warm bath of my own prejudices. I am happy to return to basics, because the basic instincts of the Conservative party are right.
But the new agenda that we must create is about more than giving little homilies to single mums about family values. It needs muscular thinking and involves hard decisions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Government have the vision and courage to set that new agenda and make those choices. If my right hon. Friends have the wit and nerve to follow them, we shall win that new agenda, just as we won the old one.
6.3 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The big issue in Europe today is unemployment. The European summit that meets tomorrow will undoubtedly have unemployment at the top of its agenda.
I do not apologise for not following immediately the remarks just made by the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who covered a considerable range of topics but did not mention the economy.
Mr. Roy Hughes: I am sorry to intervene on my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but, given that the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has a close association with Spain and that unemployment there is now some 22 per cent., I should have thought that he would at least have made a passing reference to unemployment.
Mr. Shore: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point and I shall discuss the extent of unemployment throughout the European Community.

529
I shall not be tempted to cover the whole range of matters before us. Indeed, I must protest strongly, because I have never taken part in a more absurd debate than one that is triggered by a pile of documents which few of us have the strength to carry into the Chamber. I address my remarks to the business managers of this place. If the House of Commons is to be taken seriously, it is wrong to allow a debate on such a massive scatter of subjects. Not only must we discuss the European Community's budget, which is always a subject that requires intense scrutiny; not only must we discuss two of the six monthly reports of events in the European Community; not only must we discuss an immense report on fraud in the Community, which certainly deserves scrutiny; but, on top of that, we have significant papers that are going to the summit meeting that begins tomorrow and should be the major focus of our debate. It is wrong for the business managers to have planted on us such an immense mass of business that it unfocuses the debate and is difficult to make sense of in the end.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I intervene only in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that unemployment in Spain is not 22 per cent. but substantially more. It will not have escaped his notice that, for 10 years, Spain has had a socialist Government who follow slavishly the social policies that he and other members of the European Community advocate.
Mr. Shore: My only comment is that the Spaniards have been good Europeans. They are faithfully following the dictates of economic and monetary union and convergence, and are suffering and paying the price as a result.
Unemployment is the proper focus of this debate. The picture is bleak. According to the latest edition of Euro-Stat, September 1993, the Community now has more than 17 million unemployed, which is 10·6 per cent. of the work force. In this country, the figure in September was 10·3 per cent., which is a little below the average. On the same date, the figure was 11 per cent. for France; 11·2 per cent. for Italy; and approaching 22 per cent. for Spain. Only in West Germany was the percentage rate of unemployment in single figures.
Worse, there is every reason to believe that unemployment will increase substantially in 1994, and probably also in 1995. The general consensus is that it is likely to rise to 20 million on existing policies in the next two years. I think that we know why. In the Community as a whole this year, the growth in gross domestic product was minus 0·4 per cent. In 1994, it will not be more than about 1·8 per cent. If we look further into the figures we see that, for each of the past four years, GDP growth in the Community has been well below the productive potential of GDP in the Community countries, which is roughtly 2·7 to 3 per cent. That is well below the level at which unemployment is stable, so we shall inevitably see a great rise in the number of unemployed.
This point is worth emphasising because it may help to dispel at least two illusions. The first illusion is long lasting but, good heavens, I do not know why it has lasted so long. It is that the European Community is a great area of economic growth. Many people thought so in the 1960s
530
and late 1950s. It has hardly been so since and certainly is not today. It has a far more worrying record of high unemployment and slow growth than Japan or the United States, our two major competing areas in the world economy.
It is also worth pointing out that, although we in Britain are rightly critical of the Government's performance on growth and unemployment, we sometimes go around as though we had an inferiority complex and appear to believe that everything would be better if only we could plunge ever deeper into the European Community. The figures do not support that argument. British rates of unemployment and growth are very close to those of the Community or even slightly better at the moment, largely because we are at a different stage of the cycle. If we are serious, the question that must be discussed here and at the European summit is what is to be done about unemployment.
In this mound of documents, three relate directly to unemployment, and I presume that will come before the Heads of Government at their meeting. The first document is the Government's Green Paper which displays its obsession with labour market flexibility and labour costs as though they were the crucial elements in maintaining competitiveness. Although the Green Paper was published in July this year, its approach and content will undoubtedly be echoed by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at tomorrow's summit.
The second relevant document is that containing the Commission's economic policy guidelines for stage 2 of economic and monetary union under the Maastricht treaty, in particular the fulfilment under article 103(2) of the Maastricht treaty of its obligation to draw up such guidelines. That is the first important step towards imposing a common economic and monetary policy on member states.
The third document is the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment, which became available in the Table Office only late yesterday evening. It appears to be an up-dated and fuller version of papers that have previously been before meetings of ECOFIN and other groups. It carries President Delors' peculiar personal stamp and authority and gives his analysis of the causes of unemployment and a broad outline of his thinking on how it can be combated.
I can deal with the first document quickly because it is merely a comment on the various drafts of the Community's White Paper or White Book. It is interesting because it reveals the extent to which Government thinking on competitiveness is dominated by a factor which, although important, is only one of many that affect competitiveness and productivity—namely, labour costs, whether direct wage costs or indirect social service costs. No one in his right mind would deny the importance of labour costs as an element of competitiveness, but I hope that we are far too knowledgeable to accept that those costs are or should be allowed to dominate our thinking.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) gave some excellent examples of real costs per unit of output which need studying if we are to be sensible in our approach to these matters. It is true that many industries, and especially services, do not enter international trade at all and do not therefore have any direct impact on international competitiveness. Of course, labour costs affect competitiveness, but surely we cannot help but entertain the part played by managerial skills,

531
technology, product innovation, marketing and the various other elements that we know jolly well are crucial to competitiveness.
Dr. John Cunningham: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The chemical industry, with which I have had a long association, provides our biggest crude trade surplus of about £3 billion a year. For the chemical industry, it is the cost of raw materials and energy, rather than of labour, which imposes the biggest burden. The present Government more than any other have continued to increase the costs of energy to the chemical industry.
Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend cites just one case but I can cite another which is perhaps even more impressive. The pharmaceutical industry employs highly skilled and highly paid people, but its labour costs are miniscule compared with the product of its expensive research and the vast markets that it has gained as a result.
An additional point, which has not yet been mentioned, is that costs are imposed on industry and firms by macro-economic policies. No one can deny that if industry is saddled with high interest rates, or if corporate enterprises are saddled with particularly high direct taxation, they will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Anyone who ignores a crucial third issue—the exchange rate—is being very unwise. Good heavens, it would be almost as foolish to be obsessed with labour costs, as some Conservative Members are, as it would be to say that one can commit oneself to a full range of labour costs and improve social services and at the same time commit oneself to a fixed exchange rate. That is one set of circumstances in which additional and indirect social or wages costs will lead to a lack of competitiveness and the loss of jobs. Nothing could be more foolish than to advocate measures such as the social chapter and at the same time commit oneself to a fixed exchange rate, let alone a single currency—so much for a relatively minor point in our discussion of unemployment.
In any discussion of the Commission's approach as set out in its two papers, we are faced with two entirely contradictory policies. The first paper deals with the economic and monetary guidelines that the Community is to pursue under the Maastricht treaty. It is clearly deflationary, and it will be put before the summit this weekend. The second paper is President Delors' White Paper or White Book and suggests the opposite—stimulating the European economy.
The two documents suggest that we are dealing with a serious case of schizophrenia. The deflationary provisions of the Maastricht treaty, especially those for EMU, were framed in 1992 by a committee of central bankers under the chairmanship of a Mr. Delors. The proposals include a massive cut in public expenditure throughout the Community, which it says will be necessary to eliminate the so-called excess borrowing requirement and which will reduce public sector borrowing to no more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. A further aim of that document is the creation of a European central bank whose prime purpose will be to achieve price stability and the elimination of inflation.
The same Mr. Delors now has proposals for increasing public expenditure, provided only that it is at the Community level and embraces particular projects such as information highways, new technologies and the trans-European networks favoured by Mr. Delors and the
532
Commission. The extraordinary thing is that Mr. Delors, who is now committed to his White Book proposals to stimulate job creation, is still insisting on the meticulous observance of the EMU provisions in the Maastricht treaty.
The Commission's recommendations in the second of those documents on the broad guidelines of economic policy say that the Commission
"reaffirms its commitment to the EMU process and timetable as agreed in the Treaty on European Union. To this end, it will intensify its efforts at achieving economic convergence."
To the same end, it will
"start the process of deficit reduction"
in the member states. It will mean
"reducing budget deficits to the reference value indicated in the Treaty on European Union (3 per cent. of GDP). The Community could achieve this goal by 1996–97."
It is there in the very document before us and before the Heads of Government at the summit this weekend.
I notice, and so should those of my hon. Friends who have taken a more sanguine view of the Maastricht treaty, that there is no reference in that reiterated commitment to EMU stage 2 to the need for counter-recessionary policy in the middle of a vast slump. The old policy has been re-stated—the remorseless drive to a deflationary Europe. As for price stability, the key, the arch of the temple, is that
"a rate of inflation of no more than 2 to 3 per cent. should be reached for the Community average by 1996."
Wages must not be allowed to grow. That is an interesting one—very near a statutory incomes policy, but not quite. Wages must not be allowed to grow and exchange rate stability must be maintained.
Virtually every country in the European Community —not least our own—has what the Community describes as an excess deficit or borrowing requirement. The effects now of a cross-European contraction of public expenditure and public borrowing are bound to lead to still greater unemployment. Indeed, in the case of four countries, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, the beneficiaries of the so-called cohesion fund which was set up under the Maastricht treaty, their access to that fund is now to be made conditional upon their performance in convergence under stage 2 of economic and monetary union.
Nowhere in the Commission's—President Delors'—White Paper on employment are the contradictions confronted between what he is urging now and what he is at the same time urging under stage 2 of economic and monetary union. It is a document that is more concerned with analysis, as we have heard, than with recommendations for action. It calls—I note that with satisfaction, in a sense—for the creation of 15 million new jobs by the year 2000. Excellent. Who can possibly disagree with that?
The only clear proposal that emerges, however, is that the Commission should be allowed to borrow about £20 billion and spend it during the next four years on the Commission's chosen projects. I am not quite sure about the figures—they seem to differ according to which paper one reads—but £20 billion is an impressive figure, although when one compares it to the total GDP of the European Community it is tiny indeed. It would have only a cosmetic, as opposed to a real, effect on the mass unemployment problem of the nations of the European Community. Moreover, if the Community countries obey the guidelines of the Maastricht treaty they can subscribe to the Commission's £20 billion loan only by further cutting their own public sector borrowing requirement.
Trans-European networks may be attractive but, with the doubtful exception of the channel tunnel rail link, there

533
are more important priorities for the United Kingdom. I say that the link is "doubtful" because we know that vast planning problems have yet to be settled before the route can be finalised. We now know that there is an incompatibility between the British electrified lines and the French ones. It is almost a joke, is it not, that French trains rushing through the channel tunnel will not be able to proceed, as we are now informed, on our own southern lines? They will have to be drawn, perhaps, by diesel traction engines, but anyway that is hardly something to get too excited about, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may be tempted to do. I would think that, from our point of view, if any money were available to be spent on infrastructure it could best go first to the west coast main line and to the refurbishment of the London underground system, which is so near to collapse.
Amendment (a) to the Prime Minister's motion, in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, makes clear our belief that the deflationary criteria that are enshrined in the convergence provisions for economic and monetary union in the Maastricht treaty must now be abandoned as the only way of getting back on to the high road to expansion and creation of new jobs.
Our policy for Britain is to pursue a strategy to ensure —please mark these words—
"that all instruments of macro-economic management, whether it concerns interest rates, the exchange rate or the levels of borrowing, will be geared to sustain growth and rising employment".
I fully subscribe to those excellent words, which directly defy the provisions of the Maastricht treaty on the surrender of control by nation states of their interest rate and exchange rate policies, and which further directly repudiate the Maastricht treaty's propositions for reducing the so-called excess deficit to a mere 3 per cent. of GDP.
Those words are of course those used by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the TUC conference in September, 12 weeks ago, and reaffirmed in his speech to the Labour party conference in October, two months ago. I am delighted that he and I are now as one in our objections to the central doctrines of the Maastricht treaty.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor —I am sorry that he is not here—is to wind up the debate. I hope—I am sure that the House will wish me well in that hope—that he will give a resounding endorsement to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said to the TUC conference and to the Labour party conference.
Beyond that, and the use of those instruments of macroeconomic policy ourselves, I strongly recommend and urge that the other countries of Europe break with the restrictions of the Maastricht treaty and pursue sensible reflationary policies themselves.
6.26 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a shame that we shall not be able to vote on amendment (c). It would have been helpful to the House and to the public in general if we could have simply recorded the fact that the debate is pointless, worthless and useless, and can have no influence on determining developments in the wide range
534
of issues that are mentioned in the huge pile of documents. It is terribly important that people should realise that, in the House and outside.
I ask hon. Members, look at that huge pile of documents, dealing with vast expenditure! There is nothing that we can do and, no matter how we vote about anything, it is simply a waste of time. It might help the unemployed and those people who are suffering if we were to get across the simple message that no matter how they vote, no matter what they do, the power has gone. The second message that we have to get across—although it is sad to say so, when we have the always most courteous Foreign Secretary opening the debate—is that it is important that we start telling people the truth.
I heard, and all of us heard—and I am sure that he meant it—the Foreign Secretary say that we now have control of the funds; we are not going to have overspending; we cannot go across the budget. In Edinburgh, however—I have the letter here from the Agriculture Minister—even though there was a budget laid down for spending on agriculture which one could not exceed by a penny because the Foreign Secretary and civil servants would prevent us, in practice they agreed to exceed it by an extra £1 billion on the basis that that was a special reserve fund.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that half the problem with the CAP is that, although it is aimed at farmers, to help to sustain their income—that may be a laudable aim—60 per cent. of the money goes to the administration and only 40 per cent. reaches the farmers?
Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is so right. The CAP is totally wasteful and damaging to almost every interest. I find in my constituency, and I am sure that Treasury Ministers find in theirs, that poor people have to pay more and more for their water rates because vast sums are being spent on huge machines for taking out of the water the nitrates, pesticides, and all the other things that are thrown into the ground in order to produce more and more food. We have to spend a fortune on destroying or dumping those substances.
I was at Hanningfield recently, and I wish you had been there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see how the Essex water company—now privatised and French-owned—is spending millions of pounds on a new procedure for taking out pesticides. I asked, "Wouldn't it be better if we didn't have all those nasty nitrates and things in the ground in the first place?" I was told, "Of course." And it is the water rate payer who foots the bill.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) told people the facts of life, and he will accept that there is little point in saying to the voters. "Those nasty Tories are putting up your water rates; Labour will not do that," when we know what is really going on. Poor people are suffering and their burdens are increasing.
Secondly, it is sad to hear all the assurances being given to try to pacify us. For example, our courteous Foreign Secretary—with sincerity, doubtless—talked about all the things that were going wrong, with people breaking the rules, and told us that the Commission would now impose fines. I have been looking at the figures, and they are frightening. The Court of Auditors report is one of the big documents that I mentioned earlier, and it shows that, although millions of pounds have been levied in fines, only 10 per cent. of them have been collected. There is a great

535
new mechanism to sort everything out, supported with enthusiasm by the Liberal Democrats and designed, once again, by those clever Foreign Office civil servants to ensure that people do not do nasty things. Yet the fines are still to be paid; only 10 per cent. have been paid over many years.
Thirdly, we must watch carefully what is happening on the continent today. It is frightening, and I hope that: the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will answer one simple question. I have been horrified to see that the other European countries have been borrowing vaster and vaster sums of money. All of us, even those who do not have degrees in economics, know that that simply cannot go on, because there is a limited amount of money to lend—unless we start printing.
The whole message of Maastricht and of the EC is that one should not print money. Even the Leader of the House would stop us if we tried to print money in this country. Continental countries are borrowing huge sums of money this year and next. Germany is borrowing £57 billion, and we are told that France is borrowing £30 billion—although we know that that sum has now increased. Italy is borrowing £70 billion; and Belgium is the worst of all. Where will the money come from?
The Treasury in Britain is in good condition, because the currency is strong, so we are ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, the European countries will not be able to do that. I understand that some money can be borrowed domestically. In Britain about £22 billion can be obtained from the institutions. But much of the money has to come from other sources. Where will it come from?
I have been told by my friends who advise the insurance and banking firms of which I am a director that, basically, it is the Arabs and the Japanese who provide the cash. But the poor old Arabs are having a difficult time these days, because the price of oil has dropped like a stone, so they do not have so much to lend. The Japanese, too, have plenty of problems of their own, and are holding on to their money. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, because I fear that early next year, because so much money is being borrowed and there is a limited amount of money available for loan, there will be a sharp rise in interest rates on the continent. I realise that that may not happen—although I believe that all the conditions are in place—but if it does, what the blazes will we do about it?
There are now 17 million unemployed people on the continent. That is a horrendous figure. We can see the instability in Europe; it is shown by what has happened in Germany. We have seen the uncertainty and the attacks on minority groups there. In Italy—a delightful country—people voted for fascism or communism in the local government elections, not because they especially like those things but as a way of saying, "Please let us have a strong Government." With an unstable situation, and unemployment high and rising, if there is a sharp rise in interest rates, what on earth will we do about it? I fear that there is a horrible danger.
Our Ministers at the Treasury and the Foreign Office, or at least most of them—now that there has been one resignation things are much better—are decent, respectable, sincere people. But it worries me sick that we are deluding ourselves about what is happening. I have been worried about what happens to poor people and the unemployed in the EC ever since I came to the House. I have probably been considered a silly minority person,
536
putting forward a minority view, but it makes me sick to see people made unemployed unnecessarily because of the stupid exchange rate mechanism and all that came with it.
The facts are there and we all know what they are. It makes me angry to see poor people suffering because they have not got the money to pay their electricity bills or even to buy a light bulb when I know that, even according to the Foreign Secretary, all those people are paying an extra £28 a week for the stupid CAP. Think what a boost it would be to poor people in Britain if we could say, "You can have £28 extra a week—and an extra £3 a week for the cost of membership of the EC." I have been talking about such things for a long time.
I know that Britain is now more popular in the EC. That nice chap Boris Johnson, who writes for The Daily Telegraph, says that Britain is more accepted because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been
"disclosing his personal support for the goal of a single Euro-currency."
That may make him more popular in Brussels, but whether it does or not, please let us face up to the possibility that something nasty may happen. We must ask ourselves what we shall do if it does.
I am afraid that we British are comforting ourselves by saying that we are the best in Europe, but we all know that we are doing well economically not because we have a brilliant Government or a brilliant Opposition, but because we had the boost of getting out of the ERM. That made our currency and our interest rates drop like stones. It is rather like having an Australian uncle who sends one £1,000 to help with one's financial hardship—it makes one feel good for a while. But that is not happening on the continent. It does not help us or the people there if we take the attitude, "We are the best in Europe and we are doing terribly well."
Will the Minister say whether he thinks that I am right in any way to say that there may be a terrible problem with a sharp rise in interest rates on the continent next year? Will he tell me what we can do about that if it happens?
It is too late for Parliament to control the legislation. Maastricht has been passed, so to that extent our power is useless, but we must think, "What about the people?" What about the poor and the unemployed of Europe, who are now in a horrendous position? What shall we in Britain do if by chance things continue to get worse, and we have the social upheavals and misery that we have seen in Europe?
Conservatives must face the facts. We cannot go on kidding ourselves about the European People's party, and saying that we are not linked with it, and have nothing to do with it. We may say that although we all sit together and work together, we do not agree on anything, but everyone knows the score. There was a meeting in Athens in 1992. The Conservative Members of the European Parliament and the members of the European People's party were there, and a great document was drawn up to say that the EC should be given powers of taxation.
We should not bother about all the talk about federalism, because a federal Europe would be better than what we have now. I do not understand why Ministers keep saying that they will fight to the death to avoid a federal Europe. If we had a federal Europe, at least some things would belong to us. However, at some stage the Conservative party will have a real problem in deciding how to carry on with our stable mates—
Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend care to know that the congress of that great European People's party is meeting this afternoon? Furthermore, it appears that it may publish its manifesto tomorrow. It was not so long ago that Mr. Herman, the rapporteur of the Christian Democrats, published the European Parliament's working document on a new constitution which said that if we did not go along with it all we would be expelled. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is becoming an increasingly reasonable proposition, from some people's point of view?
Sir Teddy Taylor: All I am saying is that the Government and my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) does not agree. But he is a good guy. [Laughter.] I mean that sincerely; I am not trying to be funny.
It is crucial to stop pretending that people are stupid. We cannot go into the European elections and treat people as stupid by saying that we do not really have anything to do with the European People's party; the names of the candidates simply happen to be in the same box. It will not wash. Similarly, we should not think that people are stupid when we talk about the EC. They know what is happening to unemployment on the continent. They are not daft. They know what is happening to prices which they must pay unnecessarily. They are not stupid. They can see the damage that is being inflicted by the mad EC system of everything being based on artificial prices and more money being spent.
I have been a Member for a long time. The same thing happens every time we debate a treaty. Ministers say, "Do not worry—we will get tough with the nasty Euro-guys. We will kick Mr. Delors down the stairs. Everything will be sorted out." Sadly, it is continuing—more money, more power, more waste, more extravagance, less conservatism, less control for the people and more control for the bureaucrats.
This is a pointless, useless debate and all we can do is to express our views. The crucial point is that we must appreciate that something nasty will happen early next year. If we do not wake up to it, and if we do not treat people as adults and stop pretending that they are stupid, we will have a horrible democratic mess.
6.40 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Although I do not share the train of thought of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in these matters, I certainly respect his consistency and tenacity on the issue. I shall begin by congratulating him on making a pointed, useful contribution in what he described as a "pointless, useless debate". I say that although I do not necessarily agree with his prescriptions or preferences for what should happen.
I certainly share to a degree his analysis of what has happened in terms of what both he and I agreed during debate on the Maastricht treaty. Although we voted different ways on the legislation, we agreed that there should have been a referendum so that many of the issues could have been thrashed out in public halls up and down the country to a much greater extent than ever took place. Looking at what has happened subsequently, we also agree that more openness would have been appropriate.
I also agreed with the hon. Gentleman's description of the Foreign Secretary as being a man of great courtesy. That courtesy was on display again, but the Foreign
538
Secretary was a bit disingenuous when he switched his attentions to both Labour Members and Liberal Democrats early in his speech. I think that he realised that he was digging himself a hole because he abandoned that strategy and returned to his prepared text.
For the record, the Foreign Secretary was, in the time honoured phrase, quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) "entirely out of context". I have the text in front of me. The Foreign Secretary was quoting my right hon. Friend not simply out of context but in complete contradiction to his conclusion that there was an inescapable need for compromises and give and take at the European level. That is what any sensible pro-European people who believe we should remain within the institution of Europe would acknowledge.
The hon. Member for Southend, East put his finger on the central difficulty with his honest appraisal of the state of opinion in his party. The central difficulty for the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor is that they are both known to be enthusiastic pro-Europeans and they know that a substantial section of their parliamentary party does not share their view. They are constantly appealing to two audiences. They are trying to be pro-European and constructive, as they want to be, and at the same time they are trying to sound sufficiently Euro-sceptical and negative so as to placate and keep some semblance of unity on their side.
We are not daft. The hon. Member for Southend, East is right. We should treat the British like sensible adults and say that there can be differences within parties as well as across parties on the European issue, rather than try to pretend that the circle can for ever be squared. Of course, the Foreign Secretary must try to square the circle because he finished the previous Session with a great speech in which he said that we should draw three lines under his party's disunity. He was referring to Tory Members. We know that the circle will not be squared. The Minister and the Government know that that will not happen and there will always be a difference of opinion. It will be a difficulty for the governing party, not least in the run up to the European elections next year.
If I had to use a phrase to sum up the Foreign Secretary's demeanour today, it would be that in politics as in so many other things, "one can choose one's friends but one cannot choose one's family". I think that that is how he feels when he looks over his shoulder and sees what he must deal with as far as European politics and his party are concerned.
Maastricht was not the end of the matter. The Economic Secretary was the personification of that only last week when he steered the relevant orders and instruments through the House. Maastricht is only another staging post along the way. Indeed, it is simply the beginning of further aspects of integration and European development. Last week we were talking about the European investment fund and the European Investment Bank. Given that we are in the festive period of the year, it may be best to say that with Maastricht we planted the tree but we will see decorations and baubles being added to it as time goes by. [Interruption.] Although I did not hear the comment from a sedentary position, I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).
Some of us argued for the social chapter. Last week, in the short debate on European matters, it was acknowledged that we will get the social chapter through the European

539
institutions, even if we did not sign up for it, because it would be inconsistent for individuals in the European Community to be denied rights that they could get in the other 11 member states. In due course, much of the social chapter will come to Britain in a judicial way, which further reinforces the nonsense of what the game of mirrors over the past 12 months was all about.
At least we can take heart from the fact that more of a social and political dimension to Europe is developing. Last week, we heard about it with regard to the European investment fund. It was acknowledged that in due course the fund will be an instrument for regional intervention and will assist different regions in Europe. That is the way in which many of us would like to see Europe develop.
The intervention of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, was interesting and significant. He spoke about progress on subsidiarity since the passage of the Maastricht treaty and the repatriation of certain rights to member states. I have not heard the word "repatriation" used in terms of constitutional rights since the Canadians repatriated their constitution from the United Kingdom. In passing, I must say that many hon. Members, especially the Liberal Democrats, can take great heart from what happened to the Conservative Government in the Canadian general election under a first-past-the-post political system. We congratulate our fellow party in Canada.
"Repatriation" is not the right word to use in this respect. The correct word is "federalism" which is the other side of the coin of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is all about moving away from the supranational level at Brussels and giving the decision-making capability to member states and nation states such as Wales, Scotland and England and the regions of England. That is the way in which subsidiarity should develop.
We are not talking about repatriating rights that have disappeared to Brussels. It is only in so far as making federalism work in a sense which the rest of the continent understand—taking decisions close to communities and individuals that will be affected, rather than taking decisions centrally. In other words, subsidiarity does not stop when it crosses the English channel; it should diffuse throughout the United Kingdom as well.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened to the Conservatives in Canada. Does he acknowledge that the beneficiary of the defeat was Bloc Québécois? In terms of his advocacy of federalism, does he appreciate that the Canadian example is the best evidence of the breaking up of a federal system? Is he endorsing an argument against the federalism which he previously advocated?
Mr. Kennedy: Although I introduced the Canadian comparison, I do not want to go too far into it. Bloc Québécois represents less of a threat to the integrity of Canada than Parti Québécois did about 15 years ago when it also controlled provincial government. However, Bloc Québécois does not control provincial government at present and is unlikely to do so after the forthcoming elections.
What was more significant about the Canadian result—the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should be more concerned about this—was not simply Bloc Québécois but the emergence of the new party towards the
540
west of the country. That shows how a single party, which must fight geographically on more than one front, can be completely obliterated without too much of a collapse in its share of the vote under a first-past-the-post system. The Conservatives perhaps should be worried about that, not least one suspects in the context of next year's European elections with the Liberal Democrat, Labour and nationalist parties to worry about.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a wide-ranging debate, but I am not aware that Canada is part of the EC.
Mr. Kennedy: Even under the welter of documents, I have not seen an accession application. I make the point to stress that there is a clear difference, not just within the House, but between the Government and other Governments in Europe as to what federalism means. It is important, as the debate rages during the coming months, for those of us who argue for federalism as a decentralising force away from the political centre to get across that case.
The second point is not one of constitutional theory, but one of direct practice as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said earlier. The political leaders of the various countries and both sides of the House also were arguing during the debates on the Maastricht treaty about details which the electorates had difficulty in following. The arguments did not seem to be in touch with what the real priorities were.
There is no doubt that the burning political priority for the European institutions on a social level must be to tackle unemployment. It is quite clear that the President of the Commission has that firmly in his sights. The credibility of individual European leaders, as much as the credibility of the European Union, is at stake to the extent that unemployment can be effectively tackled.
Although I share the priority which the right hon. Gentleman gives to the matter, I do not share his profound scepticism about the ability of EC member states to tackle it in an effective way. It is significant that one of the more perceptive critiques of the Budget last week was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly hopes to be in a position where he can still meet most of the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty in 1996 or thereabouts, despite the fact that he has been somewhat negative about what President Delors says in that respect. That may depend on whether we make all the assumptions about the Budget—there is a lot in the Budget—and if we give every "if' the benefit of the doubt.
If one looks at the graphs of various European countries, the one which is way out of step and which is rising inexorably is that which relates to unemployment, and that must be given emphasis. Equally, the Foreign Secretary said, so must trade and not least GATT. I would enter a specific plea here. The subject has been mentioned in the debate in relation to the aircraft industry, and equally I mention it in relation to the oil sector. We want free trade internationally, but we want the single market to operate fairly without hidden subsidies or unfair competition within Europe. The Economic Secretary will be aware of the continuing anxiety within the United Kingdom about aspects of alleged—I can put it no stronger—unfair competition from other member states. The Commission must be rigorous in its efforts to police such matters. I hope that the British Government will take that message to the Council discussions this weekend.

541
Mentioned in the welter of documentation is the issue of enlargement and of the forthcoming accessions. There is still suspicion that part of the Government's thinking, and the reason for the emphasis that they put on widening the Community during the British presidency and beyond, is that that is a way of slowing down the pace of integration and the development of the Community.
The argument must be in contrast to what Baroness Thatcher would argue. She points at the former Yugoslavia and says, "There you are—Europe cannot work. Look at the tragedy." Surely the former Yugoslavia is proof that Europe must work in a more integrated way to prevent that kind of absolute tragedy taking place within Europe's sphere of influence and its perimeter of political activity. That means enlarging the Community and taking on more countries in as realistic a time scale as is possible, while allowing for the huge economic dislocation which some countries are experiencing in the transfer from former Communist dictatorships to what they now enjoy.
I hope that we will see during the coming period the building of a Europe which is not just about politicians or Parliaments, which have tended to be the dominant influences so far, but more about the peoples of Europe. That means a more decentralised and more open Europe. It looks for some of the written guarantees for individual citizens, which are absent from this country, to be achieved and applied from a European level downwards.
6.56 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) rightly said that this is a difficult debate because it compresses so many subjects. In fact, we are dealing with the whole question of our interests within the EC and the European Union because virtually every subject in the British political debate has a European dimension. We do in a sense rather confine the subject to an occasional debate, when we should broaden all our discussions to look at the European dimension. In that way, the House could look closely at what is happening, rather than trying to compartmentalise the EC and the European Union. That is simply no longer realistic.
Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Taylor: I am flattered that I have provoked an intervention already.
Mr. Jenkin: I challenge my hon. Friend to try to raise Europe in every debate about every subject. He would quickly find that he incurs the disinterest of a great number of his colleagues. Is not that part of the problem with the debate?
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has his own views. However, if he reflects carefully and quietly later this evening, he will be quite embarrassed by that intervention. The point I made was that, in the interests of our constituents, there are many aspects which cannot be simply resolved by debates which are confined to narrow British politics. We cannot resolve our economic or environmental problems if we look only at the United Kingdom. I will not take up the time of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend now better understands the point that I was making.
542
I welcome the Commission's report, and it is an extremely timely move. Perhaps it would have been more timely had it come out a week earlier, which would have given the House more time in which to read it. That does not change the fact that the Commission is doing the job that it was asked to do by the European Council Heads of State in the summer. It has tried to do a job that focuses on some of the real problems to which many colleagues have referred.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He and I may not always agree on some conclusions, but there is no doubt that he has been a great champion of the examination of the European Community.
In the Community White Paper, some of the great difficulties that face us are examined. I repeat that those problems cannot be solved by any one nation alone. We cannot solve the problem of unemployment if the way of creating jobs depends on exporting to other members of the Community, let alone the world. I will leave the GATT talks aside as they are up in the air at the moment and colleagues may want to refer to them.
If one looks at two of the charts which follow page 42 in the White Paper, one may see the size of the problem of rising unemployment. The charts show rising unemployment in Europe in relation to unemployment in the United States and in Japan, and also the problems that the European Community is having in creating jobs. During the past 10 years, more jobs have been created in the public sector in the EC than in the private sector. That compares worryingly with the rate of job creation in the United States and Japan in the private sector. The problem of the EC pricing itself out of jobs is also dealt with, and that is an issue which simply cannot be ignored.
That is clearly shown in the charts contained in the Government's presentation to the Commission regarding the growth, competitiveness and employment in the EC. The document was prepared and dated from 30 July, and some of its charts are extremely worrying. For example, the table showing the rise in unit labour costs in manufacturing for the period 1980–92 illustrates the Community's difficult problems in relation to our main competitor blocs, the United States and Japan. Those are warning statistics. The question is not whether Community institutions have caused the problems but how we can influence debate in the EC so that those institutions can help us to find some solutions. Too often in the House we appear to blame the Commission, as was apparent during the debates on the Maastricht treaty. We all know our institutional structures and are aware that the Commission should not alone be blamed, because it is answerable to the Council and can be questioned by the European Parliament.
First, we must determine the Commission's remit and, secondly, we must discover how effective our Conservative Government are in arguing their corner in the Community. In recent years, one of the Government's great victories was the internal market. There is no question but that many of the other countries found our concept of an internal market, with its unrestricted movement of capital, goods and services, very difficult. They were instinctively more protectionist, but, remarkably, we won the intellectual argument and the Commission carried it through. I pay tribute to the

543
Commission and to Jacques Delors, interestingly, for carrying through the process of the internal market in which, as good Conservatives, we strongly believe.
Until quite recently, the Government failed to understand some of the implications of the single market and to realise that we had to enter debate in some of the other areas as well. To an extent, we were confused by the nomenclature that was current in the Community about the social dimension and the social chapter. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have also been confused about that. In that sense, it is not social, because employment, labour costs and structures are the real focus of many of the measures under that heading. For some months, we have been engaged in that debate and once again we are beginning to win the argument.
It was clear from his reply to my intervention that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who speaks on foreign affairs for the Labour party, had not understood how the Community had changed in terms of Labour's arguments. I shall shortly come to the Commission paper. In my intervention, I quoted the German Federal Government whose submission is full of headings and items which clearly show the worries in Germany about the rise in non-wage costs and the lack of competitiveness of German industry vis-a-vis not only those countries closest to it, such as the Czech Republic where labour costs are between a sixth and a tenth of those in Germany, but with other countries including America where several German car manufacturers are now putting plants. That means a net export of jobs from the Community.
Mr. Allan Rogers: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, my right hon. Friend drew his attention to the fact that the potential increase in employment costs about which the Germans complain has already come to pass in this country. The Government are increasing national insurance contributions and other charges next week, and the hon. Gentleman voted for that. Employment costs in this country are going up: the hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. He said that he wanted to separate social costs and employment costs. The Government are putting up employment costs by more than any other European Government. The hon. Gentleman speaks about the social chapter or contract. He should remember that eight out of 12 countries in Europe have Conservative or Conservative coalition-led Governments.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's intervention suffered from length, as did mine. In this country, the trend for statutory labour charges is downwards. Pages 166 and 167 of the Commission report contain tables, but, as the document is on the record, I need not read them out. The hon. Gentleman misses the point about Budget measures. There has been no increase in industry's labour costs because various Budget adjustments have compensated industry for movements in basic costs. National insurance contributions for employees may well go up, but that touches taxation policy.
I was referring, as were the German Government, to the non-wage costs to industry of employing labour. By way of a quote, I shall give another example of the way that other countries are looking, in the way that the Budget has done, at the social security burdens:
544
"The social security mechanisms, especially retirement schemes must be adjusted to such trends in good times so as to avoid undue burdens on enterprises, the workforce and beneficiaries."
That could have been taken from last week's Budget, but it is taken from the German Federal Government's presentation to the Commission.
Those arguments are now being understood. Not long ago, it was believed that, somehow, international competition could be ignored and non-wage costs could be loaded on employment. That is no longer true, and that has certainly been realised by the French Government, although their process of change is slower than one might have anticipated since the centre right took over.
Those features are succinctly pulled together in a document entitled "Beating the Crisis: the Message in brief' issued by the European Round Table of Industrialists. That document was quoted earlier, and it states:
"Labour costs are the single major cause of falling competitiveness and rising unemployment. Work is there, but not at these prices."
I urge hon. Members to read that document because it shows industrialists' concern about the social and economic effects of unemployment and proposes ways to bring about change.
It is significant that not only the German Government but our Government and others have come together to influence the Commission in its report. Of course, some items in the report cause concern, and we as Conservatives may feel less comfortable about them than Labour Members. However, the Commission is right to present its proposals about how Europe as a whole can get out of the terrible mess of unemployment of about 17 million to 20 million when there is unlikely to be a take-up of the unemployed as the Community begins to expand again, however slowly. That is simply because of changing work practices and technology. Therefore, we have to concentrate encouragement on wealth creation and smaller businesses.
If we had a longer debate we could evaluate many ideas. The industry charter presented by industrialists is extremely good for concentrating attention on what can enable industry in the EC to expand again and be competitive. We should concentrate closely, as does the Commission, on cost per unit of output. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has said, every measure advanced by the Commission should have a competitiveness audit. That would be reinforced by the business men's call for a competitiveness council.
All those topics coming together show that at last the debate is spreading across the Community to find grounds on which we can create jobs by creating wealth and, once again, industrial competitiveness. That is a welcome sign. My message to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as he goes to the Council this weekend is, "Let us support collective action within the Community because it is important for our people to see the European Community as part of the solution of the problems that afflict us, and not solely as part of the cause."
If we can do that, we can reinspire people about the importance of the Community and about the way in which it can contribute to the well-being and protection of the interests of British people. It will also give people a much wider vision of how a strong economic Community can help those further to the east who are experiencing difficult days after their freedom from communism. We cannot do

545
that if we are introverted; nor can we do it if we are uncompetitive, thus failing to create wealth and jobs in the Community itself.
7.9 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: I will not follow the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), because he was merely an apologist for the EC's failures. When I made up my mind to try to catch your eye in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I collected the relevant documentation from the Vote Office. I was handed a stack of documents a foot high, and thought to myself that whatever other merits the EC might have, it is certainly good at paperwork. I cannot claim to have read all those documents from cover to cover, but I readily gleaned that the EC's principal issue and overriding factor is its terrible unemployment.
Unemployment in the EC is well over 17 million and hovering close to 20 million, and it seems that the bubble of expansion has well and truly burst. The introduction to the report, "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the European Community", published by the Department of Employment on 30 July and submitted to the EC, states:
"There has been an upward trend in EC unemployment from cycle to cycle since the late 1960s and an increasing proportion of long-term unemployed people."
In 1991, long-term unemployment accounted for 45 per cent. of total unemployment and that upward trend is continuing. The EC's alarming figure of 45 per cent. compares with 18 per cent. for Japan and only 6 per cent. for the United States, and it points down the road of no hope for many unemployed—particularly youngsters, so many of whom have no stake in society. Is it any wonder that they turn to crime when they should be paying taxes and meeting their social obligations?
Yesterday's Financial Times reported that Mr. Delors is calling for infrastructure investment. The Commission's paper on growth, competitiveness and employment talks of creating 15 million new jobs by the year 2000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), whose expertise I hold in the highest possible regard, says that that plan is wholly incompatible with the deflationary criteria enshrined in the Maastricht treaty, and I tend to go along with that argument.
The need for infrastructure investment goes without saying. In the years that I have lived in London, I have witnessed the steady deterioration of London Underground, exemplified by power failures and the general grubbiness of its facilities. Failure to invest in British Rail has brought the neglect of rolling stock, track and even safety. The same applies to other forms of public transport. Investment in years gone by would have helped to ease congestion on our overcrowded roads.
The finance to do that was available to the Government, who enjoyed vast revenues from North sea oil. No Government in the history of this country have ever received such largesse. They also enjoyed the receipts from the sale of public enterprises. A large part of that money should have been invested in our infrastructure instead of being given away in tax concessions to the better-off in our society.
Wales, which has long experience of unemployment, could certainly do with some of the infrastructure investment suggested by Mr. Delors. The construction
546
industry could play a major part in reducing unemployment. Housing and all manner of public works are needed throughout the country. In recent years, the Welsh coal industry has been almost wiped out, bringing hardship to families and communities. Likewise, a decade ago there were thousands of redundancies in the Welsh steel industry—although we managed to retain the two main strip mills in south Wales, at Port Talbot and at Llanwern, which is the cornerstone of Newport's economy.
Fortunately, new industries and enterprises have been attracted to Wales, but many of the new jobs that they create go to women. I am not criticising women who work, for that is a matter of individual choice and circumstances. However, it cannot be denied that male unemployment far exceeds that of women. I was vividly reminded of that fact the other evening, when I was driven home by a friend after attending a function in my constituency. We passed a large biscuit factory and saw dozens of cars turning and revving up outside. My colleague explained that we were seeing men picking up their wives at the end of the shift. That experience was a sign of the times.
Wales still has a lean and efficient steel industry which can compete in world markets—provided that there is a level playing field. There is unease among steel workers at present because Germany, Spain and particularly Italy are failing fully to participate in the planned reduction of EC steel capacity and in the abolition of subsidies.
Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the anxiety felt by steel workers. He is, of course, deeply concerned about the perceived threat to south Wales, but is he aware that in my own area a superior works is now out of production because of unfair practices in Spain and Germany, supported by those countries' Administrations?
Mr. Hughes: It is a national problem, and I used the example of south Wales because I am, of course, familiar with it.
The latest cause for concern is an incident involving an Italian company, Arc-Sipra, which manufactures corrugated steel products used in road building and infrastructure projects. Mr. Keith Brookman, the general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, and the Welsh officer of that union, Mr. Brian Connelly, have been in touch with me alleging that that Italian company is applying to be placed on the Department of Transport's approved list of suppliers. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Transport about that issue a few days ago and all I have received today is a holding answer.
That firm is 50 per cent. owned by the Italian state steel company, Ilva and the other 50 per cent. is owned by a private company called Abate. The Italian state steel company has current debts approaching £8 billion which the Italian Government are seeking to write off. Our steel trade union has experience of the company Arc-Sipra selling in France at absurdly low prices. That can be done only through the firm obtaining feedstock from Ilva at prices which reflect its huge losses.
If Arc-Sipra is allowed to go on the approved list, it could seriously affect British firms producing corrugated steel, particularly one in my constituency known as Asset International. Also, primary steel works such as Llanwern and Port Talbot, which supply the raw material, could also

547
see their orders cut. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, the same problem applies throughout the British steel industry.
That anxiety hangs over our steel industry. On 29 October, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) tabled a parliamentary question. He asked for a statement on the future of the iron and steel readaptation benefit. The Minister for Industry replied:
"The scheme was set up in 1974 since when many improvements have been made to the arrangements for helping unemployed people. ISERBS is not very effective in assisting redundant steel workers to re-enter the labour market and has not proved good value for money. Further large-scale restructuring in the United Kingdom steel industry is no longer anticipated. Redundant steel workers should henceforth be treated in the same way as most other redundant workers. ISERBS will therefore be terminated."—[Official Report, 29 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 804.]
I hope, in the interests of steel workers, that that decision is not premature.
It is one thing to talk about a single market, but the rules and provisions relating to it must be implemented and enforced consistently throughout the Community. There is certainly a need for some rigid enforcement in respect of the steel industry.
On page 40, paragraph 9.11 of the document on emphasis and development in the EC from January to June 1993, the Government point out the need to put pressure on Italy, Germany and Spain to bring them into line. If that is not done, our domestic steel industry will once again be in jeopardy.
7.24 pm
Mr. Barry Legg: This afternoon we heard an eloquent speech from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Once again, he put the case that we are winning the argument and winning friends in Europe. I know that my right hon. Friend is an eloquent statesman, but I doubt the power of persuasion and oratory. Very few people, no matter how open-minded they are, are swayed by speeches, rhetoric or even a well-argued case. In the lead up to the second world war, Churchill argued eloquently the case against German aggrandisement, but it was events rather than the eloquence of his case which won the day.
Europe is currently an economic black spot. For a Conservative Member, the most encouraging thing is that events and markets are moving against the Delors concept of economics. Global markets are making considerable changes in the balance of economic power. Britain has traditionally believed in free and open markets and the developments in the world economy are reinforcing the wisdom of that view.
In the United Kingdom, there was a great deal of debate and argument about our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I believe that, during our membership, very few people were swayed by arguments or were converted either way. In the end, markets intervened. Once that happened, many converts appeared. They suddenly realised that the exchange rate mechanism was not workable. Suddenly, it was obvious that it was full of fault lines and we united behind a new economic policy, at the centre of which was a floating currency.
The effect of that on the United Kingdom economy and on confidence has been quite dramatic. Earlier this week
548
during the debate on the Budget, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade highlighted the changes. He said:
"Productivity in the third quarter of 1993 was almost 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Industrial production is rising in the United Kingdom but falling in Germany, Japan, France and Italy.
Unemployment has fallen by 137,200 since January. Exports are 3·5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. We have reduced our spending plans by £10 billion compared with those of the March Budget. Public expenditure is expected to fall as a share of national income, with the Budget returning to balance in the second half of the decade."—[Official Report, 7 December 1993;Vol. 234, c. 146.]
That is quite a transformation in our economic fortunes from a year earlier.
Some argue that recovery started before we left the ERM. There may have been some bumping along the bottom, but one of the best indicators of recovery is the performance of the stock market. Its performance is part of the Government's statistics in identifying lead indicators. Since we left the ERM, the London equity market has risen by 50 per cent. That must be a reflection by the markets of what the current economic prospects are for British companies. It is quite a marked change. We now have low interest rates, low inflation, public expenditure coming under control, growing exports, and a floating currency; and we should, over the coming years, achieve above-trend growth.
The countries that remained wedded to the mechanism and the concept of convergence—about which we hear so much—are mired in recession. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has rejected much of the Delors spending package. I have not had a chance to analyse the costs involved, but I read in this morning's papers that the cost of the proposals, over a timescale, will be some £95 billion.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the more invidious points in Delors' recommendation is the off balance sheet funding that has crept in? Does he recall that at the height of the boom in 1986–87, a large number of companies indulged in that type of funding, which made the consequences of financial collapse much greater?
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend anticipated my next point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is setting out a programme to, in his words, deal with the problem of public borrowing once and for all. If he had signed up to the Delors' package, it would have been like some private sector finance director telling his shareholders at the annual general meeting that he had a plan to reduce gearing over five years, and then going straight round to the bank to arrange some off balance sheet finance. It would have been totally irresponsible to sign up to the package, and I welcome his decision not to do so.
I believe that the free-market philosophy of Britain will yield substantial benefits in the coming years. That success will strengthen our negotiating position and our ability to argue Britain's economic case in Europe.
The German economic miracle is over. High social costs cannot for ever be piled on top of each other, irrespective of developments in global markets. Many German business men are realising that and relocating their industries outside the European Community, either to

549
eastern Europe or to the United States. The markets are working in favour of our argument about how a free market should develop.
Regrettably, on page 6 of the White Paper, we find that economic and monetary union is still the direction in which the Commission wishes to drive the nation states of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in an article in The Economist, on 25 September, dealt with the issue very effectively. All Conservative Members should be able to embrace his words:
"I hope my fellow heads of Government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union as if nothing had changed."
Eminently sensible words, but, regrettably, his fellow Heads of Government did just the opposite and recited the mantra of full economic and monetary union when they met some six weeks later. That is set out in the presidency conclusions of the meeting of 29 October.
Mr. Gill: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. He is a successful business man who has come into politics. In business, he would expect to be proactive; now he is frustrated because we only react in politics when the chips are down and there is nowhere else to go.
I share his frustration that the arguments still do not win. When we came off the gold standard in September 1931, interest rates were 6 per cent. and within a few weeks were reduced to 2 per cent. Exactly the same thing happened when we were kicked out of the exchange rate mechanism in September 1992. Interest rates on the afternoon of that day had been 15 per cent.; within three months they were 6 per cent. Why is it that politicians and Governments cannot learn from those clearly demonstrated lessons of history?
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. One of the problems that politicians have in learning those lessons is that all too often it involves some eating of words. Churchill said that there were many times when he had to eat his words and that he always found them most nourishing. That attitude should be adopted by many politicians; they would be much more successful if they did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out the benefits that we gained immediately we left the exchange rate mechanism. Regrettably, our partners in France have not taken the same opportunity and are still wedded to the mantra of economic and monetary union. Stage one of economic and monetary union has been an economic disaster. It resulted in attempts to defy the markets and to set interest rates that are inappropriate to domestic conditions. The consequences have been recession and unemployment, about which Opposition Members are so concerned.
Those are the lessons of stage one, and we are now headed towards stage two. Stage one ends on 31 December and on 1 January we commence stage two. The principle of pegging the currencies of medium-sized powers does not work. It does not create economic stability and does not get rid of inflation.
That lesson has not yet been learnt, and far too many hon. Members—despite the realities of the outside world —will say, "Oh well, we went in at the wrong time and at the wrong rate. If only we could have got those things right, the system would have worked." From my experience as a
550
business man, politicians will never find the right time and rate for currencies. That role is performed by the interchange and interaction of markets. I urge politicians to set aside their desire to find the right times and rates for currencies.
Currency flexibility is helpful to economies and provides a safety valve against economic shocks. It is surprising that the Government decided to enter the exchange rate mechanism following German reunification and the rate of conversion between the ostmark and the deutschmark had been settled. Retrospectively, many politicians now say that the problems of our membership resulted from the shock of inappropriate conversion rates between the ostmark and the deutschmark—that it was the wrong rate and that it harmed the system.
Mr. Cash: Looking back to the days when we went into the ERM, we must recognise that intolerable pressures were being brought to bear on the Government to drive us into it. Some of us did go along with it, but issued the direst warning that we would eventually end up getting on to the devil's bandwagon, which is exactly what happened.
Mr. Legg: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable comments. The point is that politicians are not able to recognise significant economic shocks even after they have happened, so how can they hope to get timing and rates right.
Mr. Ian Taylor: May I redress the balance, as one who was—and still is—a believer in stable exchange rates within the Community? Our entry into the ERM was intended as an extra plank in our anti-inflation policy. Once we had joined, the downward convergence of United Kingdom interest rates towards the German rate, in relation to the premium required for sterling as opposed to the deutschmark in the interest-rate market, represented a very satisfactory beginning.
Mr. Legg: Again, we hear a politician trying to change the evidence or the facts. Joining the ERM at that stage did not help our anti-inflation policy. We had suffered as a result of our attempts to shadow the deutschmark in the lead-up to the decision; we had suffered as a result of lowering our interest rates to try to keep down our exchange rate against the deutschmark. That helped to stoke up inflation. When we finally decided to enter the ERM, we did so at a time when the Bundesbank—quite rightly, for domestic economic reasons—was operating a policy of bearing down on inflation to deal with the excess issue of money that had taken place at the time of unification. We then adopted the interest rates of a country that was trying to stop inflation, having already dealt with it here by raising our rates to 15 per cent. That mistiming damaged both businesses and employment.
Mr. Jenkin: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I take the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) in vain. Were we not told, however, that if we left the ERM our interest rates could never become lower than the deutschmark-based rate? Is it not a key fact that, the minute we left, we were able to introduce substantially lower rates, and have continued to operate them since then? Does that not prove that we can run our own monetary policy independently?
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for

551
Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) advanced that argument in July 1992, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—although he has told us subsequently that he did not believe what he was saying at the time. That is probably another argument in favour of relying on the markets rather than the words of politicians.
We have heard much about the so-called merits of convergence today. We need to consider what convergence is really about. It is not about a group of statesmen sitting down to decide what are the most prudent economic policies for individual nation states to pursue in Europe; anyone seeking prudent financial policies would come up with many differences from the convergence criteria.
Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend may wish to consider how successful this country has been in achieving convergence within the United Kingdom over the many years for which it has existed—and, indeed, the large sums that have been transferred from the richer region to the poorer.
Mr. Legg: I shall deal with that point later in my speech.
As I was saying, convergence is not about a group of politicians trying to come up with abstract, prudent financial criteria. The aim of the convergence criteria is to achieve economic and monetary union. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) nods. I respect his views, knowing that he understands the Maastricht treaty and supports those objectives; unfortunately, some hon. Members are not as clear on the matter as he is.
The objective, then, is economic and monetary union. Behind that objective must lie political union; a political authority must be there to decide the interest rate for the whole of Europe—perhaps from Greece to the Arctic circle, in the event of enlargement—and to decide budgetary policy for the whole of Europe. The impetus behind economic and monetary union is clearly political.
I think that it is unlikely that the ERM will be resurrected, despite the best efforts of politicians. Markets have expelled currencies from the system and I do not think that the politicians will succeed in putting it all back together. However, the concept of economic and monetary union has not been abandoned: many people, both in the House of Commons and across continental Europe, still seem to be wedded to that concept.
What, then, is the likely scenario, given that some hon. Members believe that economic and monetary union is such a good thing? It is possible that, at some future stage, if politicians feel that the European economies have moved closer together, they may decide that an overnight move to a single currency would be beneficial to Europe as a whole. No doubt they will argue that trading relationships are very close, and that the time has therefore come for a single currency. Some of us believe that that would mean the end of the nation state as we in the United Kingdom have understood it, because the ability to make basic economic decisions would be removed. Other hon. Members, however, may say that, although a single currency would represent a profound constitutional change, it is economically necessary and will produce benefits.
I believe that, even if that argument is advanced, a single currency and economic and monetary union should be rejected. I do not believe that the ultimate economic union, with a single currency, is compatible with the basic philosophies espoused by Conservative Members. It would remove the safety valve of the currency; there would not be
552
the opportunities for mass migration that have enabled the United States to cope with economic developments; there would not even be the opportunities for the population movements that have taken place in the United Kingdom. Instead, economic disparities across Europe would increase. Prosperity would not develop evenly; massive transfer payments would have to be made across the regions. Even in a nation as united and economically coherent as the United Kingdom, with a single currency it has never been possible to abolish regional transfer payments. I am sure that Opposition Members would argue long and hard for such payments.
The pressures would be irresistible. We would have high subsidies—and, as all Conservative Members know, high subsidies lead to high taxes. We would not have a successful European economy. The importance of Europe, as an investment destination for the rest of the world, would decline; and I believe that it would continue to lose its share of world trade. I cannot envisage a successful economic scenario following economic and monetary union.
Conservative Members must continue to argue the case for free markets, liberal economic policies and the vital importance of competition between nation states. We shall never create a completely level playing field across Europe. That is impossible. There must be a role for nation states competing among themselves. That is the strategy and philosophy that we must enunciate here, and also when we come to the European elections.
I consider that the time has come to reject the whole mantra of economic and monetary union.
7.49 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: For the past 25 minutes I have been wondering whether I have been listening to the main debate or a debate within a debate, almost as though I were listening to a cameo of a Shakespeare play. We have seen the Euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative party playing a game among themselves —the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) having a particular point of view, and his friends intervening to egg him on.
The trouble is that the arguments that were made by that wing of the Conservative party have passed them by. They lost that argument. They lost the votes. The hon. Gentleman believes that he has won the argument, but I can tell him that he has lost it. We are moving on in a totally different way.
In coming to the debate, I am afraid that many of us felt that we might be resurrecting the Maastricht trenches and that we would be going backwards, not forwards. Conservative Members have the same difficulty as many people in the countries of Britain have: that all the arguments about European integration and progress in the European Union are negative.
The arguments are negative because we fail through institutions in this place to have positive arguments and to understand what has been happening in Europe. Why was there the need to create the European Union? After the second world war, why was there the need for the peoples of Europe to come together? It is by working together that we solve the great problems of our age.
I did some research for the debate. I found that one of the most interesting speeches leading up to the creation of the European Community was made by Winston Churchill

553
in Zurich in 1946. He foresaw the kind of debate that we are having today. Lady Thatcher called him in aid in some of her arguments in this place. The reality, however, was that, in 1946, albeit in opposition, Winston Churchill saw the need for Europe to come together and described it as a United States of Europe. The trouble was that the Conservative party could never buy that in government. He could say that in opposition, but when he led the Conservative Government in 1950, the establishment would not have it. He could not go that far. It took another 20 years for the House to accept accession to the European Community in 1972.
Mr. Jenkin: Can the hon. Gentleman point to the part of the text in Winston Churchill's speech in which he says that Britain should be part of a federal Europe?
Mr. Jones: I do not have the text of the speech with me, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, on three occasions —the hon. Gentleman can go to the Library and look for himself—in that short text, Winston Churchill referred to a kind of United States of Europe. The European Community had not been created in 1946. Nobody had mentioned the word "federalism" in 1946, but Winston Churchill understood the need for Europe to come together.
Some Labour Members hold the same views as Conservative Euro-sceptics. The problem in Britain is that the divide on Europe is so deep that the people of Britain cannot be allowed to understand the positive arguments in favour of closer integration.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No. I am sorry. There is little time and many hon. Members wish to speak.
Having taken some time to tell the House that we must become more positive in our attitude to Europe, I shall concentrate on my next point. It is time for us to have openness and honesty about what European integration means. We must be clear about that. Although I disagree fundamentally with the analysis of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), he was absolutely right when he said that we must be clear, open and honest.
Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No. I am sorry.
European integration means that if decisions are removed from the House of Commons and go to the European stage, sovereignty in Parliament will be diminished. We should not despair about that, because if one understands the nature of sovereignty in modern Europe, one will know that decisions are taken at different levels. That is what subsidiarity is trying to tell us about.
Subsidiarity means that there is a European level where decisions are made and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) mentioned a number of matters that have to be taken on the European stage. How can we hope to understand the problems in our environment unless we understand the need for European and worldwide co-operation on environmental matters? How can we begin to understand the need for a proper energy policy if we do not understand the need to have a European approach to that?
554
There are levels at which we can take decisions in other places. The problem with subsidiarity so far as the British system of politics is concerned is that it cannot accept that decisions can sometimes take place below the level of member states. If one reads the document on subsidiarity contained in the foot-high pile that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) mentioned one sees that it mentions the need for the Community to accept that there are levels, below the levels of member states, at which decisions can be taken. There is the European level, the member state level, the regional level and the local authority level.
The problem within the British system is that no regional level is available. Therefore, the Birmingham declaration was clearly designed to save the British embarrassment about not having a regional level. It said that subsidiarity means that certain matters are decided at a European level and on other matters it is up to the member state to decide.
Another problem is that all the modern European democracies have a regional level. We shall see the problems that that causes to Britain's representatives when they attend the Committee of the Regions in Brussels in January. On the one hand, there will be the president of Catalonia, the president of the Basque region and the presidents of the German Lander, and on the other there will be local authority representatives of the United Kingdom.
The danger is that because we do not have a regional level, and because there is such a massive democratic deficit in the United Kingdom, the regional representatives in the Committee will have much more influence and power than the local authority representatives from the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to accept the need for the regional dimension in politics in Britain. We have heard that from the Liberal Democrats and I am sure that we shall hear it from the Labour Benches.
It is crucial that we meet the issue head on, because if the people of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other parts of England are to play a full part in the Europe of tomorrow, we must have representation at regional level with Parliaments in Wales and Scotland and assemblies in England and Northern Ireland so that we can have a direct input in Europe.
Mr. Gill: The whole House will not be unaware of the support that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) was able to give to the Conservative Government during the passage of the Maastricht treaty. Is not there a great irony in a situation in which he, with his avowedly nationalistic intentions and ambitions, is siding with the party of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Jones: Let me make it perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman that I supported the Maastricht treaty because I believed that that was the way in which we could move towards European integration. It happened to be that the Conservative party and many colleagues in the Labour party and Liberal Democrat party agreed with us. That was why we went through the Lobby together, to support the ideas and the principle. It is by supporting that that our kind of nationalism can best be described. We do not favour separatism and the building of borders. I do not want to see frontier posts on the A55 near Shotton or on the M4 near the Severn crossing. I accept the principle enshrined in the Single European Act of breaking down trade barriers. That

555
is the kind of Europe that I want to see—a free Europe, but one which accepts the diversity of different languages, cultures and perspectives. That is why I supported the Maastricht treaty and I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that.
Another vital part of the debate that has been touched on by many hon. Members is the European White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment. I share the view that many hon. Members have expressed that because we had the document late in the day it has been difficult to make a proper analysis of the needs of economies in Britain.
But we share some aspects of the vision in the White Paper on jobs because we in Wales have suffered historically high rates of unemployment, far higher than many other parts of the United Kingdom. There are aspects of the report that we would accept. First, we need proper investment in a pan-European transport network.
When I argued that point during the Maastricht debates, many Conservative Members said that it was nonsense to invest in infrastructure projects. But if we in Wales, on the periphery of Britain and on the periphery of the European Community, are to compete in the single market, which I support, it is essential that we have the same opportunity to compete as other parts of Britain and other parts of the Community.
I concede that the great danger is that the core of the European Community will become extremely wealthy at the expense of the periphery. If we are to compete, we need proper road, rail and air links. I fully subscribe to the view contained in the White Paper that we should have transport infrastructure projects. That will do two things. In the short term, it will create jobs because people will be employed building roads, improving rail links and so on. It will also make our economy on the periphery much more competitive.
Some of the documents prepared by the Government show that about 10 per cent. of structural funds will be spent on Community initiatives. That is a good thing. Some Community initiatives aimed at improving, for example, transport infrastructure between regions such as Wales and Ireland are crucial if we are to succeed economically. We in west Wales have a fragile economic base. Links between the western seaboard of Wales and the east coast of Ireland could be improved, not only transport links but telecommunications, tourism and energy conservation—all of which are valuable. That is why the Government would be wrong to argue against some of the interventionist principles in the White Paper.
Every time I meet Conservative party members in Wales they point out to me the success of Lord Walker and the current Secretary of State for Employment as Secretary of State for Wales as a result of their interventionist policies. They came to Wales to establish a partnership between the public and private sectors. I did not agree with all the policies that they pursued. There were ideological differences between us. They did not come from the same political tradition as I did, but at least they subscribed to the view that there needs to be a proper partnership between the public and private sectors.
All that I would say to the Government is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot point to the success of the Secretary of State for Wales in using public money to stimulate the Welsh economy and at the same time go to Europe and say that there should be no public investment. The Government should ensure that the public and private
556
sectors, coming together in partnership, have a vital role to play in stimulating economic recovery in Wales. That is the message that I hope the Government will take to the European Council at the end of the week.
8.4 pm
Mr. William Cash: The problem that we face in the aftermath of the Maastricht debates is simply that the Government and the country now have to justify the signing of a document, the provisions of which have given rise to the White Paper that the Government are now rejecting.
One of the problems that we are up against is that article 103, which gives rise to the economic strategy guidelines —I shall come to defence and policy guidelines in a moment—gives Mr. Delors and others the opportunity to come forward with their socialist programme, which Opposition Members are only too delighted should be brought forward, but which we, unfortunately, have to reject. But for the fact that we had allowed the treaty to go through in the first place, we would not be placed in this dilemma.
The same applies to the article written by the Prime Minister which appeared in The Economist on 25 September 1993. I agreed with much of what he said in that article, but the problem is that a few weeks later we had the summit and the presidency conclusions which are extremely difficulty to relate to that article.
We now have another summit coming up tomorrow and I am bound to ask whether, when pressures are brought to bear in discussions over the next few days, we shall move yet further down this apparently inexorable route which has been prescribed under the treaty that we signed so recently.
I voted for the European economic area and for the single market in 1986. In 1975 I voted that we should stay in the Community. But, most emphatically, I do not believe in the kind of policies that are now permeating the Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said, we must consider whether our domestic policies have been sufficiently permeated by the European dimension for us to require, as I am sure all permanent secretaries do now as a first priority when devising legislation, the question to be asked: are we allowed to do this?
If a sense of defeatism has permeated our political environment during the past year or so, is that not partly because we have relinquished control over our affairs to far too great an extent? That is why I agree so much with the sentiments, but not the conclusions, of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
I am an optimist. I believe that we shall manage to pull this back and I sincerely hope that the Government will find the will to say the right things at the summit and, if necessary, to issue a separate communiqué. There is nothing negative in setting out the territory that has already been set out with respect, for example, to our professed opt-outs for economic and monetary union and the social chapter. There are, as we know, problems in implementation. We shall have difficulty in remaining at the heart of Europe if, as suggested by the summit that took place a few weeks ago, those objectives are re-endorsed and we sign up to the presidency conclusions. When the conclusions of the summit are produced, I suggest that we issue a separate

557
communiqué—I hope that we do not need to do so—because there is a point at which it is essential that we learn to say no at the right time and mean it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) summed up the exchange rate mechanism and gave us a superb analysis of the position. He dealt with the question of whether the recovery was running before we came out of the ERM. I have no doubt whatever that the arguments suggesting that we had are at best technical and at worst bogus. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the stock market has risen by some 50 per cent. since then and, in addition, on an entire range of criteria, it is perfectly clear that the recovery had not begun before we left the ERM. For example, the improvement in gross domestic product in the second and third quarters of 1992 was due to a temporary boost in consumer spending immediately after the general election and the end of de-stocking. It was not until the fourth quarter of 1992 that non-oil GDP at factor cost ceased to show a decline on the previous year. Manufacturing industrial output registered increases only from September 1992 and unemployment began to fall four months after our departure from the mechanism. In September 1993 we saw the first year-on-year increase in house prices since mid-1991, interest rates fell from 12 per cent.—the inescapable fact, as my hon. Friend mentioned—on black Wednesday, or white Wednesday, to 5·5 per cent. and inflation fell from 3·5 to 1·4 per cent. All those facts are entirely contrary to the Treasury warnings that without the ERM inflation would soar. We had to come out of the ERM because there was a marketplace which we had to recognise.
That message has now gone across the whole of Europe. There are Euro realists not only in this country, but in Germany—Mr. Stoibei in Bavaria—in France—Philippe Seguin, Phillipe de Villiers, Marie-France Garand and others—and in Spain and Denmark there are similar movements. Throughout Europe, in line with public opinion, there is a recognition of Euro realism which is even borne out in the White Paper prepared by the European Commission, "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment", which the Government have rejected. I do not agree with all its conclusions by any means, but there is a recognition of the need to ensure that if wage costs are too high, we shall not be as competitive in the real world.
We have to live in a highly competitive global village. Today, I have been up to my constituency in Stafford and back again because GEC Alsthom has been awarded the Queen's award for exports. It won that award because, in the aftermath of the recovery and because it is highly competitive in world markets, it has managed to produce superb, world-beating products.
We must stay out of the ERM. We must stay out of the control on economic guidelines of the kind that are prescribed by that White Paper and by article 134 of the Maastricht treaty if we are to survive as a free-trading nation across the globe. If we do not compete in real terms, we will collapse. Our economy will not be sustained and the dire warnings that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East gave earlier, combined with the inexorable growth of public expenditure, which is complementary to the decline of our industrial competitiveness, will drive us into the sand.
558
The public sector borrowing requirement rose to £50 billion because social security costs—housing benefit and mortgage repayments—and all the things that followed in the wake of the high interest rates regime that was imposed on us by ERM, not only forced public expenditure through the ceiling, but guaranteed that our base for future wealth creation went with it. Therefore, I was delighted that the Budget laid emphasis on enterprise and small businesses because we must generate the wealth creation to pay for public expenditure and at the same time ensure that we do not have unnecessary direct tax increases. We have come close to national bankruptcy, but, thank Heavens, as a result of the arguments of Euro realists throughout Europe—and also, some may think, arguments in the United Kingdom—we have now embarked on a policy that looks more realistic than it has looked for several years.
When I look at the question of further increases in public expenditure, the framework of growth initiative that emerged from the Edinburgh summit in the past year, the papers that the Select Committee on European Legislation considered a few days ago and the explanatory memorandum published on 2 December in the name of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, I have to ask whether it is such a good idea for us to borrow the kind of money that is set out in the White Paper. Is it such a good idea to be providing cohesion funds up to the amount that is set out? Believe it or not, the structural funds allocated between 1994 and 1999 will be no less than £108 billion. Where is that money coming from? If it is coming from the taxpayers of Germany, one can understand why they are beginning to jib at the whole concept of the European Community. If one considers Italy, a country that is virtually bankrupt, one can understand why people have fears about the direction in which the European Community is being taken. If one thinks of the taxpayers in Britain, one can understand why public opinion polls are registering so strongly in favour of the view of the Euro realists, who have been vilified for so long for nothing worse than getting it right. It is necessary for us to be realistic, but not because we want to stand on our dignity or pride. That would be absurd. We do not particularly want to be right. We want to be right only because it produces the right result, not because it makes us feel self-satisfied.
As a country, we are trapped by arrangements which we have entered into by going along with things all at the time and afterwards saying that we did not like them. That is no way to run a policy. For example, a tremendous amount has been said this evening about subsidiarity, as if, somehow, a magic wand is waved over the subject by which all will be resolved. The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said that around 25 per cent. of the legislation would be wafted away. I hope that he is not in the Chamber and I hope that I am quoting his words correctly.
A paper that was deposited with the European legislation committee only two days ago sets out the basis on which the Government have reported on the European Commission's document on subsidiarity. It does not look as though it will produce the results described by the right hon. Member for Watford. For example, according to the Commission, challenging the principle of the acquis communautaire must be avoided. That does not sound radical. It also says that priority in any review of the legislation is to be given to older, rather than more recent, legislation. We all know why—because so much of it has

559
been overtaken by court cases. The review has been carried out simply to emphasise the most recent stuff, most of which we dislike.
The paper also says that re-examination should be limited to rules and regultions of a legislative nature. There is not much suggestion of a revision of policy, which is what we were looking for. I strongly suggest that hon. Members take the opportunity to study the explanatory memorandum to satisfy themselves. Furthermore, I hope that they will look at the declaration on the entry into force of the treaty on European Union, produced by the European Council on 29 October 1993. It sets out the guidelines with respect to common foreign and security policy. The hon. Member for Watford spoke optimistically about common foreign and security policy. Those guidelines say:
"A common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, must"—
I stress the word "must"—
"eventually be framed by the Union on the basis of its security interests."
That document sets out the basis on which title 5 of the Maastricht treaty is being—not will be—implemented. I have not time to go through it all in detail but I assure hon. Members that it is well worth reading because it does not suggest that we shall act unilaterally.
Mr. Jenkin: It does not mention NATO.
Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend says, and as I was about to mention, nowhere does it mention NATO. That is extraordinary in the light of all the assurances that we were given. We must therefore watch carefully to see how the legislation that we have just ratified works in practice.
On the voting arrangements in the Council of Ministers, a serious problem exists in how the European Community budget has been increasing. In so far as we can retain control over that through the voting arrangements, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the total EC budget has increased from £30·9 billion in 1990 to £52·3 billion in 1993. It has increased by 69 per cent., while the United Kingdom is trying to cut public expenditure in its domestic politics. Administration costs in the European Community have risen by 18 per cent. between 1990 and 1993 and now stand at £2·7 billion, whereas emphasis in the United Kingdom is on deregulation.
Spending on agriculture in the Community has increased between 1990 and 1993 from £19·4 billion to £30·3 billion—I am giving the figures in pounds, not ecu —despite the MacSharry reforms and set aside. Those figures come from the statement on the 1993 Community budget.
Our contribution is said to fall and it will do so from 1994–95 to £1,350 million. But it then increases again to £2,890 million, and again in 1996–97 to £2,930 million —a total of £7,170 million. That total will not even be covered by the amount raised by putting VAT on domestic fuel and power over the next three years. The 1996–97 contribution of £2·93 billion will be greater than the combined budgets of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, which are £1·24 billion and £1·39 billion respectively.
The cumulative net contribution to Brussels from 1991–92 to 1996–97 will be £12·14 billion. If one estimates the cost of defending sterling on white Wednesday at £4 billion, the total cost for that period will be in excess of £16 billion.
560
Against that background, we must ensure that we are not further out-voted in the Council of Ministers. So my final plea is that, at all costs, we ensure that we do not end up with a further increase in majority voting at our expense. The treaty has given rise to so much of the pain and suffering which I have described and which the British people have experienced. It has caused the difficulties and contradictions with which the Conservative party has had to deal, and the absurdity of the doctrines that emanate from the European Peoples party, which we shall have to sort out in the manifesto. Those all add up to one thing: let us look calmly and rationally, and support the Government in their determination to get those matters right. However, we must not allow the matter to continue rolling inexorably forwards. Like the other countries in the European Community, we must put down a marker and do something about it. We must renegotiate the Maastricht treaty.
8.26 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: In the short time available to me, I wish to discuss two issues not covered by the Secretary of State's contribution—subsidiarity and support for the middle east peace process.
Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who made such a powerful impact on our debates on the Maastricht treaty, spoke in his new capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland at a meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the Signet library in Edinburgh. He said:
"there are many in Scotland who believe that the endeavour to create the right constitutional arrangement for our country is not only a noble purpose, but a practical and sensible one as well, and it is in line with all the tides of power decentralisation alive throughout our continent today."
My hon. Friend then asked the convention to look at what our continental neighbours are already doing by way of decentralising power and devolving decision making. In Spain, Belgium, Germany, and now in Italy, the regions are on the move and the new Committee of the Regions will underline that fact in the months ahead. However, as I said, the Secretary of State did not mention subsidiarity, although he did mention the constitutional court in Germany.
As the House will know, during the ratification process of the Maastricht treaty in Germany, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat demanded and obtained changes to the German constitution—the Basic Law—to grant both Chambers a greater say in the decision-making process. Paragraph 1 of the new article 23 of the Basic Law states:
"With a view to establishing a united Europe the Federal Republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union, which is committed to democratic rule-of-law, social and federal principles as well as the principle of subsidiarity".
Paragraph 6 of article 23 states:
"Where essentially the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Lander is affected by the exercise of the rights of the Federal Republic of Germany as a Member State of the European Union shall be transferred by the Federation to a representative of the Lander designated by the Bundesrat."
The House will know that the presidents of the German Lander form the second Chamber in the German Parliament—the Bundesrat—and they or their representatives have for a long time exerted a greater influence in Brussels than any other regional authority leader among the EC member states. They have well established offices in Brussels from where they lobby German Ministers on

561
the Council of Ministers, and they will no doubt play an even more significant role on the new Committee of the Regions established under the Maastricht treaty.
In Spain, new laws passed in September 1993 aim to give all the autonomous communities the same powers —with one or two exceptions—in two phases. The first is to be completed by the end of the year and the second by next summer. It will be achieved by changes to the autonomy statutes and will involve 33 areas of competence. The Government there have also agreed to give all the autonomous regions the power to spend 15 per cent. of the income tax collected in those regions. The Government of Felipe Gonzales has had to make further concessions in return for regional support in approving the rather controversial budget proposals earlier this year.
We now know that Jordi Pujol, Catalonian President since 1980 and president of the Assembly of European Regions, is to be the president of the European Union's Committee of the Regions. He has been a controversial figure in Spanish politics because of his efforts to secure more autonomy for Catalonia, and he will no doubt want to promote one of the union's concepts—that we are a Europe of regions.
In Belgium, shortly before his death at the end of July, King Baudouin signed constitutional amendments, finally approved by the Belgian Parliament on 14 July, making Belgium a federal state in which French-speaking Wallonia, Flemish-speaking Flanders and the mainly French-speaking capital Brussels would have greater autonomy. Amongst other things, responsibilities for agriculture, scientific research, external trade and social security have been given to the regions.
On 14 July, the Belgian Chamber of Deputies approved by 143 votes to 61 legislation to implement constitutional changes to create a federal state. The Bill was supported not only by the four ruling parties—the Flemish and Walloon Christian Social Democrats and the Flemish and Wallon socialist parties—but by the Flemish nationalists and the Walloon and Flemish green parties. That vote completed a long-running constitutional reform process which had begun back in 1970 and devolved further powers to the regions in three stages.
There we have it: Governments to the right and Governments to the left are applying the principle of subsidiarity as widely and as quickly as possible whereas, in the United Kingdom, we have not heard a word today from the Secretary of State about this most serious of matters. What we have had, not only today but in the debates on the Queen's Speech and at the Tory party conference, is a series of policy statements, decisions and commitments which, taken together, add up to an assault on elected, accountable government, locally and nationally, and its creeping replacement by an unelected, un-nominated and unaccountable patronage state.
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) by referring briefly to the middle east peace process and the support for it contained in the documentation that we are considering. The House will be aware that Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, will visit Britain next week as a guest of the Government. The House will also know that he will address Members of both Houses in the Grand Committee Room immediately after Prime
562
Minister's questions next Tuesday afternoon. During the recent debate on the Queen's Speech, the Foreign Secretary said:
"The Government are looking at ways in which to help the Palestinians to set up the institution of self-government."—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 115.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland supported that role. He has today been more specific in calling for not only European assistance but direct Government assistance to an organisation called PECDAR—the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction.
PECDAR is the critical institution for initiating the process of rehabilitation and reconstruction in Palestine. It is the institution for which all multilateral and bilateral arrangements of aid have called and which the Palestine National Authority has established. At its last meeting in Tunis on 4 and 5 December, PECDAR's board of governors resolved to establish the new institution on modern management lines to ensure efficient and quality performance. To do so, the board will need the expert assistance of professional consultant firms and expert advice on an emergency basis.
Being a new institution with limited resources, PECDAR is in need of all possible assistance to accomplish its objectives. The Government could make a significant contribution to the development of PECDAR through a financial offer to utilise the services of British firms and academic staff wherever they were needed.
When the Secretary of State has had time to reflect on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland and myself, and perhaps when he meets the chairman of the PLO next Tuesday and Wednesday, I hope that he will be able to have further discussions on how that aid might be channelled to help the Palestinians.
There is one other European experience that we could usefully deploy to support the middle east peace process. One of the vital tasks is that of confidence building among the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. It is urgently needed to assure the Israelis and Palestinians of the benefits that will flow from pursuing the peace protocols as quickly as possible. I refer, of course, to a system that first saw the light of day in Europe—town twinning. It originated in Europe and it is in Europe that it has expanded most dramatically over the past 40 years.
There are at present more than 8,000 municipalities in western Europe involved in schemes ranging from villages to major cities. Of those, 88 per cent. are located in European Community member countries. The European Parliament considered the subject and in February 1988 adopted a twinning report which is now funded directly by the EC and used to pursue various objectives, one of which I am sure all hon. Members will accept. One of the cornerstones of democracy is precisely the freedom of citizens to participate in the management of affairs which most directly concern them at the grassroots level, within the individual municipalities wherever possible.
The town twinning arrangements have paid off in France. The task of reconciling France and Germany after 1945 was made much easier by the large number of twinning schemes between towns on either side of the Rhine. I suggest that we use our influence not only with local authorities in the United Kingdom but with other countries in Europe to convince European towns and cities to twin with Palestinian and Israeli towns and cities, if only to give them the experience which we have had and which the Palestinians will need as they start to run their own

563
country for the first time in 27 years. Such a step would also give confidence to the Palestinian community, which has been living under occupation for the past 26 years.
Many in the Palestinian community believe that the peace protocols will not amount to much more than Jericho and Gaza. If we can start to establish twinning links between cities, towns and villages in Europe and towns in Palestine—towns that are identified as Palestinian—we shall be giving support and confidence to the Arab Palestinians living there by showing that the people of Europe understand that there will be a Palestinian state and that Palestinian towns are entitled to enjoy the same democratic freedoms as we do.
My suggestion would not break new ground. The first twinning of a British—or a United Kingdom—city took place in November 1980 when my town of Dundee was twinned with the Palestinian town of Nablus. There was no follow up to that until last year, when Glasgow twinned with Bethlehem. Even during those difficult periods, the contact between Dundee and Nablus gave support and confidence to the Palestinians in that region. I am sure that if we could encourage more of that, it would help the Palestinians to participate much more actively in the peace protocols that we hope for and that we are supporting in the documents today.
8.40 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: This is an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate. We opened with the statesmanlike and comprehensive comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and then moved on to the subject of the European People's party with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Monetary union was mentioned. A Welsh Nationalist, the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), said that he supported the Maastricht treaty because it would lead to European integration. That flies in the face of what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) believes, which is that it will lead to a different type of integration—no doubt he supported the treaty for completely different reasons. We finished with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) speaking about Palestinian town-twinning. That raises a question about the nature of the debate and the nature of the accountability of the European Union.
Right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to the extraordinary pile of papers with which we were presented for the debate. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how the Ministers who are answerable to the House will be able to read the debate before they sit down with their European partners at the European Council tomorrow and on Saturday. There is a disconnection; a growing problem of accountability.
In that respect, I shall refer to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), a thoughtful statement about the future of the European Community, in which he offered some solutions and some thoughts about how the Community was going to develop. The most interesting thing that he said was that the European Council should perhaps meet more often and more regularly.
Where does that leave the House and the role of the national Parliaments? My right hon. Friend the Member for Watford referred, it is true, to the declaration at the end of the Maastricht treaty, affirming a strengthened role for the
564
national Parliaments, but how can the national Parliaments scrutinise the volume of legislation that emanates from the European Community, a vast quantity of which is never read in this place before it becomes law, when we are presented with it, fait accompli?
Where does that leave us as individual constituency Members? There is a growing despair throughout the country. Constituents write to Members of Parliament, who pass the letters to the Minister. With all respect to my right hon. and hon. Friends sitting on the Treasury Bench and those who serve elsewhere in the Government, the reply that we receive from the Minister somehow slightly fails to engage with the comments that were made in the initial letter. The letter goes back to the constituent and the constituent is left wondering where he should go. The Community is blamed; there is a lack of accountability. We have created a regulatory monster, which is destroying jobs up and down the country, and it is something what we need to consider. In that respect I shall address my comments to the issue of subsidiarity.
We have, of course, a Conservative agenda in the European Community and one which is gathering support on all sides of the Maastricht debate on the Conservative Benches. I am reminded of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his article of 25 September 1993 in The Economist. He wrote:
"The vision of the founders of the Community was a fine one. What we have seen in the last two years is not so much a swing against Europe as a demand for a different kind of Europe."
That is certainly where I stand and I believe that that is the position where others of my colleagues who opposed the Maastricht treaty stand, who have hitherto supported every piece of key legislation to do with the European Community—the referendum, entry and of course the Single European Act. To be opposed to Maastricht was not to be opposed to Europe as a place.
The Conservative agenda is gaining ground among our European partners. The emphasis on the general agreement on tariffs and trade round is welcome. I was a little tempted, at this stage in my speech, to congratulate the Prime Minister, President Clinton and the French Prime Minister, M. Balladur, on the success achieved in the GATT talks. We are witnessing the last stages of a ballet —a pas de deux between the two partners standing off, who will inevitably be able to come together at the last moment. Perhaps that is slightly premature, but that is an advance of the Conservative agenda in Europe.
The problem about advancing the arguments about competitiveness and growth is that the document that the European Community has tabled at such incredibly short notice—we should not let the lateness of that document's arrival pass without some acerbic comments—contains nothing about comprehensive deregulation and, indeed, recites the need for monetary union, for a unified Europe, not taking on board the logic of the argument so ably set out, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg).
There are gains. They are printing the graphs, for example, that demonstrate the loss of employment, the lack of competitiveness, the declining share of world trade. We are gaining ground and we should not begrudge that.
There are gains from subsidiarity. My problem with it has always been that before I came to the House subsidiarity was proclaimed as a great victory and soon after I came to the House, on 20 May 1992, the Prime Minister described the inclusion of subsidiarity as one of

565
the great victories of the Maastricht negotiation that demonstrated that we were achieving a new turning point, away from centralisation in the European Community.
As we got more and more involved with that subject, however—never can so many trees have been felled in vain on such an obscure topic as subsidiarity—the more and more obscure became the concept of subsidiarity. By the time that the debate in Committee took place, subsidiarity had become rather a mouse. In an intervention, my right
hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a comment on the speech that I was making and said that it was taking place
"outside the debate that has been taking place inside the Community for the past two years."
He said:
"What is happening now however—I ask my hon. Friend to take my word for it—is that the different institutions are changing. That is reflected in article 3b, the Edinburgh declaration, the activities of the Commission and the sharp reduction in the number of legislative proposals coming forward. That is political fact before it is a legal obligation."—[Official Report, 8 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 746.]
What we have in subsidiarity is not a narrow legal concept. We have a potent political force, but it is incumbent upon the Government to make subsidiarity worth much more than its technical, legal value.
In a report entitled "Commission Report on Subsidiarity" that was produced by the Commission to the European Communities in November 1993—in French, I may say; the Library provided a translation—the key phrase is that subsidiarity
"is not a matter of challenging the acquis communautaire: the basic principles of present policies will not be submitted to a new debate."
The key legal weakness of subsidiarity, as far as we are concerned, is that it does not provide for a net retrieval of self-government to the United Kingdom. It does not return power to the House. All we can beg for is that the Council of Ministers and the Commission should allow us to have some power back, to have it delegated back to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)describes subsidiarity as a state of mind. It is not a limit on Community action because it limits that action only so far as Community institutions are prepared to allow it to limit themselves. If we are serious about exploiting the force that we have unleashed—the political potency of subsidiarity —we need to apply it more comprehensively. We need to implement what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) referred to as the "Brixton manifesto". That would mean a Europe of nation states, with self-government. That is not merely the Europe to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred—a Europe of nation states that respects those nations, "history, identity, culture and pride"—but a Europe of nation states that reflects our power, our status, our influence and our importance as self-governing democracies. I am afraid that I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that pride is not something by which I set much constitutional store.
At the intergovernmental conference in 1996 we must insist to our European partners that the objective of moving decisions closer to the citizen is to apply subsidiarity to the objectives of the treaties themselves. We shall consider the principles of economic and monetary union, having found by then, as the Prime Minister said in his article in The Economist, that
566
"the troubles in the ERM are just a foretaste of the difficulties in moving to a full monetary union"
and having discovered that so much of the power moved to the centre has been misused to over-regulate, to destroy jobs, to remove the pride of the independent nation states and to create a sense of crisis between the elected representatives and the despair of the people. We shall move the powers back to the nation states. Ultimately, the European Community can govern only through the consent of the nation states. We need to remember that.
8.51 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: The motion asks the House to take note of many things, two of which are the preliminary draft budget for the European Community for 1994, and the letter of amendment No. 1 to that draft budget. I agree entirely with the hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, who have said that one of the greatest challenges facing the EC is unemployment. However, another corrosive problem keeps eating away at the base of the Community—the common agricultural policy. That has hardly been mentioned in the debate, yet 34 billion ecu is to be spent on it out of a total original budget of about 69 billion ecu.
A previous Minister of Agriculture, who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, told the House when he reported on his endeavours to reform the CAP that the deal was good for the country, good for farmers, good for consumers and good for taxpayers. However, although the right hon. Gentleman may have convinced the House to change the track, the train is still out of control.
The ink was not dry on the preliminary draft budget for 1994, which was presumably agreed by the Government, when letter of amendment No. I was written. I do not believe that that document is in the pile of papers that hon. Members have been given, but, as a result of it, the Government agreed to increase the draft budget for next year by no less than 700 million ecu. I am not a great mathematician, but that sum must knock a hole in £500 million.
At the same time that the Government were agreeing those horrendous increases, most of which go to the agriculture budget, they were cutting unemployment pay and the money for public services, and saying that we must have strong control of public expenditure. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer winds up the debate, he should explain why public expenditure has to be so tightly controlled in this country, whereas £500 million here or there for the CAP, which is clearly out of control, is okay.
I ask hon. Members, before they vote for the motion to take note of the preliminary draft budget and the letter of amendment, to consider a few examples of what we are to take note of. As I have already said, there is an increase in agriculture expenditure of about £500 billion for next year —and let us not forget that that comes on top of what is already a record agriculture budget.
Here are some examples of what the letter of amendment asks hon. Members to take note of. We are told that cereal storage should be reduced, yet it is to have an increase of about £6 million. Premiums for tobacco—I am sure that the House is concerned about those—are to increase by £4·8 million. Export refunds for cheese are to increase by £13 million, and skimmed milk powder export refunds by £34 million. Depreciation allowances for dairy produce are to increase by £39 million, and export s
refunds for beef by £3·5 million. The list goes on and on.

567
The result of all that is that we shall be asked to take note of about half a billion pounds being added to an already record common agricultural policy budget. How that will benefit taxpayers escapes me. Perhaps when the Chancellor sums up he will tell us how further spending of half a billion pounds on agricultural policy will benefit the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—but of course, benefiting the taxpayers of the United Kingdom is not exactly the Chancellor's forte at the moment; I fully understand that.
I cannot understand how the settlement equates to the assurances given to farmers, either. Perhaps we will be told that, too. The truth is that the so-called CAP reforms have turned what was a crisis into a potential disaster, certainly in financial terms.
The amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition says that the Government have
"failed to advance British intersts."
I finish by saying that if we simply take note of the motion, it will be another example of how the Government are failing to advance the interests of the British people. Those interests are totally overwhelmed by Government dogma, which firmly places the United Kingdom within the margins of the European Community and keeps us enmeshed in the morass of the common agricultural policy waste.
Let me make it clear that there can be no progress unless the waste is tackled. We simply cannot have a Government saying that they are firmly in control of measures when £500 million is given willy-nilly to the common agricultural policy, which we all know is a massive waste. There must be fundamental change.
When we consider the issues in front of us today, we see that perhaps the Government's greatest failure is that they reject investment that will attack unemployment but seem to be enthusiastic and willing to pour hundreds of millions of pounds down the black hole that is the common agricultural policy.
8.58 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: In this wide-ranging debate, which is taking place on the eve of the European summit, at which a paper on competitiveness, growth and jobs will be discussed, our argument is that Europe has failed to succeed in its aspirations in the past year. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, Europe has failed to succeed in its aspirations for Yugoslavia and the protection of minority rights there, and in its aspirations for Russia and eastern Europe where the problems still remain intractable. Domestically, it has failed on recovery and the issue of unemployment.
The Government have failed not because co-operation has been too great and too extensive, but because co-operation on investment, industry and employment measures has been too little and too unambitious. Instead of promoting the co-operation that is necessary for job and growth measures, the Government should follow the examples set by Japan and the United States of expanding both demand and capacity in their economies.
The Government are engaged in their age-old trick of frustrating European initiatives, even when it is clear that greater co-operation is needed to solve the problem of long-term growth in Europe. We need co-ordinated measures on investment and jobs, as I shall explain. We need measures to build for the long term, as well as
568
expediting the completion of a GATT agreement, not least by dealing with the problem of agricultural protectionism that is costing British families so much. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) referred to that agricultural protectionism.
We need a proposal for a European recovery fund and measures for starting infrastructure projects that would improve Britain's rail and communications links. A co-ordinated cut in interest rates in Europe is desirable and, indeed, necessary. We need measures to cut waste and fraud, not least in the administration of the common agricultural fund. Practical measures rather than rhetoric would be to the benefit of not only Britain but all the countries in Europe.
We should ensure—the Chancellor should realise this —that Britain takes full advantage of social, regional and other funds in Europe which are available and which could and should be taken up by the end of the year to create jobs and opportunities, especially in some of the most depressed communities in the United Kingdom.
Our argument is that the Government's ambivalence, and even the Chancellor's hostility, towards co-operation in Europe is such that even the public investment initiatives that Britain sponsored last year at the December summit—and which the Government boasted about selling to the rest of Europe—are being thwarted with cuts in public investment in the United Kingdom.
It is our contention that Britain is not only attempting to export a deregulation dogma which has not worked here and which will not work in Europe but that the whole purpose of the deregulation debate inside the Conservative party is a squalid and futile attempt—eventually it will be unsuccessful—to paper over the cracks among Tory Members to appease the Conservative right, rather than to do anything practical to achieve the sustained recovery and growth that we need.
Tomorrow, in Europe, the Government will propose measures not only because they believe that such measures will help to advance Britain or Europe. They think that simply by having something European to blame, it will help to unite what is a divided Conservative party on Europe. Our analysis of what is wrong and what needs to be done is different from that of the Government. We cannot deregulate 17 million men and women back to work in a European version of the crude market dogma that has failed in Britain. But deregulation without the implementation of the skills revolution will take us backwards rather than forwards.
In a world of global markets and the global sourcing of companies—the Pacific rim is growing at a much faster rate than the United Kingdom or any other European country; China has a growth rate of nearly 10 per cent.; and even low-wage Singapore is shifting production to low-wage China—the idea that our future lies in a low-wage, low-skill and low-investment economy is laughable. The idea that we should become the Singapore of Europe is farcical, absurd and, indeed, retrograde.
We should recognise that in a world of high technology and premium custom-built goods, where what matters is the skill and investment in the work force, we should not be taking the road of low growth, low investment and low wages. We should be looking for the road of high employment, high investment, high skills and eventually a high-wage economy.
The British problem of low competitiveness cannot be solved purely by cuts in wage costs in the vain hope of

569
raising productivity. It must be solved by ensuring, through the sure prospect of investment, that we have the capacity and the skills to make investment work and to secure long-term growth. However, as the benefits of co-operation arise through the solution to the problem of skills in Europe, we need a programme to modernise and to expand both the capacity and the demand in the European economy.
I believe that it is possible in Europe today to expand demand by interest rate cuts and investment measures without the balance of payments constraints that we have had elsewhere. As on other issues with which the European Community must deal, we should recognise the benefits of co-operation and of doing together what we cannot do separately or on our own.
The Chancellor was suggesting on the radio today that Britain does not need to participate in such a programme for long-term, investment-led growth, and he confuses Britain's position in the economic cycle with the intrinsic strength of our economy. Let me tell him what everyone in the country knows. Britain has not done the best in the EC during the 1990s. Britain has been doing almost the worst of all our European competitors in employment, output and investment. It is precisely for those reasons that we must address the problems, not just in Britain, but together with our competitors in Europe.
Britain has suffered more permanent structural damage than almost all of our competitors in the EC. This country has, in particular, a huge investment deficit and that is why we, as much as anybody else, need many of the initiatives which will be proposed in Europe tomorrow.
Let us be clear about what has happened during the 1990s to the British economy. Our national income has fallen faster than that of almost every other country in Europe. While it has risen in Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark and most of the other countries in Europe, Britain has seen a fall in national income since the beginning of the decade. Employment has fallen by 7 per cent. in Britain, while it has risen by 7 per cent. in Luxembourg, 4 per cent. in Portugal, 7 per cent. in Spain and 2 per cent. in Denmark. [Laughter] Ministers may laugh, but Britain has had the biggest fall in employment during the 1990s.
Ministers should be ashamed that they went into the previous election with promises that the recovery would begin the day after the election. For months afterwards, unemployment rose as a result of their policies. [Interruption.] The Minister with responsibility for deregulation will be aware that unemployment in this country has risen since the beginning of the 1990s by 76 per cent., and that is unrivalled by any of the other countries in the EC.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is trying to ride over perfectly well-judged interventions from my hon. and right hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman chooses a selective period and he knows that, at the moment, this country is the only one which is enjoying growth among the major economies of western Europe. Industrial production in the latest three months is up by 3 per cent., whereas the year-on-year figures are 5 per cent. down for Germany, 3·5 per cent. down for France and 1·25 per cent. down for Italy. Britain's is the only major European economy for which anybody is forecasting
570
significant growth next year. The hon. Gentleman makes extremely careful use of figures by choosing a rather unlikely starting date.
Mr. Brown: The latest figures show that investment, employment and manufacturing employment are still falling. [Interruption.] I will give way to the Chancellor, who can give us the figures.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Our position is substantially better than that of western Europe. The hon. Gentleman knows that unemployment in this country has gone down in seven of the last nine months, while it continues to rise in other western European countries. Unemployment is much worse in France than it is here, it is getting steadily worse in Germany and it is disastrously bad in Spain.
Britain is leading the way in the European Union towards recovery. We lead our partners in Europe who will begin to show the same signs of recovery in due course. The hon. Gentleman does not help his case by giving the rather extraordinary picture of Britain being in crisis while the rest of Europe is doing better. The reverse is the case.
Mr. Brown: Once again, I notice that the Chancellor, with his grasp of the facts, fails to answer my question. The latest figures show that employment in Britain is still falling and manufacturing employment is still falling.
Perhaps the Chancellor should explain why the President of the Board of Trade had to go to the Institute of Directors and explain why British competitiveness was still 25 per cent. below the standards of our main European competitors. That is after 14 years during which, the Government claim, they presided over an economic miracle.
I shall be fair to the Chancellor and look at what has happened over the 14 years of Conservative government. We have one of the lowest growth rates and manufacturing investment has fallen in real terms. Employment has risen by 0·4 per cent. in Britain, which the Chancellor claims to be the deregulated paradise of Europe, but it has risen by six times that amount in France. The Chancellor should look at the record of the Government of which he boasts he has been a member over those 14 years. I shall give way to the Chancellor to allow him to supply figures to show that manufacturing and other employment is rising.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is choosing curious periods and curious selective figures. I have given him the figures for employment. He is wrong to deny that unemployment has been falling in Britain at a time when it is not falling in the rest of western Europe. He has gone back to the late 1970s, to the recession that we inherited. In the decade from 1980, economic growth was faster in the United Kingdom than in France or Germany. In the 1980s, we created well over 1 million new jobs, more than either France or Germany. Of course the hon. Gentleman will not face up to today's figures, which show that the United Kingdom is growing and is expected to grow faster next year when other economies are still in recession.
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor never read the Maastricht treaty and he clearly does not read the economic statistics supplied to him by his Treasury colleagues. He has failed to answer my direct question about employment levels or manufacturing employment. As for the record of growth, he could not give exact figures since 1979. Manufacturing growth in Britain has been 5 per cent., which means that the great economic miracle country has grown at one fifth

571
the rate of Germany where growth was 25 per cent. America has grown by 36 per cent. and Japan has grown by 51 per cent. I shall give way once more to the Chancellor if he can deny those figures.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Economic growth in the United Kingdom in the 1980s was faster than in Germany or France. We created more jobs than Germany or France, but the record over the two previous decades was worse than that of our rivals. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make selective use of historical figures and that is nonsense. He is trying to claim that, at the moment, we are not recovering when we are plainly doing so faster than anywhere else in western Europe.
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor has simply proved that he will try to bluster his way through any intervention. He has not given one fact to substantiate his claims. He claims that growth during the period of Conservative government was faster than that of any other country in Europe. Since 1979, growth in Britain has been lower than that in western Germany, France or Italy, and lower than the European average. Therefore, his claims about growth, like his claims about manufacturing output and general and manufacturing employment, are wrong. He has been unable to justify his position at any point in this exchange.
The Chancellor claims to be interested in European convergence, but neither in his interventions nor in his Budget has he produced one policy measure that will achieve that. What has happened since the Government went to the Edinburgh summit and announced a new policy for which the Prime Minister claimed praise? At that December summit in 1992, the then Chancellor was not only pleading with Europe to cut interest rates all round but was taking credit for British proposals that the Community should invest out of recession, as he said Britain was doing. The Government said that Europe should follow Britain's lead of public investment.
The European communique that the Prime Minister had played a part in writing said that, as far as possible, we should switch public expenditure priorities to infrastructure, capital investment and growth that would earn a worthwhile return. It was said that that was an urgent priority throughout Europe. The Prime Minister reported to the House that
"member states agreed, following the pattern of our own autumn statement, to give priority to capital spending and encourage private investment".—[Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 23.]
After the December summit, private investment in Britain continued to fall in 1993, and business investment has continued to fall. That package was hailed by The Times as "John Major pulls it off'. The Prime Minister was reported as saying that the heads of Government had praised the outcome of the summit, which was a boost to investment worth £24 billion. It was claimed that Europe's 17 million unemployed had reason to be grateful to the Prime Minister.
Since then, the European investment fund, with which Britain was supposed to be leading the way, came before the House only a few days ago and it is not even up and running.
Most important of all, we discovered in last week's Budget that Britain had dropped the very public investment initiatives for which the Government claim credit in the rest of Europe. There will be a 3 per cent. cut in public investment this coming year; a 3 per cent. cut the year after
572
that; cuts in transport investment, despite the Conservative manifesto commitment that the Government would improve transport over three years; cuts in London Underground; cuts in infrastructure; cuts in the environment; and public investment cuts all round of 25 per cent. effectively as a result of Government proposals.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor shakes his head, but I suppose that, once again, he will be unable to give any figures to justify his position. General Government capital expenditure will fall from £13 billion in 1993–94 to £10·7 billion in 1994–95—a drop of 18 per cent. Even the new measure that the Chancellor chose to use—public sector asset creation—will fall in real terms over the next few years. What was meant to be an anti-recessionary package is being abandoned with public expenditure cuts, and something hailed throughout Europe has led to some of the biggest public investment cuts in this country's history.
Britain has failed to support not only the European Commission's proposals but even its own proposals. I can think of nothing more reprehensible than for the Government to claim all the credit from the December summit and now to cut public investment—in the same way that they broke their promises on VAT, national insurance and everything else.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
Mr. Brown: I will give way to the Chancellor one last time if he will give the House information, not the bluster that we have heard in the past few minutes.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time. His description of the follow-up to the Edinburgh facility was quite extraordinary. The new facility was set up through the European Investment Bank.
Mr. Brown: The fund.
Mr. Clarke: No. The first facility was the bank, then the fund. We were among the early ones to ratify as a result of the parliamentary vote. Under the Edinburgh facility, the United Kingdom has already borrowed 852 mecu, which is approximately £640 million, for infrastructure investment in this country. The United Kingdom is the largest borrower under the Edinburgh facility, taking advantage of the announcement that the hon. Gentleman correctly quoted.
The difficulty—I will be fair to the hon. Gentleman—is that the Commission produced the European Union bond proposal only three days ago. The hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands the point that we are arguing. We launched the Edinburgh facility, and the United Kingdom is the major user and beneficiary of that initiative, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor fails to say that the European Investment Bank facility has not been used up in its entirety over the year. The European investment fund was actually the new project created at Edinburgh, not the European Investment Bank—which has been going for years. The European investment fund created at Edinburgh is not yet up and running, more than 12 months after it was created. The Chancellor should apologise to the House because the initiative of the previous Chancellor is not yet

573
up and running. It may help in the next recession, but, because of the delays, it will not be of much help in this recession.
Let us consider the other investment projects that should be sponsored by Europe and where the Chancellor has once again failed. What about the water initiative? Only a few days ago, the Chancellor went to Europe to say that we could not afford to go ahead with the water directives. He told us that we have to cut water quality standards.
What does the Delors European document say? What is it that the Chancellor is ready to reject when he goes to Europe tomorrow? It talks about the projects that could gain European finance under the proposals. It says that the projects concern water control, urban waste water treatment and renovation of water supply distribution systems. The Community could help finance some 25 billion ecus of action in this area of environmental concern over the period 1994 to 1999.
Under the new proposals from Delors, Commission help is available to boost our water quality. So why is the Chancellor saying that we have to cut water standards when he should be supporting the investment facility that could improve water standards in Britain?
The Chancellor knows very well that the cut in water quality standards is a cut in the facilities for the treatment of sewage. One in five of our beaches does not meet the European Community environmental standards and we are second bottom in the European league for meeting the higher guidance requirements for our beaches.
We know that water standards for urban waste are the second worst in Europe. We have agreed, over a period of years, by sponsoring the directive that we should do something about those standards. We have signed up to the directive and the Conservative party boasted in its manifesto that its commitment to the environment was beyond doubt. The National Consumer Council has made it clear that there is a variety of ways in which water companies could be involved in meeting the targets and we now have the means by which the Government could seek support in Europe to pay for raising the quality of our water. Given all that, why does the Chancellor want to pursue a deregulation course in Europe? I suggest that the reason is that the Chancellor wants to appease the Tory European right in a vain attempt to hold together a divided Conservative party.
The next initiative in the Delors proposals tomorrow is the channel tunnel rail link. At the Edinburgh summit the one thing that the Government boasted about as the investment project that would be going ahead was the channel tunnel. They said that the channel tunnel rail link would proceed as a "joint venture". They said that it would be an increase in infrastructure investment of £2·3 billion. Presumably, that is not to help us out of this recession, but to help us out of the next recession because the starting date has been moved backwards and backwards and is now 2003. Conservative Members should be ashamed because there is national humiliation in the fact that trains will be able to travel at 185 mph from Paris to Calais, 85 mph through the tunnel and then, at best, at 47 mph from Dover to London. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary asks if we have heard about the French planning system, as if the French rail links from Paris to Calais have not been completed or may not even have been started. In fact, the
574
first link was completed in the summer and the second part was completed in September. The French planning system has managed to bring about a completion while we have another 10 years to wait as a result of the Government's neglect. It is no wonder President Mitterrand is looking forward to opening the channel tunnel. As he said, two worlds will be opened up as a result of the opening of the tunnel. There will be high-speed travel at 185 mph from Paris to Calais and then there will be time for leisurely journeys from Dover to appreciate the English countryside.
Even by the year 2000, French trains will have been able to travel at 185 mph for seven years. When Britain enters the millennium, people travelling from Dover to London will be looking at building sites where the work has not been completed, and they will see quantity surveyors travelling around in their vans to plot the route. That disgraceful state of affairs has been reached as a result of the Government's failure to understand the public interest in the completion of the project. It would be the stuff of an Ealing comedy if it were not fast becoming more like an Ealing tragedy every day.
What did the Chancellor say on "The World at One" today? He said that the channel link is not being held up particularly. The original starting date for its being in use was 1997, it was then pushed back to 1998, then 2000, more recently 2002, and now people fear it will be 2003 —and the Chancellor, with his gift for accuracy, tells us that it has not been particularly held up.
What does the European Commission say about the channel tunnel rail link? It says that it should be a major priority project of Community interest; that it should be selected for a feasibility study; that it would be prepared to provide loan guarantees, and support the closing of missing links in the framework of projects of common interest. It is listed as one of the priority projects with which the Commission is prepared to go ahead, so why do the Government put up implacable resistance to projects of investment from which Britain is likely to benefit? The Foreign Secretary could not answer that question this afternoon. Britain would be a beneficiary of the investment funds made available by the Delors plan to enable projects to go ahead.
Why is that project not going ahead? Is it because there is no benefit for Britain?
Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should explain to the whole of Britain why he thinks that the absence of a channel tunnel rail link from Dover to London will be of benefit to this country. People are increasingly seeing it as a national humiliation. They blame the Government for failing to invest in our infrastructure.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: No, I am not giving way, I have only four minutes left.
If the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is not trying to work his passage back—he was the hon. Member who led the Conservative opposition to the Maastricht Bill—perhaps he might intervene on the Chancellor and ask him why the Government have failed so miserably in relation to winning in Europe.
The Government oppose these projects, not because the private sector is more efficient, but because they oppose the public sector in its entirety. It is becoming very sad that to

575
win his reputation with the Conservative right the Chancellor is prepared to sacrifice what is clearly a public-interest project which we should be supporting in Europe.
The "Budget for jobs" that the Chancellor introduced last week has become a Budget for his next job. It was simply an investment in his own future. It was a Budget for doing business with the members of the 1922 Committee, who wanted huge public expenditure cuts. Now, with his ambition to take over from the Prime Minister, he goes to Europe, bangs his fists on the table and shouts, "It is our money." It is the old no, no, no approach of Lady Thatcher; it has been dusted down and is now being used by the Chancellor to promote his candidature for his party's leadership.
There has been a complete shift in the Chancellor's behaviour in relation to Europe. His visits are characterised by confrontation and clashes. Wherever he goes to negotiate—often before the starting whistle—the Chancellor provokes confrontation. He is more interested in displays of pre-match aggro—wrapped in the Union Jack and spoiling for a fight—than in the real agenda and a positive result. It is a pity that our contributions to European discussions now have all the hallmarks of the most publicised feature of English football supporters abroad. That is what has happened under the Chancellor.
The reason is that the Chancellor is looking forward to three elections next year; not just the local elections and the European elections—in which he expects the Conservative party to do badly—but the third election that will follow them, the one for the Tory leadership. Let me give the Chancellor a warning: he should not forget that, after the third election, a fourth will be necessary—an election among the British people, which the Conservative party will lose.
Finally, let us examine the Conservative party's proposals on jobs. The Conservatives admit that unemployment is a structural problem; they admit that it has been rising recession by recession; they admit that training is inadequate in Britain. The document, however, contains little more than a continuation of the crede deregulation strategy that has done nothing for Britain over the past 14 years.
If deregulation works, why did Britain have a higher unemployment rate throughout the 1980s than France, Germany and Italy—the countries that, according to the Government, are over-regulated and sclerotic? If deregulation is the answer, why has British employment growth been only 0·4 per cent. over the past 14 years, while in France it has been 3 per cent? If deregulation works, why, in the 1980s, did both the United Kingdom and the United States have a lower proportion of prime-age men in work than France, West Germany and Italy? If deregulation works, why did the President of the Board of Trade have to admit that Britain's competitiveness is 25 per cent. below that of our major European competitors?
I warn the Chancellor that there is no evidence that cutting unemployment benefit will increase employment. There is no evidence that cutting health and safety protection will mean more long-term jobs. There is no evidence that Britain's abandonment of the social chapter provisions—which were not abandoned by the rest of Europe—will mean more employment in Britain than elsewhere.
Does not the Chancellor understand that the real alternative to the deregulation policy that he pursues is
576
investment in the skills of the people of this country, and the creation of a framework of personal security through the social chapter? To the unemployed, the Conservatives' deregulation strategy means the same as the supermarket slogan: pile'em high and sell'em cheap. We want no part of that strategy—in Britain, or on the Opposition Benches.
In the past few years, there has been a deliberate attempt to hold the Conservative party together for purely partisan purposes, at the expense of the national interest. The Conservative Government have opposed employment measures in Europe; they have opposed protection for school children working long hours; they have opposed protection for maternity rights and for jobs. Above all, they have opposed the social chapter. In all the negotiations that have taken place in Europe over the past three years, they have won no support for their position, not even from the political parties of the right.
The Conservatives have experienced 14 years of failure on growth, investment, employment and making Britain fair—14 years in which they have tried to blame everyone else, when the blame should be imposed on them. Because of that failure, they will lose the local elections, the European elections and the general election.
9.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have seen the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in autodrive before, but I have never seen him unable to stop. He went past the buffers and his argument reached a state of chaos. [Interruption.] I agree that the hon. Gentleman was generous with his time in conceding to me; unfortunately, he did not accept my correction of some of his assertions.
We should agree on the most important issues facing Europe at present: employment, growth and competitiveness. Those are the issues that we shall discuss at this weekend's summit. Britain will be at the heart of discussion of those issues in Europe and I believe that we have an extremely positive contribution to make.
The irony of the situation—which no doubt baffles anyone who listened from the Galleries to the hon. Gentleman's diatribe—is that many of my views on the European Union are not so very different from his. The same applied to the previous shadow spokesman whom I faced at the Dispatch Box. I certainly agree that Europe needs to tackle the problems involved in employment, growth and competitiveness. [Interruption.] After hearing one or two of today's speeches, I am not sure that others understand M. Delors' proposals any better than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East; but I would forgive them all. The proposals that the hon. Gentleman defends with such passion were produced on Monday and he had not understood them by Thursday.
The hon. Gentleman is talking gobbledegook. The proposals should never have been produced at such a late stage, for he has been sadly misled. I think that I have the only proper copy of the document in the House. If the hon. Gentleman has had time to read it—I forgive him if he has not—he certainly has not understood it, as was plain from the beginning of his speech to the end. I believe that, when he has digested it and when we begin proper discussion of it on Saturday, he will begin to understand that all this stuff about our being against transport investment and not taking advantage of European facilities is nonsense.

577
What is wrong with Europe? As should be seen both by those who favour our present arrangements for the European Union and those who are more sceptical, we need to pursue together the goals of greater competitiveness, tackling structural unemployment and improving the position of industries. We will achieve that not through ranting speeches and press releases issued on Monday in order to secure a good headline on Saturday, but through the purposeful creation of conditions that will give rise to more competitiveness, growth and jobs.
Mr. Gordon Brown: The Chancellor mentioned transport infrastructure. I would like him to answer one question: when will the channel tunnel rail link be completed?
Mr. Clarke: When the design is completed, the route settled and the private investment is introduced. It is not being held up—[Interruption.] The French built their system because they did not have the dispute that we had all over Kent and east London about where it should go. The channel tunnel rail link is not devoid of people investing in it. It will raise private finance quite straightforwardly and it does not need the new facility—the union bonds—which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East appears to believe are the answer to a maiden's prayer, with the Commission suddenly coming in and taking it over. He has been totally misled by an out-of-a-back-pocket proposal, produced only two or three days ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: No. Let us try to have a sensible debate. [Interruption.] Just steady on a moment. Let us discuss the situation on public infrastructure.
The British Government are a strong supporter of the construction of what are known in Euro jargon as trans-European networks. I strongly believe that if we are to take full advantage of the single market, we must develop the networks of the kind described. It was a provision of the Maastricht treaty—I was in favour of the treaty—that such networks should be put in place.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way when I have explained what we should be talking about.
The way in which those networks are being financed at the moment, and, in our opinion, the way in which they should be financed, is by a combination of private finance plus the facilities from the European Investment Bank, plus the European investment fund, which the House has just agreed that we should rectify, taking advantage of the Edinburgh growth initiative in which the British Government were a major participant.
Mr. Enright: Give us the dates.
Mr. Clarke: With the assistance of the European Investment Bank we are already building the Jubilee line extension—[Interruption.]—the Severn bridge project and the Manchester light railway, all of which were financed by borrowings from the European Investment Bank. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members think that all that is needed to start the high speed tunnel link tomorrow is a
578
loan from President Delors, and if they solemnly imagine that that is remotely the difficulty, I would not put them in charge of building a garden path. I advise them to visit Kent to inquire into the background of the project and see what is being done at the moment to design it. Opposition Members have only to see one headline in the newspaper, "Money from Europe to build the channel tunnel link", and they have their Front Bench spokesman wild with excitement and believing that it can be built tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East rattled through the Edinburgh initiative. That initiative built on the European Investment Bank. The Edinburgh facility was an enlargement of the borrowing from that bank.
Over the years, we have been the third-largest borrower from the European Investment Bank. In 1992, United Kingdom undertakings borrowed a total of £1, 795 million from it. Ironically, given the hon. Gentleman's case, water companies are among the major beneficiaries in this country from those European facilities. The hon. Gentleman says that he wants facts, but there was not an accurate fact in his speech from beginning to end. The large amount borrowed by the water companies is £496 million and that is continuing in 1993.
At the Edinburgh summit we announced the Edinburgh facility, an enlargement of European investment funds. I have already said that the United Kingdom has taken more advantage of that than any other member country. So far, we have borrowed approximately £640 million.
There are still outstanding moneys under the Edinburgh facility. We should be prepared to consider an extension of the European facility if anyone at the summit can demonstrate that there is a need for such an extension by citing any projects of the kinds listed which are held up anywhere for lack of funds.
The hon. Gentleman is inadvertently and passionately defending an idea that the Commission should suddenly start borrowing on its own account and issuing so-called union bonds as an additional facility for which there is no demonstrable need.
That is not even a new idea, although it is to the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has no policy on the economy or on Europe. Therefore, last Monday it borrowed what seemed to be the Commission's latest bright idea, but I remember that in the 1970s, under a Commissioner called Ortoli, it was suggested that the European Commission should be allowed to issue bonds on its own account and start to acquire a public sector debt as if it were a Government.
Is it the Opposition's position that, at a time when all over Europe tough budgetary decisions are being taken to reduce Government borrowing, the Labour party is, overnight, in favour of allowing the Commission to increase its borrowings and start issuing bonds as if it were a Government for no demonstrable purpose?
Mr. Stevenson: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. If I have time I might come to the hon. Gentleman's points, with which I have considerable sympathy. I have had to spend this long explaining to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East that he is talking about fool's gold, which has fooled him completely into believing that we are resisting some lightning method of moving forward into great infrastructure projects.
If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in growth, employment and competitiveness, what common-sense

579
propositions do we have to put forward, which we are putting forward and on which we are winning friends inside the European Community?
The first proposition that we are advancing is the need for economic convergence, following the Maastricht criteria, low inflation, a subject never mentioned by the Labour party, and low public borrowing, which Britain is likely to achieve at a faster rate than others. That is a key to European policy.
The Labour party in Britain would not achieve either. It is not in favour of low inflation. Its policies, announced last week, of not raising taxation, increasing public spending and borrowing more money would take them away from the convergence criteria on which every other member state is agreed.
The second proposition, never mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, includes open markets and free trading. It is astonishing that someone who claims to be a serious shadow Chancellor does not mention the GATT round or the trading position of the European Community—
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman to see whether he understands the GATT round any more than he understands European capital financing.
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor said that I had failed to mention the GATT round. He is absolutely wrong. Will he now apologise?
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the GATT round, I apologise for missing his one good point in the stream of consciousness gabble that he gave to us when he completely misunderstood the purpose of the Delors White Paper. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East wishes to extend his knowledge of open, free-trading policies, he might agree that the Government are right to insist in Europe on completion of the single market, run on the basis of proper competition policy and a single market that steadily gets rid of state aids, which distort competition in the economy. They are right to insist on opening the markets of the European Union—following the GATT round, which I hope will be concluded successfully in the next few days—especially for the countries of eastern and central Europe. That is the second item of the positive agenda that we are pressing ahead in Europe. The first item is economic convergence, the second is open markets and free trade.
The third part of our agenda, the true European agenda, is encouraging enterprise in the EC. [Interruption.] Yes. If Opposition Members had copies of the White Paper or had read it, they would find that that idea is slowly entering the arguments of our partners.
Mr. Stevenson: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman made one of the few speeches that contained parts with which I agreed, although I would be reckless to agree with some parts of it, I shall give way to him.
Mr. Stevenson: Will the Chancellor explain to the House how the Government are promoting enterprise when, on 15 November, the Budget Council, on which the Government are represented, unanimously agreed to another 700 million ecu of wasteful agricultural expenditure? How is that promoting enterprise?
Mr. Clarke: That was the part of the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I had some sympathy—he should join the Treasury. We have tackled that. I had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the common agricultural policy. He was putting forward a point of view with which the Government had considerable sympathy. We tackled it at the Edinburgh summit, during the British presidency. We are quite clear, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when he opened the debate, that the own resources ceiling and the agricultural guideline which we set at Edinburgh must be adhered to. We have capped that agricultural spending. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to do so, because it leaves us freer to pursue the agenda, which includes encouraging enterprise.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: In a moment. We believe in reducing burdens on business. If Opposition Members do not believe that we are winning that argument in Europe, they should study the documents before us.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: I will in a second.
We are also encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises. I remember in Europe six years ago the Government were almost alone in advocating the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. The White Paper and guidelines contain copious references to them—British policy—because we see those enterprises as the major source of new jobs in Europe in the 1990s and we are getting that into the European agenda. We would like to go further in lifting burdens and we believe that the White Paper is going in the right direction but does not go far enough. We should like to advocate an audit of existing legislation, whether it be under the social chapter or any other heading, to get rid of those useless burdens on German, French and British employers which are inhibiting the creation of new jobs. I willingly give way to my hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not it intensely gratifying for my right hon. and learned Friend and indeed the Prime Minister that they now have German converts on the matter of competition? The German document states:
"Increasing regulation and the growing complexity of provisions must not be allowed to restrict unduly the creative forces and initiative of citizens of business enterprises and burden them with the costs."
That is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend has been saying and other Governments have now taken notice.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. She has been a Member of the European Parliament. The Labour party would be in a minority of one in the Council of Europe in advocating the nonsense that it still turns out as its policy. Time was when the economic approach of the European Commission and many of our partners came straight out of Harold Wilson's Government of the 1960s. We have now changed the climate in the rest of Europe, but the British Labour movement remains rooted in its historical past.
We go on to advocate flexible labour markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, a policy that is now incorporated in

581
the White Paper. Also contained in the White Paper is our belief in modernising social protection to give affordable, well-targeted social protection schemes that increase incentives to work.
All that is in the programme of work before the House and it has all been resisted by the Opposition, who sit there fondly imagining that they are supporting the growth initiative of European Governments this weekend. As I have already described when I went over the whole question of infrastructure investment, the Opposition simply do not understand and their approach to Europe is to defend an approach to job creation that is no longer advocated by our European partners.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) passionately defended the White Paper. Apparently, it is now the British Labour movement's policy. This second version came out on Monday. There was an earlier version—[H0N. MEMBERS: "It is the third version."] It may be the third version, but it is the second one that I have seen. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who opened the debate, had not read a single one of the pile of documents. The explanatory memorandum of the last White Paper is in the pile. It is the only one that reached the Finance Committee. If there was a previous one, it never emerged from the Commission. If the hon. Gentleman had read it, he would know that it was quite different and, together with other Finance Ministers, I challenged it only a month or six weeks ago. Then, work sharing was the great new idea being put forward by the Commission in that White Paper.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East says that I go to Europe to create controversy. Yes, I challenge the fallacy that there is one lump of labour and the approach should be to ration it and share it out. I also challenge the fallacy that Europe can compete better with the Japanese and the rest of the world by working shorter hours. Hon. Members ask me to prove that we are winning the argument. The proof is here. Where is the work sharing which the Labour party would have advocated and bought a month ago? [Interruption.] They bought this one quickly enough; I am surprised that they hesitated before buying the previous one.
We now have a document that bears the stamp of this Government's policies. The work sharing has gone and the idea of union bonds has been inserted at the last moment. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is one of the few people in Europe who swallowed that idea hook, line and sinker on the day that it appeared. I do not think that that will go much further, either.
I do not know how the hon. Gentleman will explain to British constituents—any more than a German could explain to German constituents or a Frenchman to French constituents—when we all agree to the economic guidelines and agree that Governments should reduce the public sector deficit, as we are, and get our budgets under control, that the Commission should be allowed to borrow billions of ecu, which he would merrily spend, creating a borrowing requirement all of its own.
We are having such an influence because we are leading the way into economic recovery.
Mr. Shore: I am glad that the Chancellor has, at last, mentioned the paper on economic guidelines under the Maastricht treaty. The purport of those guidelines is
582
precisely to bully member states—not necessarily the United Kingdom, but the other member states—into accepting the reduction of their public sector borrowing requirements as quickly as possible to 3 per cent. and, in general, into adopting the deflationary policies of economic and monetary union. Is not it a contradiction for the Commission, which still supports precisely that policy and those commitments, now to come forward in the guise of expansion in the form of Delors proposals mark 2? Is not Mr. Delors suffering from schizophrenia?
Mr. Clarke: With respect, it is no good the right hon. Gentleman telling me that—it is the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East who is showing that. I do not accept that the economic guidelines are a classic, traditional deflationary policy. It is certainly true that the Commission suggested as one of the essential macro-economic preconditions for growth and recovery that we get inflation down throughout Europe to the levels that Britain is now achieving and that we get the public sector deficits of the member states down to the levels for which we are aiming —to 3 per cent. of GDP by 1996–97. That is an objective being pursued by every other member state and, as a result of last week's Budget, we are more on course to achieve those criteria than most other member states. The British labour movement is quite alone in opposing those criteria.
The guidelines contain many additional positive suggestions for economic policy going way beyond deflationary policy, but one must begin by tightening the budgetary position, and fiscal policy where there are huge and unsustainable deficits, some of which in western Europe are much worse than ours. One must also get inflation down to a low and sustainable level. Then one must pursue the policy that I set our earlier, that of lifting the impediments from industry, getting social security spending down to affordable levels and building into the social security systems the incentives to encourage people back to work, as we are doing in this country. All those policies are commended in the better parts of the document because the Government have had a substantial input. We are resisting those parts of the old theology, of the old Europe and of the old Wilsonian recipe which keep coming back to joyous approval from the Labour party.
As I said, listening to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, Eat, if one knew nothing of the outside world, it would be impossible to imagine that we were the only major European country experiencing significant growth in 1993. It is not only I who predict that growth in Britain will improve in 1994—so do the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development. Apart from the hon. Gentleman, there is no one in Britain who does not believe that the British economy will be the fastest growing in the European Community next year. [Interruption.] There are at least 15 million unemployed people in the European Community and the number is rising. The unemployed in the rest of western Europe hope that they will experience the fall in unemployment—the growth in employment—which has already begun in this country and which needs to be strengthened and sustained.
Mr. Enright: Will the Chancellor answer one question —when will the channel link be completed?
Mr. Clarke: The channel tunnel link has to be designed —[Laughter.] We need the legislation. The routes of the high-speed trains in France are normally constructed by

583
drawing a line on a map after no public inquiry; the lines are just built. I am sure that the finance will be readily available for the channel tunnel link. It is the height of folly for the Opposition to imagine that somehow the channel tunnel link is being held up for lack of provision suggested in the Commission's White Paper.
The Opposition know nothing at all about the design and forwarding of major construction projects; they know nothing whatever about the policies of the European Union. They have only to see the glint of money—however unreal—to believe that there must be a new source of spending one's way to growth and recovery.
As a result of the successful policies that we have pursued, which gave us higher levels of growth in the 1980s than our major European rivals, and which led to more job creation in the 1980s than in Germany or France and which are now giving us the growth and recovery that we are beginning to experience, people in Europe are listening to the British and the Conservative experience.
They are privatising, they are deregulating, they are going for competitive open markets and they will be glad that my right hon. Friends and I are going to the Council this weekend when they read of the Labour party still living in the past and believing that borrowing and spending is a solution to their problems. They could profit from reading some of those documents. They could profit more from following the Government's example on economic policy.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. David Willetts(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that there are three Labour Members in the No Lobby who are refusing to vote. I should be grateful if you could ask the Serjeant at Arms to ensure that they vote against the amendment.
Madam Speaker: If there is a delay, of course I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to see what is happening in the No Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 236, Noes 297.

Division No. 23]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Adams, Mrs Irene

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Austin-Walker, John

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Harry

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Bayley, Hugh

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clapham, Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clelland, David

Bennett, Andrew F.

Coffey, Ann

Benton, Joe

Cohen, Harry

Bermingham, Gerald

Connarty, Michael

Berry, Dr. Roger

Corbett, Robin

Betts, Clive

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blair, Tony

Corston, Ms Jean

Blunkett, David

Cousins, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Cox, Tom

Boyes, Roland

Cryer, Bob

Bradley, Keith

Cummings, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

584

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Lewis, Terry

Darling, Alistair

Litherland, Robert

Davidson, Ian

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Loyden, Eddie

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McAllion, John

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

McAvoy, Thomas

Denham, John

Macdonald, Calum

Dewar, Donald

McFall, John

Dixon, Don

McKelvey, William

Dobson, Frank

Mackinlay, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H.

McLeish, Henry

Dowd, Jim

McMaster, Gordon

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McNamara, Kevin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McWilliam, John

Eagle, Ms Angela

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Mandelson, Peter

Enright, Derek

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Etherington, Bill

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Martlew, Eric

Fatchett, Derek

Meacher, Micheal

Faulds, Andrew

Meale, Alan

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Micheal, Alun

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flynn, Paul

Milburn, Alan

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Miller, Andrew

Foulkes, George

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Fraser, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fyfe, Maria

Morgan, Rhodri

Galloway, George

Morley, Elliot

Gapes, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Garrett, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

George, Bruce

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gerrard, Neil

Mudie, George

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mullin, Chris

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Murphy, Paul

Godsiff, Roger

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Gordon, Mildred

O'Hara, Edward

Gould, Bryan

Olner, William

Graham, Thomas

Patchett, Terry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Pendry, Tom

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pickthall, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pike, Peter L.

Grocott, Bruce

Pope, Greg

Gunnell, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hain, Peter

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hall, Mike

Prentice, Gordon, (Pendle)

Hardy, Peter

Prescott, John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Primarolo, Dawn

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Purchase, Ken

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hoey, Kate

Radice, Gilles

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Randall, Stuart

Home Robertson, John

Raynsford, Nick

Hoon, Geoffrey

Redmond, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Reid, Dr John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Rendel, David

Hoyle, Doug

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rogers, Allan

Hutton, John

Rooker, Jeff

Ingram, Adam

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Rowlands, Ted

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Ruddock, Joan

Jamieson, David

Sedgemore, Brain

Janner, Greville

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Short, Clare

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Simpson, Alan

Jowell, Tessa

Skinner, Dennis

Keen, Alan

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

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

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

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

Khabra, Piara S.

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Soley, Clive

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Spearing, Nigel

Leighton, Ron

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

585

Steinberg, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Stott, Roger

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wilson, Brian

Straw, Jack

Winnick, David

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wise, Audrey

Tipping, Paddy

Worthington, Tony

Turner, Dennis

Wright, Dr Tony

Vaz, Keith

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Walley, Joan

Tellers for the Noes

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. Eric Illsley, and

Watson, Mike

Mr. John Spellar

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Aitken, Jonathan

Dorrell, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dover, Den

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan

Ancram, Michael

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Arbuthnot, James

Dunn, Bob

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dykes, Hugh

Ashby, David

Eggar, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Baldry, Tony

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evennett, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Faber, David

Bates, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bendall, Vivian

Fishburn, Dudley

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forman, Nigel

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forsyth, Michael (Srirling)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forth, Eric

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, Rt Hon Roger

Bowden, Andrew

French, Douglas

Bowis, John

Fry, Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gale, Roger

Brandreth, Gyles

Gallie, Phill

Brazier, Julian

Gardiner, Sir George

Bright, Graham

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Garnier, Edward

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gill, Christopher

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gillan, Cheryl

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Burns, Simon

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burt, Alistair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butcher, John

Gorst, John

Butler, Peter

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carrington, Matthew

Grylls, Sir Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clappison, James

Hague, William

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coe, Sebastian

Hanley, Jeremy

Colvin, Michael

Hannam, Sir John

Congdon, David

Hargreaves, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Harris, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Haselhurst, Alan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hawkins, Nick

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hawksley, Warren

Cormack, Patrick

Hayes, Jerry

Couchman, James

Heald, Oliver

Cran, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

Hendry, Charles

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hicks, Robert

Day, Stephen

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Devlin, Tim

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

586

Horam, John

Pawsey, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pickles, Eric

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

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Richards, Rod

Jack, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jenkin, Bernard

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jessel, Toby

Robathan, Andrew

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sackville, Tom

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knapman, Roger

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knox, Sir David

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sheresby, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sims, Roger

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Legg, Barry

Soames, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Speed, Sir Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lidington, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Luff, Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, David

Stephen, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Madel, David

Streeter, Gary

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sumberg, David

Malone, Gerald

Sykes, John

Mans, Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mates, Michael

Thomason, Roy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Merchant, Piers

Thurnham, Peter

Milligan, Stephen

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Tracey, Richard

Moate, Sir Roger

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nelson, Anthony

Viggers, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walden, George

Nicholls, Patrick

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ward, John

Norris, Steve

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Waterson, Nigel

Oppenheim, Phillip

Watts, John

Ottaway, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Page, Richard

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Paice, James

Whitney, Ray

Patnick, Irvine

Whittingdale, John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Ann

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

587

Wilkinson, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. David Lightbown and

Wood, Timothy

Mr. Sydney Chapman

Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 232.

Division No. 24]

[10.16pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Dover, Den

Aitken, Jonathan

Duncan, Alan

Alexander, Richard

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dunn, Bob

Amess, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Ancram, Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Arbuthnot, James

Egger, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Ashby, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evennett, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Faber, David

Baldry, Tony

Fabricant, Michael

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bates, Michael

Fishburn, Dudley

Batiste, Spencer

Forman, Nigel

Bellingham, Henry

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bendall, Vivian

Forth, Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Booth, Hartley

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fry, Peter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gale, Roger

Bowden, Andrew

Gallie, Phill

Bowis, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brandreth, Gyles

Garnier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Gill, Christopher

Bright, Graham

Gillan, Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorst, John

Burns, Simon

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carrington, Matthew

Hague, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Chapman, Sydney

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clappison, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hanley, Jeremy

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hannam, Sir John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hargreaves, Andrew

Coe, Sebastian

Harris, David

Colvin, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Congdon, David

Hawkins, Nick

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hawksley, Warren

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hayes, Jerry

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Heald, Oliver

Cormack, Patrick

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Couchman, James

Hendry, Charles

Cran, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

Hicks, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Day, Stephen

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Horam, John

Devlin, Tim

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

588

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Rathbone, Tim

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Richards, Rod

Hunter, Andrew

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robathan, Andrew

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Key, Robert

Sackville, Tom

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knox, Sir David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shersby, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sims, Roger

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Soames, Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Speed, Sir Keith

Leigh, Edward

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lidington, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lightbown, David

Spring, Richard

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stephen, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David

Stewart, Allan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, David

Sykes, John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mates, Michael

Thomason, Roy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Merchant, Piers

Thurnham, Peter

Milligan, Stephen

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Tracey, Richard

Moate, Sir Roger

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nelson, Anthony

Viggers, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walden, George

Nicholls, Patrick

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ward, John

Norris, Steve

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Waterson, Nigel

Oppenheim, Phillip

Watts, John

Ottaway, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Page, Richard

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Paice, James

Whitney, Ray

Patnick, Irvine

Whittingdale, John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Ann

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Pawsey, James

Wilkinson, John

Pickles, Eric

Willetts, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wilshire, David

589

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. Derek Conway.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Faulds, Andrew

Adams, Mrs Irene

Fisher, Mark

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Flynn, Paul

Allen, Graham

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Foulkes, George

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Fyfe, Maria

Armstrong, Hilary

Galloway, George

Ashton, Joe

Gapes, Mike

Austin-Walker, John

Garrett, John

Barnes, Harry

George, Bruce

Bayley, Hugh

Gerrard, Neil

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Godsiff, Roger

Bell, Stuart

Golding, Mrs Llin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gordon, Mildred

Bennett, Andrew F.

Gould, Bryan

Benton, Joe

Graham, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blair, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Blunkett, David

Gunnell, John

Boateng, Paul

Hain, Peter

Bradley, Keith

Hall, Mike

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hardy, Peter

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Burden, Richard

Hinchliffe, David

Byers, Stephen

Hoey, Kate

Caborn, Richard

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Callaghan, Jim

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Howarth, George (Knowsley)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Howarth, George (Pontypridd)

Canavan, Dennis

Hoyle, Doug

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clapham, Michael

Hutton, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Ingram, Adam

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Clelland, David

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Coffey, Ann

Jamieson, David

Cohen, Harry

Janner, Grevile

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Ieuan Wyn(Ynys Môn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corston, Ms Jean

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd, SW)

Cousins, Jim

Jowell, Tessa

Cox, Tom

Keen, Alan

Cryer, Bob

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Cummings, John

Kennedy, Jane(Lpool Brdgn)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Khabra, Piara S.

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil(Islwyn)

Darling, Alistair

Leighton, Ron

Davidson, Ian

Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Lewis, Terry

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Litherland, Robert

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Livingstone, Ken

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

Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)

Denham, John

Loyden, Eddie

Dewar, Donald

McAllion, John

Dixon, Don

McAvoy, Thomas

Dobson, Frank

Macdonald, Calum

Donohoe, Brian H.

McFall, John

Dowd, Jim

McKelvey, William

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McLeish, Henry

Eagle, Ms Angela

McMaster, Gorton

Eastham, Ken

McNamara, Kevin

Enright, Derek

McWilliam, John

Etherington, Bill

Madden, Max

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mandelson, Peter

Fatchett, Derek

Marshall, David(Shettleston)

590

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Martlew, Eric

Rowlands, Ted

Meacher, Michael

Ruddock, Joan

Meale, Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

Michael, Alun

Sheerman, Barry

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Milburn, Alan

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Miller, Andrew

Short, Clare

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Simpson, Alan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Spearing, Nigel

Mullin, Chris

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Murphy, Paul

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Stevenson, George

O'Hara, Edward

Stott, Roger

Olner, William

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Patchett, Terry

Straw, Jack

Pendry, Tom

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Pickthall, Colin

Tipping, Paddy

Pike, Peter L.

Turner, Dennis

Pope, Greg

Vaz, Keith

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Walley, Joan

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wareing, Robert N

Prescott, John

Watson, Mike

Primarolo, Dawn

Wicks, Malcolm

Purchase, Ken

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Alan w (Carmarthen)

Radice, Giles

Wilson, Brian

Randall, Stuart

Winnick, David

Raynsford, Nick

Wise, Audrey

Redmond, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Reid, Dr John

Wright, Dr Tony

Rendel, David

young, David (Bolton SE)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Tellers for the Noes:

Rogers, Allan

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Rooker, Jeff

Mr. John Spellar.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, July to December 1992 (Cm. 2168), the White Paper on developments in the European Community, January to June 1993 (Cm. 2369), the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 6th December 1993 on the Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines for economic policies under Article 103(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, European Community Documents Nos. COM (93) 700, the Commission's White Book on growth, competitiveness and employment, COM (93) 545, the Commission's report to the European Council on subsidiarity, 7194/93, on reinforcing the effectiveness of the internal market, 7665/93, the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1994, 9303/93, the letter of amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 1994, 8012/93, the Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1994, and 9922/93, the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 22nd November 1993, relating to the Council's decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 2nd November 1993, relating to the revision of the Financial Perspective for 1994, and OJ C309, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1992, together with the replies of the Institutions.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance. Is it within the voting procedures of the House for an hon. Member to be in both Lobbies during a Division? The right

591
hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was in both Lobbies during the first Division, not to rectify a vote but so that he could be first out on the subsequent vote. Is not that a gross misuse of our voting procedures? If nothing else, is not it a gross discourtesy to you as the Speaker and to us as the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: I would prefer it if hon. Members were not over-keen, but I understand their anxiety to get through early. I understand that the Member or Members involved had already voted and were ready to vote in the second Division, on the main Question.

PETITION

  Salmon Farming
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to present a petition to the House from the Orkney and Shetland salmon farmers. The petition was presented yesterday to me as Opposition fisheries spokesman, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who represents many of the salmon farmers, and to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
  The petition expresses concern about the dire consequences for the Scottish salmon farming industry of the dumping of salmon from Norway within the European Community. It is clearly being dumped on to the European and United Kingdom market at way below its production price. There is no doubt that the Scottish salmon industry feels that the Government have not fought its case strongly enough in the European Commission to ensure fair and legal trading opportunities for our salmon farming industry.
  The petition makes it clear that more than 6, 000 jobs in the industry are at risk. Those jobs are in rural areas where there are few job opportunities. There will be little chance of replacing the jobs if they are lost. The petition says:
  The Honourable, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the residents of Scotland, Shetland and Orkney sheweth the Scottish, Orkney and Shetland Salmon Farming industry requires urgent safeguard action measures that will achieve stability in our industry by a combination of a substantially increased minimum import price and a restriction on imports of salmon to the EC set at 2, 000 tonnes per week.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will request swift safeguard action from the EC Commission that will effectively introduce fair and legal market conditions for our industry's 6, 000 employees and to protect our £200 million total contribution to the UK's balance of payments.
  I very much hope that the Government will take note of this petition and will act upon it urgently.
  To lie upon the Table.

Kashmir (Human Rights)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10.35 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity of initiating this Adjournment debate. May I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for having the courtesy to be present to reply to this debate and his officials for being so helpful in supplying statistics.
I welcome to the debate my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), together with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has a constituency interest in this problem. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). It is nice to see him here this evening.
With my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North, for Rutland and Melton and for Stroud, I recently had the opportunity of going to Pakistan to visit the refugee camps in the northern state of Azad Kashmir and to have direct discussions with the Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto.
There are few Kashmiris, Indians or Pakistanis in my constituency and I therefore believe that I will be able to take an impartial view on the subject. It is important that we maintain good relations with both India and Pakistan. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have detailed knowledge of both countries and we should not be partial to one country or another. The problem just needs to be resolved.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Members he mentioned would be just as keen to visit India and Indian Kashmir as we were to visit Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and to talk to the Indian Prime Minister about the problem? Does he also agree that the matter must, in the end, he resolved by the Indian and Pakistan Governments, in co-operation with the people of Kashmir, and that that must be what we press for?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall develop that subject later as it is extremely pertinent.
Kashmir is strategically placed in a valley below the roof of the world, in the Himalayan mountains. It adjoins China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and its border is only 20 miles from the southern part of the former Soviet Union. Due to its geographical position, Kashmir is one of the scenic gems of the world. The Kashmiri people are peaceful and merely want to be allowed to live their lives unmolested.
For the record, I shall briefly sketch the history of the problem. In 1947, the British Government partitioned the Indian sub-continent into India, West and East Pakistan—the latter is now Bangladesh. United Nations resolutions were tabled in 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1957. They are still current and should be acted upon. It is probable that in those early days the problem might have been resolved were it not for the fact that the first Indian Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, and his family came from Kashmir and he was determined that the status should not be altered. The Pakistan Army intervened in 1947 and eventually there
594
was a United Nations-brokered ceasefire, following which the then Maharajah of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was obliged to sign an instrument of accession of Kashmir to India, with Jammu and the Vale remaining with India and Azad Kashmir forming part of an independent state, though for practical purposes it is now administered by Pakistan.
Twelve million people in Jammu and the Vale strongly identify with their kith and kin in Azad Kashmir. In addition, about 75 per cent. are Muslims, as are the people of Pakistan, which is why Pakistan was partitioned in the first place.
In the 1950s, under Nehru, India courted the former USSR while Pakistan allied with the United States of America. In the second Indo-Pakistani war in 1965, America imposed an arms embargo on both sides, whereupon Pakistan started to ally with China. That, basically, remains the position today, although Pakistan now has good relations with the west, and with the United Kingdom in particular. Since the break-up of the former Soviet Union, India has improved relations with the United Kingdom and the USA.
An important development in the history of the problem was the Simla agreement signed by both parties in 1972, under which they
"resolved to settle their differences through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them."
The agreement looked forward to
"a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir."
As I understand it, our Government's position is that progress on the problem should be made on the basis of that agreement. Not much has been achieved, however, in the intervening 40 years. I therefore call on the international community to demand that the bilateral talks between the two foreign Ministers, due to take place in January, achieve progress.
The nub of the problem is that Kashmir is a divided state whose people have been denied the right of self-determination, which has led some independent observers to declare that Kashmir is still a disputed territory. I emphasise "some observers" because the phrase "disputed territory" is somewhat controversial.
India may be worried that, if the status of Jammu and the Vale were altered, the other 120 million Muslims in the remaining part of India might start to demand the right of self-determination, but their constitutional position is entirely different. Historically, they have always been part of India, so that cannot be the case.
For the past two years, mainly since the end of the Afghan war, a large number of arms and freedom fighters have been floating about and they have gravitated into the state of Kashmir. This is particularly sad because it has encouraged the more militant elements in the indigenous population of Jammu and the Vale to take up arms and fight the Indian army. The unfortunate reaction of the Indian army to that insurrection has been over-reaction. It has begun to round up civilians, shooting, torturing and raping them.
India has many troops in the Vale and Jammu and it admits that at least 2, 000 people have been killed in the past two years. Some elements in Pakistan believe that the figure could be up to 10 times as high.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I make a little more progress? I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
Some elements in Pakistan think that the figure might be as high as 20, 000, but I stress that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said, it is not possible for international observers to observe what is going on, so it is difficult to obtain objective figures.
There is no doubt that many people have been gaoled but are still awaiting trial, which is quite unacceptable to the international community.
My hon. Friends and I were able to visit the refugee camps high up in the state of Azad Kashmir. There are 10, 000 people living in primitive tented conditions in a harsh climate. I was able to see some of the human misery in those camps. There were many atrocities—people who had had their legs cut off, people who had had acid poured over them, and others who had had a knife stuck in their hip joints so that they could never walk again. We have no means of verifying how the atrocities had taken place, but we do know that international observers are not allowed into Kashmir and that the border has been mined to stop the flow of refugees.
The camp numbers are swelling all the time. When some of my hon. Friends were there only a year ago, some of the camps did not exist. People are fleeing over the border from Jammu and the Vale into Pakistan and the numbers in the camps are increasing. That is extremely sad. Azad Kashmir and India are very poor states, and one of the poorest states in the world is having to find money to look after the people in the refugee camps. The refugees now flowing into the camps are in addition to the 1·5 million refugees who fled into Pakistan over the Afghan border.
The most important question that arises is why India will not allow international observers into the occupied part of Kashmir.
Mr. John Watts: They have too much to hide.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have had some good news today from Jane Cooper of Amnesty International. She said that Amnesty International is having talks with the Indian Government about a possible visit. I welcome that. I hope that there will be no strings attached to the visit and that the visitors will be able to go where they like and talk to the Indian Government on a meaningful basis.
As I have already said, three of my hon. Friends and myself were given the privilege of visiting Azad Kashmir to see for ourselves what is going on in the refugee camps. I understand that repeated requests have been made to the Indian High Commissioner to allow Members of Parliament to visit the occupied part of Kashmir so that they can see for themselves and make an impartial judgment. I shall be sending a copy of this speech to the Indian High Commissioner.
Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman was obviously moved by what he saw on his brief visit to the area. I am surprised that he has not taken this opportunity to condemn the terrorism in that part of the sub-continent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned only one side. Terrorism has sought to undermine the basis of democracy in India. Why does not he take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and leave the sub-continent issues to be decided between India and Pakistan? I wonder what role the House of Commons has in this matter.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall move on to the subjects that he has mentioned.
I condemn all terrorism wherever it takes place in the world. It is totally unacceptable, whether it is in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
My hon. Friends and I were privileged to be able to discuss the matter with the Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. There can be no doubt that she wishes to make progress on this issue. I welcome the fact that bilateral talks are to take place between the two Foreign Ministers at the beginning of January and I urge that progress be made.
Ultimately, the two countries must sort out the problem for themselves. But, as I have said, there are huge armed forces in India and Pakistan. They are highly trained. Both countries are spending a large part of their budgets on defence. India is spending about 8 per cent. of its budget on defence, and Pakistan about 25 per cent. The United Nations recognises that this is one of the flashpoints of the world because India has nuclear weapons and Pakistan will soon have the capability to build such weapons.
It is vital that the rest of the world calls for the two countries to make real and meaningful progress on this issue. India is supposed to be one of the greatest democracies of the world. It seeks a seat on the Security Council. Surely, now more than at any time in history, India should demonstrate those democratic credentials. On the basis of the Simla agreement, let us ask India and Pakistan to sit down together and negotiate a real and meaningful settlement.
It is time that the world woke up to this problem. Both countries are members of the Commonwealth; there are United Nations resolutions on the table; Britain has good relations with both countries. Surely, wherever atrocities are perpetrated—whether they are perpetrated by the Indian Government, the Pakistani Government or by freedom fighters—the united world community has the right to ask both countries to sit down and end this human tragedy, which could be a tragedy of immense proportions.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. I very much look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. As I have said, I am grateful to him for being present.
10.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I congratulate him on bringing the subject of Kashmir before the House again. Tonight's attendance demonstrates that the subject elicits the greatest possible interest and concern in the House of Commons, and I believe that the debate will receive wide attention outside the House.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister accept the view of the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester)—and, I know, of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and all of us in the Indo-British parliamentary group—that the best job that the British Government could do now is to promote the peace talks that are under way to produce peace in that beautiful valley? Should not we, of all nations, understand the vast difficulty experienced by the Indian authorities in

597
promoting peace and human rights when there is such vast terrorism there? Apparently, 6, 000 people have been killed in the past four years, and 1, 500 have been killed lately. Will the Minister do all that he can to convince the authorities—particularly those outside Kashmir—that terrorism must cease if peace is to prevail?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are certainly pleased that the talks are to be resumed in January. As for the other aspects of the matter, I am dealing with the whole question comprehensively; I shall say something relevant to the other matters raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman a little later.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the situation in Kashmir, and described some of its history. I endorse some, but not all, of what he has said. I gave my view of the historical background at some length during a debate in the House on 14 February 1991. I do not think that I shall have time to go over all the ground again, because it is important to deal with contemporary issues, but I know that my hon. Friend will have a chance to read that speech in depth.
It may be helpful if I begin by briefly setting out our overall policy on Kashmir. The policy has not changed. We believe that the best way forward on Kashmir involves simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir; a genuine political progress; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. I believe that this continues to represent a coherent and constructive approach to the complex problem that has bedevilled relations between two countries with which we have close and friendly ties.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is present. Like any other Front Bencher, he cannot contribute to the debate as other hon. Members can.
It is clear that no solution on Kashmir will be possible without the active agreement of India and Pakistan. Accordingly, Foreign Office Ministers and officials have taken every opportunity to encourage the Governments of both countries to resume the bilateral dialogue of which we have had mention.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the issue high on the agenda when he met the Indian Prime Minister in January and the then Pakistani Prime Minister in March. He also took the earliest possible opportunity to discuss the problems with the new Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, when they met at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in October.
Most recently, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Indian Prime Minister in Delhi on 15 November, he welcomed the positive message that Mr. Narasimha Rao had passed Benazir Bhutto on her election, and expressed the hope that bilateral talks would soon begin. Equally, I encouraged Ms Bhutto to begin such talks when I met her in Islamabad on 15 November.
The above list of exchanges is far from exhaustive, but it clearly demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to an early resolution of the Kashmir problem.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way once, but I cannot give way more than that.
Mr. Madden: I am listening carefully to the Minister and, reflecting what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said about the importance of self-determination, is it the Government's policy to encourage the Governments of India and Pakistan to invite the widest possible representation of the Kashmiri people to the talks which I hope will start soon? If there is to be a lasting peace, surely it cannot be imposed; it must be acceptable to the majority of the Kashmiri people.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd; Clearly, the participants in talks between the Governments of India and Pakistan must be decided by the two Governments, but, as I have already said, it is part of the British Government's policy that there should be a political process.
For the reasons that I have already given, we welcomed strongly the announcement on 24 November that talks between India and Pakistan will commence early in the new year. We hope that that will mark the beginning of a constructive dialogue to resolve the differences between the two countries which are focused on the Kashmir dispute.
My hon. Friend referred to the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949. Those resolutions, which both India and Pakistan agreed, and which Britain supported, set out the basis for a possible settlement on Kashmir. Regrettably, neither side fully implemented those resolutions and they have, to some extent, been overtaken by events.
The 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan represents the most recent formal agreement of both sides on the handling of their dispute over Kashmir. It envisaged a "final settlement" of the dispute
"through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them".
As my hon. Friend has said, now is the time for India to enter into meaningful bilateral discussion with Pakistan.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then no more.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have heard my hon. Friend say before and I have read in his speech that events have passed by those United Nations resolutions. But does he agree that one of the vital elements in those United Nations resolutions is that Kashmir should become a demilitarised zone? Is not one of the most important things that the tension in that area should be reduced and that we should be asking India and Pakistan to move troops well away from the area?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The parties will wish to discuss many matters when they resume discussions in January. What my hon. Friend refers to is no doubt one of them.
I have noted what my hon. Friend said about human rights in Kashmir. I am aware that his concern is shared by others here and outside the House. I am also aware of the reports of the situation in Kashmir which have been published by independent human rights organisations, such as Asia Watch and Amnesty International, and reports that have been produced by Indian human rights groups and the Indian press. There can be no doubt that serious human rights abuses have taken place. We have repeatedly impressed on the Indian Government our concern about

599
abuses by the Indian security forces in Kashmir. We have emphasised the need to respect human rights and the rule of law in confronting terrorism, and the importance of bringing those responsible for wrongdoing to justice.
Mr. Gary Waller: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. I must make progress. I have already given way once to each side of the House.
I urge the House not to forget, however, that many abuses in Kashmir are committed by the militants who are fighting against the security forces. Abuse of human rights by terrorists is as unacceptable as by the security forces.
During his visit to India in January, the Prime Minister raised the concerns in Britain about human rights with the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Narasimha Rao. Mr. Rao assured the Prime Minister that he attached importance to respect for human rights, that allegations of abuses were fully investigated, and that those responsible for wrongdoing were punished. More recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs discussed the situation in Kashmir and human rights with Mr. Rao and the Indian Home Minister, Mr. Chavan, during his visit to India last month. I assure the House that we shall continue to press those concerns with the Indian authorities.
In looking at human rights in India, it is important not to lose sight of the sort of country that we are talking about. India has a long and proven democratic tradition, an independent judiciary, and a free and vociferous press. It has its own human rights groups and does not restrict their access to areas of concern. That democratic tradition is India's strength and why we expect it to address the matters of which I have spoken.
India has set standards for itself. Since the beginning of this year, the Indian Government have already taken significant steps to address the problem of human rights abuses. A Human Rights Commission was established by presidential ordinance on 29 September. It has already started its work, although the full extent of its powers and responsibilities will not be settled until it receives retrospective parliamentary approval. We have, however, welcomed that development and hope that the commission will come to play an important role in investigating allegations of abuse.
Mr. Roger Godsiff: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry but I really must get on.
The commission's credibility will depend on building a reputation for thorough and genuinely independent investigation. It is encouraging that the commission has chosen, as one of its first tasks, the investigation of an important incident involving the security forces at Bijbehara in Kashmir in October. We hope that that is a sign that it will treat allegations of abuse in Kashmir as a priority among its tasks.
We have been urging the Indian Government for some time to allow access to independent human rights groups. The Indian authorities announced in July that certain international human rights organisations would be permitted to visit India. Since then, a delegation of the International Commission of Jurists visited Kashmir in August. Its report is expected to be published in January. We understand that the Indian Government has also been in discussion with Amnesty International and it has been agreed that Amnesty will visit India early next year. Those are welcome developments, which illustrate the Indian Government's intention to adopt an approach of openness in accordance with India's democratic tradition.
We were also encouraged by the peaceful ending of the siege by the Indian security forces of the Mosque at Hazratbal. I congratulate the Indian authorities on their calm handling of a most difficult situation. The Indian Government have told us that they are committed to the development of a political process in Kashmir. I hope that the peaceful resolution of the siege may pave the way to the beginning of that process.
The House can be assured that we shall continue to watch the situation in Kashmir closely and to encourage all concerned to resolve the problems there peacefully. Constructive negotiation offers the only way to bring an end to the violence.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Myodil (Compensation)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will hold an urgent investigation into the legal aid position for those suffering from arachnoiditis following treatment by Myodil and who are seeking compensation from Glaxo.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. Decisions on individual legal aid applications are entirely a matter for the legal aid board.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Indian Government following the recent clashes between the Narmada Bachao Andolan and police during peaceful opposition of the surveying of villages due to be submerged in the Narmada valley in India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned about human rights abuses in India, including the excessive use of force by police. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs regularly raises human rights issues with the Indian Government, most recently in his talks with the Indian Prime Minister on 15 November. We have welcomed the recent establishment of the Indian Human Rights Commission which we hope will look into incidents of this type.

  International Disarmament Fund
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to President Kravchuk's proposal in January for an international disarmament fund.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have offered Ukraine practical help with missile dismantling, and we have made around £37 million available to help the process of arms reduction in the former Soviet Union. These efforts are closely co-ordinated with other major donors and we do not believe that the creation of an international fund for these purposes would increase the effectiveness of the programmes concerned.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are now proposing to take to assist the dismantling and destruction of strategic warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles in Ukraine.
  296
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have offered Ukraine technical help with the safe disposal of toxic liquid fuel from missiles remaining in Ukraine.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the exclusion of article V of the Lisbon protocol by the Ukrainian Parliament for the success of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, now has 162 states party—more than any other arms control agreement in history. We deeply regret the Ukrainian Parliament's specific exclusion of article V of the Lisbon protocol in its resolution on the ratification of the strategic arms reduction talks—START 1. We have noted that the Government of Ukraine has affirmed Ukraine's intention to abide by her commitments to non-nuclear weapon status, and we have called upon the Government of Ukraine to take all necessary steps towards full implementation of the START 1 treaty and accession to the NPT, as a non-nuclear weapon state, without further delay.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

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

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government today published the fourth next steps review—Cm 2430. It brings together information on the 92 agencies within government, and the executive organisations of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue which now constitute 60 per cent. of the civil service.

  Within central Government, agencies are leaders in delivering the citizens charter commitment to customer service and value for money. The review highlights how the focus on the needs of users has been reinforced and gives examples of what individual agencies have achieved. It reports on the steps taken to enable agencies to deliver improved performance, better value for money and greater openness and accountability by, for example, clarifying the
  responsibilities of Ministers and chief executives, increased delegation, and sharpening the aims and objectives of agencies; financial arrangements and pay and grading systems which are tailored to the work of individual agencies; and the application of the competing for quality initiative.

  The arrangements are therefore now in place to enable agencies to deliver real benefits to customers and the taxpayer and these are becoming increasingly evident. The review reports for Parliament and the public on the targets set for agencies and their performance against them in 1992–93 and lists key targets for 1993–94. In 1992–93 agencies met around 77 per cent. of their key targets. This represents a small improvement over the proportion of targets met last year. In general, targets have been made progressively tougher year on year. However, further progress will have to be made, particularly in the area of efficiency. There is a continuing need for Ministers to ensure that the targets they set are challenging and that they have appropriate arrangements in place for overseeing the performance of their agencies. For both tasks they may need to draw on expert advice.
  297
  The Government's aim is that every public service should be provided in the most appropriate and cost-effective way. All the executive functions of the civil service are therefore being tested against the following criteria: first, whether they need to continue to be performed at all; secondly, whether they need to remain the responsibility of Government; thirdly, whether they should be market tested or contracted out; and, fourthly, whether they should become the responsibility of an agency within Government, itself subject to the Government's competing for quality initiative. The review reports substantial further progress in this work.

  Once established, agencies are subject to a systematic periodic review, normally after three years of operation. The review lists the current position on these reviews. The Government want to ensure that, in this process, the widest possible range of views are taken into account. In future, therefore, we have decided that reviews will be publicly announced, including through the next steps review, to enable all those with an interest in the agency and its work to contribute to the discussion of its future organisation and status.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the criteria for deciding what amount of any surplus in pension funds of privatised industries are split, once the actuarial assessment of the amount needed to meet the pension benefits of past and present employees has been made;

  (2) if he will list the criteria for deciding who receives any surplus of pension funds in privatised industries, after the actuarial assessment of the amount needed to meet the pension benefits of past and present employees has been made.

  Mr. Hague
  In all occupational pension schemes, including those of privatised industries, the application of any scheme surplus is a matter to be determined in accordance with the terms of the scheme rules. Pension arrangements on privatisation accordingly depend upon the particular circumstances of the scheme concerned.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will issue the discussion papers on occupational pensions that he announced on 3 November; and who they will be available to.

  Mr. Hague
  The first five papers in a series of discussion papers on non-state pensions were published on 3 December 1993. Copies of the papers have been placed in the Library, sent to interested parties, and are available on request.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for altering the guidelines given to the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government have always made it clear that the policy will be kept under review. We are looking at the recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee and other comments and concerns which have 298
  been raised, and testing them against the basic principles of the child support scheme. If, after examination, we think we can improve the scheme, we will do so.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the estimated first year running costs of the Child Support Agency are;

  (2) what the set-up costs of the Child Support Agency were.

  Mr. Burt
  The total cost of setting up the Child Support Agency was around £146 million. This figure includes the 1992–93 cost of liable relative work, transferred in April 1992 from the Benefits Agency to the child support unit—as the shadow agency was known before its launch in April 1993.

  The costs of the agency in 1993–94 are as follows:

  £ million

  Running costs

  99·1

  Capital

  6·8

  Other current costs

  13·9

  Total

  119·8

  Source: Winter Supplementary Estimate, November 1993.

  Disability
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional measures have been taken by his Department to assist the operation of the independent tribunal service since the introduction of disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I am advised by the independent tribunal service that, since the introduction of disability living allowance, its budget for running costs has been increased by over £21 million. It has been authorised to increase its staff by 357 posts.

  Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are engaged in his Department in combating fraud; and at what annual cost.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 23 November at columns 83-85.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Communications
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what communications have been received from or sent to any terrorist organisation or Sinn Fein since 29 November.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  For the reasons I explained to the House on 29 November,Official Report, columns 785-812, while it is useful to have a means of communication by which messages could be exchanged indirectly between the Government and the provisional movement, such a chain could function only if its secrecy was respected on both sides. Accordingly, we do not propose to divulge any

  299
  further information about messages sent or received or to comment further, save to give the assurance that any communications from Her Majesty's Government will be consistent with their publicly stated policies.

  Comptroller and Auditor-General
  Mr. Roy Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made to appoint a new Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the appointment of Mr. John Michael Dowdall as Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland in succession to Dr. W. H. Jack CB who is due to retire on 17 February 1994.

WALES

  Youth Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy for the youth service.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 27 April 1993,Official Report, column 363.

  I reaffirmed the Welsh Office's continued support for the Welsh youth service in my keynote speech to the national youth service conference in Cardiff on 3 December.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in the youth service in each of the counties of Wales; and how many were in post in 1983.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalents) as at 30 September 1993

  Trust

  Administrative and clerical

  Nursing and midwifery

  Managerial2

  Other

  Other

  Learners3

  Total3

  Bridgend and District

  29

  275

  1,254

  —

  1,254

  Carmarthen

  21

  195

  581

  21

  602

  Ceredigion

  16

  107

  419

  16

  435

  Clwydian Community Care

  53

  283

  1,537

  —

  1,537

  Glan Clwyd Hospital

  27

  271

  869

  —

  869

  Glanhafren

  40

  451

  1,660

  1

  1,661

  Gwent Community

  49

  260

  1,273

  1

  1,274

  Llandough

  20

  266

  764

  —

  764

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  17

  131

  522

  22

  544

  Pembrokeshire1

  1

  107

  544

  21

  565

  Powys Health Care

  37

  196

  1,009

  23

  1,032

  Swansea

  15

  232

  809

  —

  809

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  27

  234

  837

  —

  837

  All NHS4

  1,028

  8,577

  25,206

  1,033

  26,239

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalents) as at 30 September 1990

  All NHS4

  416

  7,653

  25,018

  3,075

  28,093

  1The use of locally devised pay scales from 1991 onwards may affect the comparability of figures as staff on such scales cannot be allocated centrally to a specific staff group and are not, therefore, included above. This particularly affects figures for the Pembrokeshire NHS trust.

  2May include some managers previously classified in staff groups other than administrative and clerical.

  3Since 1991 student nurses have been classified as students and are no longer included in the NHS staff figures. Staff included here are students finishing courses started before this date.

  4Includes staff employed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, NHS trusts and those family health service authorities using district health authority payroll systems. Administrative and clerical staff employed by the South East Wales ambulance trust are not included in the 1993 figures.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department does not have a separate unit for handling sensitive documents. This function is subsumed in the general records management operation. A record of the number of such documents is not maintained.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) clerical and administrative staff and (b) nurses and doctors are employed in each of the hospital trusts in Wales; how many clerical and administrative staff are employed in the NHS; and how many were employed in 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information relating to administrative and clerical and nursing and midwifery staff in each NHS trust at 30 September 1993 is given in the table.

  The latest information on medical staff in the hospital and community service relates to 30 September 1992. At that time, there were 2,805 medical staff in the NHS in Wales—whole-time equivalents, including eight hospital practitioners and 146 clinical assistants. The equivalent figure for 1990 was 2,634—including 12 hospital practitioners and 138 clinical assistants. In 1992, there was only one NHS trust in Wales—Pembrokeshire—which employed 87 medical staff—including five clinical assistants.
  301
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities and trusts in relation to the signing of contracts between purchasers and providers within this financial year; what guidelines he has issued or will issue in relation to recommended final dates for publishing draft prices for 1994–95; what expectations of advancement he has of the time of signing contracts between purchasers and providers between 1993–94 performance and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Signing contracts is a matter for health authorities and provider units, although early agreement and signature are encouraged.

  Following discussions with the NHS in Wales, a timetable for planning services and completing the contracting process was issued in August this year. Health authorities and provider units will be expected to sign contracts in accordance with this published schedule.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to issue his final allocation letter to the health authorities in Wales for the current financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The initial revenue and capital allocations to health authorities for 1993–94 were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 March,Official Report, columns 252-58, and this was followed by detailed allocations from the director of the national health service in Wales on 10 March.

  Allocations are always subject to adjustment throughout the financial year as funding is released for centrally sponsored developments.

  The latest allocation adjustments were notified to health authorities on 15 November. Further adjustments will be issued during the remainder of the year as provision held in reserve for centrally funded service developments is claimed by authorities.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the proportion of imports and exports for each year through Welsh sea ports, contained at table 6.12 of the "Digest of Welsh Statistics" 1993, page 103, which comprise hazardous or toxic wastes.

  Mr. Redwood
  As information on the import of hazardous waste is available only from 1988, figures for 1981 comparable to the data given in table 6.12 of the "Digest of Welsh Statistics" cannot be supplied. Data for 1990, 1991 and 1992 are shown in the table. Information on the export of hazardous waste is not collected centrally.

  Imports of hazardous waste into Welsh ports for disposal in England and Wales1

  Tonnes2

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Near and short sea trading areas:

  Irish Republic

  2,313·2

  848·9

  426·4

  Germany

  113·3

  154·6

  —

  Benelux

  —

  —

  —

  France

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  —

  —

  Scandinavia and Baltic

  —

  25·1

  —

  Iberia and Mediterranean3

  176·3

  —

  301·9

  TOTAL4

  5,505·5

  1,991·0

  1,623·6

  302

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Deep sea trading areas:

  Africa

  —

  —

  —

  India and Persian Gulf

  —

  —

  —

  Far East

  —

  —

  —

  Australasia

  —

  —

  —

  America

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  —

  All overseas trading areas

  —

  —

  —

  Source: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  1 As reported to HMIP.

  — indicates no waste reported.

  2 Includes crates and packaging. Therefore not directly comparable with the "Digest of Welsh Statistics," table 6.12.

  3 Excludes Italy.

  4 Includes Austria, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary which are not included separately.

  Forestry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the freedom to roam on any forestry land currently available in the forests and woods of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to change our policy of allowing "freedom to roam" on forestry land managed by the Forestry Commission. Arrangements have been in place since October 1991 to secure continued public access to Forestry Commission woodlands in the event of their disposal, through the commission offering local authorities the opportunity to enter into access arrangements prior to sale.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the value of the forests of the Forestry Commission in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest published valuation of the Forestry Commission's forests, as at 31 March 1992, included a figure of £632·8 million for its forests in Wales. An estimate of the value of the forests at 31 March 1993 will be published in the commission's annual report and accounts early in the new year, once the accounts have been examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Shell Fishing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements exist for examining the environmental implications of licence authorisations for shell fishing in inshore waters.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the terms of the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992, Ministers and sea fisheries committees are required, in discharging their functions to have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of tonnes of cockles harvested since 8 October from Traeth Lafan, Conwy bay, and the proportion taken from the site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grant-maintained schools and those schools seeking grant-maintained status in each of the local education authorities of Wales, giving the amount of extra cash grants for each of the grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Local education authority and school

  Clwyd

  Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan Comprehensive

  The Maelor School Comprehensive

  Ysgol Derwen Primary

  Eirias High School

  Ysgol Pen-y-Bryn Primary

  Ysgol Bryn Elian Comprehensive1

  Dyfed

  None

  Gwent

  Cwmcarn Comprehensive

  Brynmawr Comprehensive

  St. Alban's Comprehensive1

  Our Lady and St. Michael's Primary1

  Gwynedd

  Ysgol Caergeiliog Primary

  Mid Glamorgan

  None

  Powys

  Ysgol Llanerfyl Primary

  South Glamorgan

  Stanwell Comprehensive

  St. Cyres Comprehensive1

  Mary Immaculate Roman Catholic High School1

  West Glamorgan

  Bishop Vaughan Catholic Comprehensive

  1 Approved for grant-maintained status with effect from 1 January 1994.
  2 Proposals currently under consideration.

  As regards the funding of grant-maintained schools, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 6 December 1993, Official Report, column 47.

  New Hospital, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the proposed construction of a new neighbourhood hospital on the site of the closed St. David's hospital, Riverside, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Training and Enterprise
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much he plans to spend on training and enterprise in Wales in 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  I plan to spend over £147 million on training and enterprise in Wales in 1994–95. This provides for anticipated levels of training demand to be met and for the introduction of a modern apprenticeship scheme in manufacturing engineering. Detailed allocations to particular programmes will be made in due course.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students were recruited to courses of initial teacher training in Wales in 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A survey undertaken by the Department shows that, in Wales, 2,573 students entered courses of initial teacher training this year, an increase of nearly 5 per cent. over 1992. Recruitment to primary courses was about the same as last year, but recruitment to secondary courses was up by almost 15 per cent. I welcome in particular the increase in secondary intakes as many of these students are pursuing courses in the shortage areas including Welsh.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Sir John Cope
  The Economic Secretary visited Kuala Lumpur to attend a meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers from 7 to 11 October 1991. No party political activities were included in the visit.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Treasury has received from capital gains tax in each year since 1979; and how much capital gains tax has cost to collect in each of those years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures for capital gains tax yield and the costs of administering the tax for each year since 1979 are:

  £ million

  Capital gains tax1

  Net receipts

  Cost of administration2

  1979–80

  431

  9·5

  1980–813

  508

  13·2

  1981–823

  526

  13·7

  1982–83

  632

  15·3

  1983–84

  671

  14·7

  1984–85

  730

  14·2

  1985–86

  908

  15·4

  1986–87

  1,064

  17·7

  1987–88

  1,379

  25·1

  1988–89

  2,323

  26·6

  1989–90

  1,854

  34·3

  1990–914

  1,852

  39·0

  1991–924

  1,140

  43·3

  1992–934

  982

  38·4

  1 The figures quoted exclude tax on gains made by companies included in corporation tax. Some of the costs associated with companies, however, cannot be separately identified and are therefore included in the cost figures for capital gains tax rather than for corporation tax.

  2 Costs are based on total departmental expenditure.

  3 The breakdown of receipts between 1980–81 and 1981–92 is estimated. The receipts figures for both years were affected by industrial action between March 1981 and July 1981.

  4 Manpower usage and costs of administration for 1989–90 have been

  305
  adjusted to reflect a new basis of costing. Direct comparison of these and later figures with those of earlier years may be misleading. More detail regarding this adjustment is given in the board's report for the year ending 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reduction in annual liability to capital gains tax, in 1993–94 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime, specifying in each case the total and average reduction per taxpayer as well as the number of taxpayers in each year, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the requested estimates of the difference between the capital gains tax liability on the current regime and on the 1978–79 indexed regime are not available, as indicated in my replies to the hon. Member on 25 February 1992,Official Report, columns 435-36, and 15 March 1991, Official Report, columns 700-701.

  The number of capital gains taxpayers with liabilities in 1993–94 under the current tax regime, excluding gains realised by companies is estimated at 110,000.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the principles upon which he is basing his strategy for economic growth.

  Mr. Nelson
  Economic growth is generated by businesses and their employees, not by Governments. The Government's responsibility is to ensure that markets work properly and that the regulatory and tax burden on business is kept to a minimum. It also has the essential task of establishing a macroeconomic framework which provides the stability that businesses need to plan for the future. The Government therefore direct monetary and fiscal policy towards two key objectives: low inflation on a permanent basis and sound public finances.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of how many people with gross incomes of over £100,000 pay(a) a national insurance contributions bill and (b) a total income tax and national insurance contributions bill, of less than (i) 35 per cent., (ii) 30 per cent., (iii) 25 per cent., (iv) 20 per cent., (v) 15 per cent., (vi) 10 per cent. and (vii) 5 per cent. of their gross incomes, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Available figures relate to the estimated 180,000 taxpayers in 1993–94 with gross incomes of £80,000 and above. Nearly all these taxpayers pay less than 5 per cent. of their gross income in national insurance contributions. Estimates of combined income tax and national insurance contribution liabilities are that 70,000 have an effective rate above 35 per cent, 90,000 have an effective rate between 30 and 35 per cent., 10,000 have an effective rate between 25 and 30 per cent., and the remaining 10,000 have an effective rate below 25 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for how many people who pay tax have earnings below the upper earnings limit in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1993–94 about 16·5 million tax-paying employees have earnings below the upper earnings limit.
  306
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to how much tax remained uncollected at the end of the last fiscal year; and what estimate he has as to the amount which will remain uncollected at the end of the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amount of tax which remained uncollected at the end of October 1992, the last year for which figures are available, is £3·737 billion.

  These figures are produced for the Inland Revenue's accounting year, to 31 October, rather than on a fiscal year basis.

  Estimates for the year ended October 1993 will not be available until the end of January 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid tax in each year since 1978–79, giving the numbers on basic rate and higher rate tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates for 1991–92 onwards based on a projection of the survey of personal incomes are given.

  Figures for earlier years are available in table 2.1 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1993.

  Millions

  Taxpayers liable at

  Lower rate only

  Basic rate but not higher rate

  Higher rate

  Total

  1991–92

  0·0

  24·1

  1·6

  25·7

  1992–93

  3·9

  19·4

  1·8

  25·1

  1993–94

  4·8

  18·4

  1·9

  25·1

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children are estimated to have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold; and what proportion this represents of all families with children.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1993–94 approximately 1·9 million single parents and married couples with children have no income tax liability. These represent about a quarter of all families with children.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total yield from VAT in 1978–79.

  Sir John Cope
  The yield from VAT in the financial year 1978–79 was £4,837·5 million.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates the average family's tax bill will rise following the VAT changes outlined in the March 1993 Budget.

  Sir John Cope
  Standard rate VAT on domestic fuel and power applied to the average household's existing fuel bill would cost about £2·30 a week.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of consumer spending subject to the standard rate of VAT, exempt from VAT and subject to a zero rate of VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest data show that some 58 per cent. of consumer spending is standard rated, 24 per cent. is exempt and 18 per cent. is subject to a zero rate of VAT.

  Non-taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for how many(a) working and (b) non-working people do not pay tax in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Of the estimated 21 million people aged 16 or over who are non-taxpayers in 1993–94 about 3·6 million are working and 17·4 million are non-working.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single people and married couples do not currently pay tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1993–94 there are about 8·9 million single people aged over 16 not liable to income tax and about 3·8 million married couples where neither spouse is liable to tax.

  Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people receive(a) the married couple's allowance, (b) the additional person's allowance and (c) the widow's bereavement allowance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates are in the table:

  Number of individuals benefiting from allowance in 1993–94

  (Thousands)

  Married couple's allowance

  10,200

  Additional personal allowance

  750

  Widow's bereavement allowance

  150

  Visible Trade
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the deficit on visible trade for the first seven months of the year compared with the same period in 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest information is available in the Central Statistical Office first release balance of United Kingdom visible trade—August 1993, 12 November 1993. It is also available on the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library; the identifier is AIMA.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sanction exists in respect of inheritance tax waived in respect of works of art to be made available to the public when the works are not so made available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The owner of works of art which are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax
  must undertake 308
  to preserve them, keep them in the United Kingdom and provide reasonable public access. If an owner breaks an undertaking and the issue cannot be resolved in discussion between the Inland Revenue and the owner, inheritance tax is charged on the current value of the works of art. This provides a powerful incentive for the owner to honour the terms of the undertakings.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total inheritance tax yield, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest year for which information is available is 1992–93. Inheritance tax net receipts in this year were £1,211 million for the United Kingdom, of which £86 million was collected in Northern Ireland. Much of the tax collected in Northern Ireland related to deaths in England and Wales.

  Cigarettes
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average cost of a packet of cigarettes, and the average amount of total tax on a packet of cigarettes, in the last financial year.

  Sir John Cope
  The available data are for a typical packet of cigarettes. Two prices applied in the financial year 1992–93 as manufacturers increased their prices in the autumn. Both prices are given in the table.

  Period covered

  Typical price (pence)

  Tax content (pence)

  April to October

  221

  168

  November to March

  227

  170

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of tax received from cigarettes in the last financial year.

  Sir John Cope
  Receipts of excise duty and value added tax on cigarettes are estimated to have been £6,970 million in 1992–93.

  Privatised Companies
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish those numbers of individual shareholders retaining shares in each of the concerns privatised since 1979, indicating where Her Majesty's Government have retained a shareholding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the latest figures available for shareholdings in privatised companies. Where the Government retained a shareholding—including details of any subsequent disposals—this has also been shown.
  309

  Shareholdings1 in privatised and former Government-controlled companies

  Size of share register

  Company

  Date of privatisation

  Initial

  Highest since privatisation3

  Current

  Proportion of shares retained by Her Majesty's Government Per cent.

  Proportion and dates of subsequent disposals Per cent.

  British Petroleum

  December 19772

  n/a

  —

  513,569 (31 December 1992)

  51·0

  45·17/November 1979;

  7·12/September 1983;

  31·5/September 1987;

  0·09/October 1990

  British Aerospace

  February 1981

  27,179

  120,200 (December 1986)

  92,631 (12 November 1993)

  48·43

  48·43/10 May 1985

  Cable and Wireless

  October 1981

  27,320

  210,994 (31 March 1986)

  158,481 (31 March 1993)

  50·64

  27·54/November 1983;

  23·1/December 1985

  Amersham International

  February 1982

  10,051

  —

  5,264 (28 May 1993)

  nil

  —

  NFC

  February 1982

  10,300

  —

  60,000 (December 1993)

  nil

  —

  Britoil

  November 1982

  37,257

  245,556 (31 December 1985)

  Owned by BP

  49

  49/8 August 1985

  Associated British Ports

  February 1983

  37,205

  —

  14,000 (December 1993)

  48·5

  48·5/17 April 1984

  Enterprise Oil

  June 1984

  13,695

  14,166 (June 1985)

  9,794 (31 December 1992)

  nil

  —

  Jaguar

  July 1984

  125,000

  —

  Owned by Ford

  nil5

  —

  BT

  November 1984

  2,139,520

  —

  3,371,207 (10 November 1993)

  49·8

  0·8/December 1987;

  25·9/November 1991;

  20·7/July 1993

  British Gas

  December 1986

  4,407,079

  —

  2,036,826 (31 December 1992)

  3·3

  1·6/January 1990;

  1·6/July 1990

  British Airways

  February 1987

  1·2 million

  —

  252,016 (10 May 1993)

  2·5

  1·0/June 1987;

  1·0/March 1990

  Rolls-Royce

  May 1987

  1,988,966

  —

  564,318 (31 December 1992)

  0·4

  0·4 sold during 1987

  BAA

  July 1987

  2,187,500

  —

  561,759 (28 May 1993)

  4·36

  1·42/August 1990

  British Steel

  December 1988

  650,553

  —

  252,000 (December 1993)

  0·05

  0·04 disposed of during 1989

  Water and Sewerage Companies

  December 1989

  2·65 million

  —

  1,106,5647(27 June 1991)

  1·62

  —

  Regional Electricity Companies

  December 1990

  8·86 million6

  —

  2,975,1197(7 August 1992)

  1·5

  —

  Generating Companies

  March 1991

  1·67 million8

  —

  1·3 million7 (November 1992)

  40

  —

  Scottish Electricity Companies

  June 1991

  1·8 million9

  —

  1·4 million7 (15 March 1993)

  3·5

  —

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  June 1993

  437,414

  —

  298,734 (1 December 1993)

  4

  —

  1 For single company privatisations, these figures are not an exact guide to the number of shareholders because some shareholdings are held jointly in more than one name—for example, for members of employee share schemes only the trustees are shown on share registers.

  2 Her Majesty's Government obtained a majority holding in 1914 but this never reached 100 per cent. The 1977 sale is shown as the first disposal of recent times.

  3 Where the largest register of shareholdings was not immediately following privatisation—this usually followed a secondary offer.

  4 These proportions do not sum to 51 per cent. because of rights issues.

  5 Subsidiary of BL plc.

  6 The offer allowed for holdings by individuals in any or all of the companies in the offer and therefore holders may appear on more than one register.

  7 Shareholders may appear on the register of more than one company.

  8 The offer required public applicants to apply for shares in both companies and the figure shown is that of allocation in the offer.

  9 The offer required non-customer public applicants to apply for shares in both companies and the figure shown is that of allocation in the offer.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what study his Department has made of compliance by the personal pension sector with the Financial Services Act 1986 as it affects the selling of pensions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimate he has as to the number of people who were advised to transfer to a personal pension and would have been better off to have remained in occupational schemes since 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 December,Official Report, column 234.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Finance Bill will be published on Tuesday 11 January 1994.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Members
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), representing the Church Commissioners, which Church Commissioners are also members of Her Majesty's Government; and which meetings of the commissioners, on how many occasions, were attended by each such member in the last three calendar years.

  Mr. Alison
  Seven out of 95 Church Commissioners are members of Her Majesty's Government: the Lord Chancellor; the First Lord of the Treasury; the Lord President of the Council; the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Attorney-General; and the Solicitor-General. The Lord President of the Council attended the commissioners'
  311
  annual general meeting in 1991 and 1993. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General attended that meeting in 1992.

  The Second Church Estates Commissioner is included under the heading "Her Majesty's Government" in the list which appears from time to time in Hansard, but the appointment is not an executive Government post and it carries no salary.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Howard
  The following official visits have been made, during none of which do we have any record that party political activities were undertaken:

  (a) Saudi Arabia
  The right hon.Douglas Hurd CBE MP—Home Secretary—
  April 1989.

  (b) Malaysia
  None.

  (c) Singapore
  The right hon. and noble Earl Ferrers—Minister of State—31 December 1991 to 3 January 1992.

  (d) South Africa
  None.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with prison governors in England and Wales on the recent policy statements that he has made as to the running of penal establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 3 November, my right hon. and learned Friend made a speech about imprisonment to the Prison Service conference, to which senior governors are invited. My right hon. and learned Friend also discussed prison issues with governors during visits to Prison Service establishments.

  Justice Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what matters were discussed and what decisions were taken at the Justice Council in Brussels on 29 to 30 November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 7

  Manchester United Supporters
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what report he has received from the Greater Manchester police about the treatment of Manchester United fans in Turkey; and if he will make the findings public.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have seen a copy of an internal document prepared by the Greater Manchester police 312
  officers who were present in Turkey as part of the normal liaison arrangements which occur when English teams play abroad. It includes many references to individuals which it would not be right to make public.

  We have passed on copies of the relevant parts of the report to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to the Turkish authorities taking up some of the points which have been raised by those who were detained in and deported from Turkey.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Mr. Howard
  The figures requested are given in the table which sets out, by grade, the total number of non-industrial Home Office staff, including those in agencies, on outward secondment or on maternity or special leave, and the number of respondents belonging to black or Asian ethnic groupings. The current response rates to ethnic surveys is 85 per cent. for the main Home Office and 99 per cent. for the Prison Service; the latter includes management classification. The answer does not include those respondents in other ethnic minorities. The information was generated from the Home Office personnel system on 6 December 1993.

  Total

  Asian

  Black

  Administrative Assistant

  2,164

  168

  157

  Administrative Officer

  4,453

  361

  252

  Administrative Trainee

  8

  1

  —

  Assistant Chief Officer

  3

  —

  —

  Assistant Director

  9

  —

  1

  Assistant Divisional Officer

  4

  —

  —

  Assistant Immigration Officer

  42

  6

  2

  Assistant Information Officer

  7

  —

  —

  Assistant Inspector of Fire Services

  29

  —

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  13

  —

  —

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  91

  —

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  —

  —

  Assistant Storeperson

  110

  —

  —

  Church of England/Roman Catholic Chaplain (PIT)

  130

  —

  1

  Church of England Chaplain

  99

  1

  2

  Chaplain General Prisons

  1

  —

  —

  Chief Education Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Chief Immigration Officer

  360

  —

  2

  Chief Inspector-Animals S.P. Inspector

  1

  —

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  4

  —

  —

  Commandant

  1

  —

  —

  Comms. Officer 2

  1

  —

  —

  Comms. Officer 3

  8

  —

  —

  Consultant Voluntary Services Unit

  2

  —

  —

  Divisional Officer 1

  1

  —

  —

  Divisional Officer 2

  1

  —

  —

  Executive Officer

  2,126

  66

  50

  Farm Manager 1

  6

  —

  —

  Farm Manager 1A

  15

  —

  —

  Farm Manager 2

  11

  —

  —

  Farm Manager 3

  26

  —

  —

  Farm Manager 4

  19

  —

  1

  Farms and Gardens Officer

  4

  —

  —

  Fireground Supervisor

  1

  —

  —

  Governor 1

  38

  —

  —

  Governor 2

  86

  —

  —

  Governor 3

  113

  —

  —

  Governor 4

  306

  1

  1

  Governor 5

  455

  2

  —

  Governor 5 (APS)1

  22

  —

  —

  313

  Total

  Asian

  Black

  Grade 1 (PUSS)

  1

  —

  —

  Grade 2 (DUSS)

  8

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  26

  —

  —

  Grade 4

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  96

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  102

  —

  1

  Grade 7

  614

  4

  —

  Graphics Officer

  14

  —

  —

  Graphics Technical Grade

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 3

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 4

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 5

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 6

  1

  —

  —

  Head Pharmacist

  1

  —

  —

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  26

  —

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  1,174

  16

  10

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Higher Instructional Officer

  28

  —

  —

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  134

  3

  —

  Higher Psychologist

  43

  —

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  181

  1

  —

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  41

  2

  —

  HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services

  1

  —

  —

  HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary

  1

  —

  —

  HM Inspector of Fire Services 1

  2

  —

  —

  HM Inspector of Fire Services 2

  7

  —

  —

  HM Inspector of Constabulary

  4

  —

  —

  Immigration Officer

  2,114

  57

  19

  Information Officer

  18

  —

  —

  Inspector (Immigration Service)

  70

  —

  1

  Inspector—Animals S. P. Inspector

  19

  1

  —

  Instructional Officer I

  1,036

  7

  7

  Instructional Officer II

  2

  —

  —

  Interpreter

  7

  5

  —

  Lecturer 2

  24

  —

  —

  Legal Officer

  3

  —

  —

  Librarian

  8

  —

  —

  Matron Housekeeper

  1

  —

  —

  Medical Officer

  80

  36

  4

  Medical Officer (P/T)

  111

  31

  2

  Night Patrol

  956

  9

  24

  Nursing Grade A

  5

  —

  1

  Nursing Grade C

  61

  2

  9

  Nursing Grade D

  108

  1

  11

  Nursing Grade E

  94

  1

  2

  Nursing Grade F

  118

  7

  11

  Nursing Grade G

  29

  1

  1

  Nursing Grade H

  6

  —

  —

  Personal Secretary

  490

  12

  34

  Pharmacist

  19

  1

  —

  Pharmacy Technician

  22

  1

  3

  Principal Lecturer

  3

  —

  —

  Principal Medical Officer

  6

  —

  —

  Principal Officer

  1,371

  —

  4

  Principal Officer (APS)1

  36

  —

  —

  Principal R. C. Chaplain

  1

  —

  —

  Prison Auxiliary

  1,561

  9

  28

  Prison Officer

  18,974

  121

  211

  Prison Officer (APS)1

  37

  —

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  99

  4

  3

  Psychological Assistant

  41

  1

  —

  Psychologist

  1

  —

  —

  Psychologist-Graduate Trainee

  29

  —

  —

  R. C. Chaplain

  15

  —

  —

  Regional Catering Manager

  6

  —

  —

  Research Officer (Social Science)

  16

  —

  —

  Scientific Officer

  117

  3

  3

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  8

  —

  —

  Senior Divisional Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  431

  6

  4

  Senior Information Officer

  10

  —

  —

  Senior Inspector-Animals S.P. Inspector

  3

  —

  —

  Senior Instructional Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Lecturer

  4

  —

  —

  Senior Legal Assistant

  2

  —

  —

  Senior Librarian

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Medical Officer

  40

  12

  1

  314

  Total

  Asian

  Black

  Senior Officer

  3,398

  10

  17

  Senior Personal Secretary

  43

  —

  2

  Senior Pharmacist

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Professor and Technical Officer

  167

  1

  1

  Senior Psychologist

  49

  —

  —

  Senior Research Officer (Social Science)

  11

  —

  2

  Senior Scientific Officer

  194

  2

  —

  Senior Telecoms Technical Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Shop Assistant

  1

  —

  —

  Shop Manager

  1

  —

  —

  Staff Principal Pharmacist

  5

  —

  —

  Storeperson

  460

  1

  3

  Stores Officer Grade A

  1

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade B

  2

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade C

  11

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade D

  12

  —

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  150

  1

  10

  Support Grade Band 2

  736

  18

  54

  Support Manager 1

  1

  —

  —

  Support Manager 2

  4

  —

  —

  Support Manager 3

  14

  —

  1

  Technical Grade 1

  16

  —

  —

  Technical Grade 2

  8

  —

  —

  Telecom Engineering Technician

  195

  —

  1

  Telecom Technical Engineer II

  58

  —

  1

  Telecoms Technical Officer

  2

  1

  1

  Temporary Prison Officer

  4

  —

  —

  Territorial Inspector

  5

  —

  —

  Trainee Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Trainee Statistician

  1

  —

  —

  Trainee Typist

  1

  —

  —

  Typing Manager

  32

  1

  3

  Typist

  763

  17

  27

  1 APS = Accelerated Promotion Scheme.

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect periods spent in hospitals for the mentally disordered has on the original sentence of category A prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Any period of time spent in hospital by a prisoner transferred there under the Mental Health Act 1983 counts towards the serving of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court in his case.

  Police Investigations
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce arrangements to compensate county police forces which incur exceptional costs in the course of official investigations into other police forces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. Arrangements already allow for a police force's cost in conducting an investigation on behalf of another force to be covered by the force concerned. The costs are determined between the respective chief officers.

  Rukhasana Tufail Fakir
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Rukhasana Tufail Fakir.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mrs. Tufail has applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to move for judicial review of the
  315
  decision to deport her. Her case will be reviewed in the light of the outcome of these proceedings and any further representations made on her behalf.

  Financial Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are engaged in his Department in combating fraud in financial institutions; and at what annual cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  No officials in my Department are directly so engaged. The Home Office is responsible for the criminal law as it relates to fraudulent activity, but it has no direct involvement in its investigation or prosecution.

  Dogs
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require owners of breeds of dogs involved in serious attacks on children and adults to muzzle such dogs when in a public place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides that all exempted dogs—that is, fighting dogs such as the pit bull terrier—must be muzzled when in a public place. The Act also gives the courts powers to impose a muzzling order on a dog of any breed or type which they judge potentially or actually dangerous.

  In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend has a reserve power under section 2 of the Act to impose restrictions relating to muzzling, leashing and abandoning any breed or type of dog which, after having taken advice, he considers presents a serious danger to the public. The need to use this power is kept under review.

  Market Testing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to select a Home Office function for market testing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office approach to market testing accords with Government policy as set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality: Buying Better Public Services", Cm 1730. Priority is being given to market-testing activities where the costs are substantial and it seems likely that comparable services could be provided satisfactorily by external suppliers under contract.

  Prison Visits
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many queries from the police and probation service were processed by the prisoner location unit in Birmingham during the last four weeks for which figures are available; and what was the average time taken to process each application;

  (2) how many complaints were received from members of the public about the processing of prison visit applications in the year prior to the establishment of the assisted prison visits unit;

  (3) what additional resources will be made available in the next financial year to investigate possible fraudulent claims at the assisted prison visits unit;

  (4) how many staff were employed at the assisted prison visits unit in Birmingham;
  316
  (5) when sufficient resources will be made available to the assisted prison visits unit to pay applicants twice per month;

  (6) when the assisted prison visits unit records will be computerised;

  (7) how many applications were dealt with last year by the assisted prison visits unit; and what is the average time taken to process each application;

  (8) how many complaints were received from the public about the processing of the assisted prison visits unit applications last year;

  (9) what checks are currently made to detect fraudulent claims at the assisted prison visits unit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the operation of the Assisted Prison Visits Unit, including the Prisoner Location Unit.
  The Assisted Prison Visits Unit (APVU) currently operates with 37 members of staff, five of whom are dedicated to work arising on the Prisoner Location Unit. The APVU processed 79,370 applications last year with an average turn round time of seven working days. The Prisoner Location Unit received 4,263 calls from the police and the probation service during November 1993. On average the Unit took 24 hours to process each claim, although the vast majority were dealt with on the same day.
  Current administrative procedures provide that there should be systematic checks with prison establishments to confirm that visits have been made, and with the Benefits Agency to ensure that applicants qualify on low income. Where evidence of any fraudulent claim comes to light these are referred to the police for investigation. The advent of computerisation within the APVU, the first phase of which is scheduled to come on line in March 1994, will enhance the detection of fraudulent claims and their investigation.
  You also ask about the proposed extension of the Assisted Visits scheme to cover the second statutory monthly payment. The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" includes a commitment to consider extensions of the scheme as resources allow. We have also indicated in the Prison Service Business plan that the extension should take place this financial year. No final decision on this matter has been taken. It will be necessary to do so in the light of the resources available to the Prison Service and it is not possible to say when payment of the second monthly visit will be initiated.
  Lastly, you also ask about the number of complaints which were received from members of the public in the year prior to this function being transferred from the then DHSS to the Prison Service and similarly, the number of complaints from the public about processing of applications which the APVU received last year. I am afraid that we do not have any records relating to the performance of the DHSS. Statistics on the number of complaints received by the APVU are not held in the form requested and could be obtained only by inspecting individual case files.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to the market testing of the assisted prison visits unit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  317
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretory has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to the market testing of the Assisted Prisons Visits Unit.
  We have identified the Unit as one of our candidates for market testing. Work on a scoping study, which is the first stage in the process, will start in the new year. This will examine in detail the suitability or otherwise of the Assisted Prisons Visits Unit for competitive tendering against the private sector. If competitive tendering follows we will expect bidders to consider the implications of the Regulations.
  As in all market tests, whether the Regulations apply will depend on the circumstances of the particular case and the way that bidders respond to the invitation to tender. To assist in this the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster issued advice on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on 11 March 1993 (HWA col. 648).

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria were used to select the assisted prison visits unit and the prisoner location unit for market testing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the criteria used to select the Assisted Prisons Visits Unit and the Prisoner Location Unit for market testing.
  The White Paper 'Competing for Quality' identified promising areas for market testing. These included such functions as payment of grants, grant administration and advisory services. APVU, which at present subsumes the Prisoner Location Unit, carries out these functions.
  A scoping study due to start in the new year will examine the suitability or otherwise of the Unit for competitive tendering.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the scoping report into the proposed market test of the assisted prison visits unit will be made available to staff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether the Scoping Report into the proposed market test of the Assisted Prisons Visits Unit will be made available to staff.
  Staff in the Unit will be consulted fully throughout the scoping study and a copy of the scoping study report will be made available to them.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was made to market test the assisted prison visits unit; and when the staff association was informed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  318
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about when the decision was made to market test the Assisted Prisons Visits Unit; and when the Staff Association was informed.
  The Prisons Board Executive Committee decided on 26 July 1993 to include the Assisted Prisons Visits Unit as one of our candidates for market testing. Staff in the Unit were told by their Head of Division on 6 August 1993. Prison Service Trades Unions and Staff Associations were advised at the same time. This has been followed up with briefing by senior line management and our Market Testing Section.
  Work on the first stage of the process will start in the new year. This will examine in detail the suitability, or otherwise, of APVU for competitive tendering against the private sector.

  Primates
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the areas of research or categories of product involving the use of primates in(a) toxicity and (b) non-toxicity tests for the intention of registration of medical or dental products under the Medicines Act 1968 and equivalent international legislation in 1992;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the increase in the number of primates used in scientific procedures required by the Medicines Act 1968 and the equivalent international legislation during 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answers 7 December 1993]: The increase in the number of primates used in scientific procedures in 1992 was attributable principally to a general increase in the number of pharmaceutical products submitted for chronic toxicity testing.

  Total numbers of primates used increased from 4,518 in 1991 to 5,018 in 1992, as shown in table 14 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 1992", Cm 2356.

  Table 7 provides information on procedures for toxicity tests on the basis of broad areas and relates to the use of animals in the final stages of regulatory testing when the purpose is to identify any unexpected or adverse effects in body systems immediately prior to use of medicine by humans.

  Table 4 relates to information presented to regulatory authorities and derived from animal testing at an earlier stage of product development.

  To list individual areas of research or categories of product would be in breach of the requirement of section 24(1) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which provides for the protection of confidential information.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current duties of police detective officers in the processing of British citizenship applications; what is his estimate of the total police time devoted to these duties in the current year to date; and what plans he has to transfer these duties to other staff.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: The duties of police officers are to interview where necessary on behalf of the Home Office applicants for

  319
  naturalisation and their referees in order to help determine whether the statutory requirements for citizenship are met and whether discretion should be exercised to grant it. The amount of police time spent on these duties is currently
  320
  being collated and I shall write to the hon. Member. Consideration is currently being given to the feasibility of the nationality division conducting a proportion of these interviews itself.

HEALTH

  Management Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to reduce the management costs of health authorities and trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced proposals for streamlining the structure and slimming down the management of the national health service outside hospital provider units. NHS trusts are free to determine the mix of staff required to deliver services but must do so within what they can afford from health care contracts.

  Primary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for developing equal opportunities in primary care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Family health services authorities continue to make good progress with the Opportunity 2000 initiative. Their action plans are submitted to regional health authorities and have concerned their own directly employed staff. We believe that the principles of Opportunity 2000 can be pursued to good effect within general medical practice. Although general practitioners are independent contractors and responsible for their own staff, they may look to FHSAs for support and expertise.

  Steroids
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths of children were caused or partially caused by steroids in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the last five years one report of a fatality in a child has been received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, through the United Kingdom's voluntary spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting scheme, in association with corticosteroid therapy. The receipt of a report does not necessarily indicate that a specific drug caused the reaction, as many other factors may have contributed.

  Smear Tests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women currently receive the results of a smear test within one month; and what is(a) the average and (b) the longest time for receiving the results for those cases outside of one month.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Health authorities must aim to return the results of cervical smear tests to the doctor who undertook them within one month. The most recent review indicates that, in most cases, health authorities are meeting the one-month target time for cervical smear reporting.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the creation of incentives for general practitioners to work in the inner city;

  (2) what plans she has to encourage (a) women general practitioners and (b) general practitioners generally into working in the inner city.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 1990 general practitioner contract introduced the deprivation payments scheme in recognition of the potential higher work load faced by GPs in urban areas. The contract also introduced explicit recognition for part-time working and job-sharing arrangements to assist doctors, including women, who wish to combine a career in general practice with other commitments.

  As outlined in "Making London Better", we are currently exploring the scope for more flexible approaches to general medical services within the London initiative zone, including arrangements to strengthen the recruitment of GPs. We will assess subsequently the potential for wider application of any new arrangements which are introduced.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to adjust allocation of budgets given to general practitioner budget holders to take into account census and household survey data.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholder budget setting guidance for 1994–95 is given in EL(93) 93, a copy of which is available in the Library. Work is being undertaken to identify any new data which may usefully be taken account of in future guidance.

  Abortions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions were performed on a private fee-paying basis in 1991 in each region;

  (2) how many abortions were performed on a private fee-paying basis by regional health authority in each year from 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is published in "Abortion Statistics", Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, AB Nos. 12-18, table 20, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths per year are caused by carbon monoxide poisoning.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table.
  323

  Number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning England and Wales 1988 to 1992

  International classification diseases number

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  E868.1

  (Accidental poisoning by other and unspecified utility gas)

  9

  5

  5

  4

  16

  E868.2

  (Accidental poisoning by motor vehicle exhaust gas)

  35

  33

  26

  29

  25

  E868.3

  (Accidental poisoning by carbon monoxide from incomplete combustion of other domestic fuels)

  22

  10

  11

  25

  20

  E868.8

  (Accidental poisoning by carbon monoxide from other sources)

  1

  2

  1

  0

  2

  E868.9

  (Accidental poisoning by unspecified carbon monoxide)

  0

  3

  5

  3

  3

  E982.0

  (Poisoning by motor vehicle exhaust gas)

  102

  80

  94

  90

  93

  E982.1

  (Poisoning by other carbon monoxide)

  7

  9

  5

  7

  3

  TOTAL

  176

  142

  147

  158

  162

  NHS Charges
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were national health service items for which a charge was made; and what was the revenue from charges in England in each of the last five years.

  Charged national health service items and revenue from charges (£ million) in England between 1988 and 1993

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Family health services prescriptions

  176·9

  189·3

  205·9

  215·2

  242·0

  Family health service dental treatment

  290·6

  366·2

  379·7

  404·0

  394·8

  Road traffic accidents

  8·7

  9·3

  9·1

  1—

  1—

  1 Information about revenue from road traffic accident charges has not been available centrally since 1990–91.

  All national health service sight tests are free of charge. People who are entitled to help with the cost of spectacles receive this in the form of a spectacle voucher; the sale of spectacles is always a private transaction between patient and practitioner, even when an NHS voucher is used. Information about hospital prescriptions, the hospital eye service, and hospital orthotic services is not available centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of estimates of receipts from NHS charges broken down by category of charge for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information for 1994–95 will be published in the Department of Health's main Supply estimates in March 1994.

  Incontinence Pads
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of purchasers that are restricting either the number of incontinence pads per patient or the total number of incontinence pads.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.
  324
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  NHS Chairmen
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the range of remuneration of the chairmen of boards of NHS health authorities and trusts for each of the last three years; and what is their projected income for the next year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The range of remuneration for chairmen of boards of national health service health authorities and trusts from April 1990 is shown in the table.

  Chairmen volunteered to forgo any increase during the period when public sector pay settlements were restricted to the range of zero to 1·5 per cent. No decision has yet been made on future increases.
  325

  Date

  Regional Health Authorities

  District Health Authorities

  Family Health Services Authorities

  Trusts

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1 December 1991

  20,925

  15,125-19,285

  10,845-12,605

  15,125-19,285

  1 April 1991

  20,545

  14,850-18,935

  10,645-12,375

  14,850-18,935

  1 January 1991

  19,110

  13,812-17,610

  9,903-11,510

  13,812-17,610

  1 April 1990

  18,921

  13,674-17,437

  9,805-11,395

  13,674-17,437

  NHS Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue patients with NHS numbers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Every United Kingdom resident is issued with a national health service number. This happens either when the birth of a child is registered or when someone who comes to live here seeks to register with a general practitioner.

  From July 1995 the NHS number will be issued in a new format suited to its wider use to identify patients within the NHS. This replacement number will continue to appear on the medical card patients receive when they register with a GP.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she plans to the new deal for junior doctors following publication of the Winyard report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We remain committed to implementing the "New Deal on Junior Doctors' Hours", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Out-patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the changes in levels of out-patient attendance nationally in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what assessment she has made of the connections between this and the development of primary care.

  Mr. Sackville
  There was a 1·7 per cent. increase in the number of out-patient attendances in England between 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  The Government have identified a number of national health service priorities for research relating to the relationship between primary and secondary care. One of these priority areas is the appropriateness of out-patient follow-up, which accounts for the majority of all out-patient attendances. The role of primary care in reducing unnecessary out-patient attendances is among these areas to be explored.

  Insulin Cartridges
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of cartridges for use with insulin pens; and what action she is taking to ensure that general practitioner fundholders are able equally with non-fundholders to continue to prescribe insulin cartridges for use with pen devices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The cost of a pack of five insulin cartridges ranges from £6.44 to £27. All cartridges are available on national health service prescription and, therefore, all general practitioners including fundholders are able to prescribe them.

  Terminal Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of doctors specialising in terminal care in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Doctors specialising in palliative medicine (terminal care) by whole-time equivalents

  England—at 30 September

  Year

  All doctors in palliative medicine

  1989

  22·2

  1990

  26·3

  1991

  31·2

  1992

  55·5

  Notes:
  Statistics on the number of doctors specialising in palliative medicine were collected for the first time in 1989.
  In addition, doctors in anaesthetics, radiology and the surgical specialties will also have a role in terminal care in terms of pain relief and life-prolonging surgery.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of nurses specialising in terminal care in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Coronary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary care beds and high-dependency beds there were in England in each of the last 14 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. A study into intensive care provision showed that in 1991–92 there were at least 356 high-dependency beds and at least 879 coronary care unit beds in England; this is the only year for which such information is held centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the difference between an acute ward and a coronary care unit; and what research has been undertaken in relation to outcome for patients with the same heart condition placed on these two types of wards.

  Mr. Sackville
  An acute ward is a medical ward taking the range of medical admissions. A coronary care unit is a small ward specially staffed and equipped for the care of acutely ill patients who have suffered or are suspected of having suffered a heart attack. Any hospital that takes acute admissions will have coronary care facilities, and if a patient needing those facilities cannot be accommodated in a coronary care unit for any reason they will normally be accommodated in an acute medical ward where they will
  327
  receive the same treatment and care as they would in a coronary care unit. No information is available centrally of any study into outcomes for patients with the same heart condition placed on these two types of wards.

  Cancer Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that cancer patients are included in clinical trials in the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service supports cancer research funded by a number of bodies including the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and cancer charities. The recruitment of patients to clinical trials is a matter for those conducting and funding individual studies. The funding and support of research and development in the NHS are currently under review.

  NHS Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what items of personal data will be contained in NHS registers; whether the computers containing such registers will be linked; what statutory protection will be afforded to the registers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service administrative register will consolidate information held today by the NHS in England and Wales, to facilitate seamless health care provision and support the business needs of health service bodies.

  The register will comprise a number of networked, locally managed databases and will contain basic administrative details only such as name, age, address, sex, NHS number and name of the family doctor.

  There will be no statutory regulations governing the register; access to and use of the register is being determined in consultation with the clinical professions and in conformance with the Data Protection Act 1988.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-executive directors of trusts have not been given a further term; and how many have voluntarily stood down in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of non-executive directors of national health service trusts who have not been appointed for a further term, for whatever reason, or who have voluntarily stood down, in 1991, 1992 and 1993 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  1

  1992

  31

  1993

  51

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which element of the rationalisation of national health service trust facilities at Aintree, Liverpool is being put out for private tender.
  328
  Mr. Sackville
  The Aintree hospitals national health service trust has recently gone out to open tender for a 100-bed low dependency unit, a conference suite and a kitchen and dining complex.

  Asthma (Pollution)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 587, when she expects the findings of the sub-group of the Committee on the Medical Effects on Air Pollutants, investigating the links between asthma and air pollution to be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  The work of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants' sub-group on asthma and air pollution is at an early stage. It is therefore difficult to predict with accuracy when it will be able to publish its report, but it hopes to be in a position to do so in the late summer or autumn of 1994.

  Admiral Sir Godfrey Milton-Thompson
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to Admiral Sir Godfrey Milton-Thompson in the out-of-court settlement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  An ex-gratia payment of £12,500 was made to Sir Godfrey Milton-Thompson in order to settle legal proceedings. The settlement carried with it no admission of any liability.

  City and East London Family and Community Health Services Unit
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had with the North East Thames regional health authority prior to the establishment of the City and East London family and community health services unit; if she will give its terms of reference; if she will give the names of its chairman, board and principal officials; to whom it is accountable; if she intends it to assume the responsibilities of the family health service authority for its area; and if it will be eligible for future trust status.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply by letter of 30 November—copies of which are available in the Library—in response to his earlier question about the City and East London family and community services.

  Departmental officials have been in discussion with North East Thames regional health authority about CELFACHS. In respect of community health responsibilities, CELFACHS is a directly managed unit, accountable to East London and the City health authority. As such, it does not have a chairman or a management board. Its project director is Ms Hilary Scott. She is also to be employed by the family health services authority, whose responsibilities remain unchanged. Through these arrangements, CELFACHS will support the district and family health authorities in co-ordinating the management of family and community health services and in considering possible national health service trust configurations in east London. Whether or not any unit is eligible for trust status depends on compliance with relevant legislation governing NHS trusts and successful completion of the rigorous assessment process.

  Hospital League Tables
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what categories of measurement are to be used for the compilation of hospital league tables;

  (2) what statistical or other techniques will be used in judging outcomes for use in hospital league tables.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chief executive of the national health service management executive has asked NHS hospitals and ambulance authorities, in an executive letter, dated 20 July 1993—EL(93)64— copies of which are available in the Library, to provide information on the following categories:

  Accident and Emergency
  The percentage of patients seen and assessed for treatment within five minutes of arriving in the accident and emergency department.

  Out-patient Appointments
  The percentage of patients seen within 30 minutes of their out-patient appointment time.

  Day Surgery
  The percentage of elective episodes—waiting list and booked —by selected procedures for NHS patients not requiring an overnight stay. The indicator is based on the first episode in the provider spell.

  Waiting Times
  The percentage of NHS patients by selected specialties admitted within three months and within 12 months of being put on a waiting list.

  Operations
  The number of patients not admitted within a month of their second cancelled operation.

  Ambulance Speed of Response
  The percentage of emergency—999 calls—ambulances arriving within 14 minutes—urban area—or 19 minutes—rural area.

  Statistical or other techniques to be used in judging outcomes for use in hospital league tables are still under discussion.

  Chaplaincy Facilities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by her Department to NHS purchasing bodies regarding the need to ensure adequate provision of chaplaincy facilities for those patients who require them.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance issued in January 1992, HSG(92)2, copies of which are available in the Library, reminded purchasing authorities and provider units of the need to make adequate provision for the spiritual needs of patients and staff.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to health authorities and general practitioner fundholders of a visit by an NHS hospital chaplain to one patient.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to announce the results of the review of the Health Education Authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The final report of the review of the Health Education Authority undertaken by Mr. John Lee and his team is expected shortly.

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each Department of Health commissioned study of HIV prevalence among prison inmates.

  Mr. Sackville
  To date, only one Department of Health funded study has taken place and was commissioned jointly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This was an anonymised survey of HIV prevalence in three London prisons and took place earlier this year. The results will be published as soon as possible.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to exempt claimants of the proposed job seeker's allowance from prescription and dental charges(a) for the first six months after they first claim the allowance and (b) for the next six months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No decision has yet been made.

  AIDS
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to research into the spreading of AIDS through insect bites.

  Mr. Sackville
  The possibility that biting insects could be involved in the transmission of HIV has been raised many times in the past. The evidence from epidemiology and knowledge of the ways in which insects bite and transmit other infectious agents indicate that insects play no part in this process.

  Epidemiological studies in Africa and in the United States have investigated the hypothesis that HIV is spread by insects and found no evidence to support it. In addition, there is no evidence that hepatitis B, which has similar epidemiological features to HIV, can be transmitted by mosquitoes.

  Laboratory experiments have been unable to demonstrate replication of HIV in bed bugs or mosquitoes. Thus biological transmission, where the virus multiplies in the insect and is injected into a person when bitten, would not be possible. The possibility of mechanical transmission, by which the insect transfers fresh blood directly from one person to another when interrupted during feeding, is thought to be remote because the proboscis or mouth of the insect would not hold sufficient blood to provide an infectious dose of virus.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the total cost of the new corporate look given to the NHS Supplies Authority and (b) the cost for (i) stationery, (ii) publications, (iii) signage and (iv) livery.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The cost of the logo design was £5,500.

  Stationery artwork for 176 relevant sites amounted to £61,000—£367 per site—publications to launch the new organisation cost £67,000; replacement of 376 signs at 245 sites cost £40,000—£106 per sign—replacement
  livery costs for 37 vehicles was £20,000—£540 per vehicle.

EDUCATION

  Sex Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the consultative draft on guidelines to schools on the new arrangements for sex education will be issued; how long the consultation period will be for these guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Consultative draft guidance on the new arrangements for sex education in schools in England was published on 6 December 1993, inviting comments by 18 February 1994. The draft guidance places sex education in schools firmly within a moral framework. Copies have been placed in the Library. We intend to issue the guidance in final form to schools next spring.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not have a "sensitive documents unit".

EMPLOYMENT

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the 1992–93 financial year, the latest year for which annual costs are available, the Department spent £216,352 on ministerial cars. The Department has a call on four official vehicles for use by its Ministers.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the 1990–91 financial year, the Department spent £171,198 on ministerial cars. At that time, the Department had a call on four official vehicles for use by its Ministers.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the proposed budget for 1994–95 for the access to work scheme; and what were the 1993–94 budgets for the special aids to employment, personal reader service, fares to work, and adaptions of premises and equipment schemes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 a reply to be given.
  332
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Miller, dated 9 December 1993:
  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 to him about the Access To Work budget for 1994–95 and the 1993–94 budgets for the special aids to employment, personal reader service, fares to work, and adaptions of premises and equipment schemes.
  The information you have asked for is as follows:
  1994–95—Proposed budget (subject to final allocation):
  Access to work=£12·6 million.
  1993–94—Budgets:

  £

  Special aids to employment

  6,837,000

  Personal reader service

  1,430,000

  Fares to work

  2,352,000

  Adaptations to premises and equipment

  465,000

  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.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what grounds are taken into account by him in refusing a grant for a licence for an employment agency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The main grounds for refusing a licence under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 are the unsuitability of the applicant, or any person to be associated with the agency, because of misconduct or other sufficient reason. Factors taken into account when considering whether or not to grant a licence include information from an applicant's or an associated person's previous agency activity, employment history or references, convictions or adverse judgments involving fraud or other dishonesty and objections made by interested parties.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no dedicated sensitive documents units in the Department for which I am responsible. The handling of sensitive documents forms part of the responsibilities of the departmental records officer for each of the Departments and they carry out their duties in accordance with the guidelines in chapter 9 of the open government White Paper.

  Mr. Roger Levitt
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Serious Fraud Office (1) first suggested to the counsel to Mr. Roger Levitt that he plead guilty to only some of the charges; and if he will list the charges concerned;

  (2) what reasons underlay the decision of the Serious Fraud Office not to proceed with the theft charges against Roger Levitt;
  333
  (3) what was the estimated cost to public funds of the Roger Levitt case;

  (4) what actions the Serious Fraud Office took in the Roger Levitt case which were subsequently described as wholly illegal by the trial judge;

  (5) whether the Serious Fraud Office knew when it accepted the guilty plea by Roger Levitt that the judge would impose a non-custodial sentence.

  The Attorney-General
  In every complex fraud matter it is necessary to ensure that the counts in the indictment are the minimum reasonably necessary for the proper and effective presentation of the case. No counts of theft were in fact alleged in the indictment, although there were a number of counts other than fraudulent trading including counts of obtaining property by deception. An initial decision to proceed on a single count of fraudulent trading was taken in the light of general guidance given by the Court of Appeal and reviewed after the trial judge had given directions limiting the scope of the evidence. A subsequent application to re-join several substantive counts was refused.

  No such suggestion of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend was made by or on behalf of the Serious Fraud Office. The offer by Roger Levitt to plead guilty to fraudulent trading on the basis upon which he in fact pleaded was first made on Monday 22 November 1993 by his leading counsel to leading counsel for the Crown.

  The Serious Fraud Office was not aware that the judge would impose a non-custodial sentence when it informed the defence that the proposed plea of guilty by Roger Levitt was acceptable. Sentencing is a matter entirely for the judge. The prosecution can never change its mind about accepting a plea on the grounds that a sentence is too lenient.

  The trial judge never described any action by the Serious Fraud Office as "wholly illegal" and never criticised the SFO in any way at all.

  The best estimate of the cost of the Serious Fraud Office arising from this case as yet available is approximately £1·4 million. I have at present no information about other costs and will write to my hon. Friend.

TRANSPORT

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the first report of the National Marine Safety Steering Committee was published; and what proposals he intends to bring forward to tighten safety regulations for powered recreational marine craft, and to control the use of jet skis in the vicinity of bathing beaches.

  Mr. Norris
  The first report of the National Marine Safety Steering Committee—NMSSC—was issued on 21 October 1993. The report includes a number of recommendations referred to the NMSSC from the district marine safety committees which relate to the regulation and safe operation of recreational craft generally. Those recommendations are now under consideration.

  Satellites
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when a decision is to be announced on differential geostationary positioning satellites;
  334
  (2) when his Department expects to publish the feasibility report on monitoring the integrity of the United States Norstar global positioning satellite system;

  (3) if he will list the representations he has had about differential geostationary positioning satellites;

  (4) when non-encrypted differential geostationary positioning satellites will be available to the leisure market in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  The global positioning system—GPS—is a method of determining position based upon signals from satellites. The system has been developed by the United States of America Department of Defence. It has not yet been declared fully operational. Encrypted differential global positioning system—DGPS—signals are transmitted from the United Kingdom and from the Republic of Ireland. Such signals can improve the accuracy of the position found. Those signals are provided on a commercial basis by Scorpio Marine, under the terms of a 1991 contract with the three general lighthouse authorities —GLAs. The Department recently received representations from Trinity house, on behalf of the GLAs, to consider the case for transmitting unencrypted signals. Officials from the Department are to meet the GLAs shortly to consider both that proposal and also a draft study by the GLAs on monitoring the integrity of GPS signals.

  Electronic Charting
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a recognised standard for electronic charting.

  Mr. Norris
  The standards for electronic chart data and information systems—ECDIS—will be announced when performance specifications are adopted by the International Maritime Organisation. We support this move and hope that the standards will be accepted by the IMO's maritime safety committee next May.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about electronic notices to mariners and electronic chart updating.

  Mr. Norris
  The International Maritime Organisation is developing performance standards for electronic chart display and information systems—ECDIS. It is anticipated that the standards will call for the promulgation of essential information by appropriate means including notices to mariners.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the export potential for British technology in electronic charting; and what discussions he has had with the hydrographic department.

  Mr. Norris
  Although discussions have been held with the hydrographic department, particularly within the marine navigational equipment committee on the development of international standards for electronic charting, no estimate has been made of the export potential for the technology.

  Thames Rescue Arrangements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to reviewing his decision to reject the recommendations of the report of the
  335
  Hayes inquiry into river safety—Cm 1991—that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government gave careful consideration to this recommendation, which suggested an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames at the time that the report of the inquiry into river safety by John Hayes was published. It was concluded then that a further review of this kind would not be justified. Action has, however, been taken to ensure that appropriate lessons have been learned.

  The Home Office has advised that replies from the main agencies involved in River Thames rescue operations confirmed that contingency planning has been adjusted in the light of lessons learned from the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster.

  In addition, a review of rescue arrangements and equipment on the River Thames between Teddington and the Thames barrier has been completed by the relevant district marine safety committee, and a new working group for the lower Thames was set up on 14 July 1993, with the initial task of assessing rescue arrangements on this lower section of the river. The district marine safety committee is also proposing to establish a sub-working group to consider life-saving appliances and escape from water up vertical walls on the banks of the Thames.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the authenticated transcript of the radio-telephone conversation between the Port of London authority Thames navigation service and the vessels involved in the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle on the night of 29 August 1989.

  Mr. Norris
  I am arranging for a transcript of the recording made in the early hours of 20 August 1989 to be placed in the Library. The recording was made by the Port of London authority, of communications on VHF channel 14 which were broadcast or received by the Thames navigation service at Woolwich.

  Car Crash Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the use by(a) the Transport Research Laboratory or (b) any other transport research centres funded by his Department of human corpses in car crash tests.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has never carried out car crash tests using human corpses. Crash tests are a widely used techique to establish the safety of vehicle designs, but the United Kingdom always uses instrumented mannequins or dummies to measure the impact forces on the occupants. The Department is aware that tests using human corpses are carried out in a number of countries, but not in the United Kingdom. The information derived from them is available worldwide.

  Rail Services (Cornwall)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of British Rail its plans for railway services in Cornwall.

  Mr. Freeman
  I discussed BR's proposals for services to Cornwall, among other things, with the chief executive 336
  of British Rail on 23 September. These are operational matters for BR and I have therefore asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member. However, I understand from British Rail that, from May 1994, it proposes to replace the 06.45 InterCity service from Penzance with a Regional Railways service to provide an 06.40 service from Penzance, connecting at Bristol with the InterCity service to Paddington. The May 1994 timetable will continue to include sleeper services. Discounted fares policy is, of course, a matter for British Rail, which has received representations on the applicability to the 05.19 service and is considering the matter.

  Catalytic Converters
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has of the effect on morbidity of catalytic converters fitted to cars.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any epidemiological evidence that catalytic converters fitted to motor cars or any other vehicles with internal combustion engines influence morbidity. The converters reduce the emissions of pollutant gases and particles, which would be expected to be beneficial, but emit very low levels of the catalytic metals. The level of metals emitted are likely to be so low as to have minimal, if any, effect on morbidity.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's record service employs four staff to register and manage classified files. The total number of documents processed each year is not currently known, but the Department of Transport's file list is being computerised, which will enable analysis of files held.

  Donaldson Inquiry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the Donaldson inquiry to report its findings and recommendations.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 24 November, column 64.

  Klondyker Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the full marine accident investigation branch report into the Klondyker incidents in Shetland during October and November this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The accidents are being investigated, and the marine accident investigation branch has issued five interim recommendations addressed to Lerwick harbour trust and the Department of Transport. When the investigations are complete, a report will be produced, but it is too early to say when it will be available.

  Borodinskoe Polye
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, in respect of the Borodinskoe Polye the(a) salvage costs, (b) oil pollution recovery costs and (c) other costs incurred by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The salvage, oil recovery and counter pollution costs in respect of the Borodinskoe Polye are estimated to be in excess of £770,000 and other costs incurred are estimated at £12,000.

  MV Braer
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects to publish the marine accident investigation branch report into the sinking of the Braer.

  Mr. Norris
  It is hoped that the report will be published in January.

  River Safety
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now reconsider the decisions made not to establish a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster of comparable scope to those already conducted into the disasters at King's Cross and Clapham.

  Mr. Norris
  When the then Secretary of State considered the need for a public inquiry he concluded that the holding of a formal investigation was unnecessary given that a full, thorough and comprehensive inquiry had been carried out by the marine accident investigation branch—MAIB. Subsequently, the view has remained that a formal investigation would be unlikely to add to the inspector's findings, or to the 27 safety recommendations made in the MAIB report. The position was not changed by anything said in the Hayes report, which made no suggestion that a further inquiry into the accident was needed. I therefore remain of the view that the case for a formal inquiry has not been made.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has anything to add to his answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) of 19 July,Official Report, column 78, concerning universal applications of all the recommendations of the Hayes report on river safety.

  Mr. Norris
  The Hayes report concerns river safety. The Department publishes an annual schedule, giving details of progress on each recommendation, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The next schedule is due to be published in July 1994. In the meantime, action continues on all of the 22 recommendations.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Community Expenditure
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the level of EC expenditure in the United Kingdom disaggregated by parliamentary constituency and EC programme, in each year since 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not available. Details of public sector receipts by Government 338
  Department were published in table 11.4 of the 1993 Chancellor's departmental report. This table covers the outturn for the years 1987–88 to 1991–92, estimated outturn for 1992–93 and plans for 1993–94 to 1995–96. Departments' latest forecast of EC receipts will be published in the 1994 Chancellor's departmental report, early next year.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

  The Prime Minister
  I am travelling to Brussels for the European Council meeting and other meetings.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to require all political parties to compile and publish annually comprehensive accounts showing the source of all donations and the extent of all expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has used No. 10 Downing street premises for functions of the Conservative party; what is the cost to public funds; and what was the purpose of each occasion.

  The Prime Minister
  When charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs as well as other miscellaneous direct costs.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances the premises of No. 10 Downing street are available for hire by outside organisations; and at what cost.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 420.

  War Anniversaries
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have with its wartime allies to mark(a) the 50th anniversary of the D-Day operation and (b) the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  Plans for a series of events to mark the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings, both in the United Kingdom and in France, are now well advanced. These plans have been made in close co-operation with other Governments. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Plans for events to mark the end of the second world war are being considered at present. An announcement will be made next year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department currently takes to ensure that fireworks manufactured abroad and imported into Britain meet British safety standards.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—authorises the importation of fireworks only if they comply with British Standard 7114:1988 on firework safety. Also, local trading standards officers use BS7114 as a benchmark, in exercising their powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, to ensure that fireworks on sale to the public are safe.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of firework accident advertising and the number of recorded accidents in 1993; and what was the comparable figure for each of the preceding 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The costs of firework accident prevention work falling on the Department's safety awareness budget and the numbers of fireworks accidents requiring hospital treatment were as follows:

  £000

  Accidents

  1984

  35

  778

  1985

  40

  968

  1986

  51

  846

  1987

  78

  960

  1988

  57

  877

  1989

  64

  800

  1990

  111

  805

  1991

  74

  723

  1992

  84

  942

  1993

  160

  n/a

  The firework accident figures cover accidents occurring in the three weeks preceding 5 November and in the week immediately following it. This is the period of availability of fireworks under the voluntary agreement on retail supply with the fireworks industry. The 1993 statistics will not be available until spring 1994.

  Imported Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to protect householders from the dangers of imported house coal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no reason to believe that imported coal is any more dangerous than that produced in the United Kingdom, although preparation is important. Information on quality standards and on the safe burning of solid fuel is available from the Domestic Coal Consumers Council and through the approved coal merchants scheme.

  Post Office Users National Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the current members of POUNC for the south Yorkshire area; what were their qualifications; when their current term of office is due to expire; and when nominations to this organisation will next be advertised.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Post Office Act 1969, under which the Post Office Users National Council—POUNC 340
  —was set up, provides for the appointment of persons likely to be concerned with matters within the competence of the council. At the same time, it stipulates that regard should be given to the desirability of having members who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of particular parts of the British islands.

  Within this framework, the interests of all users of post office services in the United Kingdom are represented on the council. There is no specific member for the south Yorkshire area. However, the interests of post office services users in the south Yorkshire area are also served by the appropriate non-statutory local post office advisory committees—POACs.

  Several POUNC members' terms of appointment will expire at the end of 1994. In reviewing those appointments, consideration will be given to future representation in consultation, as appropriate.

  Details of council membership, together with post office advisory committees are listed in POUNC annual reports, copies of which are sent to Members of Parliament on an individual basis.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the hon. Member for Don Valley may be sent a copy of the reply sent on 22 September on behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the letter handed to the Prime Minister on 15 June by a Japanese group in respect of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  A copy has been sent to the hon. Member, and I have today also placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration has been given to the possibility of contracts between British Nuclear Fuels plc and customers of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant being varied or annulled in his deliberations as to the start-up of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of reprocessing contracts are a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers. For the Government's consideration of the possibility of changes being made to contracts, I refer the hon. Member to the statement of Government policy on reprocessing and operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, paragraphs 62-68, which was made available as one of the public consultation documents on 4 August 1993. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are made for him or officials from his Department to read signed contracts between British Nuclear Fuels plc and customers of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is in regular contact with British Nuclear Fuels plc on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government have taken to validate British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.'s estimate of costs of decommissioning the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: Estimates of decommissioning costs are a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the sale of counterfeit goods at car boot sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has no statistics concerning the sale of counterfeit goods at car boot sales, although it has received considerable evidence about the damage caused by the trade in counterfeit goods at such markets. The Trade Marks Bill, which has just been introduced, will help to combat counterfeiting, including at car boot sales.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about dangerous electrical items being sold at car boot sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received representations on a number of issues concerning car boot sales, including the safety of second-hand electrical goods.

  We have considered carefully all the issues relating to car boot sales and have concluded that the existing powers of enforcement authorities to address these concerns are sufficient. The safety of second-hand electrical equipment sold in the course of business, whether at a car boot sale or otherwise, is adequately regulated by the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989.

  Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are engaged in his Department on combating fraud in financial institutions; and at what annual cost.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Responsibility for combating fraud in financial institutions is shared between a number of bodies. Within my Department, staff in the investigations division currently total 210. The division's direct costs in 1993–94 are £16 million, including the cost of private sector inspectors and investigators. The division carries out investigations under the Companies Acts and other legislation throughout the corporate sector, where there are grounds for suspicion of wrongdoing and it brings criminal proceedings in respect of a wide range of offences, mainly reported to it by the Insolvency Service or brought to light by its own investigations. It also takes other action to protect the public, including action to disqualify directors and to wind up companies. Cases involving fraud in financial institutions constitute only a small part of the work of investigations division and no statistics are maintained which would separately identify resources devoted to this work.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the detailed explanation given by the Director General of Telecommunications for the K value of telecommunications services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest relevant statement by the Director General of Telecommunications, entitled "Future Controls on British Telecom's Prices", was published in June 1992. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Satellite Launch Facility
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the initiative announced by AEA Technology to develop a satellite launch facility at the Dounreay nuclear establishment in Caithness.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Regional Development Organisations
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget allocated by his Department to regional organisations in 1992–93 in (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau paid £1,410,000 in grant in aid to the Northern Development Company for inward investment purposes in the financial year 1992–93 from a total budget of £5 million for the five regional development organisations in England.

  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount spent by his Department on local enterprise agencies in 1992–93 in(a) the northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total amount of DTI funding to local enterprise agencies in(a) the northern region and (b) the United Kingdom is not available.

  Lloyd's
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received as to the solvency of Lloyd's of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A proportion of the letters that I receive from right hon. and hon. Members and from members of the public about Lloyd's touches on questions of solvency. The statement and certificates demonstrating Lloyd's solvency for the year ended December 1992, which are required by part IV of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, were received by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade at the end of August 1993. My Department monitors the solvency of Lloyd's closely, as it does for insurance companies to which the 1982 Act relates.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of consultancy support for small firms provided by his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Consultancy support for small and medium-sized businesses will continue beyond the life of the present enterprise initiative consultancy scheme in the form of a flexible consultancy and diagnostic service.

  As I announced in the House on Tuesday, Official Report, columns 145-55, I shall publish a prospectus and guidelines for this service in January, inviting training and

  343
  enterprise councils to submit proposals on behalf of business link partnerships to deliver the new service on a pilot basis in 1994–95. I expect the service to become nationally available from 1995–96, as the business link network is completed.

  This new service will provide businesses with high-quality support, available locally and tailored to their individual needs. It will build and improve on the existing and highly successful enterprise initiative consultancy scheme.

  In addition, I intend to trial a new consultancy brokerage service from January 1994, for introduction nationwide later in the year. This will open up to all businesses the considerable wealth of data and project management experience which has been accumulated on UK business consultants for the EI consultancy scheme.

  These new services will be developed and introduced alongside the present scheme to ensure a smooth transition from the old to the new.

  I have decided therefore that the present EI consultancy scheme will no longer close on 31 March 1994. It will instead remain open until we have received another 10,000 applications. This means we shall be supporting 10,000 projects beyond the previously announced closure date.

  At current rates of demand that should enable us to continue accepting applications until well into next year, by which time new arrangements for consultancy support through business links will be in place.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the outcome of his review of the monitoring procedures of the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  When the supervisory bodies for company auditors were granted recognition under the Companies Act 1989, it was agreed with them that they would review jointly with my Department this year the operation of their procedures for monitoring compliance by their members with their rules.

  I have, therefore, asked the bodies to report to me on how their monitoring regimes have been operating, and to propose changes for the future.

  I have also asked Professor Peter Moizer, Professor of Accounting at the university of Leeds, to provide me with an independent assessment of the state of monitoring.

  I intend to publish the conclusions of the review early next year.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requirements his Department places upon Nuclear Electric to provide data on the isotopic composition of plutonium produced in its nuclear plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: For the purpose of compiling the annual plutonium figures published by my Department, Nuclear Electric plc provides, for each of its sites, in respect of reactor discharges and dispatches from site, estimated percentages of fissile plutonium. In addition, the company supplies information to Euratum on the isotopic composition of plutonium in spent fuel shipped from each of its sites. This information is supplied via my Department.
  344
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what definitions his Department uses to describe different qualities of plutonium arising from civil nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: As in the annual plutonium figures published by my Department, the quality of plutonium is normally described by reference to its fissile content. The estimated percentage of fissile plutonium is the sum of the masses of the plutonium 239 and 241 isotopes expressed as as percentage of the sum of the masses of all plutonium isotopes.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department is provided by(a) Nuclear Electric, (b) British Nuclear Fuels plc and (c) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on the amounts of plutonium produced in each of their respective reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: For the information supplied by Nuclear Electric plc, British Nuclear Fuels plc, BNFL, and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, UKAEA, to meet the requirements of Euratom safeguards regulation 3227/76, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 9 June 1993, Official Report, column 251. For the purpose of compiling the annual plutonium figures published by my Department, Nuclear Electric plc provides figures for plutonium production and reactor discharges for each of its stations.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement on the future of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: The current review of the role of the Patent Office is expected to be completed by the end of the year. I hope to announce our conclusions following that review shortly thereafter.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a further statement on the progress towards establishing a RECHAR 2 programme from January 1994;

  (2) what recent discussions he has held with the European Commission about (a) the objective 2 programme and (b) the RECHAR programme under the European regional development fund programme from January 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: I saw the responsible Commissioner on 30 November about the Government's proposals for objective 2.

  On RECHAR, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on 2 December, Official Report, column 736.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to privatise the Accounts Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend

  345
  the Member for Hertfordshire North (Mr. Heald) on 29 October, Official Report, column 805. The review of the Accounts Services Agency has yet to be concluded. In due course, a decision will be taken and an announcement made.

SCOTLAND

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department does not have such a unit. Documents are regularly reviewed by branches in accordance with centrally agreed procedures.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to measures to reduce the stressfulness for victims of crime of attendance at court; and if he will a make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The stress of appearing as a witness is partly caused by a fear of the unknown. The new measures being taken to provide information to victims and to make them familiar with the court and its procedures can help to allay such fears. The physical surroundings are also important and steps are taken, where possible, to separate Crown witnesses from accused persons and defence witnesses. Court staff make regular visits to witness rooms to provide progress reports, and will take appropriate action if a victim complains about intimidation or other pressure.

  Where children are the victims of crime, a number of courts have facilities to take evidence by live television link, so that, if the court so orders, they do not have to confront the accused face to face. The use of screens to provide a barrier between a victim and an accused is also currently being evaluated.

  Although there are certain rules of evidence designed to protect witnesses from particular types of questioning, going to court is inevitably stressful for many victims of crime. Two recently published reports, on the review of criminal evidence and on court programming, contain a number of recommendations which, if implemented, are likely to lead to a reduction in that stress and in the number of times victims have to attend court. Any new procedures must also, however, be fair to accused persons and so any proposals require careful consideration.

  Volunteers from the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes aim to accompany as many victims to court as possible. The association provides some training to volunteers to assist them in helping victims through the court process. In 1993–94 SAVSS will receive a grant of £764,000 from the Scottish Office, of which £546,351 goes to fund local victim support schemes.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to improving the availability to victims of crime of information on the operation of the courts and the prosecution system; and if he will make a statement.
  346
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A number of initiatives are being made in the spirit of the justice charter for Scotland. Procurators fiscal are making efforts to provide more information, and improved leaflets are now sent to all witnesses before coming to court. More information about the progress of cases is being given to witnesses waiting at court to give their evidence, and special arrangements, including pre-trial visits to the courtroom, exist for giving information to vulnerable witnesses. The very successful illustrated leaflet for children is also being updated. In one particular initiative the procurator fiscal provides information through local victim support schemes, and receives in return information about any special difficulties which victims may have. The Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes has made an approach seeking funding support to produce a new information leaflet for victims of sexual offences. This is intended to provide relevant information and to inform them about aspects of the prosecution system and operation of the courts.

  Football Stadia
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward legislation to ensure that all Scottish stadia are all-seater by August 1994.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have no immediate plans to do so. We are satisfied from our regular contacts with the football authorities, through the Scottish Stadia Committee, that the voluntary undertaking given to Ministers in 1990 by the authorities remains at present the most appropriate basis for Government to secure acceptable safety standards at football grounds. That position is, however, kept closely under review.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the closure of facilities in Ayrshire Central and Ravenspark hospitals by the Community Health Care NHS trust since its establishment in April; and what changes in service provision have been made.

  Mr. Stewart
  The trust has closed three pavilions at Ravenspark hospital since patient referrals have diminished following the contract with Ayrshire and Arran health board. In addition, the trust has transferred the geriatric assessment facility from Ravenspark to Ayrshire Central. The contracts which Ayrshire and Arran health board has with the trust do not require the trust to provide the same number of beds as previously existed.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the closure of facilities in Crosshouse hospital by the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust since its establishment in April; and what reasons have been given for reductions in services.

  Mr. Stewart
  There has been no reduction in services. More patients have been treated in the first six months of the trust's existence compared with the same period last year and the trust is to be congratulated on its achievements. This increased activity has been achieved by changes in service delivery patterns which make better use of the facilities. Some wards are no longer required and have been closed but without any reduction in the service.
  347
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the refurbishment of the foyer of Crosshouse hospital by the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust; how much the refurbishment is costing; from where the funding for this refurbishment is being made available; and what similar work was carried out in Crosshouse hospital prior to the North Ayrshire and Arran trust being established this year.

  Mr. Stewart
  The main entrance of Crosshouse hospital has been refurbished with the creation of enhanced shop and tea bar facilities and the provision of new facilities for admissions, the patient welcoming service, a mother and baby room and toilets for disabled persons. The total cost is £150,000 of which £75,000 has been provided by the trust and the balance donated by the WRVS. The entrance has not been upgraded since the hospital opened in 1982.

  Timber
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the United Kingdom's timber requirement is grown in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Hector Monro
  About 14 per cent.

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on the arrangements for allocation of sheep quota from the national reserve.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The arrangements of applying to the national reserve of sheep quota were announced by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department on Tuesday 7 December. Application forms are now available from the Department's area offices for producers in the first two categories of those eligible for an allocation from the reserve. This will not affect the position of producers in the other categories, arrangements for whom will be announced later.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to expedite the administrative procedures for allocation of sheep quota from the national reserve when the necessary orders are laid.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department has invited producers falling within the first two categories of the seven categories of eligible producer to submit their applications now. This will enable the Department to speed up the processing of applications and permit allocations to be made as quickly as possible without affecting the position of producers in the other categories.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he gives to sheep producers awaiting allocations of quota from the national reserve about the short-term financial problems they face as a result of the delayed allocation of quota.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I advise them that the legislation relating to the national reserve has been laid and certain producers can therefore now apply for an allocation of quota from the reserve; that payment of the advance of 348
  sheep annual premium to these producers will be made as soon as possible after quota has been allocated from the reserve; and that this is expected to take place in about two months' time.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a tribunal with powers to award sheep quota allocations to hear cases of genuine hardship for sheep producers denied allocation of quota from the national reserve.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The legislation governing the allocation of quota from the national reserve sets out precisely the definition of the categories of producer eligible to apply to the reserve. There is no scope for making discretionary allocations to producers falling outwith those categories. I therefore have no plans to set up a tribunal.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recorded phone messages his Department has received from sheep producers seeking information about allocation of quota from the national reserve.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department has received several hundred telephone calls from producers on a variety of subjects relating to sheep quotas. It is not possible to identify separately the number concerned specifically with allocations from the national reserve or recorded messages from other telephone calls.

  Court Service
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the Scottish court service.

  Mr. Lang
  After consultation with the senior judiciary, I have decided that the Scottish court service, part of the Scottish courts administration, should be considered as a candidate for executive agency status, under the next steps initiative.

  Castlehill Primary School
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received an application for the opting out of Castlehill primary school in Ayr; from whom the application was received; what representations he has received for and against such a proposal; what is his estimate of the costs involved if the school is allowed to proceed with opting out; what consideration he has given to the request; and when he expects to make an announcement on his decision in this matter.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: The application for self-governing status for Castlehill primary school was submitted by the school board in June 1993. Three representations were received in support of the application and one representation was received opposing the application. As regards costs, it is premature to make any estimate. The results of the consideration currently being given to the application by my right hon. Friend will be announced shortly.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what ethnic monitoring he carries out of the Scottish Office work force; how many black and ethnic minority personnel are employed; and at what levels.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Following earlier surveys of the ethnic origins of staff, all new entrants are invited to complete a questionnaire. We have achieved a 92 per cent. response rate. As at 1 October 1993, 34 staff have described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. These staff are employed in grades ranging from messenger to grade 6.

  Child Patients
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the percentage of children in hospital admitted to adult wards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: It is estimated that 2·5 per cent. of children in hospital in Scotland are admitted to adult wards, where there is no separate accommodation for children.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in 1991–92 a children's intensive care unit has refused admission to a critically ill child; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what number and percentage of children receiving intensive care were cared for in(a) children's wards, (b) adult intensive care units and (c) children's intensive care units.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The number of children receiving intensive care in children's wards is not available centrally.

  The number of children aged zero to 14 years receiving care in adult intensive care units in general hospitals in 1992 was 138 or 21·5 per cent. of all children in the age group receiving care in an intensive care unit.

  Intensive care units provided specially for children are not identifiable centrally except in children's hospitals. The number of children receiving care in intensive care units in children's hospitals in 1992 was 503, or 78·5 per cent. of all children in the age group receiving care in an intensive care unit.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the shortfall of paediatric intensive care unit beds.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Intensive care units provided specially for children are not identifiable centrally, except where they are provided in designated children's hospitals.

  Forestry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to ensure no loss of public access following disposal of any land owned by the Forestry Commission.
  350
  Sir Hector Monro
  Arrangements were introduced in October 1991 for securing continued public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission by means of prior agreements entered into between the commission and local authorities. These arrangements are currently being reviewed to see if any changes are needed.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory conservation measures apply to private forestry land previously belonging to the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: There are several statutory conservation measures which apply to privately owned forestry land, whether or not it previously belonged to the Forestry Commission. These include the designation of woodlands as sites of special scientific interest and special protection areas. Private woodlands are also protected by the felling licensing regulations.

DEFENCE

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of contracts placed by his Department with British Nuclear Fuels in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Aitken
  For security reasons it is not our practice to disclose the value of contracts placed with British Nuclear Fuels.

  Atomic Energy (US-UK Agreement)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what variation has been made to article 2 of the amendment of 5 December 1979—Cmd 7976—to the United States-United Kingdom agreement on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes of 1958—Cmd 4119.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Aitken
  Official visits by Ministers to the countries listed have been as follows:

  Saudi Arabia

  Secretary of State—1988, 1990—three times—1991, 1992—twice

  Minister (Armed Forces)—1990

  Minister (Defence Procurement)—1988, 1993—twice

  Malaysia

  Secretary of State—1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993

  Minister (Armed Forces)—1988, 1990—twice

  Minister (Defence Procurement)—1991

  Under-Secretary of State—1992, 1993

  Under-Secretary of State (Armed Forces)—1991

  Singapore

  Secretary of State—1987, 1991, 1993

  Minister (Armed Forces)—1988

  Under-Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)—1987, 1989, 1990

  South Africa
  None.
  351
  All of these visits were for official purposes. My Department is unaware of any party political activities on these visits.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made to his Department by SubSea Offshore Ltd. and AEA Technology Ltd. concerning the location, identification, monitoring and recovery of toxic chemicals.

  Mr. Aitken
  SubSea Offshore Ltd. and AEA Technology Ltd. have had exploratory discussions with the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the deregulation of Greenham Common in order to offer it for sale to the private market.

  Mr. Hanley
  Newbury district council has recently published a draft planning brief in respect of Greenham Common that provides inter alia for public open space on the "green areas" including the runway.

  The district council has stated in the draft that it would not object to an application by MOD to remove the former Greenham Common from the county register and officials have been instructed to proceed with the application for deregistration so that the land can be made available for public open space.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much income his Department received from the letting of Greenham Common for each month between January and November 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The income generated by short-term lettings at Greenham Common is a matter between the MOD and the parties concerned and as such must be treated as commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department paid for the maintenance and security at Greenham Common for each month between January and November 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested but the total cost of maintenance and security from 1 January to 30 November 1993 was of the order of £1,000,000, the large majority of which is accounted for by the salaries and deployment costs of the Ministry of Defence Police presence on the site.

  Helicopters
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopter flying hours are allocated per month in Northern Ireland; at what stage in the month, on average, this allocated is used up; and what are the arrangements when demand exceeds the official allocation of helicopter flying hours.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not the practice to provide detailed operational information about such matters as the allocation of helicopters flying hours. Allocation of 352
  helicopter flying hours for all operations, including Northern Ireland, is made centrally by the MOD on an annual basis commensurate with the requirements of individual theatres. Within individual theatres, arrangements are made to match the allocation with operational needs. If demands arise which cannot be met from within allocated hours, additional hours may be requested by the theatre concerned.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troop-carrying helicopters were permanently assigned to each helicopter-equipped RAF air transport squadron on(a) 1 January, (b) 1 April and (c) 1 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of aircraft are as follows:

  Squadron

  1 January 1993

  1 April 1993

  1 July 1993

  7 Squadron1

  15 Chinook

  15 Chinook

  12 Chinook

  18 Squadron1

  5 Chinook

  4 Chinook

  5 Chinook

  5 Puma

  5 Puma

  5 Puma

  28 Squadron

  8 Wessex

  8 Wessex

  8 Wessex

  33 Squadron

  12 Puma

  12 Puma

  12 Puma

  60 Squadron

  9 Wessex

  9 Wessex

  9 Wessex

  72 Squadron

  15 Wessex

  15 Wessex

  15 Wessex

  230 Squadron

  15 Puma

  15 Puma

  15 Puma

  The Queen's Flight

  2 Wessex

  2 Wessex

  2 Wessex

  1 The RAF Chinook force has been undergoing a mid-life update and therefore the numbers vary against 7 and 18 Squadrons.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anti-tank helicopters are premanently assigned to each Army air corps regiment.

  Mr. Hanley
  Lynx helicopters, equipped with TOW missiles, in the anti-tank role are established with the Army Air Corps as follows:

  Number of Aircraft

  1 (United Kingdom)

  Armoured Division

  1 Regiment

  18

  3 (United Kingdom)

  Division

  9 Regiment

  18

  24 Airmobile Brigade

  3 Regiment

  12

  4 Regiment

  12

  In addition, the Army Corps Centre at Middle Wallop holds 14 helicopters, and 3 Commando Brigade has six helicopters which are operated by the Royal Marines.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land, by acreage, his Department owns in each of the counties of Wales, and in each of the regions of Scotland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The land owned in areas by the Ministry of Defence in each of the counties of Wales and in each of the regions of Scotland is set out in the table.

  Acres

  Wales

  Clwyd

  796

  Dyfed

  16,596

  353

  Acres

  Gwent

  1,646

  Gwynedd

  1,967

  Mid Glamorgan

  20

  Powys

  29,798

  South Glamorgan

  988

  West Glamorgan

  2

  Total

  51,813

  Scotland

  Borders

  Nil

  Central

  193

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,727

  Fife

  3,267

  Grampian

  5,130

  Highland

  6,884

  Lothian

  2,854

  Strathclyde

  13,791

  Tayside

  3,568

  Orkney Isles

  10

  Shetland Isles

  84

  Western Isles

  3,254

  Total

  50,762

  Figures are at 1 April 1993—the latest date for which records are available—and relate to freehold landholdings, including foreshore, for which deeds were held. Acquisitions or disposals which may have been completed but where deeds had not been transferred by 1 April 1993 are not included.

  Boxing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part boxing plays in training and physical education in the armed services.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the Royal Navy, including Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, boxing is an entirely voluntary sporting activity, playing no part in training or formal physical education.

  In the Army, the initial phase of new entry recruit training includes—for male recruits only—six periods of instruction in basic boxing skills. The regimental physical training instructor class 2 course, held at the Army school of physical training, includes a 22-period Army unit coach award course to qualify instructors to teach the basic skills covered in the six periods of new entry training.

  In all three services, boxing is available as a sporting activity on a voluntary basis. Each service has a Boxing Association, which is affiliated to the Amateur Boxing Association Ltd.; all organised boxing sporting activities are conducted in accordance with that national governing body's regulations, including its medical rules.

  Budgets
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are(a) the current budgets and (b) the previous budgets of all the higher level budget holders with the exception of GOC Northern Ireland, DG General Intelligence (Eurasia), DG Management and Support of Intelligence, DG of Strategic and Technical Intelligence and DG Intelligence (Rest of World); and if he will list the planned budgets for all the same budget holders for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96.

  Mr. Hanley
  The budgets for higher level budget holders are now published annually in Defence Statistics,354
  available in the Library of the House. The budgets for financial year 1992–93 are shown in table 1.3A on page 10 of Defence Statistics, 1992 edition, and the budgets for 1993–94 in table 1.3 on page 9 of the UK Defence Statistics, 1993 edition. We do not publish details of planned budgets as approval to commit expenditure is subject to formal endorsement through Ministers and the parliamentary supply system.

  Army Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the annual running cost of(a) an armoured regiment, (b) an infantry battalion and (c) an artillery field regiment stationed in the United Kingdom; and what changes have occurred in this figure since 1989–90;

  (2) what is the annual running cost of (a) an armoured regiment, (b) an infantry battalion and (c) an artillery field regiment stationed with the British Army of the Rhine; and what changes have occurred in this figure since 1989–90.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1991, when new management strategy was introduced, the basis for costing Army units has changed. In addition, the current methodology does not distinguish between UK and Germany-based units, and cannot be compared with figures for 1989–90. Estimates for this financial year, at current prices, are as follows:

  (£ million)

  Unit

  Costs

  Armoured regiments

  23

  Infantry battalion

  23

  (Armoured)

  Artillery field

  22

  Regiment (AS90)

  These figures include manpower, fuel, ammunition, training and spares costs.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of(a) a regular Army soldier, (b) a Territorial Army soldier, (c) a Royal Navy sailor, (d) a Royal Naval Reserve sailor, (e) a Royal Naval Auxiliary Service sailor, (f) a Royal Air Force airman or woman, and (g) a Royal Auxiliary Air Force airman or woman.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information which can be provided without disproportionate cost is shown in the table. The figures are an average cost per person, taken for all ranks, commissioned and non-commissioned, in 1992–93. The figures for the regulars include pay, earnings-related national insurance contribution, allowances and superannuation. The figures for the Reserves include allowances and, except for the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve, pay, ERNIC and training bounties.

  No account has been taken of any other costs—for example, equipment development, production and maintenance, fuel, ammunition, accommodation and utilities, food or transport.

  1992–93 average pay bill cost of service personnel1

  £

  a. Regular Army2

  25,400

  b. Territorial Army3

  1,900

  c. Royal Navy4

  30,000

  d. Royal Naval Reserves5

  2,100

  355

  £

  e. Royal Naval Auxiliary Service6

  900

  f. Royal Air Force

  27,100

  g. Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  2,400

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100.

  2 Including the Home Service full-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment, and the non-Regular permanent staff of the Territorial Army. Excluding Gurkhas, and locally enlisted personnel overseas.

  3 Not including the Home Service part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment.

  4 Excluding the Royal Marines, and locally enlisted personnel overseas.

  5 Not including the Royal Marines Reserve.

  6 Excluding permanent staff.

  Maintenance Backlog
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total maintenance backlog of(a) unavoidable and essential repairs and (b) urgent repairs on the defence estate at 1 April in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since the untying from the Property Services Agency on 1 April 1990, the information requested has been held by 23 separate top-level budget holders within the Ministry of Defence. It would, therefore, involve disproportionate cost to acquire the information.

  Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British contribution is made to the reaction force planning staff at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom contributes six officers and two other ranks to the Allied Command Europe Reaction Force Planning Staff—ARFPS—whose total strength is 48 officers and 13 other ranks.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for funding the new NATO rapid reaction force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The nations assigning forces to the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps—ARRC—will meet the costs of their national contingencies. The costs of the headquarters will be shared between the participating nations and NATO on terms presently under negotiation.

  Belize
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual running cost of(a) the Army detachment and (b) the RAF detachment stationed in Belize; and what changes have occurred in these figures since 1989–90.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to attribute the total costs of the Belize garrison to the Army element or to the RAF element except for manpower costs. A significant cost element is for services common to both detachments and covers areas such as the garrison headquarters, works services, utilities and locally employed civilians. The costs 356
  of the garrison for the 1991–92, 1992–93 and an estimate for 1993–94, split into directly identifiable Army and RAF costs and common costs, are given. Comparable data for 1989–90 are not available.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Army manpower

  21

  18

  24

  RAF manpower

  5

  6

  5

  Common costs

  12

  10

  10

  Total

  38

  34

  39

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the issue of compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Hanley
  Compensation would be sympathetically considered for any British nuclear test veteran who could be shown to have suffered injury or illness as a result of radiation from the nuclear tests. No such case has yet been found. The report of the National Radiological Protection Board—NRPB—published in 1988 found no overall excess of death or malignant disease among test veterans: this position is confirmed in the NRPB follow-up study to be published this week. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the follow-up report by the National Radiological Protection Board being published in the British Medical Journal on mortality and cancer among nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Hanley
  The joint National Radiological Protection Board/Imperial Cancer Research Fund—NRPB/ICRF—study into Mortality and Cancer incidence among nuclear test participants, commissioned by the Ministry of Defence, will be published on Saturday 11 December in the British Medical Journal after having successfully completed independent peer review. There will also be an accompanying NRPB report.

  The NRPB is an independent statutory body which was set up to give advice on radiation protection. The ICRF is a charitable organisation which plays a leading role in cancer research. The authors of the report include eminent scientists who have published widely in the field, among whom is the distinguished epidemiologist Professor Sir Richard Doll, OBE, MD, DSc, FRS, FRCP, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the university of Oxford, who is well known for his work on smoking-related disease.

  The Ministry of Defence accepts the findings of this independent report. The study concludes that participation in the nuclear weapon test programme has had no detectable effect on participants' expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.

  A report published by the NRPB in 1988 dealt with mortality and cancer up to 31 December 1983 among former test participants, compared with a control group of service and civilian personnel matched for age, sex and rank who served in tropical areas at the time of the tests but were not, themselves, participants in the atmospheric nuclear weapon test programme. This study found no overall excess of death, or of cancer, among former

  357
  participants compared with national rates. Out of over 20,000 former test participants, about 1,600 had died, including 400 from cancer—no more than among the matched control group or the general population. Of these 400, 22 had died of leukaemia and six from multiple myeloma, figures higher than the control group but similar to those expected from national rates. The authors considered that one possibility was that these elevated levels simply reflected an unusually low incidence of myeloma and leukaemia among the control group.

  The follow-up report to be published in the British Medical Journal includes cancer and mortality data to 31 December 1990. During the seven years between the end of 1983 and the end of 1990, about 1,200 further deaths occurred among former test participants, 370 of them from cancer. Again, these figures were no higher than among either the general population or the matched control group. Of the 370 further cancer deaths among participants, three were from multiple myeloma and six from leukaemia. The three deaths from myeloma were fewer than among the general population and the control group. Taken together with the figures from the previous study, for all deaths up to 31 December 1990 there was no increased incidence of multiple myeloma among participants compared with either the general population or controls.

  The six deaths from leukaemia among participants between 1 January 1984 and 31 December 1990 were fewer than expected from national rates and fewer in veterans than among the controls. Furthermore, the total number of deaths for the entire period of both studies up to the end of 1990 from leukaemia was exactly the same as expected nationally. The excess of leukaemia in test participants compared with the control group found in the previous study is therefore likely to be a chance finding, although the report states that the possibility that test participation may have caused a small risk of developing leukaemia in the early years after the tests, cannot be completely ruled out. The study however, finds the evidence for a causal link to be weak for several reasons.

  First, the highest increase amongst participants was not among men in groups whose duties gave them the potential for exposure to ionising radiation, nor among men employed by the atomic weapons research establishment or directly involved in the minor trials at Maralinga in whom undocumented inhalation or ingestion, if any, was most likely to have occurred. Secondly, the recorded doses of external radiation were very small and, on the best evidence now available, would have been estimated to cause not even one extra induced case of leukaemia. Thirdly, there was no evidence of an increasing risk with increasing dose as would be expected if caused by exposure to ionising radiation.

  The Ministry of Defence has also compiled for the NRPB an environmental monitoring report for Christmas island. A copy has been placed in the Library. This report shows that measurements of radioactive fallout taken at the time of the tests were usually below the limit of detection. On the few occasions when radioactivity was detectable the levels were low, decayed or dispersed rapidly, and did not constitute a hazard or danger to test participants, visitors or inhabitants of the island. The dates when elevated levels were found were not associated with the detonation date of any particular United Kingdom device, but corresponded to the worldwide fallout pattern of the time. Such global fallout is part of background radiation to which we are all exposed.
  358
  I can also announce today that I have, in line with the Government's commitment to open government, and the Ministry of Defence's wish to open to public scrutiny any documents relating to the safety of test participants, declassified the yields of Christmas island tests. The figures are contained in the environmental monitoring report for Christmas island to which I have just referred. The corresponding figures for the Australian atmospheric nuclear weapon tests were declassified in 1985. The yield figures can be used to calculate doses from information readily available in the open literature. These calculations confirm the assertion that doses were vanishingly low at all points where participants were mustered at the instant of detonation.

  I believe that this new NRPB/ICRF study confirms that there is no evidence to suggest that any cancer or other fatal disease was caused by exposure to ionising radiation from the tests.

  A copy of the British Medical Journal article and associated report will be placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total dwelling stock in each local authority area in England is(a) unfit for habitation and (b) in need of major renovation.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities are requested to provide information in their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns on all dwellings in their area which are unfit, and on those not unfit but in need of renovation. However, there are doubts about the quality of the data provided by some authorities.

  These doubts arise because of the substantial variations between neighbouring authorities in the proportions of dwellings reported as unfit or in need of repair, and also because of implausible changes between years in some of the reported figures.

  The data reported by local authorities in England on total dwelling stock—column A 15—and the numbers of dwellings reported as unfit—column A35—and not unfit but in need of renovation—column A45—from which the percentages requested can be calculated are in the 1993 "HIP1 All Items Print". A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department will be represented at the Salford inquiry on housing in the north-west to be held on 12 January 1994.

  Sir George Young
  Officials from the Department's north-west regional office will attend.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the financial year 1992–93, the Department spent £2,660,198·30 on press advertising and
  359
  £2,799,915·14 on television advertising. These costs include creative and production charges, value added tax, and other levies as paid.

  The main campaigns were:

  Helping the Earth begins at Home.

  Right to Buy.

  Council Tax Press Advertising March 1993.

  Making a Corporate Commitment—to Energy Saving.

  Halon Banking.

  EMAS—Energy Management Assistance Scheme.

  There was no expenditure on radio advertising in that financial year.

  A breakdown of publicity expenditure is not available for the years 1985 and 1979.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the biodiversity action plan compiled in response to the biodiversity convention signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Yeo
  Work on the production of the biodiversity action plan is in its final stages, and publication will be after the House returns, in January.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on how Britain's impact on biodiversity in other countries will be addressed in the United Kingdom's follow-up to agreements made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Yeo
  Britain's impact on biodiversity in other countries will be addressed in the biodiversity action plan and the sustainable development strategy as appropriate, both of which are due to be published after the House returns, in January.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for the ratification before the end of 1993 of the biological diversity convention by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  The convention on biological diversity was laid before Parliament in January of this year. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 2 December 1993,Official Report, column 654.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Gummer
  A large number of staff in the Department handle documents which may be regarded as sensitive. There is no special unit; all staff are required to handle sensitive documents according to standard rules.

  Community Care
  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the representations he has received concerning his proposals to
  360
  reinstate certification 10 of the Housing Corporation's special needs procedure guide and the consequent withdrawal of revenue funding where a social services authority sponsors an individual under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations from the organisations listed below, or from hon. Members writing on their behalf, in connection with the application of the Housing Corporation's revenue funding rules beyond the current financial year. A further five hon. Members have written to us about the general issue.

  Advance Housing and Support Ltd.

  Association for Residential Care

  Association of London Authorities

  Bristol Churches Housing Association

  Elfrida Rathbone Islington

  London Borough Grants Committee

  Look Ahead Housing Association

  MacIntyre Care

  MENCAP

  Methodist Church and Centre

  MIND

  National Autistic Society

  National Federation of Housing Associations

  Oxford Cyrenian Community

  Phoenix House Housing Association

  Shaftesbury Society

  Single Homelessness in London

  Spastics Society

  Special Needs Housing Association Group

  St Anne's Shelter and Housing Action

  Tower Hamlets Consortium Ltd.

  Turning Point

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when current planning permission for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield expires.

  Mr. Curry
  The planning permission, which is contained in SI 1978 No. 523, did not specify a final date by which the buildings must be completed and the plant brought into use.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards he has instituted in the local government review process to ensure that the trading standards departments are not adversely affected in the reorganisation process.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission's recommendations must enable adequate provision to be made for all existing local government functions, including the trading standards service. This is a matter we shall be looking at as we receive the commission's final reports for each area.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about trading standards departments in relation to the local government review.

  Mr. Baldry
  This year, my right hon. Friend has received 24 representations on the general issue of trading standards in relation to the local government review.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made to ensure
  361
  the continued existence and development of a network of county record offices after the reform of local government authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission's recommendations must enable adequate provision to be made for all existing local government functions, including the provision of archive services. This is a matter we shall be looking at as we receive the commission's final reports for each area.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory provisions govern the requirement on borough councils to devote receipts from sale of dwellings to their tenants solely to redeem accumulated debt.

  Sir George Young
  Section 59 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires local authorities to set aside as provision for credit liabilities 75 per cent. of their receipts from the disposal of dwellings and 50 per cent. of other receipts; the remainder may be spent. Those percentages are varied for certain receipts by the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1990, as amended, and in particular are reduced to nil for virtually all receipts obtained between 13 November 1992 and 31 December 1993.

  Section 64 of the 1989 Act provides that amounts set aside may be used to repay borrowing or discharge credit liabilities; they may also be used for capital expenditure on the strength of a credit approval. The regulations give authorities without long-term debt greater freedom to spend these amounts.

  Grants (Day Visitors)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the local government finance statement for 1994–95, how much extra grant Stockport metropolitan borough council will get as a result of the inclusion of day visitors in the formula; and how much of that extra will relate to visitors to Lyme park.

  Mr. Baldry
  Stockport metropolitan borough council would receive £0·264 million as a result of the inclusion of an allowance for day visitors to the authority within the proposed calculation of standard spending assessments for 1994–95. It is not possible to say how much of that amount is attributable to day visitors to specific attractions. Lyme park, however, is not within the Stockport metropolitan district and, therefore, visitors to the park would not be included in Stockport's figures.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of sites outside a borough but maintained by the authority in calculating grants for day visitors.

  Mr. Baldry
  The allowance within standard spending assessments for day visitors is designed to reflect the impact on services provided by local authorities of visitors to their area.

  The services likely to be affected include street cleaning, refuse collection and environmental health.

  It is not the intention that the allowance should compensate authorities directly for the cost of any recreational facilities which they choose to provide in the areas of other authorities.

  Bolton Council
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to Bolton council's request, dated 15 November, for ministerial consent to the sale of 24 shops with living accommodation over.

  Mr. Baldry
  The consent was issued on 6 December.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking following the decision to locate the European Environment Agency in Denmark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The decision to site the European Environment Agency in Denmark was taken on 29 October. The regulation establishing the agency came into force on 30 October.

  We have been pressing for a decision on location since the regulation to establish the agency was adopted more than three years ago. The decision means that the agency can now begin its work.

  The EEA is an independent body which has been created to provide objective and reliable environmental information at the European level to help the EC and its member states formulate sound policies to protect the environment. The agency aims to achieve this through co-operation with those organisations in member states involved in environmental monitoring and research.

  I am inviting all organisations which may wish to participate in the United Kingdom network, or to act as topic centres, to get in touch. To co-ordinate the network and liaise with the agency I have set up a national focus point within my Department.

  The United Kingdom will, by 30 April 1994, notify the agency of the composition of its natural network and potential topic centre candidates. The network will include those organisations that regularly collect and supply environmental data within the United Kingdom.

  Topic centres will undertake work on behalf of the EEA under contract and should have recognised research or technical expertise related to environmental monitoring and data analysis. Where appropriate, members of the national network can also be considered as topic centre candidates.

  The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the development of the EEA. I hope that there will be considerable interest in the opportunities it offers. I would encourage all interested organisations to contact my officials for further details and a registration form as soon as possible.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in negotiations for a new United Nations agreement combating acid rain.

  Mr. Gummer
  While negotiations in Geneva are not yet complete, substantial progress has been made. It now seems likely that a widely acceptable text aiming at significant reductions of sulphur emissions, and which the United Kingdom expects to sign, will be opened for signature by the middle of 1994. The Government warmly welcome these developments, which will contribute to the progressive resolution of the acid rain problem.
  363
  The United Kingdom is prepared to reduce sulphur emissions by 70 per cent. by 2005 compared with 1980, and has indicated its willingness in principle to aim for reductions of 80 per cent. by 2010. The latest text, if agreed, will allow parties to achieve the targets in the most cost-effective and flexible way, taking account of national considerations.

  The new protocol will build on the United Kingdom's achievements in reducing sulphur emissions by 30 per cent. by the end of this year from 1980 levels, thus complying with the requirements of the first sulphur protocol although we were not in a position to sign it at the time.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he took against those local authorities whose direct labour or services organisations made significant financial losses in 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am very encouraged that, for more than 80 per cent. of the notices served in respect of 1991–92 DSO losses, further statutory action was not needed because authorities had already taken steps to address the losses. This is a very positive trend and I urge authorities to maintain their efforts here.

  My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses of 15 authorities on which notices were served in June and September. He has today given directions under section 19B of the 1980 Act to Manchester city council, new construction work in excess of £50,000; and under section 14 of the 1988 Act to Bedfordshire county council, ground maintenance; Castlepoint borough council, ground maintenance; the London borough of Hillingdon, other catering; and South Bedfordshire district council, refuse collection. This brings the total number of directions given in respect of financial failure in 1991–92 to 11.

  The effect of these directions is to require the authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent if they wish to award the work, or elements of the work to their in-house labour force following re-tendering which is currently under way, planned or required by the direction.

  He has decided to take no further action in respect of financial failure in 1991–92 by:
  Barking and Dagenham, refuse collection; Corby, vehicle maintenance; Harrow, ground maintenance; Hillingdon, building cleaning; Leicestershire, ground maintenance; Northavon, vehicle maintenance; and Richmond upon Thames, ground maintenance; because they met financial objectives in 1992–93;
  Hillingdon, school and welfare catering; and Kingston upon Hull, other catering; because despite recording losses in 1992–93, they have provided evidence that financial objectives will be met in 1993–94;
  Ashford, ground maintenance and refuse collection; Brighton, other catering; and Castlepoint, other cleaning; because they have closed the DSO involved or are exploring other options, including privatisation;
  Colchester, building maintenance; because the DLO now operates below the "de minimis" level.

  Hillingdon and Kingston upon Hull have been asked to provide quarterly financial returns to the Department.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved since 1988 on trading accounts for(a) general highways work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance
  364
  work, delivered by direct service or labour organisations in England under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;

  (2) if he will list by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the surpluses achieved by local authority direct service or labour organisations in England since 1988;

  (3) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved since 1988 on trading accounts for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) schools and welfare catering, (e) other catering, (f) vehicle maintenance, (g) grounds maintenance and (h) sports and leisure management services delivered by direct service or labour organisations in England, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988;

  (4) if he will list by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Act 1988, the surpluses achieved by local authority direct service or labour organisations in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: One thousand eight hundred and sixteen of the local authority direct service or labour organisation accounts for 1991–92 received by my Department recorded surpluses. I shall send a detailed list to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library. Information on 1992–93 is not yet complete. Figures for previous years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Merseyside Housing
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision of the special needs allocation for housing on Merseyside; and how much money will be available for house improvements in the current and next financial year.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 8 December 1993]: The future of the Housing Corporation's special allocation for Merseyside is being reviewed by officials from my Department and from the Housing Corporation. I expect to have recommendations before me in the spring.

  In 1993–94, the specified capital grant allocation, which represents 60 per cent. of resources available for renovation grant activity, totalled £20·843 million for Merseyside. The allocation for 1994–95 will be announced later this month.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Council Of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has made, in the light of the decisions of the European Councils in Edinburgh 1992 and Brussels 1993, to increase the transparency and accountability of decision-making, including the recording of votes of each member state, at meetings of European Community Councils of Ministers at which her Department is represented;and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government fully support the conclusions reached at Edinburgh and Brussels on openness.
  365
  The Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 6 December that votes in all Councils on legislative decisions will be published automatically unless a majority of the Council oppose this.

  This procedure is fully consistent with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council last December.

  Voting details are now published by the Council secretariat after Council meetings; we shall ensure that this information is provided to Parliament.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the net cost of the common agricultural policy to British consumers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is a significant net cost to United Kingdom consumers, and indeed United Kingdom tax payers, from the CAP. For a number of reasons, of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is not possible to be precise about the figure estimate.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total annual cost of the common agricultural policy before the latest reforms were implemented; and what is the projected total cost in the current year and in 1994 and 1995.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Expenditure in 1992 was 31·3 becu—£22·2 billion—and in 1993 is estimated at 35·1 becu—£27·6 billion. The draft budget for 1994, the first full year in which the budgetary impact of CAP reform will be felt, has been set at 36·5 becu—£28·1 billion. Estimates for 1995 are not available as budgets are not set more than one year in advance.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next expects to meet her EC counterparts to discuss reform of the CAP.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regularly meet my EC colleagues, both bilaterally and at meetings of the Agriculture Council.

  Further reform of the CAP is among the range of topics covered at such meetings.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made about the transport of live animals in the EC.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are pressing for major improvements to the Community legislation and for strong enforcement of the rules in all member states.

  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live animals have been transported from the United Kingdom to Spain for slaughter since it has been permissible to do so.

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 2,770 sheep have been consigned to Spain for immediate slaughter since 1 January 1993, when new arrangements came into force.

  Farms, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what plans she now has to visit farms in Northumberland following the cancellation of her recent planned visit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I was disappointed that the temporary closure of Newcastle airport due to snow forced me to postpone my visit.

  However, I met a delegation of Northumbrian farmers in London on 29 November.

  The visit will be rearranged as soon as possible.

  Fishing
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received from the fishing industry since 5 July.

  Mr. Jack
  I have had various meetings with fishing industry organisations and with individual fishermen. In addition to these contacts, I have received formal proposals on conservation from the Scottish Fisherman's Federation and from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to reduce the fishing effort of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet.

  Mr. Jack
  We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Forestry
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss the progress of the forest policy review; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I met the chairman of the Forestry Commission early last month when we had a brief exchange exchange of views on the work of the forestry review group.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what indications she has received from the interdepartmental forestry review group on the future of the Forest Enterprise estate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The forestry review group has not yet presented its advice to Ministers.

  We are expecting to receive its report early next year.

  Helpline Unit
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calls have been made to the helpline unit since 24 May; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since its launch on 24 May, the helpline has quickly established itself as a central contact point on a broad range of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food activities.

  In its first six months the helpline unit has received over 14,000 calls.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she proposes to introduce any new measures dealing with food hygiene matters.
  367
  Mr. Soames
  The European Community single market hygiene measures for specific sectors, such as milk and milk products and meat products, are at various stages of implementation into our national law.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for general food hygiene legislation, where it is planned to introduce next year new regulations to implement the hygiene of foodstuffs directive.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall).

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers she has to ensure that no transfers of milk quota that are invalid or fraudulent are recorded in the register; and what steps she takes to ensure that the register is rectified and accurately maintained.

  Mr. Jack
  The quota register is amended following the submission of a duly completed quota transfer form. In cases where the parties concerned dispute the quota apportionment, or where the Minister has reasonable grounds for believing that a correct apportionment of quota has not been made, the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1993 provide for the matter to be referred to arbitration. Pre-processing checks are made on a number of transfer forms to establish that there has, indeed, been a change in occupation of the land used for milk production. Where no such change of occupation is established, the transfer form would be rejected. Any party who contravenes the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations or the relevant EC legislation, or who makes a false statement, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a substantial fine.

  Agricultural Workers' Earnings
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest available figure for the average earnings of part-time female agricultural workers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates of earnings of agricultural workers are available from sample surveys. The average hourly earnings for part-time hired female agricultural workers in the United Kingdom for the year ended June 1993 is estimated at £3·67 per hour. This includes payments for overtime, holidays, annual bonus, perquisites and other payments.

  Agri-environment Programme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on the funding of the Government's agri-environment programme.
  368
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Many people urged me not to cut funding of our agri-environment programme and I have recently confirmed that we are holding to our plans to increase expenditure to over £70 million per annum by 1995–96.

  Pâté de Foie
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to discourage the consumption of pâté de foie.

  Mr. Soames
  People must be allowed to decide for themselves what they eat.

  The Government should neither encourage or discourage the consumption of a particular type of food, provided that the total diet is healthy and well-balanced.

  The Government are nevertheless concerned at the animal welfare aspects of pâté de foie gras production involving force feeding. They have made it clear they would seek legislation to ban this practice if there was a prospect of it developing in the United Kingdom.

  It would, however, be illegal under the treaty of Rome to prohibit imports from other Community countries.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what changes she has made to meat inspection at abattoirs regulations in the last month;

  (2) what representations she has received on changes to meat inspection at abattoirs in the past month.

  Mr. Soames
  We have made no changes in the last month to the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992—SI 1992/2037—governing meat inspection in abattoirs, nor have we received any representations raising new concerns about meat inspection arrangements during this period.

  The Government announced on 22 October a seven-point plan of deregulation in the meat industry. The plan signals a move to a less prescriptive system of meat hygiene enforcement while continuing to protect public health.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the rules for farmers' own use of slaughter of animals at small abattoirs.

  Mr. Soames
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992—SI 1992/2037—do not apply to the slaughter in abattoirs of animals whose flesh is not intended for sale for human consumption. Animals slaughtered for a farmer's own use in a small abattoir will, therefore, not count towards any weekly throughput limit. The rules governing the slaughter of these animals in abattoirs are the same as those applicable to animals slaughtered on the farm: they must be slaughtered humanely, in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, chapter 27, and, in the case of bovines, specified bovine offal must be disposed of in accordance with the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989—SI 1989/2061 as amended by SIs 1990/2468 and 1992/306.

  Fur Farms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on fur farming.
  370
  Mr. Soames
  Welfare conditions are monitored regularly by the state veterinary service and we are seeking European Community legislation to set standards for all fur farms.

  Security standards for mink farms are set by the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Chandos Viscount Chandos —Made the solemn affirmation.

ITV Franchises
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, when the new independent television franchises have been operating for less than one year, they intend to change the rules as laid down by the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the only change we are making is to remove the distinction between the licences for the nine areas with the largest advertising revenue and the six other areas. A company can hold any two licences, except that no one could have both London licences. The moratorium will expire at the end of the year, under the terms of the Broadcasting Act.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is not very satisfactory. Would it not be more rational to extend the moratorium on takeovers until full consideration has been given to all aspects of ownership and the BBC charter review has been completed so that broadcasting is looked at as a whole? Can the Minister say how this precipitate move will improve programme quality when the emphasis is on profits to be made and pockets to be lined?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the moratorium on takeovers was intended to introduce a short period of stability at the start of the licence period. It has achieved that objective. It was not intended to provide long-term protection against the normal market forces. The moratorium does not prevent takeovers; it requires the approval of the Independent Television Commission before they take place. We cannot stand still in a changing world.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is a grand phrase!
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if she believes, to use her own words, that the consequence of the Government's decision is to promote stability, she will believe anything? Is she further aware that this decision has, according to press reports, apparently been taken without any consultation with the Independent Television Commission, and contrary to its known views about the need for a period of stability? Is that not a gross discourtesy to the Independent Television Commission; and, apart from that, a totally silly way to behave?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—ignoring the tenor of the noble Lord's remarks —my right honourable friend discussed the issues with the
1014
chairman of the ITC on more than one occasion, but the decision was market sensitive and the Government's conclusions could not be disclosed before the announcement was made.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, adjusting my tone to what my noble friend may regard as suitable, can I ask her very gently why the Independent Television Commission was not consulted beforehand? Can she also say what thought has been given to the effect of this move on Ulster Television at this particularly sensitive time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I just answered the first part of my noble friend's question. With regard to the second part, we did not consider it necessary. Licence conditions will be enforced by the ITC regardless of ownership. Level and quality of regional programming will be maintained. A reintroduced rule to prevent the holding of neighbouring licences might prevent sensible links between some companies with a good deal in common.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us why the Government decided to do this? Had they reached a point when, without any reason at all, they quite deliberately decided to upset people? Is there no reason behind this change? I do not understand, and I have asked several Members on the other side who cannot understand, what the Government are up to. Can the Minister tell us?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should be delighted to do so. We always expected that the ownership rules would have to be altered if circumstances changed. Rapid changes are taking place in broadcasting throughout the world. This move should open new opportunities for UK broadcasters.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the ITC formally recommended that the moratorium on takeovers in a television area should be extended until 1995 for three very good reasons: the need for stability in a new networking system just in place; the need to wait and see the future shape of the BBC; and a need for a thorough review of cross-media ownership and the anomalies in the rules on satellite and cable? I come back to the question that I have not quite heard the answer to: why have the Government decided to disrupt this system in the first year of a 10-year proposal? Why have the Government chosen to do this at this time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we really did not think that we could stand still while the rest of the world moved on. With regard to the other part of the noble Lord's question, all ownership issues will be kept under review in the light of changes both in the UK and world-wide. We shall look again at the cross-media ownership regulations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does not the reiterated answer of the noble Baroness indicate that she is standing still while the rest of the House moves on?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, noble Lords are trying to get my knickers in a twist again!

Cochlear Implants
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to ensure that cochlear implants, which restore some hearing, are available to all profoundly deaf people who require them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, health authorities are required to meet the cost of cochlear implants in all cases where that is the appropriate treatment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that profound deafness devastates human lives and happiness, but that not many people are capable of understanding or imagining that? Certainly many district health authorities are not. Some of them refuse implants in spite of what the noble Baroness just said and despite the fact that the Government pay half the cost. Does the Minister agree that that situation will get even worse after next April when district health authorities pay the full cost themselves, and that as a result, without prompting, prodding and pressure from the Government, many deaf people will be deprived of the wonderful gift of hearing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first comment, I am very aware that living with deafness requires enormous courage on the part of those people who are deaf—a courage that I think has been exemplified in this House.
With regard to refusing treatment, there have been problems in the past. I understand that particularly in Portsmouth, Macclesfield and Manchester those problems have been addressed and I would be very surprised if there are people being denied this treatment. If there are, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would let me know.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to look at this matter very carefully? Obviously my noble friend is living proof of the effectiveness of the cochlear implant and we all respect him for his courage in adopting it. But is she aware that the problem is mainly one that affects children? I understand that children especially are being kept waiting for the operation, though there may be some dispute or difference of interpretation of the facts across the House. Will the Minister look at this matter very carefully indeed? It may be that some people are suffering unnecessarily.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have any evidence of that. Clearly, if the noble Lord requires me to look at the matter again, I shall willingly do so.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that when profoundly deaf people are able to
1016
have the implant they will be able to get jobs and contribute to the wealth of the nation rather than having to rely on state benefit?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. That is why we put such an investment into this particular operation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ashley is of vital interest to the Royal British Legion, which has been investigating this matter? It represents British ex-servicemen and servicewomen from the last world wars. There may be some development of deafness suffered by people who are not in the same circumstances as some of those ex-servicemen and servicewomen. Will the Minister be prepared to contact the RBL and ask it to give her some of its evidence with regard to the development of deafness in later years by ex-servicemen and servicewomen?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I give an assurance to your Lordships that if there are problems I shall willingly look into them. With regard to the implants, year on year we put a greater investment into that particular operation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the first time that I had any detailed information about the extent of the success of this operation was when my noble friend Lord Ashley gave such courageous personal publicity to his own experience? Would it be possible for the Department of Health to give much wider information about the possibilities of this implant to general practitioners and others dealing with profoundly deaf people? Could she perhaps give a slightly more encouraging indication about the extension of the bridging funding beyond next April?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to the second point, I do not think that I can. The National Health Service is entering a system whereby contracts will govern what treatments are given in the future. It is up to health authorities to assess the need in their areas. That is taking place. But we have written to all the regions and all the health authorities to tell them about this particular operation, which is very sophisticated and affects very few people within their populations. But we want to have an absolute assurance from them that those people who need it will get it.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that she is always helpful when she can be and I appreciate it? But I would not have raised this issue if I had not had very good reason to do so. I have the evidence that district health authorities are refusing implants. I shall forward it to her. Will she look into it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall certainly do that.

Jobseeker's Allowance: Rules
3.13 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the "single set of measures for those who fail to take the necessary steps to seek work" referred to in the social security up-rating statement (Official Report, 1st December, col. 557–8).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, unemployment benefit and income support have different rules. The new jobseeker's allowance will bring the two benefits together and there will be one set of rules which will take account of different conditions of entitlement. Further details will be announced next year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether I would be justified in noting that the Government have not yet decided the answer to the Question? May I also ask whether they will balance the need for those on benefit to seek work with the need not to use starvation as an instrument of policy? Will they undertake not to bring any measures before this House until they know what they intend to do?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are looking closely at the issues that the noble Earl mentioned. The new jobseeker's agreement will help claimants identify the steps that they need to take to get back into work. There will be clear conditionality, so that people will know what they have to do. There will also be more rigorous testing of job search activity. We shall build on the current back-to-work plan given to unemployed claimants, and the changes will include an amended sanctions regime which will be detailed in regulations following the passage of the proposed Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say when those proposals will come before the House?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we intend to put proposals before your Lordships as soon as convenient, but it will not be during this Session.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the first thing that he should do is provide the jobs for the job seekers?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is one of the reasons that we are undertaking this reform. It is much needed. At present there are two systems: unemployment and income support. There will now be a single benefit paid on a basis of means and paid as a personal rate for six months. It will entail a firmer commitment to find work for those who need to find work. There will be a better service and simplification will give clarity and improved performance. There will be one set of rules which will take account of the different conditions of entitlement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that until a person has worked for three or
1018
six months and has paid into the National Insurance Fund, there should be no entitlement to this kind of welfare payment?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have announced that we propose to shorten the period from 12 months to six months for the amount of time paid at a personal rate. After that, people will be paid the new jobseeker's allowance on the basis of means. If necessary those payments will continue—indeed, if they have not found work, until retirement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister spoke about rigorous testing and job search activities. Could he explain what he means? Does it mean that someone will monitor every job application that an unemployed person makes and form an opinion as to whether his activities are sufficiently active to warrant the award of that benefit? If so, does he agree that that indicates an army of snoopers who will poke their fingers into every single application for a job made by an unemployed person?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords, it will not. It will mean that people will get more help in finding a job. The Department of Employment has announced three pilot schemes: a job finder's grant of up to £200, giving assistance to people who have been out of work for two years or more when they find a job; an extended job search and assessment course, lasting up to four weeks, providing help for young people aged 18 to 25 years who have been unemployed for over a year; and we are giving young people aged 18 to 25 who are unemployed for over a year their own caseworker to help identify the best way out of unemployment for them. We will closely monitor those pilot schemes next year to assess their effectiveness.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 1st December 1992 the Government accepted a Motion in my name on the Income Support No. 3 Regulations, in which I asked them to look again at the regulations? Those regulations were to penalise people who were thought not to be actively seeking work. Will he ensure that when the new regulations are drafted, the information contained in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report and the information from that debate are taken into account? Will he also ensure that very great care is taken in the drafting, so that people are not caught in a trap?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that we would announce further details next year. One of the important announcements that we have made, which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget, is the proposal to help with child care costs in family credit. That removes one of the major stumbling blocks in the social security system for those families who need help with child care costs in order to get back into work. We believe that 150,000 families will benefit from this change. That includes 50,000 families who are expected to take up work.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the whole question of mobility of labour will be taken into account? Does he agree that most men

1019
want work? If there is no work in the area in which they live, they have to move, but often they are unable to move because they cannot find accommodation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We are trying to give increasing help to those people who wish to find a job.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment there is concern about the proposals contained in the consultation document on the medical assessment? There seems to be scant attention paid, at least in this document, to mental illness. There is only one page on it containing a few simple questions, from which it could probably be proved that most Members of this House are mentally impaired. I have tried it out on a few of them. Is he aware that there is great concern that not sufficient interest is being taken in the problems of the mentally handicapped under the new assessment? The other problem is the reduction in the role of the GP in assessments. That frightens many people. If the GP is to be virtually ruled out of the assessment procedure, a whole number of new problems could arise as a result of the tests.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, but it has nothing to do with the proposed jobseeker's allowance. He is talking of a proposed Bill relating to incapacity benefit and the new test in that regard. That is a totally different matter, and a Bill on that subject will be introduced to your Lordships' House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may take my noble friend back to his original Answer. Not only do unemployment benefit and income support have different rules, they also have different rates. Is it not time that that point was given serious consideration?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. This year the unemployment rate is higher than the income support rate; next year it will be slightly lower. A single rate, once it is introduced, will help everybody.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House that 500,000 people in this country earn too little to pay income tax but pay national insurance contributions which gives them a right, an entitlement, to benefit when sick or unemployed because they have insured themselves for it? Is the Minister aware that when, on the one hand, the Government raise national insurance contributions by some £2 billion and at the same time cut severely the benefits that flow from it—for example, unemployment benefits—they are frankly perpetuating a fraud on some of the lowest paid in our society?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I utterly reject the noble Baroness's remarks. They are quite untrue. The announcement made earlier this year in relation to the rise of national insurance contributions was connected with the fact that the National Insurance Fund was in debt. Indeed, the Treasury had to inject large sums of money into it. We are talking about the proposed new
1020
jobseeker's allowance. It is a new measure. It will provide a better service, it will be simpler to operate, it will get people back to work more efficiently and will provide those people who are unemployed with the protection that they need and deserve.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is a fundamental change in the benefit system, does the noble Viscount think that it is wise to delay bringing legislation before this House until the next Session? Will he recall that the Child Support Act gave the Child Support Agency three years to make a fundamental change? If the new benefit system finds itself in the same mess as the Child Support Agency, the Government and the unemployed will be in deep trouble. Can the Minister assure me that that will not happen and that Parliament will be given proper opportunity to discuss every aspect of the new benefit?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can give that assurance to the noble Lord. One reason for announcing the changes in advance is to provide the time to consider all the detailed implications. We shall make an announcement in the spring. When the Bill comes before your Lordships' House it will be carefully thought out; it will be a good Bill, and I am sure that your Lordships will pass it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in his second response the noble Viscount used the words "clear conditionality". Does he understand that what the Question was intended to elicit was the conditions which are to be imposed on those seeking jobseeker's benefit? Does he not understand that that is of intense interest in many quarters in this House? It was unwise to announce conditions before knowing what they are. Can the Minister assure me that the department is not doing what it was doing last year—contrary to an undertaking I received from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in 1989—that is, requiring the illiterate to produce a written record of job applications?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are trying to help those who are unemployed back into work. We must look at the conditions to see what improvements can be made. It is important that those who are unemployed are helped back into work. For example, it is important that those who obtain job interviews turn up for them; and it is important to see what happens when they do not turn up. The proposals will help those who are unemployed to get back into work. That is what is important.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give me a slightly more relevant reply to my question, which dealt specifically with childless couples and single people? It had nothing whatever to do with people with children and enabling them to obtain work.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, neither did it have a lot to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I sought to answer the noble Countess as best I could. I said that we would announce further details in the spring, and that is what we shall do.

Financial Growth: Forecast
3.25 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of the changes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in his Budget, what further assumptions he has made to that of paragraph 2.11 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95 (the Red Book) and of the Treasury's panel of independent forecasters that growth over the medium term will average around 3 per cent.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the projection for medium-term growth averaging around 3 per cent. takes account of the measures which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, on the assumptions in the Red Book, does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserve congratulations for, among his other attributes, being the magician of the year? He seems to have suspended the normal laws of economics. Together with his predecessor he will cut £12 billion out of the economy next year and yet the noble Earl is saying that he expects still to achieve growth, in the medium term, of 3 per cent. Does the Minister agree with the Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury, Alan Budd, who, before the Treasury Select Committee on Tuesday, said that he expected some slow down—at least a pause—in the rate of economic growth? Is that why unemployment is shown in the Red Book as being, over the whole of the medium term, 2.75 million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves considerable credit for his Budget. I thank the noble Lord for his support. Although the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is discussing the economy, he is talking about two different things. Mr. Budd was referring to a short-term period of time in the economy, which is not the same as the medium-term programme set out in paragraph 2.11 of the Red Book.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as the Government normally say that the economy manages on its own and that government cannot create jobs or growth, how does the Minister reconcile the fact that it is now said that the Budget will raise the long-term rate of economic growth of the economy beyond anything that we have seen over the past 50 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the medium-term forecast spells out the growth that is anticipated. As the noble Lord is aware, a number of factors are likely to occur after a recession. Growth is likely to come from the highly competitive position in which we now find ourselves; the low interest rates; and the recovery in demand from our trading partners will also boost exports.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the average growth rate of the British economy since
1022
1979 has been 1.6 per cent. per annum, during which period the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Howe, were Chancellor, followed by the right honourable gentlemen Mr. Major and Mr. Lamont? Can the Minister point to anything that has happened in the past few weeks or months that would cause us to believe that any change in the 1.6 per cent. is likely to occur?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to read the Red Book.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I know that it is late in the year, but perhaps occasionally the Minister could try to answer a Treasury question. I have read the Red Book and, perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I am one of the few to have done so. It is one of the few things that I do read. It is a serious question. It is a matter for business. Business plans on the basis of what it thinks will happen to the economy. Why should any businessman, when making his investment plans, think the future will be any different from the past 14 years' performance of this Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot answer for the businessman who interprets the forecasts put before him. As the noble Lord will be aware, in paragraph 2.11—he doubtless has the Red Book with him—the main fiscal projections are based on the illustrative part of the economy shown in Table 2.1. It is up to people to interpret that as they wish.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that under paragraph 2.11—I have read the little Red Book of 143 pages—the medium-term growth rate will be 3 per cent.? Despite that, is he telling your Lordships that unemployment will remain at 2.75 million right the way through the medium term without any positive action by the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are taking a lot of action, a good deal of which was discussed on the previous Question.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, with respect, that is not an answer. We are told in the Red Book that throughout the whole of the medium term, almost to the end of the century, the assumption is that unemployment will remain at 2.75 million. Taking the point of my noble friend Lord Peston, in those circumstances, who will invest?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that when we make assumptions with regard to the Budget we take the unemployment figure as it is at the moment. We look at other figures as well. We hope that unemployment will go down. A lot of measures are being taken to reduce unemployment, as was mentioned in the previous Question.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not one of those in the House who is economically, politically literate, but do I understand from the Minister's last answer that, although the Red Book says 2.75 million for the medium term, we should not think that the figure will be 2.75 million for the medium term because the

1023
Government will do things to bring it down from 2.75 million in the medium term? Can he tell us what they are going to do to bring it down?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I hope that the noble Lord will believe in the Red Book.

Intelligence Services Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
A little over five years ago I presented to your Lordships' House the Security Service Bill. I described it at the time as a most important and appropriate legislative response to the desirability of putting the Security Service on a statutory basis. That step, which I believe has proved a most successful one, marked the start of this Government's policy to be as open as possible about security and intelligence matters without prejudicing national security, the effectiveness of the security and intelligence services or the safety of their staff. Since making that positive and carefully measured move, this Government have avowed the continuing existence of the Secret Intelligence Service and published booklets on the Security Service and the central intelligence machinery. The first of those booklets touched on the excellent work, some of it on new tasks, being done by the Security Service. The second described the central mechanisms for tasking, co-ordinating and resourcing the United Kingdom's intelligence services and for overseeing and reporting on the intelligence they produce.
As a further step forward in this process, I now welcome the opportunity to present the Intelligence Services Bill. This complements the Security Service Act 1989 by placing on a statutory basis the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as SIS or MI6, and the Government Communications Headquarters, more commonly known as GCHQ. While generally on the same lines as the Security Service Act, the Intelligence Services Bill introduces one important and innovative element which I believe your Lordships will welcome: a committee of parliamentarians from both Houses to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of all three services. I shall, if I may, go into that in more detail in a little while.
This Bill marks a significant stage in the distinguished history of both SIS and GCHQ. It gives Parliament the opportunity, for the first time since these services were established earlier this century, to establish a framework for them and to enshrine that framework in legislation. Let us not forget, throughout the passage of this Bill, that for any country's intelligence service to be able to do its job successfully it must be allowed to operate with a considerable degree of secrecy. The Bill placed before your Lordships contains carefully constructed and workable measures that the Government believe strike the right balance. And that balance is a crucial one: on the one hand accountability and a degree of openness and, on the
1024
other, the continued need, in this ever turbulent and unpredictable world, for the intelligence services to be able to operate effectively. Most of those who directly threaten Britain's interests, as well as those wider interests of democracy and regional stability, will not be doing so openly but in secret. Identifying and countering those threats can often be done effectively only through the adoption of similarly secretive means.
What then, your Lordships may reasonably ask, are these threats. Where do they come from now that the Cold War has apparently ended? And what are these interests that I have referred to? To start with, the British Government have all kinds of global responsibilities, through membership of various political, trade and security groupings and organisations. These bring their own obligations, some near to home, some far away. We have a particularly keen interest, shared by like-minded countries, in confronting such dangers to society as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international organised crime, the spread of drugs and money laundering. Some of these problems, sadly, are new ones and many of them, like the proliferation and availability of advanced weaponry, are growing. They all pose threats to British people and interests at home and abroad, threats which have to be countered.
We need to be alert too, probably more than ever, to new vagaries and uncertainties now rearing their heads around the world. The disintegration of the old integrated Soviet target is spawning a huge diversity of threats. The intelligence services, like the rest of us, are having to adapt to the changes of the past few years as the nature of the tasks and requirements placed on them by Ministers clearly show. Superpower rivalry may have created its own grim version of stability, but the collapse of communism, while reducing the scale of one particular threat, has brought new dangers: the rising tide of nationalism and fanaticism, untried alliances, untested groupings, new rivalries and new ambitions. The end of communism marked the lifting of a shadow, but it has provided the opportunity, not the achievement, of a new and more stable world order. Greed, envy and corruption and illicit arms and drugs dealing, often leading to organised crime, are as prevalent as ever. We need look no further than the former Soviet Union or the Balkans for worrisome examples, but in other parts of the world too, such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, central and other parts of Asia, our interests and those shared with out friends face real threats of instability, unrest, disruption or outright war.
Identifying, monitoring and helping to counter these dangers to British interests is a complex and time-consuming task. Our embassies and other diplomatic missions play an important part in all of this, but the realities of life are such that in many parts of the world their overt role is not enough. Britain's involvement in United Nations operations around the globe is just one example where intelligence can play a vital role in protecting the lives of British people involved, be they soldiers or aid workers. Without supplementary covert activities, Ministers charged with responsibility for the security and economic well-being of these islands and of our people cannot be in

1025
possession of all the facts of the situation. This is where SIS and GCHQ come in: by being tasked rigorously, through the Joint Intelligence Committee mechanism, to acquire intelligence; intelligence where there are likely to be undisclosed but hostile policies which could affect British interests. The British system of intelligence tasking, probably unique in its degree of integration and co-operation, is designed to ensure that the intelligence agencies do not undertake work done more properly, more easily and more cost-effectively by other overt arms of government or by the private sector.
As I mentioned earlier, SIS is also tasked by the Joint Intelligence Committee with carrying out certain other tasks. These range from action to frustrate terrorist activities and disrupt illegal proliferation networks to influencing, sometimes in co-operation with other security and intelligence agencies, the outcome of events in Britain's favour. As someone close to the heart of the intelligence services recently said: "It is often the things that don't happen: the terrorist bomb that doesn't go off, the international treaty that goes through without disruption, the thoughts of aggression that become second thoughts and are never acted upon—these are the frequently unsung successes of the intelligence world's ceaseless struggle to protect British interests". And let us not forget that in successfully protecting those interests the intelligence services can help them to be both strengthened and extended.
Let me also touch here on Britain's economic well-being, which is of fundamental importance to us all and a key responsibility of government. Britain is the world's fifth largest trading nation and a huge provider of commercial and financial services, income from which is essential for this country's economic well-being. Some 30 million British people travel abroad each year and over 6 million live abroad. The profits of Britain' s myriad of international business interests, be they in manufacturing, research or the financial sector, and the jobs of a great many British people, are dependent on the ability to be able to continue to plan, to invest and to trade effectively without worry and without danger. They also depend on the Government and others keeping a particular eye on Britain's access to key commodities like oil or metals and on the stability of the countries from which or through which those goods are supplied. Britain's economic well-being needs protection too from both overt and covert action by those who would steal our technology or scientific know-how, not just at home but overseas too. The work of the security and intelligence services in this field should not be overlooked.
At this point I should like to place on record the Government's respect for and gratitude to the intelligence services. Theirs is not the high profile, glamorous life portrayed by James Bond. Most of what they do and most of the people involved will remain unrecognised and largely unnoticed. That is the nature of their business. It is not the intention of this Bill to open all the doors or reveal all the players and their methods. I am sure no one in this House would want that. But I believe that I speak not just for the Government but for all your Lordships when I say that the dedicated, skilled and at times courageous work
1026
done by those working for the intelligence services plays a crucial part in countering the dangers that threaten the safety of our citizens and of this nation's interests around the world. Praise for the staff of SIS and GCHQ goes largely unsung. They deserve our thanks and our understanding, as well as our support both now and in the future.
Let me move now to the objectives and content of this Bill. In a nutshell, it aims to ensure that Parliament establishes the framework within which the intelligence services must operate. It establishes clearly the arrangements for ministerial control and decides where the balance must lie between greater openness and continued secrecy. It creates a role for a commissioner and a tribunal on the same lines as that already introduced, successfully for the Security Service. And finally, in a step that goes further than the Security Service Act, it introduces what a number of your Lordships called for during the debate on that Bill in 1989: a degree of oversight by parliamentarians.
I should like, if I may, to run briefly through the clauses which give effect to those objectives. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the continuation of SIS and GCHQ, their functions and the purposes for which those functions may be exercised. They also provide for the appointments of the chief of SIS and the director of GCHQ and set out their responsibilities. The Bill makes clear that those two services are under the overall authority of the Prime Minister, while highlighting the particular responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Clauses 5 and 6 replace the warrant provisions in Section 3 of the Security Service Act 1989. They empower the Secretary of State, on the application of SIS or GCHQ, to issue warrants authorising entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy, and allow the Security Service to apply for warrants, including on behalf of the other two services.
Clause 7 makes special provision for the Secretary of State to issue authorisations for SIS operations overseas. Clauses 8 and 9 follow the way paved by the Interception of Communications Act and the Security Service Act by providing for the appointment of a commissioner with functions relating to warrants and authorisations and to the investigation of complaints, and for a tribunal to consider complaints against SIS and GCHQ.
Those clauses also give effect to Schedules 1 and 2, which provide for the tribunal's powers, constitution, procedures and access, the relationship between the tribunal and the commissioner, and for the latter's responsibilities. As your Lordships will see, this independent commissioner, appointed by the Prime Minister, will be or have been a senior judge. He will be able to submit ad hoc reports to the Secretary of State on matters relating to the discharge of his functions and will make an annual report to the Prime Minister. This report, like those of the Interception of Communications Act and Security Service Act commissioners, will be laid before Parliament, subject, as your Lordships would expect, to security excisions. As for the tribunal set up to consider complaints, this is something else which has

1027
worked well under the Interception of Communications and Security Service Acts. Its extension in respect of SIS and GCHQ should be welcomed.
As for the intelligence and security committee which I mentioned earlier, that is provided for under Clause 10 and Schedule 3. It will comprise six members drawn from both Houses, who will be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The committee's role will be to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of all three services: SIS, GCHQ and the Security Service.
Like the commissioner, the committee will be required to make an annual report to the Prime Minister which will be laid before Parliament, subject to security excisions. It will be able to submit ad hoc reports to the Prime Minister on matters relevant to its functions. Provision is made of course to ensure the secrecy of the committee's proceedings and to enable the heads of the three services to disclose information, subject to only limited restrictions, to the committee.
Why, some of your Lordships may ask, are the Government introducing now something which less than five years ago we deemed inappropriate. I myself, your Lordships may recall, felt during the debate on the Security Service Bill that the time was not right for such a step. What has changed? In deciding in 1989 that the Security Service should continue to be accountable to Parliament through Ministers, the Government argued that to give Parliament a greater oversight role would be unsatisfactory since, in order to preserve the effectiveness of the service and the safety of those working for it, Parliament would have to respect the secrecy of certain information. An oversight body with no access to secrets would have access to little of interest or importance to the service's work and be of scarce interest to Parliament. On the other hand, a body with broad access to secrets would be unable to report in full to Parliament and therefore would also be unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, in other ways the Security Service Act was a far-reaching step in terms of greater openness and accountability, putting the service on a statutory basis and establishing a commissioner and a tribunal to deal with grievances.
But a good deal of water has passed under the bridge since then, and, as your Lordships will know, the Government have continued to look for ways to allow greater access and to disclose more information when this has been deemed compatible with national security. Back in 1989, for example, the Secret Intelligence Service had not even been avowed. Given the close co-operation between the Security Service and SIS in certain areas, oversight of the Security Service alone would clearly have led to problems. Since 1989, however, the Government have named both the director general of the Security Service and the chief of SIS; announced the moves of the respective agencies into Thames House and Vauxhall Cross; released a number of previously withheld government records; and this year, as I have already mentioned, published information booklets on both the Security Service and the central intelligence machinery. And most recently, the Government have disclosed the size of the aggregate
1028
budget for the agencies, and undertaken to bring all this expenditure onto a single Vote. The Bill has been prepared with the benefit of more than four years' experience since the Security Service Act. Things have moved on. The climate has changed. Greater openness has gained momentum. We believe that it is now right to take this further important step.
I should underline at this point that the existing system of close ministerial oversight of the work of the three services has been in place for many years, is working effectively and will continue. The provisions in the Bill supplement rather than supersede existing procedures. They in no way imply criticism of the services, nor are they aimed at imposing a ball and chain on their proper activities. It is worth emphasising that both SIS and GCHQ welcome this Bill which they have been awaiting for some time. They have of course been very closely consulted in its preparation. They see it not only as a necessary step in the Government's policy of greater openness and accountability, but also as confirmation of the Government's need for the sort of intelligence they can provide and as a sign of confidence in their activities and in those who work for them. The Bill has the enthusiastic support of all three services. The addition of an intelligence and security committee of parliamentarians to oversee their expenditure, administration and policy is intended not to replace the ministerial role but to enhance it, increasing the confidence of both Parliament and the public, while still providing proper protection for our national interests by effective and responsible intelligence and security services.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, welcome this. Some of your Lordships may think its changes go too far, others not far enough, or that there are better ways of skinning the cat. I hope that the vast majority of your Lordships, however, will think the Bill hits the right note and recognise that national security matters cannot be dealt with in the same way as other departmental affairs. The Government have given very careful consideration to this in deciding on the provisions and purposes of this Bill.
Overall, the Bill should be seen as complementing the arrangement set out in the Security Service Act 1989 so that for the first time all three intelligence and security services are covered by a statutory regime. Amendments to the Security Service Act 1989 have been confined to the minimum necessary.
In drafting the Bill the Government of course had to satisfy themselves that it was compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, for example, by providing for a complaints procedure. Recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed the adequacy of similar arrangements introduced in 1989 for the Security Service.
The Government have worked hard on this Bill for many months. It has not been easy. We have taken into account the views and experiences of all three services as well as earlier legislation of a similar nature. We have considered the changing nature of the world in which we live today, and of this country's intelligence needs in the face of a range of new threats and uncertainties. We

1029
have taken careful note of other countries' arrangements, while accepting that they are not necessarily right for this country. We have aimed to provide for the future, not for a raking over of the past. We have paid due attention to the fact that the Secret Intelligence Service is not purely an information-gathering service but one tasked by the Government to carry out other valuable services. These can include, for example, exchanging information with, providing advice to and receiving assistance from counterparts in friendly countries in pursuit of common goals. At the same time, the Bill makes clear that both SIS and GCHQ can exercise their functions only in relation to the purposes specified in the Bill, and then only if such action is necessary.
In short, after much careful consideration since the Prime Minister undertook to introduce legislation in May 1992, we have decided that the time is right to take the further steps contained in this Bill. Some are big steps. They are not taken lightly. But I hope that your Lordships will agree that, without damaging what we must protect in the interests of this country and its people, the Bill provides a sound and appropriate framework within which the intelligence services will be able to operate efficiently and successfully in the years ahead. On that basis, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.54 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for introducing the Bill in the way that he did. Perhaps I should say right at the outset that we are perfectly satisfied that the Government gave considerable consideration to the Bill. I have no doubt that it has been in gestation for some time. The question is not whether it has been considered by the Government; the question is whether the Government's considerations have produced the totally correct answer.
Before I deal with the Bill itself, perhaps I should say that I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will join with me—as I join with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—in paying tribute to the commitment, bravery and dedication of the men and women who work for the intelligence services of this country. We should recognise openly, firmly and clearly the debt that we owe to them for safeguarding our country's national security.
The Labour Party broadly supports the Bill. We welcome the principle that the intelligence services should be placed on a statutory basis. It is high time that we did place them on a statutory basis. It has been argued that secrecy, along with class, are the great British obsessions. I am by no means convinced that the almost total obscurity in which the security services have functioned until relatively recently was necessary, that it led to greater efficiency on the part of those services or that it led to greater security for the security services themselves. I suppose that secrecy inevitably gives rise to speculation—and speculation in turn tends to make way for fantasy. I think that an injection of
1030
exposure to the public gaze, provided that that exposure is not total and that the paths that need covering remain covered, would on the whole be thoroughly beneficial. We believe that the Bill may well reinforce the effectiveness of the security services.
I should like to deal with three main issues which emerge from the Bill: first, the structure for the services that is set out in the Bill; secondly, the problems of accountability to Parliament and the law;, and thirdly—I am sure that noble Lords opposite will not be surprised at this—with the restoration of trades union rights at GCHQ. On the first of those, the structure, I believe that the noble and learned Lord used the word, "framework". Broadly speaking, I think that the Government have got it about right. Indeed, the structure that is proposed is really a continuation of what is happening now, but put firmly on a statutory basis. It must be right now to give a statutory framework to the operations which, until now, have lacked it.
It is also right that Clause 5 provides that:
"No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be unlawful if it i3 authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section".
Again, the responsibility for issuing warrants is placed firmly on the Secretary of State, as indeed it should be. As a matter of drafting, I am not sure whether the provisions should read, "shall be unlawful unless and until it is authorised", rather than "if'. But perhaps that is a Committee point.
However, I am not clear about whether the intention is that the Bill should encompass ex post facto authorisation. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could help us on that point when he replies to the debate. I think that we would all be somewhat unhappy with a series of retrospective authorisations if that was the trend that was to emerge from the framework as expressed in the Bill.
I turn now to the commissioner and his powers under Clause 8. We think it right that the commissioner should be a person who holds or has held high judicial office. As in the 1989 Act, there will now therefore be two commissioners —one for the Security Service and one for the Intelligence Service, each reporting directly to the Prime Minister. Additionally, he will receive the annual report on the work of GCHQ. In relation to the first two reports, under Clause 8(6), the Prime Minister has a duty to lay them before Parliament. That does not seem to be the case for GCHQ, in respect of which Parliament will not receive such a direct report. I am not quite sure why GCHQ should be omitted from that process, but clearly the object of the exercise is that there should be a formal report to Parliament on the basis of which Parliament could be better informed.
However, as the noble and learned Lord said, the Bill now goes further. In our view, the Government are right to recognise that there is now a widespread feeling that something further is needed. I do not attack the Government for having moved from the position that they took up some five years ago. It would be difficult for us to do that because we did not agree with the position that they took up five years ago of not accepting parliamentary accountability in any form. As a result of that, we now have the provisions in Clause 10 for the

1031
setting up of the intelligence and security committee. There, certain questions are raised. It is important that the intelligence and security committee should, itself, have the power to make an annual report to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister, as the Bill suggests. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would respond to that suggestion.
As the Home Office Select Committee in another place said in its recent report in British terms, there seem to be five main options for enhanced accountability: first, a special non-parliamentary committee of Privy Counsellors, like the Franks Committee post-Falklands. That is one option.
Then, secondly, a joint committee of both Houses, consisting of Privy Counsellors. That is the option that the Government seem to have chosen except that the committee does not have to consist of Privy Counsellors, as I understand it.
Thirdly, a Select Committee of the Commons, consisting of Privy Counsellors. Fourthly, a Select Committee, not necessarily consisting of Privy Counsellors.
Then, the one that I believe the Home Affairs Select Committee would have preferred; namely, that the present Home Affairs Committee should take on responsibility for the parliamentary oversight. Those are the five options set out. Will the Government tell us why they have chosen the one that they have, and why they have chosen the one that they have in the form that they have?
As I understand the position, if the Bill is enacted, the parliamentary committee will be set up. It will then report to the Prime Minister. When the report reaches the Prime Minister, he will be able to sanitise it. I do not object to that right. The report will then go from the Prime Minister to Parliament. That slightly downgrades the link between the committee and Parliament itself. Virtually the same result could be achieved if the committee were to report directly to Parliament, but that, en route, the Prime Minister would have the right to look at it and take out that which he thought was unduly sensitive. As I say, I do not object to his right to do that, but if the link is not direct from the committee to Parliament, first, in presentational terms, it would not appear to be as directly accountable to Parliament as it would in the alternative system.
Secondly, if we have the direct link, we may overcome all sorts of difficult problems of timing such as when the report was made to the Prime Minister, and whether the Prime Minister had sat on it for too long. One knows the arguments. One has heard them often from both sides of the House over the years. It is important that in this area we should, if at all possible, get away from such arguments.
I am not sure why the Government decided upon a committee of six. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us whether he is satisfied that that number is large enough to effectively perform the committee's role.
Questions must also be asked and answered about the process of controlling the disclosure of information to the intelligence and security committee. On what basis
1032
are the members of the committee to obtain the information? Is their right to know to be totally untrammelled? If it is not, and if there is to be some restriction on their right to know, who is to exercise that restriction? Who will decide what should be presented to the committee? If it is to be the intelligence services themselves, that may undermine, if not totally destroy, the whole object of the exercise, which is that we should have parliamentary control over what is going on. If the people who are responsible for what is going on will have the right to decide what it is that the committee should see, that in itself might create some difficulties.
One could also argue that there is a case for allowing the commissioner to report to Parliament at the same time as he reports to the Prime Minister, again with the right of the Prime Minister to intervene to remove any unduly sensitive matters.
I raise those issues for one reason: it is important now, in relation to the intelligence services, that people should be satisfied that there is a direct and effectively functioning parliamentary accountability between the services and Parliament. I am not sure whether the structure proposed in the Bill meets that requirement.
In essence, the proposed committee provides a much weaker system of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability than their counterparts among our allies. I do not want to make too much of that point. It is not necessarily a determining factor, but it is an important one, and one of which the House should perhaps be aware. In Canada, for example, the Solicitor General is obliged by law to submit reports to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and to Parliament. He must also table the committee's annual report in each House of Parliament after which it becomes a public document. There is a high level of accountability for the intelligence services in Australia, Germany, and the United States of America. In the latter country, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence exercise considerable control over the American intelligence services. If other countries seem to be able to live with a greater degree of exposure than we do, unless there is strong evidence to suggest that the operation of their intelligence services is being damaged by it, and, in comparison, the operation of our intelligence services in enhanced by the absence of such accountability, then that is information and evidence which the House should perhaps consider.
Perhaps I may say a word about accountability in law, which is central to the protection of human rights. Many of the definitions in the Bill are vague. The Law Society is anxious about some of them. It has highlighted, for example, the Bill's failure to provide a definition of "serious crime". That is one factor which could cause some confusion. It will probably have to be dealt with finally in the courts. The Government must also ensure that the Intelligence Services Bill contains adequate safeguards to protect human rights. In the well known case of Leander v. Sweden in 1987, the European Court of Human Rights said that the
"law has to be sufficiently clear… to give ordinary citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which public authorities are empowered to resort to secret and potentially dangerous interference with private life".

1033
The Government should think carefully about whether the Intelligence Services Bill meets that standard.
Probably one of the most important issues relating to the Bill, as I said a few moments ago, relates to the Government's decision, made in 1984, to outlaw trade unions at GCHQ. That remains one of the most bewildering decisions in this area that the Government have taken. In their wisdom, they concluded, without any evidence of which I am aware, or substantiation, that having trade unions at GCHQ posed a threat to national security. I am sure that I was not alone in finding that staggering.
I believe that I am entitled to remind noble Lords that trade unions functioned responsibly at GCHQ, and without any doubts cast on their patriotism, for 40 years! The continuation of that ban, therefore, represents an insult to the trade union movement, and to the millions of trade unionists who have shown absolute loyalty to this country over many years. Noble Lords may want to consider that the majority of those who are known to have betrayed this country do not seem to have been ardent trade unionists of the type that one would find in the ranks of the TGWU. It is tragic that they felt unable to give Britain the same unstinting loyalty which millions of ordinary, decent trade unionists have been doing for years.
That is something at which the Government should look again. It has been condemned, as we all know, internationally by the ILO. It does us no good internationally. It is an, insult to the trade union movement, which, if the Government wish, they could indeed remove.
While I welcome the general terms of the Bill, I hope that the Government will take on board what I have had to say about trade union rights and parliamentary accountability. We have pressed the need for greater parliamentary oversight of the security services with appropriate safeguards for secrecy on many occasions. The Labour Party's 1993 Conference, for example, passed a statement to that effect.
Clearly, it is a question of getting the balance right. The Government should adopt measures which balance the need to ensure the security of the country with the right of people to know about what is going on. I believe that broadly and in general terms the Government in their approach to the matter are probably getting the balance right. However, I am not yet entirely happy about the system of parliamentary accountability which is proposed in the Bill. Subject to that, we shall give the Bill a fair wind.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we on these Benches do not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. However, in view of the unanimous Second Reading which your Lordships' House gave to the Education Bill on Tuesday after spending seven hours almost unanimously condemning it, that statement does not amount to a great deal. On this occasion we go somewhat further and welcome the thrust of the Bill.
Almost exactly seven years ago I made one of my last speeches in the other place. It was in favour of the proposition that there should be a parliamentary
1034
commission or committee to supervise the running of the security services. Although there was at that time a grave lack of confidence in MI5 in particular, occasioned partly by the nonsense of the Wright case and the allegation made by some who had been inside the service of illegal activities against the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, when he was Prime Minister, the Government foolishly turned down that proposition. I am recorded as saying, semi-philosophically, that such a committee would nonetheless come. Well, it has come and I welcome that.
Recently we have been in somewhat calmer waters as regards the reputation of the security services. There has been an efflux of time without much fresh scandal and there has begun the new reign of Mrs. Rimington. There is, somehow, something distinctly if not wholly rationally reassuring about the thought of a woman being in charge of a security service. One feels that she may not go along with some of the wilder pieces of phantasmagoria, which has sometimes engaged her male colleagues. In the same way, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, whether in this House or on television, gives a patina of calm responsibility to all her previously brave and occasionally bizarre exploits on behalf of MI6.
Nevertheless, many of the grave doubts which were sown in my mind as a result of my experiences as Home Secretary in the mid-1960s and again in the mid-1970s, and of the revelations which followed in the mid-1980s, still remain. I experienced in the Security Service what I can best describe as an inherent lack of frankness, an ingrowing mono-culture and a confidence-destroying tendency to engage in the most devastating internal feuds. That made me very sceptical about whether at least two of the four main roles of MI5 were appropriate to continue.
I shall deal first with MI5's political surveillance role. That involves above all a fine judgment between what is subversion and what is legitimate dissent, which in my experience is unlikely to be found in those who live in the distorting and Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass world in which falsehood becomes truth, fact becomes fiction and fantasy becomes reality. I would therefore pull MI5 totally out of its political surveillance role.
I am almost equally doubtful about the associated internal political intelligence role. Presumably the object of that is to help Ministers with useful information. However, in my experience the organisation concerned consumed far more of my time as a Minister with its own internal squabbles than any useful information which it ever provided. The balance was distinctly negative.
That leaves the other two main activities; anti-terrorism and counter-espionage. Clearly, both are still necessary, although the latter perhaps a little less urgently so than at times in the past. I do not doubt that we need some of the continuing activities of the security services. However, at a time when some of their roles have shrunk and some ought to be shrunk we should heed the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who in last month's television programme on MI6, said:

1035
"We don't want to be inventing or appearing to invent new targets to keep people busy when their old targets have disappeared".
People like to be kept busy in their jobs. They certainly like to have their budgets kept intact and those involved here are considerable. I am not convinced that the international crime rings are a suitable new target for the security services. I believe that the police are much more skilled and expert in dealing with crime than are the security services. It is a different range of operation from anything that they have done previously. We should be cautious about putting them into that area to provide, as it were, a substitute for other activities, some of which have become less necessary as a result of changes in the international situation.
The services, preferably in a somewhat restricted form, are still necessary but more effective supervision over them is also necessary. That is a peculiarly difficult ministerial function to discharge and perhaps I may give two examples. There is a difficult frontier. The Bill refers always to "the Secretary of State" because of the fiction that the Secretary of State is a single and undivided office, which it was at one stage in the 18th century. But two Secretaries of State are here concerned: the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is concerned with MI6 and the Home Secretary is concerned with MI5. As a result there is a certain lacuna between the two. Both, for instance, must sign warrants for telephone tapping. They are internal warrants because a limited number are signed by the Foreign Secretary and they deal with certain needs for internal telephone surveillance.
Before my day no single Secretary of State oversaw the whole position within the country and I thought that that was unreasonable. It required some little effort—indeed, going on strike—in order to ensure that one saw the overall list, which I thought to be wholly desirable in the interests of responsible ministerial supervision.
Secondly, the principal official for dealing with the security services is not an official of the Home Secretary; he is the Secretary of the Cabinet. I am followed in this debate by a most distinguished former Secretary of the Cabinet. He will certainly confirm that the Secretary of the Cabinet, whatever else he is, is not a servant of the Home Secretary. There is room for dispute as to whether he is or should be the servant of the Prime Minister. Probably he should be the servant of the Cabinet in a much wider sense, but he is certainly not a servant of the Home Secretary. It is more difficult to exercise supervision in that very difficult field if your principal official is not someone who is working for you in the normal course of events.
I say that merely to illustrate that, by its very nature, it is a difficult job of ministerial supervision. I believe that we should welcome further parliamentary help being given.
The mechanism provided in the Bill is for the committee to be made up of six Members of both Houses of Parliament who can come, in varying proportions, from both Houses of Parliament. It is not specified, which is rather unusual in regard to these
1036
arcane matters, that they should be Privy Counsellors. I do not object to that in the least. I believe that it is probably wise not to include that provision. Apart from anything else, the number of Privy Counsellors who are not members of the Conservative Party are running rather thin. Therefore, that widens the field as regards choice.
I understand that it is proposed that three members should be from the government side of the House, two should be from the Official Opposition and I understand that it is intended that one should be from my own party.
The mechanism of appointment, as laid down, is that it should be made by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. I assume that there will be equal consultation with the leader of any other party from which a member is to be appointed.
It seems to me that Schedule 3(2) (d) is a rather curious provision. It appears to give the Prime Minister the right to replace a member at any time. Can that really be intended? I cannot imagine that working out in practice, but it seems to be an odd infringement of the independence of a member of the committee. Of course, if he ceases to be a Member of either House, which is also provided for, he would go automatically, but it seems to me rather odd that it should be done, even in theory, at the whim of the Prime Minister.
In my view a more important point in relation to the committee is that people of a questioning, sceptical and even iconoclastic turn of mind should be appointed to it. Those qualities are in no way incompatible with full loyalty to the state and nation, but it is a field in which soft, obfuscating answers are rather part of the tradition. If the committee is to be effective, as I hope it will be, and if the Bill is to be worthwhile, as I hope it will be, we need members of the committee who will not accept such soft or obfuscating answers.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I have no hesitation in welcoming the proposal to put the intelligence services and GCHQ on a statutory basis and to provide statutory backing for the proposed commissioner and complaints tribunal. The reasons for not acknowledging and formally authorising activities conducted on behalf of the state—even though I think that that was valid at one time—have long been eroded and it will be good to see the change made. I propose to confine my brief remarks solely to the question of external oversight and its method, which is perhaps more debatable.
Unlike some Members of this House, I have never worked in the intelligence services, although I frequently had cause to welcome and appreciate their product. But for seven years I was, as Secretary of the Cabinet, the Accounting Officer for the Secret Vote. I took those duties seriously and, as adviser to the Prime Minister of the day, I was often questioned by him or her about them. However, the long-standing convention was that, unlike my fellow Permanent Secretaries, I was never grilled or questioned by anyone externally, and nor were the services for which I was accounting.
We had a long tradition of secrecy on such matters which related both to the perceived need for deniability

1037
and the imperative to protect sources, techniques and personnel. For a long time that continued acceptance of our traditional practice of no external oversight was, in my mind, considerably buttressed by seeing what happened in some other countries. In the United States, an ill-considered dash for openness, since corrected, did great damage both to national security and to the morale and effectiveness of the CIA when that government first went overboard in opening up the intelligence world to congressional oversight committees. Conversely though, with another ally whose name I shall not mention, I saw a form of external oversight which looked splendid on paper but was frankly a charade. I do not believe that that seemed right either.
However, two things combined over the years to make me feel that the balance of the argument was changing. The first was of course the general shift in the recognition of the importance of accountability, primarily to Ministers in the first place. Those services have been accountable to Ministers but they should be accountable also to somebody outside government. The second was the growing feeling in the wake of Peter Wright and things like that that the intelligence services were being damaged by not being able, or not being required to, give an account of themselves. If reputation and morale suffer through not being able to justify the need for resources or how they are being used, efficiency will soon suffer also. Of course, any organisation may have its maverick, or a person who falls short of the standard required, but by and large my experience is that those services have a very good story to tell and, in any case, they should be enabled to tell it, good or bad.
The proposed intelligence and security committee looks something of a compromise, but I believe that a compromise, whether exactly this one or something like it, is right. There will be a need to be as frank as possible with the committee, while protecting under defined statutory arrangements certain sensitive areas relating primarily to operations. Although it is obviously a matter for Committee stage, I should have thought that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 makes it quite clear that the onus will be on the intelligence services to justify why information is not produced, rather than the other way around.
There are those who argue for something like a more traditional type of departmental Select Committee, perhaps sitting largely in public and reporting to the whole House. But if that were successful and came about, it would be less able to probe in the way which is necessary to establish the justification for the expenditure, administration and policy of the services, and would thus risk the other alternative that I posed; namely, oversight becoming something of a charade. On the other hand, I welcome the fact that the committee will be comprised solely of parliamentarians. That recognises the need for Parliament to be satisfied that there is in fact practical and questioning oversight.
As Schedule 3 to the Bill states, the committee will have to devise its own procedure, which may have to evolve in a way which allows the maximum disclosure consistent with the protection of operations, sources and personnel. It will be essential to do whatever is
1038
necessary to satisfy the new committee about the justification for and the management of the considerable resources involved and about the people to whom they are entrusted.
We need to remember that no oversight committee can block every loophole against mismanagement or worse. It may not always be easy to draw the line between knowing enough to give the services a clean bill of health and not getting into unduly sensitive areas. In the end, you have to trust certain people to conform to the approvals and the authorities given to them by Ministers. However, I think it would be right for the oversight body to see those people, to know them, to make its own assessment of them and, above all, to be satisfied with the control procedures which they have established. On that basis, I am very happy to support the Bill.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, noble Lords will understand why I always listened to him with such care and relied so heavily on. his advice during our time together, even though I did not always accept it.
I must, first, apologise to the House for the fact that I may not be present at the end of the debate. I have a long-standing engagement. I hate to do this as I believe we all should be here, but I really cannot escape on this occasion. Therefore, if I am not here at the conclusion of the debate, I trust that noble Lords will forgive me.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and other speakers, I very much welcome the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said that it was seven years ago that he called for some form of parliamentary oversight. Well, if we are to enter into competition, perhaps I may tell him that in the light of the disclosures after the Blunt affair I called for it 14 years ago. However, just so that he will not take that too badly, I should like to congratulate him on receiving the Order of Merit. That combination of politics and literature honours the House. I am very glad to see it.
The Bill actually goes further than I suggested at the time, and perhaps even further than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggested. It establishes not only a parliamentary committee but also a commissioner and a tribunal. I start from the premise that Parliament's role is one of oversight and not of control. The proper division of responsibility in that very special field is that Ministers control while Parliament has oversight. I respect and understand the argument of those who believe that a democratic state requires the fullest accountability from everyone, including the secret services. Indeed, I have received—as I dare say have many other noble Lords—representations from a number of interested bodies. Their arguments should be looked at both carefully and sympathetically.
We entrust substantial powers over our liberties to the secret services and to Ministers. The British people do not like giving up any part of their freedom, but they will put up with it if the cause is big enough or the reasons sufficiently convincing, just as they did throughout two world wars. They understand,

1039
paradoxically, that by not insisting on full accountability from the services they assure themselves of the even greater cause—namely, their freedom—by enabling our national security to be more effectively safeguarded.
As a footnote, I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the question of full accountability. I was initially very much attracted by what was happening in Canada and in the United States—indeed, on paper it looked very good—until I saw the consequences. There is no doubt that it weakened the effectiveness of those services and did not really strengthen the accountability that some people wanted to achieve.
The powers that we are giving in the Bill (and those that we have already given) are given as a trust. Neither Ministers nor the services should regard them as their right. In return for that trust, a democratic society requires from those services the highest sense of integrity and prudence in their use. I go along the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, although when he spoke I was reminded of what Iain Macleod said about Enoch Powell on one occasion: that he had travelled along the same line but had got off a few stations earlier. That is rather my position in relation to the noble Lord's speech.
Some years ago when speaking about such matters the noble Lord, Lord Home, said that it is very easy to cross the line between a free society and a police state. I am very sorry that he is not able nowadays to be with us. However, my experiences in the offices that I have held is that the services stayed on the right side of the line. But, as he said, it is easy to stray across it. I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said. Nearly 20 years ago a tiny handful of officers chose the wrong side of the line. By so doing they damaged the service and democracy.
Through ill-discipline and internal factional disputes, one or two bad eggs were "out of control". In due time that had an impact. It was a great misfortune that those who were concerned at the time were not absolutely candid with Ministers when asked about such matters. Of course, the serious breach of responsibility was corrected by the service itself, and those concerned have long since been out of it. A new generation has taken over.
One rather unfortunate lesson that I drew from that incident is that, where there are people whose obsession is so strong that it leads them to untruths and deceit, no amount of accountability will uncover them, at any rate not in the short run. On balance, for reasons that I have mentioned, I do not accept that the matter of accountability is so overriding that we should go much further than is intended in the Bill. However, it follows—and I have had practical experience of it—that there is an imperative need in those services for strong leadership, high morale and team spirit and also for integrity. On the only occasion that I saw that break down it had serious consequences for confidence.
I turn for a moment to the role of the proposed intelligence and security committee, and I dare to suggest some ideas for a possible agenda. I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord
1040
Chancellor for the remarks that he made on some of the possible subjects for scrutiny. Perhaps I may tell the House about one or two of the matters with which I think the committee could deal. First, it could inquire into what changes have been made in the service since the Cold War was officially declared to be over. Let us face this fact: since the end of the Second World War both the secret and security services of the United States and of the United Kingdom have grown large and powerful, much more so than was thought likely at the time. Like the other two agencies, GCHQ is a full-blown bureaucracy. All three cost us a great deal of money. The committee could also investigate whether all the functions that GCHQ carries out today are still necessary. I would not come to a conclusion on the matter, but I believe that it is well worth looking at. I hope that the committee will do so.
Secondly, there is Russia, who has told us of her peaceful intentions yet still has a large capacity to make war. But, on the other hand, she wishes to join NATO. Although by no means yet a democracy, Russia has become a far more open society. What priority then is the intelligence service giving to this hotchpotch in its tasking and the use of its manpower? There is a ready-made subject for that parliamentary committee to scrutinise.
I pay full tribute to the work of the intelligence and security services, but there were occasions in some areas of the world when it seemed to me that a well-informed journalist travelling without much restriction could, by close observation and straight reporting, produce material more cheaply, more easily and just as valuable as intelligence sources operating under the obvious handicaps that intelligence men and women encounter.
Thirdly, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor reminded us, new areas of tension have emerged since the break-up of the Soviet bloc: North Korea is one. There are others and there will be more. Then there are the other issues to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred such as terrorism.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a matter that I did not intend to mention but I shall do so as he referred to it. He referred to the negotiations that are conducted when international treaties are prepared. The European Union is at this very moment engaged—and will be increasingly engaged—in preparing international treaties. Who carries out the intelligence for that body? I would not care to leave it to some of the people I can think of. If the committee the noble and learned Lord referred to is to consider some of these matters, it would be well worth exploring that area to reach some agreement.
So is the Intelligence Service redeploying its resources and using them efficiently and economically? If the parliamentarians begin with an agenda somewhat on those lines, they will certainly fulfil the task laid down in Clause 10 of the Bill,
"to examine the expenditure, administration and policy",
of the three services. That being so, I do not wish to go further into the matter of accountability at the present time for the Government have made an important advance.

1041
I do not doubt that there will be continued dissatisfaction about the warrant procedure. But if I am to believe what I am told, the extent of the private use of bugging for industrial and commercial purposes and the growth in personal bugging, none of which is under any form of control, make the amount of security bugging look very small beer. Those who conduct this kind of bugging do not even need to have a licence, never mind the precautions we are placing upon what is happening at the present time. I believe our civil liberties may be far more in danger from private bugging than from any action of the state.
I wish to say a sentence or two about the role of Ministers. Some of them find the role of the secret services absorbing, while others do not. But I suggest that Secretaries of State, or even an over-enthusiastic Prime Minister—nothing would lead me to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—should not become so fascinated by the supposed and over-magnified mystique of intelligence and security that they immerse themselves in it. Much of it, as has been hinted today, is little more than drudgery and leg work. The relationship between Ministers and the secret services should be familiar but not intimate. In that way Ministers will always be in a position properly to support those officers engaged in secret and, now and again, dangerous work, but they will also independently be able to stand, wherever necessary, between the services and the public in order to protect the rights and freedom of the citizen.
My impression is that the need to ward off too close an intimacy grows in significance when the same government stay in office for a long period. This Government have now been in power for over 14 years. The potential danger is that Ministers will become so accustomed to exercising power in this field, as in others, that they may become complacent or even cavalier in the way in which it is used. I am apprehensive that there are areas where Her Majesty's Ministers have been sailing very close to the wind recently.
I thought I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say, in connection with GCHQ, that he believed the Bill to be compatible with the Charter of Human Rights. This Bill gives us an opportunity once again to protest strongly and mightily against the Government's slur on those trade unionists who worked at GCHQ, 14 of whom were dismissed five years ago for the crime of being members of a trade union. Will the noble and learned Lord give me an assurance that the dismissal of these men will still be incompatible with the provisions of the Charter of Human Rights? I understand that the ILO has already condemned that situation. I am not sure what relationship there is between the ILO and the charter of the United Nations, but I would say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with respect, that this is a matter we shall certainly want to follow up closely because this is a wrong that has still to be put right. I should like to think that the Prime Minister himself would correct the injustice that has been done, but if he does not I would
1042
say to your Lordships that this matter will not be forgotten, and one day, however long it takes, redress will be secured for these 14 men.
This Bill should receive our support. It will be necessary to scrutinise it carefully in Committee, but I suggest that, with the additional safeguards it now brings forward, the services are fully entitled to our trust that their large powers will not be abused and that a framework has been provided that will continue to be an essential element of national security. I hope that it will provide some stability for years to come.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to support this important Bill and endorse what I suspect was the difficult decision to avow SIS and GCHQ. It seems but a fairly short time ago that as a Home Office Minister I sat alongside my noble friend Lord Whitelaw on the Front Bench during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill 1985. That Bill was designed to regularise interception for which your Lordships regarded earlier legislation, most notably that contained in the Telecommunications Bill of 1984, as affording inadequate protection or the risk of inadequately authorised action. As I was involved to some extent with both Bills I obtained at least a small insight into the difficulties of legislation in this sensitive area.
Later as a Foreign Office Minister, not only did I fairly regularly read material provided by the intelligence services in the course of my duties, but I also visited SIS stations on my many trips to embassies abroad. In saying that, I accept that my role in the Foreign Office was not in any sense in the same league as that of those who have spoken earlier who had a far greater responsibility for the services that we are discussing. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, there are those who harbour overly romantic and fictional ideas about both organisations which are the material of many engaging films and incredibly complex novels. But I think that it is worth stressing from my own direct experience three aspects.
First, these agencies do not blindly devise their own tasks and ideas. They are tasked by central government through the central intelligence machinery to meet a defined set of agreed requirements within clear parameters which have been approved by Ministers. So in no sense should anyone imagine that they are cowboys operating at the whim of their own staff without strict monitoring. I would say rather that their work is properly authorised, tightly controlled and it is thoroughly supervised.
Secondly, those who work for those agencies are among the most professional and conscientious people that I have met in public service. I very much endorse the remarks of others who have said that theirs is no easy task. It can involve personal risk; it requires considerable resilience and those who have to do that work must operate within an atmosphere of secrecy which brings little opportunity for public acknowledgment, let alone reward.
Thirdly, and most importantly, with direct experience I can vouch for the fact that the results of their efforts are

1043
of immense value to Her Majesty's Government, whether it be to counter nuclear proliferation, drugs trafficking or in many other ways concerned with the security of the realm and the interests of the people of this country, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor described.
It is also important to emphasise one other fact which my noble and learned friend touched on. Intelligence organisations in different countries often work with one another. Our people abroad will often work in harmony with local analogous organisations in the country in which they serve. There are often mutual interests to satisfy and those concerned collaborate regularly with host country agencies.
This is a good Bill. It contains safeguards proven to be effective in earlier legislation but improved upon by the significant introduction of the committee of both Houses reporting to the Prime Minister and, through him by way of annual report, to Parliament, although it preserves secrecy where that is essential. That innovation, which has been much speculated upon, is a major advance in relation to oversight and, in these days of open government, is to be welcomed.
Any sensitive change of the kind with which this Bill is concerned is a step into the unknown, but there are precedents. The Bill is broadly welcomed by the intelligence community. It will enable the intelligence services to conduct their important work efficiently and secretly but in a manner and under a system which is more in tune with what public opinion demands. I believe that the Bill deserves a speedy and uneventful passage to the statute book.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, four years ago when Parliament enacted the Security Service Act it dealt with a missing dimension in British constitutional law; namely, the powers and authority of one of several covert government agencies concerned with the vital task concerning the security of the state.
The 1989 Act was passed in the wake of the Spycatcher affair in which the Government attempted again and again to persuade courts in England, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Kenya to prevent publication of the memoirs of Peter Wright. So extreme was the Government's obsession with official secrecy that they even tried to stop publication in this country after the book had become freely available throughout the rest of the world—Captain Ahab scouring the seas to destroy his, or in this case her, Moby Dick. It was a hunt which did unnecessary damage to the credibility and morale of the security and intelligence services.
However, one beneficial outcome of the Spycatcher affair was that in 1989 the Government took three important steps to legislate: first, putting MI5 on a statutory basis; secondly, establishing a system of authorisation of any interference with property; and, thirdly, giving aggrieved citizens a means of remedy involving a commissioner of high judicial rank and a security service tribunal.
1044
I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, when reviewing the manner in which the Secretary of State exercises the sweepingly broad powers conferred upon him to issue warrants under the 1989 Act. The commissioner has done his best to ensure some measure of judicial review in this difficult area. The same is true of the very valuable work of Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, and his predecessor Lord Justice Lloyd (as he then was) as commissioners under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 in ensuring that there are no unnecessary invasions of personal privacy by post or by means of a public telecommunications system. I hope that their mandate will soon be widened by further legislation to cover other forms of secret surveillance by government agencies.
Regrettably, the 1989 Act did not cover MI6 or GCHQ, and that was because in 1989 the Government were still curiously unwilling to acknowledge even the existence of those public agencies. Nor, again regrettably, did the 1989 Act subject the agencies to any parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. The present Bill is therefore very welcome, if long overdue, in extending the 1989 Act to MI6 and GCHQ, and because it provides for the intelligence and security committee to scrutinise the expenditure, administration and policy of each of the three agencies. It marks a further move towards openness and accountability, building upon the open and enlightened style (irrespective of her sex) of the director-general of MI5, Mrs. Rimington. It places MI6 and GCHQ within the rule of law and provides some remedies for the misuse of their powers.
The Bill does well to recognise that the chief of the Intelligence Service and the director of GCHQ must ensure that the powers of the service are not used excessively or unnecessarily. Like any statutory scheme, of course, the safeguards contained in the Bill depend upon the integrity and professionalism of those charged with the duty to make them work.
I should like to concentrate upon one crucial aspect of the Bill—parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. Almost a year ago the Home Affairs Committee in another place produced a report on the accountability of the security and intelligence services. It recognised that nothing should be done to damage the effectiveness of the services and that operational matters should not be revealed publicly, however great interest might be in seeing these affairs discussed openly in Parliament and in the media. However, the Home Affairs Committee believed that parliamentary scrutiny of the services would meet an important public interest and protect against any possible future abuse of power.
The Government are to be commended for heeding its recommendation. However, having willed the end it is essential to will the means of achieving it. The proposed intelligence and security committee must surely have the necessary access to relevant information if it is to be able to do its important work effectively. No doubt the members of the committee will be appointed as individuals of great integrity, independence and ability, transcending party interests and possessing strong critical faculties. They will be men and women who can be trusted to come in within the ring of secrecy

1045
and to be guardians of the public interest. Their task will quite rightly be restricted to examining the expenditure, administration and policy of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. They will rightly not be concerned with day-to-day operational matters.
However, paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 to the Bill proposes to give the Secretary of State a blanket and absolute power to prevent the committee from having access to any information—whether sensitive or otherwise. It also proposes to give the director-general of the Security Service, the chief of the Intelligence Service and the director of GCHQ the power to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information; and the definition of what is sensitive information is in loose terms. I find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State needs a blanket power to block information when the heads of the agencies themselves have such ample powers.
I very much hope that those restrictions upon the committee's access to such relevant information will be narrowed during the passage of the Bill and carefully tailored to the need to protect operational activities while enabling the committee to obtain any information relevant to expenditure, administration and policy of the service. Otherwise those powers to impede the committee's access to information are, in my judgment, likely to frustrate the central purposes of parliamentary scrutiny: ensuring real and effective accountability for what is done by the agency for the security of the nation and its people, as well as providing adequate safeguards against abuses. Wide blocking powers of that kind are also likely to lead to harmful disputes and conflicts between the parliamentary committee and Ministers or the agencies themselves.
It is especially important to give the committee proper and sufficient access to relevant information because the principles upon which the legislation is based allow scope for little judicial protection or control. I see no good reason for the committee to be more fettered in its access to information than the inspector general and the Security Intelligence Review Committee established under the Canadian legislation, or, I believe, their counterparts in the United States and Germany. I know of no evidence that the work of the agencies in those countries has been impaired by their obligation to make wide disclosure to the scrutiny and oversight bodies on non-operational matters, within the ring of secrecy.
The Bill empowers the Prime Minister, after consulting with the committee, to exclude from the committee's annual reports, before they are laid before Parliament, any matter whose publication the Prime Minister considers would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the services. The fact that Parliament and the public may be denied access to such information makes it all the more important, in my view, for the committee itself to be fully informed about all matters within its remit. There is no point in creating a committee and placing it within the ring of secrecy unless the members of that committee are treated with complete candour and openness by Ministers and public officers of the service.
1046
As has been mentioned, the European Court of Human Rights gave an important warning some years ago, in the German Klass case, when it observed that states, parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, do not enjoy an unlimited discretion to subject persons within their jurisdiction to secret surveillance. It stated:
"The Court, being aware of the danger that such a law poses of undermining or even destroying democracy on the ground of defending it … [affirmed] that the Contracting States may not, in the name of the struggle against espionage and terrorism, adopt whatever measures they deem appropriate. The Court must be satisfied that, whatever system of surveillance is adopted, there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse".
Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I hope and believe that the Bill will provide those guarantees, and that they will be translated into practical reality by those who operate the legislation. But in my view it is of paramount importance that oversight and scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee is really effective and that it is manifestly seen to be effective.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the matter raised by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, namely, trade union rights at GCHQ. Speaking for myself, I entirely agree with what has been said by each of them on this subject. However, I should say that, alas, the rights of those trade unionists will not he restored to them under the European Convention on Human Rights because their claim was struck out by the European Commission. It will be restored only by the good sense and fairness of this Government or a future government; and the sooner the better in my view.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am reluctant to inject an egregious note into this agreeably emollient debate. However, I have to say that. I approach the Bill with something less than the enthusiasm that has been displayed so far in your Lordships' House.
I begin from the premise that a secret service should be secret. That sounds a simple enough proposition but it is one which is not sufficiently accepted or adhered to. In my view, it is certainly not entirely at one with the spirit of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others mentioned, as examples of the virtues of openness, the United States, Canadian and other intelligence services. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, pointed out, those have not been entirely successful experiments. If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, really has no evidence of the damage that was done to the Central Intelligence Agency by its experiment in open government, I shall be happy to provide him with some evidence to that effect.
We are passing through a phase where, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the threat to our security has changed. As a result of our reaction to that threat, we and our allies have brought about very considerable reductions in our military resources. Anyone who has any experience of these matters will support me when I say that the smaller one's military

1047
capability becomes, the more important one's intelligence capability becomes. We are therefore moving into a phase where, although the threat may have changed, we have smaller resources to meet what threats remain.
There is one other aspect which is relevant to the question of intelligence and security. The threats that we now face present for the Intelligence Service a much more complicated and intricate problem than the problem of the threat that we faced before. The threats that we now face—they are worldwide and connected with such matters as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons and the aspirations of maverick dictatorial states—are concepts and areas which are far more difficult for intelligence services to penetrate than those with which they were faced in the days of the Cold War. Therefore I believe that what we need now —I put this purely as a basis for debate—is better intelligence than ever we had before.
It is not necessary, and I shall not attempt to suggest, that the Bill reduces the effectiveness of the intelligence services. However, I should like us to consider the Bill and the clauses which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to present to us, and to ask ourselves whether there are not matters in the Bill to which we ought to pay a little closer attention before it passes all its stages in your Lordships' House.
I do not think that there will be many problems with the first four clauses of the Bill. After all, those merely rehearse and perpetuate the existing organisation and aims of the services concerned. I do not think that much needs to be said about Clauses 5 and 6, although I suspect that there will be a good deal of debate at Committee stage about the matter of warrants.
It is in Clause 7 that I believe some of the hidden dangers lie. It has not received too much attention in the debate so far in your Lordships' House. The impact of Clause 7 of the Bill upon the intelligence services is by definition and by the nature of things very difficult to discuss. The problem about this kind of striptease with which we are now involved in the security and intelligence services is that as one removes each garment, one gets closer to the things that ought better to be hidden. It is not even possible to discuss in detail some of the impacts that Clause 7 might have upon the operations of the Secret Intelligence Service. In passing, I note that the Bill refers now to the "Intelligence Service". Apart from on one occasion in the Bill, the word "secret" seems to have been dropped. That may be indicative of the attitude of the Government to the Intelligence Service. I do not wish to make a great point about it; I simply mention that in passing.
I believe that there is a feeling—I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that there is great enthusiasm for these changes in the services concerned. However, I believe that among certain members of those services, there is a great worry that Clause 7 of the Bill as at present drafted, might seriously inhibit some of the necessary and important activities of the service. I believe that we shall wish to consider Clause 7 much more closely at Committee stage.
1048
In Clauses 8 and 9, I do not believe that there is a great deal of trouble with regard to the commissioner and the tribunal although in setting up a tribunal to which people can address complaints about the intelligence services we may be treading along a somewhat dangerous path. I may have mentioned previously to your Lordships the remark made, in a totally different context, by Ernest Bevin when he said, "If you open that Pandora's Box you never know what Trojan horse will jump out". We need to look at that issue carefully. I have some experience of serving on bodies to which public complaints are addressed. I have a feeling that this measure might be used by some people, unless we handle matters very carefully, as a means of inhibiting some of the very important activities that are still carried out by our secret intelligence services.
When we come to Clause 10, on the composition of the committee, I defer to some of the more experienced advice that has been given in this House and elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, roughly speaking there were five ways in which parliamentary oversight could have been organised to deal with the problems of the operations of the Secret Intelligence Service. I wonder whether we have chosen the right one. As noble Lords have said, that may be a matter for consideration at Committee stage. I have a feeling that certain aspects may present problems. For example, as has already been mentioned, all those on the committee will serve for the duration of a Parliament. There is a provision in the Bill that people will cease to be members of the committee if they leave the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That is a perfectly obvious provision. On the other hand, I believe that noble Lords will agree that it is more usual for people to leave the House of Commons than it is for them to leave the House of Lords.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Oh, I do not know, is it?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, all of us will leave at some time! That is the sort of matter that we need to examine. I must confess that I have an instinctive feeling for the kind of permanency that would be implied by making the committee a committee not just of both Houses, which is indeed the only way in which it can be done, but also perhaps a committee of Privy Counsellors. I hope that noble Lords will look at the issue again when we come to Committee stage.
Having looked briefly at the Bill and pointed out where I believe some of the dangers and minefields may be hidden, I should like to ask before I sit down exactly what is the reason for this sudden access of transparency in the field of our secret intelligence services. Our SIS, or MI6, as it is sometimes called, has a reputation in the world that is second to none. It is recognised as being one of the most effective of all the intelligence services in the world. There are others about which similar claims can be made: for example, the KGB and Mossad, neither of which have been subjected to a great deal of parliamentary oversight but which still manage to be enormously effective.
What is the reason for this sudden desire to open up the ring of secrecy, as it has been put by the noble Lord,

1049
Lord Lester? The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that there was a general demand for this change. I must confess that demand has escaped me. If the size of the attendance in this Chamber for this important debate is any reflection, I suggest that there is scarcely any great frenzy out there in the streets for a change in the present arrangements. But that may not be the only argument.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asked rhetorically at the beginning of his remarks: what has changed? I thought that he would tell us what had changed. But of course nothing objective has changed at all. What has changed is the policy and the mind of the Government. There has been no other, objective change. I make no complaint about that. But what we face here is not an objective change in circumstances, but a change of policy. It is possible that it may be a desirable change of policy. With that I do not quarrel, subject to the fact that I believe we should look at it all a great deal more closely.
The highest praise that I can give to this Bill is that it is not actually dangerous. I do not believe that it will damage too much the operations of our Secret Intelligence Service. It preserves most of the sensitive information in a perfectly sensible and intelligent way. With the exception (as I said) of some very important implications in Clause 7, it does not inhibit the operations of the security Intelligence Service. We need to look a great deal more closely at some of these matters when the Bill passes through subsequent stages in the House.
I come back to the assurance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave that the services themselves are enthusiastic about the Bill. We must accept what the noble and learned Lord said. If it is indeed true that the services enthusiastically wish this Bill to pass in its present form through this House, and if the Government and the Opposition wish the same, there does not seem to be much argument left. I can only say that my own information and researches indicate that there is some disquiet about some of the possible implications of the Bill as it is presently drafted. I hope that we shall look at it much more closely at Committee stage. I say this without any great enthusiasm, but in principle I shall support the passage of the Bill.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that there is a continuing need for this country to have secret intelligence, although the threat of global war has receded with the break-up of the Soviet Union. The security of our country can still be endangered by international terrorism and by the ambitions of irresponsible leaders of smaller countries who appear from time to time. The prime example was Idi Amin in Uganda, but fortunately he never got near to nuclear weapons.
In addition, there can be disputes—and there are disputes which continue now—in various parts of the world which lead to conflict. We need to be well-informed at an early stage, not only to forestall conflict or to ameliorate the situation if we are in a position to do so, but also to protect British interests in
1050
those areas. So we still need to have a system of secret intelligence on events abroad: MI6 and GCHQ. We also need a counter-intelligence organisation at home, and we passed the Security Service Act four years ago. The present Bill seeks to place the other two agencies on a similar basis. So far as I know, until about two years ago MI6 had never previously been publicly acknowledged as existing at all. Now there is to be some accountability. That is welcome to me, provided that it is not liable to compromise sources or endanger agents, probably foreigners, being controlled by British intelligence officers.
Here I must make it clear that I have never been in any of the three agencies (MI5, MI6 or GCHQ). My interest and out-of-date knowledge arise from a period of service in the Foreign Office when I worked closely with all three. That was many years ago, and well before I entered Parliament 34 years ago. My impartial observations then were that the members of those agencies, working quietly, out of public view, carried out conscientiously and efficiently important tasks for the benefit of our nation. I hope and assume that that tradition continues.
I should like to comment particularly on the new committee that is proposed in the Bill consisting of current parliamentarians. That is a new proposition. It is not in the Security Service Act, although the Security Service is now to be brought in.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to past experience and current proposals in which all members have been, or would be, Privy Counsellors. I believe that I can make a small contribution on this subject because I happen to have been involved in these matters from very early days, in particular the first ever conference of Privy Counsellors held nearly 40 years ago. I was then private secretary to the Secretary of the Cabinet, the late Lord Normanbrook. The Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill.
The concept of a Privy Counsellors' conference met an unusual security situation which had arisen. The Soviet authorities had produced Burgess and Maclean in Moscow about two years after their disappearance. This was designed by them to produce the maximum of embarrassment in London, which they succeeded in doing. There were calls in Parliament for an inquiry. But it was clear that an internal inquiry would not be satisfactory or adequate because there would be suspicions that it could be a cover-up or a whitewash. However, there was very sensitive top secret information which would have to be known to members of an inquiry. That was how the first idea of a conference of Privy Counsellors came about.
The conference which was then set up consisted of former Cabinet Ministers and present Cabinet Ministers, together with one other Privy Counsellor who was the Head of the Treasury and the Civil Service. He was the father of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who is to speak later in the debate. My connection was in setting up that conference. I was then made its secretary. So in addition to my normal duties, I drafted its report.
That first conference of Privy Counsellors was followed by similar ones; for example, on telephone tapping and, more recently, the Franks committee on the

1051
Falkland war. Former Ministers sat with one or two eminent former public servants who were also Privy Counsellors. As I mentioned Burgess and Maclean in this debate on the intelligence and security services, I should say that neither of them was a member of those agencies. One was an established officer in the Foreign Service as it was then called (it is now the Diplomatic Service) and the other was on a temporary contract. Noble Lords will understand therefore why I have had a continuing interest in how intelligence and security services can safely and adequately be accountable in changing world conditions.
When the decision for the first time to acknowledge publicly the existence of MI6, known as the SIS, was taken by the Government, presumably in the past two years—I suggest that that decision was a very significant one—it must have been accepted at the same time that a system of accountability would be required, as it was for MI5 four years ago.
Besides proposing a commissioner and a tribunal, the Bill would create the Intelligence and Security Committee, covering all three agencies. The members have to be current parliamentarians, not necessarily Privy Counsellors. Although I have been speaking of the previous conferences and commissions of Privy Counsellors, I agree that it should not be necessary for the members to be Privy Counsellors in the future proposed committee. It was helpful on the previous occasions. But those bodies were to inquire into particular situations; they were not expected to continue in existence after their work was completed.
In addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, I should like tentatively to make the following suggestion. Members of the new committee should have some knowledge and experience of secret intelligence or security work. As I said, they do not need to be Privy Counsellors, although those who have been selected in the past have all been in that position. In particular, they should have a familiarity with that boundary beyond which subjects are secret and should not be mentioned or touched upon, even in the most tangential way, usually because they are connected with operations. Any lapses of that kind in security are likely to happen when such familiarity is absent.
Lapses would not be intentional and probably not due to carelessness; rather, they would be the result of inexperience in this field. For example, a chance mention of an apparently insignificant minor part of a prosaic matter, put together with other fragments of information, could be used by a hostile organisation to reach a correct conclusion to the detriment of the United Kingdom. Therefore I suggest that besides the other qualifications, members should have some background of that kind.
Under the Bill, the choice of the members is made a responsibility of the Prime Minister. He is finally answerable to the nation for its security. I expected that provision to be there. I am sure that it will be criticised and no doubt other suggestions will be made, but I believe it is correct.
There are other points that I should like to raise but I shall do so in Committee or on Report. I support the
1052
Bill in general, provided that we can be assured by the Government that it will not do damage to our secret intelligence system and that those who have been working in it for some years are content.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I had responsibility for MI5 as Home Secretary and, as I shall point out in a moment, I worked very closely —it was not so at the Home Office—with MI5 in Northern Ireland. I just missed it in 1974 and discovered only subsequently that until that time MI6 had been responsible in Northern Ireland. I say that to indicate that I found it astonishing when I was a Cabinet Minister and again when I was on the Falkland inquiry that on matters like security—not party political matters—information was not passed from one government to another and from one Minister to another. One of the failures of the Government at the time of the Falklands episode was that information of actions taken by my noble friend Lord Callaghan with regard to the Argentine were not passed on until it was far too late. The convention that political information should not be passed on is understood, but for that to apply to security information is a nonsense.
In principle I welcome the Bill and wish it well. Given the attitude of mind to accountability in the security and intelligence services of even 10 years ago, it shows the power of events; it shows the power of the debates that took place in the other place—I do not know about this Chamber. People were shaken by what they read and believed they understood in certain publications.
With regard to the Intelligence Security Committee, it may be that in the course of time we shall move to a parliamentary Select Committee or Committees. We shall see. But events will take place. No Act of Parliament will stop problems arising. The nature of the organisation and control by those in the security services are what matters. I shall come to that in a moment.
I visited Canada and America. I talked about these matters in Australia but I was not there for that purpose. I was there for other reasons concerned with war crimes. There is no doubt that the movement towards more accountability happened because there was concern. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I do not suggest that there was great excitement in the streets. There never is on matters of this kind. There is no doubt that in America they went too far. When I was a Minister people were worried about passing information to the CIA because they thought that it might be leaked. But they pulled back, following a paper and discussions at Ditchley Compton. I was not there and so I am not breaking the Ditchley Rules; the information was published in the newspapers. No covert operation is believed to have been compromised since the change back. Leaking from the legislature has not occurred. If anything the leaking occurred from the executive, and we know some of the cases to which that refers. It is said that morale is up and that recruitment is up. Under the old system—referring to something to which I shall

1053
come in a moment—it was a member of the CIA, a man called Angleton, who did great harm in this country under the "dirty tricks" campaign.
Whatever we do, it is accountability and oversight about which we are talking, not operational work. As Home Secretary I certainly had no wish to have knowledge of operations. I had knowledge of operations when I was the Northern Ireland Secretary, because it was a different situation—not on every occasion, but there were occasions on which I had to be involved.
Referring to the Bill and, more precisely to the committee which will examine expenditure, administration and policy of all three agencies, I listened to the debate this evening and changed my mind two or three times in regard to the number of members. The number seemed to be too small. How will the various parties be represented? It may not be formed precisely on a party basis. Should there be a higher number? There must be room for "dissent"—for real argument and discussion. Will the small number make it too cosy, or will the large number do that? I could refer to my experience on the Falklands Inquiry, but I shall not.
With regard to the Home Office it certainly was not "hands-on". However it was kept within a small group of people within the Home Office—the Permanent Under-Secretary and the Deputy Under-Secretary. I found it a curious role, but that was because I came from Northern Ireland. In any event, the Prime Minister of the day was heavily involved, as was the Cabinet Secretary.
With regard to the committee, when information is passed on by the security services; when information comes from the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary—I do not know about the Foreign Office; I can only deduce from what I learnt in the Falklands Inquiry—Ministers may be better informed. More information will be provided in regard to administration, finance and policy than has been presented previously, at least in my experience.
Where will accountability lie in the committee? That was a question raised by my noble friend Lord Richard. Of course sensitive information will be excised. But after that it is important that there should be political discussion. I do not refer to the nonsensical politics of which we have too much, but there should be discussion both in the other place and in this House. There is far better discussion in the United States. It reaches the pitch sometimes that if a chap reads the Guardian he is a security risk because he is that sort of person. It is astonishing. There should be far better discussion and in some way the report must be presented to Parliament.
There has been no mention of Northern Ireland. But MI5 works there; the Secretary of State works with MI5—I choose my words carefully—and telephone-tapping takes place there in exactly the same way as it does here. I presume therefore that information in relation to Northern Ireland will go to the committee. I leave Scotland alone, where the Secretary of State has his own responsibilities for certain aspects of security. As I say, in my day it was a hands-on situation. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, there was no monoculture there, despite what I may say in a moment. Discussions took place late at night with two members
1054
of MI5 on issues that were arising. How did we respond? What could we do in a day when the RUC was not well-trained and was not working as a police force?
I found no monoculture. I found the attitude to Ireland and the way that Irish matters were considered far better than the normal English attitude to Ireland. The way in which we discuss Ireland, even in our newspapers today and the way in which emotions arise—there is a solution round the corner, but the next minute all is lost—is an English approach. It does not occur to the same degree in Ireland. I want public praise for those men, and not only because of that. The canteen MI5 culture—if that is the right phrase—did not exist.
What about defence? It did not happen because, in retrospect, it would have been misconceived. I refer to the intelligence agencies of the department of defence—the MoD. In 1945 Sir Findlater Stewart recommended to Mr. Attlee that the Minister of Defence should be responsible for the security services. I read somewhere that that appealed to Mr. Attlee because of his attitude regarding the nature of the security of the realm; that it should be from defence. In any event, he had lived through the Zinoviev issue in the 1920s. The nature of that always made him extremely angry. It did not happen. But at least Sir Findlater Stewart put that forward.
The defence aspect is still important. Clause 1(2) (a) states:
"The functions of the Intelligence Service shall be exercisable only … in the interests of national security".
What else are the Army, Navy and Air Force intelligence services working towards but precisely that? What do they do? I know, from the days when I was in the Royal Air Force and when I was Air Force Minister, exactly what the situation is. They collect information about aircraft—the range of aircraft; the new bombs on aircraft; and the new bomb sites on aircraft. Of course it is proper that that should be done. In my day as Home Secretary, the GRU —the military intelligence of the Russians—was extremely active in London. It was not only the KGB. The Government should think about defence intelligence agencies coming under the Bill, if only because of Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I can raise one other issue before turning to Northern Ireland; that is, the issue of the special branch. Like others, I had close contact with the special branch over several years and lived cheek by jowl with its members. I know the excellent work that they do. Most police forces have a special branch and the biggest is in the Met. They have a national responsibility for anti-terrorist work. I looked at the report yesterday of the HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, which refers to the work of special branches in different police forces. The Met Commissioner of Police refers to his.
MI5 and special branch have always worked together and now MI5 takes the lead. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to pass on to the Government that if special branch in this respect—not in crime—is involved in the work that is covered by the Bill, then in that respect also its work should be covered by the Bill.

1055
Where does the distinction lie? One distinction is that special branch makes the arrest. MI5 has no constable powers, but that matter should at least be considered.
With regard to Northern Ireland, I discovered that the "dirty tricks" campaign in Northern Ireland—I possess the papers now though I did not have them at the time—included a list of politicians in all parties. They are listed under the headings of sex, politics and finance. It is the most illiterate rubbish that I have ever read, even worse than that found in some of our national newspapers. It was quite extraordinary. A psych-ops operation was run against politicians in the south and politicians in Northern Ireland. It is no way to win the battle of Northern Ireland, let alone to get involved in politics here.
The Army were involved in that. I know that it has now stopped—I was told that it was stopped many years ago. But it was out of control and is another reason—I should have mentioned it earlier—why the Army, the defence security forces and intelligence bodies should come under this legislation.
There will be much to discuss in later stages of the Bill—GCHQ and so on. I was always concerned about recruitment, especially in the face of monoculture. At the end of the discussion I hope that we shall be clear as to the purpose of the security services. It is very easy to carry on with a purpose that is out of date. It is easy enough, because of what has happened in the Soviet Union, for us all to say "That has changed", but the problems show themselves now in a different way. The services have had to adapt to that. I hope that the setting up of the committee and the discussions that we shall have in the House in the forthcoming weeks will lead to much greater and more relevant and purposeful discussion about the needs of our security services.
I wish to do nothing that puts anyone's life at risk. On one occasion in Northern Ireland I spent three weeks discussing with senior soldiers how we could carry out an operation that would put no one's life at risk. The following day in the newspapers, briefed by the Army department, was a report that I had put the lives of soldiers at risk—a deliberate policy of double briefing. All of that is over now. I believe strongly that nothing should put the lives of those who work in the intelligence services at risk, but more accountability leads to much better discussion. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, some of your Lordships will know that I have a personal interest to declare in speaking in this debate. I was for many years a member of the Intelligence Service—the SIS—and I am proud to have served the Queen in that service. My remarks today will be chiefly, of course, relevant to SIS since that is what I know most about, just as those of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to the Security Service.
I had the great privilege of working, both then and in my second career as Principal of Somerville, with courageous, dedicated, honourable and highly intelligent people, as now in this Chamber, and in all those
1056
three worlds I have found integrity to be the most valuable of all qualities. I share the satisfaction felt in general, though not always in particular perhaps, within the service today—as expressed publicly two weeks ago by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the heads of the two services concerned—with the provisions of this Bill in that it places SIS and GCHQ on a firm statutory footing. It acknowledges the situation which has hitherto obtained—that the service is part of the public service under the Crown; that it exists to carry out the tasks placed upon it by Ministers and does not create its own agenda; and that it is fully accountable, both financially and operationally, to Ministers. Its members are disciplined public servants, performing the duties which Ministers require of them.
If I may quote from the recently published booklet Central Intelligence Machinery:
"The main function of the present SIS is the production of secret intelligence in support of Her Majesty's Government's security, defence, foreign and economic policies and in response to requirements laid upon it by the JIC".
The JIC, of course, reflects the will of Ministers. As for ministerial oversight, there is a ministerial committee—on which incidentally the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and the Home Office sit—to keep under review policy in the security and intelligence services, and a Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services (the PSIS) which,
"scrutinises the Agencies' annual expenditure forecasts and management plans as part of the Public Expenditure Survey arrangements".
I have set this out because it seems proper at the outset to establish quite clearly that this is not a Bill to regulate hitherto unregulated mavericks creating their own agenda. Because so far SIS has been required to remain unavowed, and it is the convention not to discuss these services, it has never been possible to correct this mistaken view. This is a Bill which will provide a statutory basis for the continuing operations of the Intelligence Service and GCHQ, and will provide a degree of independent oversight and review by parliamentarians over and above the existing and continuing system of accountability to Ministers. I know the services welcome that, and the support and understanding as well no doubt as the independent constructive criticism, which they can hope to receive from the new committee. They have much to be proud of.
As Sir Percy Cradock, the chairman of the JIC, has recently said:
"In the nature of things, intelligence successes are unsung. It's often the things that don't happen, the terrorist bomb that does not go off, the international treaty that goes through smoothly, the thoughts of aggression that become second thoughts and are never acted upon. Intelligence is a ceaseless underground struggle to protect British interests, and the fact that in the end, in a dangerous world, we are still fairly safe, and fairly secure, is in part because of the intelligence machine".
The press recently reported a good example of preventive intelligence working in the terrorist field, and of the way the Intelligence Service can use its professional relationships abroad with other services—in this case, a newly forged and most valuable link with the Polish service —together with its own resources, in support of the Security Service, the police and HM Customs here at home. This was the joint

1057
operation, directed by the Security Service, which recently ended in the seizure of hundreds of guns and two tonnes of explosives destined for the Loyalist paramilitaries in Ulster.
I remember a very similar successful operation in the 1970s, on that occasion foiling a major arms and explosives shipment from Libya to the Provisional IRA. On that occasion the vessel carrying the shipment, the "Claudia", was arrested by the Irish Navy after being identified by the Intelligence Service in a European port on the basis of intelligence reports and then shadowed by the Royal Navy. Service links in Europe also played their part in that operation. I quote this because I believe that, in addressing the provisions of the Bill, it is important that the House should appreciate how intelligence activity overseas can support operations to protect the realm at home.
I believe that noble Lords may, in approaching the Bill, be asking, first: do we need an intelligence service now the Cold War is over? Many noble Lords have been saying that. Is it being needlessly maintained? Much the same questions are being asked about our defence capacity. Secondly, why cannot we rely on good diplomatic coverage and good journalism in an increasingly open world where there is no longer a Soviet or mega threat? That, too, has been suggested. Thirdly, can we afford intelligence services? Would not the money be better spent on health, education or the arts? Are these services worth the money, when we are having to make so many difficult choices in determining public spending? And last, but by no means least, why should we, the public and the representatives of that public, in these days of open government not be able to know and to ask much more about what they are doing, using our money?
I hope, my Lords, that you will allow me to offer some answers. We still need intelligence services because this is still an unstable and dangerous world. That is the assessment of the JIC, which tasks the services on behalf of Ministers and which is even adding to the continuing central strategic requirements new tasks such as reporting on proliferation and on the threat posed to our economy and that of some dependent territories by drug trafficking and the consequent laundering of dirty money, a potentially destabilising threat to our economy. Here of course the SIS will be acting abroad in support of the Security Service and the police and HM Customs at home.
Terrorism is of course always with us. Moreover, there remain the usual strategic requirements on the former Soviet Union. Though no longer the mighty foe it once was, it remains, like the Ukraine, unstable and still possesses not only 30,000 nuclear warheads, themselves already unstable in some cases, but large stocks of chemical warfare weapons which could fall into the wrong hands—though it must be said that the Russians themselves are alive to that danger.
Moreover, we still live in a dangerous world even without the former Soviet Union. A number of countries will by the end of the century possess nuclear weapons, and several already possess other weapons of mass destruction. Do they intend to use them, either actually or as a threat? They are not likely to make a public
1058
announcement about their intentions. In Libya, for instance, the intelligence services successfully reported on President Gadaffi's chemical warfare plant at. Rabta. Now there is another such plant, and another target. Can we afford not to have knowledge of the undeclared intentions and capacities of such countries, or of the activities of the various terrorist groups, where pre-emptive action based on intelligence has saved many lives?
In general, our global diplomatic activity and the presence of our troops in exposed situations mean that we need to know the secret strategic intentions of potentially unfriendly countries. No amount of satellite coverage can tell us what they are thinking. For that there must be human sources and these have to be developed over the years. They cannot be turned on like a tap when a crisis arises. Ministers decide what HMG want to know and the JIC tasks these services accordingly; they do not task themselves. Conversely, it is just as important to know the undeclared pressures and fears which may cause a country to act aggressively out of fear. To know when they are feeling threatened—an example is the KGB's paranoid fear of a NATO attack—and how they may act under pressure can enable our Government to defuse a crisis. The intelligence from Penkovsky, a courageous source, played just such a vital part in the Cuban missile crisis.
SIS is tasked to produce secret intelligence. Our Diplomatic Service—the best in the world—has immense expertise, but it is not trained to deal professionally and safely with delicate sources whose lives in some cases would be at risk if they were identified (and who would not work without the assurance of the safety afforded by professional handling); and it could not conduct professional relationships with friendly foreign intelligence services, and nor would it wish to do so. Diplomats are professionals with their own skills. The two activities are complementary. Journalists have their own skills, and they too protect their sources, but their raison d'être is publication of what they learn, not the development of quiet, behind-the-scenes, long-term relationships which may last for years and whose product must be protected.
Do the services give value for money? In the case of the Intelligence Service we are speaking of only 2,000 people. I believe that what I quoted from Sir Percy Cradock goes some way to answer that question, but there are many examples. In the Gulf War our troops knew from intelligence briefing exactly how the Iraqi armament would perform since much of it was Soviet made. Exact intelligence on the T72 tank's armour, provided by a defector earlier, also saved millions of pounds in R&D both here and in the US. The bigger our defence cuts, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the more the country will need long lead-in intelligence on intentions. Threats will need to be combatted by secret as well as by overt means.
But the most important issue in the context of the passing of this Bill is the recognition of the vital importance of maintaining the need-to-know principle which has so far worked well. Secrecy and publicity cannot both be achieved, and as long as the country needs secret intelligence it will be necessary to be ready

1059
to forgo public scrutiny or review. The public, alas, includes enemies as well as friends. Terrorists, too, watch television and read the proceedings of Parliament and its committees. If we had not been able to offer absolute discretion we should not have succeeded in recruiting Oleg Gordievsky, and should not have enjoyed the inside knowledge of the Soviet leadership and its policies which were so vital in ensuring that the West could appreciate Gorbachev's genuine intention to change the course of Soviet policy and the forces driving him to do so.
For the intelligence services' work to be effective their operations, sources and methods need to remain secret if they are to continue to perform their task and to protect British interests and often save British lives. They must, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, be able to counter-tunnel. The new Bill is an important step in the process of trying to strike the right balance between the operational needs of the services, including their need to stay secret in what they do, and the needs of public accountability. I hope very much that the committee will be allowed to define its role broadly to take account of this. I believe that comparison with the procedure in other countries may best be dealt with at Committee stage. It is not quite so simple as some of your Lordships might suppose.
If we cannot accept that secrets have to be kept, there will be no secret intelligence; no more agents of Gordievsky's quality will work for us, and a valuable part of our national defence will be lost.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Brimelow: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, began with a declaration of interest. I shall begin with a disclaimer. I do so because the well-known writer, Mr. Geoffrey Moorhouse, in a book entitled The Diplomats: The Foreign Office Today, wrote, on page 127 that I had been a member of the Secret Intelligence Service and, on page 128, that some of my earlier postings, which he described as "unfashionable" had been perfect cover for a spy. I wish to assure your Lordships that I have never been a member of the Secret Intelligence Service; that my unfashionable postings were perfectly normal consular and diplomatic postings in which I did perfectly normal work and that I had no undercover functions whatsoever. My relationship with the two services which are the subject of this Bill has been that of a consumer and I will say no more than that I am satisfied that both services are essential to the defence of the interests of this country.
Turning to the Bill, like every previous speaker I welcome it. Even the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, despite his qualification, welcomed it. I welcome it because it disposes of and discards the tattered veil of secrecy which, for many years, has failed completely to conceal the existence of the fact that we do have intelligence services. I welcome the fact that it will place these services on a statutory basis. From now onwards they will be publicly acknowledged. I hope that this will lead to a more satisfactory career structure for their members, but what I chiefly appreciate is the diminution in the field of secrecy.
1060
There was one minor point of drafting mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which appeals to me. In Clause 1, the Bill states that there will continue to be a Secret Intelligence Service but thereafter it refers to that service as the "Intelligence Service" and not as the "Secret Intelligence Service". Henceforth the service is not secret although its operations and many of its resources and personnel still require the protection of absolute secrecy. I hope that that protection will continue to be provided by the Official Secrets Act.
I welcome the simplicity of the language used in the Bill to describe the functions of the two services, of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister. It is a very welcome development to see these hitherto shadowy subjects dealt with with quite exemplary clarity. The Bill does not set out the consequences of the grant of statutory status to the two services. In his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did make a fairly brief reference to the future budget of the two organisations. I accept that there will be a continuing need for economy with the truth in that budget, but I hope that it will eventually mean that both Parliament and the public will have at least a general idea of the scale of the two organisations. That will show the place which they occupy within the general field of expenditure. I hope that that scale will be commensurate with the importance of the work that they do as their contribution to our security.
When I first read the Bill, I wondered whether I would come to the conclusion that it undermined the security of the operations of the services. I think that it does not. The protection for their operations, resources and personnel is provided by the Official Secrets Act and that is in no way undermined. The Bill introduces new measures of review and oversight, but they contain provisions to safeguard both the security of operations and other sensitive information. I regard those provisions as adequate, and not merely desirable but essential.
The powers granted by the Bill to the Secretary of State to issue warrants and authorisations are formidable. They could be abused, but the exercise of those powers will in future be subject to review by the commissioner. The functions and powers of the commissioner for the two services will be similar, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his introduction, to the powers of the existing commissioner for the Security Service. It seems that the work of the commissioner for the Security Service has been very satisfactory.
The Bill imposes on every member of the Security Service, on every member of GCHQ and on every official in the department of the Secretary of State the duty to disclose to the commissioner such documents or information as the commissioner may require for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his functions. I take it that that means that the Secretary of State cannot lawfully instruct officials to withhold any information from the commissioner. The commissioner has to report annually to the Prime Minister, but nothing in the Bill seems to prevent him from reporting more frequently to the Prime Minister should the need arise. The Prime Minister is required to lay a copy of the annual reports

1061
before each House of Parliament but if, after consultation with the. commissioner, he thinks—I shall follow the wording of the Bill—
"that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Intelligence Service or, as the case may be, GCHQ, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before … Parliament".
That provision may not commend itself to those who advocate open government or the establishment of direct parliamentary oversight over the two intelligence services, but some people find it hard to keep secrets, and powers to withhold sensitive information are in my opinion not merely prudent and desirable but essential.
There is another new body, the Intelligence and Security Committee, consisting of six members, each of whom has to be a Member of either this House or the House of Commons, and none of whom is to be a Minister of the Crown. The function of the committee will be to examine—the word is "examine", not "control"—the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service, the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. The absence of the word "operations" from the list of things to be examined is, I imagine, intentional and significant. That point has already been mentioned in the debate.
Whereas the commissioner can demand from officials the disclosure of any information that he may require for the discharge of his functions, the supply of information to the committee can be restricted. Arrangements for the supply of information to the committee are to be made by the Secretary of State, who thereby has control over that supply. The directors of the two services can themselves decide to withhold sensitive information from the committee, although the Secretary of State has an overriding power to decide whether a given piece of information shall be disclosed or withheld, but the functions of the Secretary of State are subject to review by the commissioner.
The Bill also lays down that the Secretary of State shall not withhold information unless he is satisfied that he would be willing to withhold it from a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I think that that is a very satisfactory safeguard of the parliamentary interest, given the overriding need for the absolute protection of the security of certain aspects of the work of the two security services. Here again, the provisions for the restriction of information to the committee may not commend themselves to those who advocate freedom of information or greater parliamentary oversight, but they do commend themselves to me.
Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I think that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the need for greater openness and the need to protect operations, resources, personnel and sensitive information. I support the Bill.
6.6 p.m
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I welcome the Bill as a sensible move towards statutory recognition of the existence of the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. When I was in the Navy, I had from time to time responsibility for matters connected with GCHQ and am therefore aware of the great importance to the nation of
1062
a continuance of secrecy in the details of all that GCHQ does. I am particularly concerned that the new processes preserve that secrecy and with due thought I believe that, properly handled, the new processes will do that. However, there is a very strong accent on the words "properly handled". There is no reason to suppose that they will he improperly handled, but one hopes that that will be borne in mind by all those concerned.
I take note of the words of caution of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whose views I much respect. I particularly took his point that the more that one decreases one's Armed Forces of the Crown—and I think that that is very regrettable for quite different reasons—the more important it is that this country's Intelligence Service—whether GCHQ or other means —is improved rather than reduced. To that extent, I trust that the exercise of those processes leads to that point being properly borne in mind.
My main contribution to this debate, therefore, is to ask your Lordships to accept the Bill mainly as it stands. I noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said and looked carefully to see whether the worries that he seemed to have about the Bill were really justified. I would suggest to him that they are not. No doubt my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to point some of them out. I do not think that the Bill needs much in the way of amendment. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, thoughtfully and carefully made just the right points about the distance that this Bill goes in the direction that it seeks to go without potentially harming the vital need for secrecy in these areas.
Let us pass the Bill as quickly as may be so that the new machinery can be tested in practice. We should not waste time trying to alter the Bill in detail to deal with imaginary failings which in any case are probably best not dealt with at this stage. In due course we shall discover whether the apparatus that the Bill sets up works. If it does, all well and good. If it does not, we can move on another stage and amend it further. Let. us not try to spoil what I believe to be a good and carefully crafted Bill designed to meet the needs of a service which is important to this country. I trust that all noble Lords will fully support the Bill.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in welcoming the Bill, it was my intention to suggest some improvements to it, but my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, have said most of what I would have said about the need to improve the Bill. Instead of going on about that, because the suggestions came from sources more authoritative than me, I propose to say just a word on a subject seldom heard in these debates; that is, surveillance.
We have heard from one or two speakers who have been concerned with the intelligence services, and know something of what it is like to be at that end of the matter. The House probably has little appreciation of what it is like to be on the receiving end. I have experience of that. It is a peculiar and unsettling experience. It began in Burma when there was a dispute

1063
within the Government as to whether the forces returning to Burma at the end of the war, led by Aung San, should be recognised or whether the old hands should return. Mountbatten supported Aung San while the old hands supported the return of the people who had been in charge before the war.
Towards the end of the war in Burma I was seconded from the RAF to Civil Affairs (Burma). I became head of English programmes at Rangoon Radio. In that capacity, I invited Aung San, who was then regarded as a communist acolyte, to broadcast his point of view. There were one or two other similar incidents, but it was not until I returned to this country that I realised what would be the consequences. When I went to Petty France to obtain a passport, I could not get one. So I sat in at Petty France until I persuaded the people there to give me a passport. I wanted to visit Czechoslovakia to see what was going on there. I was given a passport which said that I could go anywhere in the world except anywhere within the British Empire. It was evidently thought that I would set about dismantling the whole thing and so must be prevented from going. I was allowed to come back to England. There was no trouble about that.
I went to see Chris Mayhew, who at that time was a junior Minister in the Foreign Office. I told him about my passport. A few days later I received an apologetic letter which read as though some minor administrative error had occurred. The intelligence services do not give up easily. When I became involved later with the CND I soon discovered that they were on my track again, but I cannot be sure whether it was MI5 or MI6. My telephone was being intercepted. My flat in Putney was eventually burgled. Nothing was taken, but papers and documents were spread all over the place. When I read Wright's memoirs I realised what had been going on. It can be an awful nuisance. In my case the outcome was perhaps not unhappy, although it may have been for your Lordships, because I finished up in this House.
On my return, having been broadcasting in Burma, I tried to join the BBC. I was accepted, but a curtain came down after a while. I tried another department. I was accepted again. The curtain came down when I filled out the application form. So I gave up being a broadcaster and decided to become a trade union official. I drifted into politics and eventually finished up in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have MI5 or MI6 to thank, or blame, for my presence here.
I have said all that to show that there is another side to this curious story. There is not always a happy end, although it was happy for me. It means many innocent people (for example, those in the CND) have been put under surveillance. There is the mysterious death of Hilda Murrell. It is not known how that occurred. She was a keen anti-nuclear person. She gave evidence at inquiries considering such issues. She was also a famous rose grower. She was a quiet country lady. She was murdered. No one knows how. The police have never been able to discover. But that she was also under surveillance is clear.
One thing that I should like to see put in the Bill is a provision to ensure that the secret services are
1064
precluded from employing the services of private investigators. If it is true, as many people believe, that Hilda Murrell was killed, she was killed by agents of a private investigator employed by the secret services and not by the secret services themselves.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I feel that I must make it clear that none of the intelligence services ever kills people or is authorised to kill people. That is a complete misapprehension. I cannot let it pass.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I understand the position of the noble Baroness in this matter. It is the one that she would of course take up.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness is sincere. Her position is understood. If I were in her position, I should be saying the same thing, and I should believe it. It is believed that on this occasion the secret services employed a private detective agency to carry out the surveillance, and that Hilda Murrell was murdered by accident. It is believed that they went into the house; that she discovered them there; that a struggle took place; and that the body was transferred elsewhere. That is the end of the story. The police of course are completely baffled, and I believe genuinely baffled about what happened.
I do not for a moment suggest that the secret services themselves do such things. That is why I say that the Bill should make it necessary for them to do their own dirty work in the future. They should not farm it out to irresponsible private investigators. There is no control over private investigators in this country. We should have another Bill bringing private investigators under effective control.
I have spoken about the other side of the coin because it is important that someone should speak for those who are put under surveillance. The secret service is a necessary part of this country's defence. The work it does abroad is appreciated by us all. It is necessary, and it will have to continue. But when they start searching for the enemy within, the "nutters" become in charge. The fact that they tried to pin down the Prime Minister of this country demonstrates the lengths to which they will go. Some of those people lose touch with reality. The main purpose of the legislation is to ensure that in future reality controls. If there are any people, or organisations, who have in the past been careless in their actions, and as a result accidents have taken place, the Bill will do a great deal to ensure that such accidents do not occur in the future.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the Bill was presented to the House by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, as an uncontentious piece of legislation following the example of the 1989 Act on the Security Service. All the same, the introduction of a Bill on the intelligence service is an historic event. Intelligence operations may be as old as warfare or diplomacy; but this is the first time in the history of our parliament that a Bill relating to intelligence operations has been

1065
considered. It is therefore appropriate to offer some brief, general remarks about the proposals. Like other noble Lords, I wish to make it clear that although I have seen many reports from such sources and have acted on them, I have never been engaged on their production.
My first comment relates to the limited nature of the Bill. Its procedures appear to be sensible; but they do not indicate the way in which the secret Intelligence Service fits into the government machine. There is nothing particularly secret about the general scheme, because earlier this year the Government published a paper entitled Central Intelligence Machinery, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord. It explains in broad terms the arrangements for ministerial oversight. A cardinal element in our system is the clear line** that has been drawn between the collection of intelligence and its appraisal. That has always been an important principle for us in this country, and we have always clearly distinguished between those two functions: information gathering and assessment. Surely that is the right way for us to proceed.
However, we must note that that is not the way in which some countries have operated. More particularly, it is not the way in which the two superpowers managed their affairs throughout the whole of the Cold War. In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency is definitely in the appraisal business. Some might even say that it is in competition with the National Security Council. In the former Soviet Union, the KGB was—and for all I know still is—much involved in the execution of foreign policy. It frequently had—I speak in the past—its agents in the ordinary departments of state and its chief sitting alongside the Foreign Minister in the Politburo. Thus, there were in effect two senior Ministers engaged in the execution of foreign policy. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, will correct me if I am wrong in saying that at one time the chief of the KGB was a member of the Politburo, and the Foreign Minister was not.
The general point which I seek to make is that the way in which an intelligence service operates within the government of a country is of central importance. Indeed, I suggest that it is rather more important than some of the matters dealt with in the Bill. Neither the American nor the Russian system would be at all appropriate for us, nor indeed would they be tolerable in our parliamentary democracy. The detail of our administrative arrangements is not defined by law, and I see no particular reason why it needs to be. But the arrangements are central to the future of the secret Intelligence Service and of the British system of Cabinet government. It is for that reason that I mention the broader issue, which is not addressed directly in the Bill. I have a strong belief that the principle should be adhered to in the future.
The second general matter which concerns me, and it arises from the terms of the Bill, is an issue of jurisdiction. The Bill properly seeks to define the limits of activities which might not be legal when conducted by a private citizen and to subject them to control by the Secretary of State, to scrutiny by a tribunal and to oversight by a parliamentary committee. However, a potential problem exists in the case of an organisation
1066
such as the secret Intelligence Service, which is based within our jurisdiction but which operates mainly abroad. It is not clear to me what may happen if an operation carried out by the SIS in a foreign country is uncovered and gives rise to controversy there. That has happened in the past, and it might happen in the future. The operation complained of might be illegal in the country where it took place. In such circumstances, a foreign government would have recourse directly to our own if they chose to do so. I see nothing in the Bill which will prevent an aggrieved party from making use of the domestic British machinery to be established by the Bill in order to pursue the complaint. I can see difficulties ahead if that were to happen. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell the House whether he believes that chain of events to be possible or whether I have misread the Bill.
There are several minor but interesting points in the Bill to which I wish to refer more briefly. First, the phrase "the British Islands" appears in the Bill in several places. I believe that it is the intention to include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well as the United Kingdom. I have it on good authority that, legally speaking, the phrase "the British Islands" includes Northern Ireland following a definition contained in a 1978 Act of Parliament. But as we all know, whatever the constitutional law may provide, the Irish regard the word "Britain" as excluding both parts of their island. Hence we use the unwieldy expression "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and have done so since we were saddled with it in 1922.
I find the use of the phrase "the British Islands" to be potentially confusing. I suggest that clarification is required either by repeating on the face of the Bill the definition given in the 1978 Act; or by inserting an appropriate reference to it; or, perhaps less satisfactory, in the form of a statement relating to the meaning of the phrase made during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. That is not a matter of legal pedantry and I am not a lawyer but I believe that it is most important to avoid any possible misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase in Ireland. That would be most undesirable for reasons which do not need elaboration.
Secondly, Clause 2(3) (a) refers to the Public Records Act 1958. It appears that the records of the Intelligence Service will normally be deposited in the Public Record Office after the usual lapse of 30 years. That is a little surprising and will certainly be a major change in policy. Is that really what the Government intend? Perhaps they intend something else, which might be to reserve a large number of papers or categories of them from deposit in the PRO. If that is their intention, is it right that the 1958 Act is applied? The whole purpose of that Act was to implant in statute law a general obligation for departments of state to deposit the bulk of their departmental records with exclusions only for exceptional items.
My final specific comment relates to the appointment of the parliamentary committee. I too find the idea of a committee of Members of both Houses commendable not least because a number of noble Lords who formerly sat in another place could make a useful contribution to

1067
the work of such a committee. However, I hope that the consultations to be conducted by the Prime Minister with the Leader of the Opposition might be extended to the leaders of other opposition or political parties as appropriate. Perhaps I may observe also that some of my noble friends on the Cross-Benches have valuable experience in that field. If it is intended that the committee might include one or more persons with direct knowledge of those matters, I hope that my noble friends will not be excluded from consideration.
I understand what the Government are seeking to do in this Bill and in principle, I believe that they are right in seeking to place an important official activity on a proper statutory basis. We have a tendency in this country to prefer administrative solutions and long-accepted practices to a correct legal foundation. That is something which often makes me uneasy, and I am glad to see it corrected in this instance.
But I have one lingering doubt that it may sometimes be difficult to define satisfactorily in our law activities which may not be wholly sanctioned by law elsewhere; perhaps one may describe them as para-legal activities. We all know that in some countries the law can be extremely oppressive, and how the two legal systems may fit together is not easy to see. I suggest that legality is not an easy concept in that area when applied across jurisdictions.
Having said that, and apart from that general reservation, I shall support the Bill when it reaches its Committee stage.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too want to say that I welcome the Bill. I am glad that there seems to be an emerging consensus all round the House that the Bill should receive a welcome. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said that this area of activity should be non-party political. We need to reinforce that point.
Your Lordships may ask why I am speaking in the debate. We have had an enormous range of extremely illustrious speakers, many of whom have had direct experience of being Secretaries of State and, therefore, have direct relevant experience. I suppose that I take the role of the proverbial man in the street in the debate.
Following on my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, I was trying to work out whether I had any unknown connections with the intelligence services. The only episode that I could think of happened when I was studying to be an engineer: I did a sandwich course which meant studying for six months at college and then working for six months in industry. The first industrial period that I had was with the Ministry of Defence at the British Arsenal. I must say that I received an extremely good workshop training there.
I then went back to college and was due to go back to the Ministry of Defence for my second industrial period. I went home for the weekend prior to going there and I received a telegram from the college telling me not to go to the Royal Ordnance Factory and to stay at home; and I did. It transpired that my security clearance had not come through.
1068
To this day, I do not know why that was. The only thing that I can remember is that I had a conversation during that week with my little sister. She was going through what I call her Che Guevara phase. Perhaps Your Lordships will remember that there was an urban guerrilla whose face appeared on posters and he became something of a pin-up for young women at the time. My sister was going through that Che Guevara phase and she wanted to be a revolutionary like Che. Being a helpful elder brother, I told her that she would have to go round the country identifying all the Ministry of Defence armaments dumps so that she could break into them to get the weapons she needed to fight the revolution. Needless to say, it sounded rather too much like hard work to her and she never attempted that step on the road to revolution. But I sometimes wonder whether I was being eavesdropped on by the intelligence services and it was for that reason that I never reached the Royal Ordnance Factory. The good result of all that was that I went to Massey Ferguson. I made tractors and I spent 20 very happy years with that company as a result.
There have been some extremely good contributions to the debate. I was particularly taken by the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who suggested some areas of inquiry for the new parliamentary committee which will be set up under the Bill. I was taken also by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, who suggested that there were other areas of secret intelligence work—namely, the military and the Special Branch—whose actions could also do with being involved in the proposed parliamentary oversight.
A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the work of the men and women involved in the secret intelligence services. I should dearly like to join in those tributes. The problem is that I cannot, and I am not sure how any other noble Lord can pay those tributes because, by definition, nobody knows what goes on. The only three people who are effectively privy to any information on that subject are the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister; and there is nobody else who can make a judgment or say anything about it. Everybody else is covered by the Official Secrets Act and, therefore, cannot comment.
I take on board that some people who have worked for the secret services in the past can make broad comments about the way they worked. But the other side of the coin is that we have heard some fairly damaging allegations about the activities of the secret intelligence services. It must be remembered that in virtually every other sphere of public activity, whether it is the health service, the social security system or even the Ministry of Defence, there are channels of information that can inform parliamentarians when it comes to making a judgment about the spending of public money and the actions of public servants. The area about which we are speaking here is perhaps the only area in which parliamentarians, almost by definition, cannot be informed by other channels as to what is going on and whether public money is being well spent.

1069
Therefore, we need to devise special mechanisms to ensure that the money which Parliament votes is spent—and Parliament spends large sums of money on the secret intelligence services—and the actions of the secret intelligence community are performed as Parliament wants them to be. The proposed mechanism in the Bill makes welcome progress but I suspect that it does not go quite far enough as regards the ability to reassure Parliament about what is going on in the secret domain.
I suggest three improvements which we could make. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the idea that the members of the committee should be Privy Counsellors. That is a matter which we should take on board very seriously, and I shall return to it in a few moments.
The second improvement is the need for the committee to report direct to Parliament rather than through the Prime Minister. If the committee has to report through the Prime Minister then, effectively, it is the Prime Minister's report and not the committee's report. Thirdly, the other problem that we are faced with is that the committee will have information given to it only on a restricted basis. I should have thought that it would be possible to find six parliamentarians—that is, three from the other place and three from this House—whom Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary could trust not to divulge sensitive information and put it into the public domain.
Why are we setting up the system and what do we expect it to do? Well, as has been said, it is to ensure that the will of Parliament in terms of spending money and asking for certain activities be undertaken is carried out correctly. One of the questions that I have asked myself, and I shall pose it again this evening, is what will the committee do if a problem arises? That is why I believe that the membership needs to consist of Privy Counsellors. That is an area in which they can exert influence, and I put it no higher than that. We must be prepared for such a possibility, although I hope that the situation will never arise where at some stage in the future those six parliamentarians say to Parliament, "The system is out of control and some action needs to be taken by Parliament to resolve the problem". Given such a situation, that would effectively call into question the position of the Prime Minister. How does one challenge a Prime Minister, unless by way of the men in white coats or grey suits or by informing Parliament as a whole of the situation?
My final point is about the question of finding the right balance. If we go too far in terms of our mechanisms or oversight and if the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the secret intelligence community feel that they are being asked too much too soon, then effectively the whole business will just go underground. Therefore, we must get the balance right so that everyone will feel that they can trust everyone else. I reinforce the point that I made earlier. The whole endeavour must be on a bipartisan basis where everyone on all sides of this House and on both sides of the other place, if I may put it that way,
1070
feels that we have the right mechanism and that we can trust it to enable Parliament to have the oversight that it needs of such secret work.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, the Intelligence Services Bill has been drafted to accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government of being more open about security and intelligence matters, without prejudicing national security, the effectiveness of the security and intelligence services or the safety of their staffs. When scrutinising the Bill, it is those aspects that we should have uppermost in our minds at the same time as ensuring that the Bill will be effective.
The joint intelligence committee is the main instrument for advising on the priorities of intelligence gathering and for assessing its results. It is assisted in those tasks by the functions of four agencies. Those agencies are the Security Service responsible to the Secretary of State at the Home Office; the secret intelligence services and the Government's communications headquarters responsible to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; and the defence intelligence staff responsible to the Secretary of State for Defence. For some years, I worked in one of those agencies; namely, the defence intelligence staff and have been responsible for the production of some reports. I cannot stress enough to your Lordships the vital and essential roles that those four agencies perform in safeguarding the interests of the United Kingdom and our dependent territories.
The severe reductions that have been imposed on the armed services make it even more important that our intelligence and security services provide accurate, timely and carefully-assessed information which must not be hindered by legislation which may not be needed. Risks have been taken with the size of our future defence forces and they have been cut down too much. It would take years to reform and retrain regiments with sophisticated weaponry; it takes 10 to 15 years to research and develop new weapon systems; and it is difficult to find fluent foreign language speakers to man intelligence positions and operations without long notice and long warning times. Without sufficient Armed Forces, and with a smaller defence industrial base, we are even more dependent on high grade, swiftly flowing intelligence unhindered by legislation and bureaucratic regulation, providing the long notice and warning times from which we can build up and expand our Armed Forces, defence industries and other necessary institutions when required.
It is essential that all our agencies are funded and established at the appropriate scale to provide that long warning time. The Bill must not prevent or hinder those agencies from monitoring areas whereby early warning in sufficient time is given of the development of direct or indirect threats to British interests whether political, military or economic. Those areas must be continuously monitored to ensure that Her Majesty's Government can take timely decisions and action to counter any direct or indirect threat to the United Kingdom.
I am not an expert in scrutinising parliamentary Bills, but in this case I believe that one of the most important

1071
aspects—I might even say, the most important aspect—is to ensure that the Intelligence Services Bill does not in any way prejudice our national security; prejudice the effectiveness of the security and intelligence services; or prejudice the safety of the intelligence and security staffs.
With those facts in mind, and at this stage, I should like to comment on three particular aspects which some speakers have already mentioned. First, successful intelligence has, is and will be dependent on secrecy. Although the Bill places the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ on a statutory basis, there should be no prying into their operational activities and Parliament must recognise that fact. Secondly, a strict control must be retained over any press releases and over any investigations into our intelligence and security agencies by the press. Thirdly, there should be no supervision of their activities at home or overseas.
The introduction of a commissioner, who holds or has held high judicial office, will no doubt be welcome as will be the establishment of a tribunal to investigate complaints, as referred to in Clauses 8 and 9 and Schedule 2 to the Bill.
The introduction of an intelligence and security committee, referred to in Clause 10 and Schedule 3, consisting of six members each of whom shall be either a Member from your Lordships' House or from another place, is another welcome step. But here I must sound a word of caution. The committee should be constituted as a special committee, as many speakers have already said, and it should not act or proceed in the same way as a Select Committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee should confine itself to examining the expenditure, administration and policy of those agencies which should be written into the text of Clause 10. Currently, as the Bill is drafted, it only appears on the first page under the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
I have noted that the members of that committee will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor confirm that the members of that committee will be positively vetted to the highest possible level? Consideration should also be given to selecting members for this committee from those in your Lordships' House and in another place who have worked in and have had experience of these particular agencies. Otherwise I believe we could be prejudicing the safety of the intelligence and security staffs, the effectiveness of their services and our own national security.
In conclusion, no legislation in this Bill should be imposed which would prevent Ministers being given timely warnings to enable Her Majesty's Government to take decisions to counter any threats to our economy and political ideals and to enable the Government to expand the Armed Forces and the defence industries in sufficient time to overcome any military threat to our interests. We must ensure that there are no aspects of this Bill which would prejudice the safety of these staffs and the effectiveness of the intelligence and security
1072
services, and that any risks to our national security continue to be eliminated by these highly skilled, dedicated and loyal agencies. I support this Bill as it stands.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am jumping into the gap and will accordingly be brief. Before coming to the Bill itself I wish to say a word or two about the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the reasons why we still need an independent, national secret intelligence service and a GCHQ at all and on the background of that. One of the reasons he gave was that as a member of the UN we had need of such sources of intelligence. Although this is true, the UN Secretariat not only has no way of gathering secret intelligence, but also has no way of gathering ordinary political information on the ground in most countries of the world. We want to be careful that the UN does not become an assemblage of nation states, all at loggerheads with one another, each wielding a secret intelligence service against the others, and the assemblage itself being deprived of all those sources of information.
I turn now to the Bill. Autobiography seems to be in order this evening and therefore I will add that it is just 50 years ago this winter that I gained my first experience of the principles and practice governing the collection, protection and utilisation of secret intelligence. That was in the Navy. I have had one other relevant experience since then which I wish to recount to the House. It occurred five years later when, at the mature age of 25, I put forward a paper suggesting that the degree of loss of security and the degree of public knowledge of one of the three services concerned in this Bill had become such that drastic steps should be taken: it should be divided between a front office, which would remain at the same address but would have no say in the collection of intelligence at all, and a back office, another headquarters elsewhere, which would actively do the work. This suggestion was, not surprisingly, turned down, but on the rather interesting ground that the experienced line officers who were doing the work would not be willing to give it up in order to man the front office and have lunch with politicians.
There was a certain ambiguity of feeling and tension even about this juvenile idea which, it occurs to me, may be relevant to what we are talking about today. The structure proposed by the Bill—partly confirmed and partly proposed anew—is quite substantial. There are the commission and the tribunals, and there are to be annual reports. There is to be the new parliamentary committee. This is rather a notable overt presence on the ground. The parliamentary committee will, of course, have to have a staff which will have to become expert. There will be the at least annual, and perhaps more than annual, coming and going about what is to be cut out of the report when it is handed on from the Prime Minster to the parliamentary committee. All these are potential leak points.
One can draw as sharp a distinction as one likes between knowledge, on the one hand, of finance and administration, and on the other hand of operations and

1073
targets. However, I notice—I draw attention to this—the presence of the word "policy" among those things which are to be surveyed by the parliamentary committee. Perhaps we should return to the word "policy" when we are discussing the relevant clause, and determine what the Government mean by it and what other members of the committee think it might mean.
I have a certain fear based on the American experience. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, wisely reminded us of the history of the CIA. He gave the impression that, apart from a brief experiment which was soon cancelled—the "rush for openness"—everything had worked satisfactorily. I do not think it would be a good plan if the secret services of this country were to occupy the same place in the limelight as the CIA has come to occupy in the United States. Both before the dash for openness and after it, the CIA has often appeared as a kind of alternative state department. It is almost always known when the State Department and the CIA differ, and the CIA's reasons for differing, which are freely published and discussed, are often good. On the other hand, they are sometimes not as good as the State Department's reasons for advocating what it is advocating.
Throughout this new structure which we are about to set up we have to maintain an absolute distinction between policy making and policy advising in foreign affairs, on the one hand, and, on the other, the collection of intelligence, whether secret or not, and of overt information, which can support that policy making. I believe we have all noticed at different times in the United States that the difficulties between state and the CIA have become such that the Defense Intelligence Agency has occasionally been wheeled out as a possible tertium quid to hold the balance. Sometimes a President has realised that that would merely be substituting the conflict between two with a conflict among three, which would make things even worse than they had been before. The result, I submit, is that United States policy has for the past 40 years been harmed by this duality. It has caused backbiting at home and uncertainty abroad.
This is a government Bill, and I take it as a sign that the Government wish to have the help, the safeguard and the candid observation of Parliament in their work on these difficult matters. For that reason I, along with everyone else, support the Bill. I do not know whether any of my worries can be translated into meaningful amendments. That will perhaps not be possible, but I am glad to have them on the record in supporting the Bill.
6.58 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the large measure of support which this Bill has received from all quarters of the House and from noble Lords with many different backgrounds of experience in relation to the operation of these services and the results of that operation. I have the feeling that many of the matters that have been dealt with in the course of the speeches of your Lordships in this debate are primarily matters to be dealt with in Committee. Therefore I do not propose to examine them all in tremendous detail. However, I intend to mention some of them.
1074
First, the Government are, of course, conscious of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressed. I was saying at the outset that we have taken some considerable time to try to get the balance right. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, correctly said that it is not the time that is taken to do that but the result that is important. I of course accept that at once, but I believe that sometimes one is apt to get a better result if one takes a reasonable time to achieve it. I, too, join with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, in congratulating publicly—this is my first opportunity to do so—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on the award to him by Her Majesty of the Order of Merit. I am sure we are all glad that that has happened. I do not imagine that the way in which he was able, as Home Secretary, to change and improve the services for which he was responsible will have been left out of account in the assessment of that merit.
At the outset I should like to mention a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The parliamentary draftsman employs a certain economy of language. Most of us applaud that. I am grateful for the observation that the Bill is written in very plain language. I believe that that is true, and it is a good thing. In the desire for economy the parliamentary draftsman has said that:
"There shall continue to be a Secret Intelligence Service (in this Act referred to as 'the Intelligence Service')."
That is an ordinary statutory technique for saving a word. It is not intended to suggest by the use of that parliamentary draftsman's technique that the Intelligence Service is no longer to be regarded as secret. The whole machinery of the Bill is intended to secure, on the one hand, reasonable accountability and, on the other, secrecy:
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked for an assurance that the Bill would not damage the intelligence services or endanger operations or individuals. My noble friend Lord Vivian made the same point. Our intention is to seek to protect those as far as possible. The size of the committee has some relevance. On the whole the more people who are involved the greater the risk. It is wise to have a small committee of people of high calibre.
I am referring to Clause 1. I am trying to go through the points which have been raised in the order of the clauses. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the "British Islands" and the desire not to incommode any of our friends in any part of the world who might misunderstand that phrase. Again the parliamentary draftsman has used the well-known technique of adopting a phrase which is interpreted in the Interpretation Act. According to the Interpretation Act, the "British Islands" comprise the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Therefore, anyone who wishes to enlighten someone who has questions about that matter can do so with confidence.
I turn now to Clause 2(3) (a) and the Public Record Office. Naturally I have the greatest interest in the Public Record Office, because the Lord Chancellor is the Minister primarily charged with responsibility for

1075
that body. The purpose of the provision is solely to enable the services to place their records, if and when appropriate, in the Public Record Office. If they were precluded entirely from giving away any information, the obligation at some time to send records to the Public Record Office in accordance with the rules would be overridden. That is the purpose of Clause 2(3) (a). It is not intended to change the overall position in relation to the Public Record Office which I have explained in other debates about its work.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was anxious about the obligation to report on GCHQ, if I understood him correctly. My understanding is that under the terms of the Bill the director of GCHQ has the same requirement to report to the Prime Minister as the director of the SIS.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. My point was that the report on the security services goes to the Prime Minister and then to Parliament. The report from GCHQ goes to the Prime Minister and stops there.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation is that the commissioner has the duty to report to the Secretary of State in respect of his functions in connection with all the agencies. I shall have to look at the point precisely, but I do not believe that it is intended to make any distinction between the two. I shall look to see whether the words of the Bill operate entirely as we would wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, asked about the possibility of examining the justification for the continued scale of GCHQ and the scope of its operations. He appeared to regard that as a possible subject for the new committee. I believe that it is a subject which would be worthy of the attention of such a committee when it is set up.
I now come to another aspect of GCHQ which figured in more than one of your Lordships' speeches—namely, the question of unions at GCHQ. Following the parallel of the 1989 Act, the Bill does not cover matters such as conditions of service, nor would it be appropriate for the Bill to do so. In 1984 the Government set out their objectives for GCHQ and the basis for their decision. Those objectives remain in force. The primary objective set out by the then Foreign Secretary was to ensure that staff at GCHQ would not in future be subject to the kind of pressures which had deliberately been put on them in the past—namely, pressure to engage in industrial action when involved in work affecting national security.
There was no question at any stage of doubt about the loyalty of individuals. However, being organised on a union basis, they were subject to pressure to engage in industrial action. Obviously GCHQ is an important part of the structure of government. Your Lordships will remember that the decision followed a period of severe industrial disruption at GCHQ between 1979 and 1981, when some 10,000 staff days were lost. GCHQ staff are presently represented by their own staff federation, which I believe is an effective organisation.
The Government do not accept the ILO's criticism. However, they have entered into talks with the Civil
1076
Service unions to explore whether there is scope for allowing them a renewed place in staff representation at GCHQ compatible with the objectives set out by the Government in 1984. Meetings have taken place between the unions and the Cabinet Secretary. Various suggestions have been made from both sides but as yet no agreement has been reached. I understand that those matters are likely to be taken further. Therefore, the points which your Lordships raised on that matter are being taken forward.
In connection with Clause 5, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked whether warrants would be issued ex post facto. My understanding of the drafting is that matters which would be unlawful but for the warrant require the warrant. Accordingly, the warrant would be required in advance in order to ensure that what was being done was in accordance with the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked some questions about the powers of the commissioners. The powers are very much on the lines of those set out in the 1989 Act. I believe that it is reasonable that those powers, which have stood the test of time, should be regarded as appropriate for this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, raised the possibility of people living abroad complaining to the tribunal. The intention is that anyone who has cause for complaint should have an opportunity to go to the tribunal, wherever he or she may live.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked whether the committee might report direct to Parliament. In my submission to your Lordships, the present arrangement for the Prime Minister to see the report and for the report then to be laid before Parliament as a statutory obligation is perfectly satisfactory. It provides the opportunity to make any excisions which may be required in the interests of national security. I do not believe that there is any objection to that from your Lordships. That seems to us to be a convenient and direct means by which all the interests can be served together.
So far as concerns access to information, the Bill is drafted to give the best possible access to information in the circumstances. Your Lordships will see that the committee is enjoying a unique statutory right of access both to the agencies and in its right to report to the Prime Minister at any time on matters relating to the functions of the agencies.
The question of appointment to the committee has been raised. I do not believe that it would be right for me to say more at this stage than that the appointment of members of the committee will obviously be a matter for the Prime Minister under the terms of the Bill after discussion with the Leader of the Opposition. However, that does not necessarily mean that no appointments would be considered other than those put forward by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would wish to take account of the variety of expertise available in both Houses of Parliament and to secure a balanced committee.
There is no requirement in the proposed Bill that those appointed to the committee should have a background in this particular work. It would be a matter,

1077
of course, for the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. However, I should have thought that there might be a lack of wisdom in appointing people who have a background only in such work. Obviously people with a background in that work have a good deal to contribute, as had the noble Baroness, Lady Park, to the debate. On the other hand, people with perhaps a different background—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, described such people as those who might have the qualities for this committee—would have to be considered, whether or not they had a background in such work.
I am. grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, for suggesting various matters that the committee might look into. In addition to what I said about the matter, he illustrated important questions that such a committee could consider without endangering the work of the services, which I believe everyone in your Lordships' House is agreed is vital to the security of our country.
I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth—he has great experience of these matters—and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, welcomed the Bill. As I understood them, they both considered that we had the balance of the Bill about right.
We shall consider the issue of the Secretary of State's powers to prevent information being given to the committee in more detail at Committee stage. My understanding is that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State blanket power. The committee may see all information unless it is sensitive information. However, the Secretary of State may override the head of an agency's decision that information is sensitive and order it to be disclosed. Alternatively, he may refuse its disclosure if it is information which would not be disclosed to a departmental Select Committee. I suggest to your Lordships that those are reasonable standards to apply to the Secretary of State's provisions. I believe that they are tight provisions designed to make any decision to withhold information the exception taken only after careful consideration of the relevant facts. The committee would be selected on such a basis that reasonably full disclosure could be made to it.
Various suggestions have been made about the constitution of the committee. The idea that it might be restricted to Privy Counsellors has been mentioned. I have mentioned already the possibility of minority parties, and so on. I believe that those considerations are best left open in the circumstances of the case. It is rather a small committee. A good deal of judgment will be required to get its constitution right. I believe that the less restriction placed upon my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in making that selection the better. There are great resources available in both Houses of Parliament. They are not absolutely unlimited; but I am sure that, in association with the Leader of the Opposition, my right honourable friend can be trusted to get the matter right.
As I understand the position, the Bill meets the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights. As I said in opening, the decisions have very much supported the adequacy of the legislation we already have in place.
1078
Some noble Lords referred to the operation of similar oversight arrangements in other countries. I believe that to consider that issue without close examination of the whole structure of the security services in the other countries would be of limited value. For example, the role of the CIA is rather different from what we anticipate or have experience of in the Secret Intelligence Service in this country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I believe that we would wish to retain the distinction between the assessment of the information gathered and the gathering of the information itself. We have fitted our scheme to what we require and to the circumstances of our service and the traditions that they have followed.
I believe—I think that it is generally in accordance with your Lordships' views—that, subject to matters that we shall discuss in Committee, the Bill produces a proper balance. It is welcome that the services should be put on a statutory basis. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont —he said that I asked a question and did not answer it—I had sought to do so, perhaps not entirely to his satisfaction. Let me try again. I have brought the Bill forward because I believe that, having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the general situation, it is desirable, in the light of present circumstances, to put the services in question on a statutory foundation with stated, clear lines of accountability and with their powers expressed in clear language in statute. That is a step forward in a developing democracy and I believe that it is wise.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will allow me to correct one matter on his survey of speeches. I did not question the powers of the commissioners. I had intended to pay tribute to their work. The only point I made was about access to information.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is the point with which I sought to deal—the power for commissioners to gain access to information. I entirely support the tributes to the work of the commissioners under the statutes already in place. I believe that they have proved their worth and have given satisfaction to all those who have taken an interest in their work and the standard of their reports. I certainly should like to pay tribute to all those who have served in that capacity in those very onerous offices.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said on a specific case. The noble Lord made, I think, an allegation of involvement by the intelligence services in the death of Mrs. Hilda Murrell. I understood him to say that he was alleging not that the security services had themselves been guilty of any criminal act, but that, according to his information, they had instructed some private investigator who, by accident, killed Mrs. Murrell. I believe that that was the allegation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if to report what is being said is an allegation, yes, it was an ahegation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that was the allegation that the noble Lord made. My understanding is entirely in accordance with what was said by the

1079
Leader of the House in another place on 9th July, 1992. He repeated the categoric assurance that was given by the Minister of State for the Home Office at the end of 1984 as to his belief that the security and intelligence services were not involved in any way in the death of Mrs. Murrell. I can only repeat that statement, and I think it right that I should do so in view of the fact that in the course of this debate the noble Lord repeated the allegation.
As I said, I welcome the support for this Bill that has been very general throughout the House. I believe that the size of attendance is not altogether a measure of the importance of the Bill. The Bill is important and I believe it right that this matter should have been put forward. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have expressed support for that view. Therefore, with confidence, I renew my Motion that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1993
7.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [41st Report from the Joint Committee 1992–93].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House consider the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1993.
This House is not unfamiliar with draft orders of this type which seek to increase the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session. Since 1968, when provision was made in the Administration of Justice Act to the effect that increases in the number of judges should be made by Order in Council, there have been five such orders, the last in 1991.
The reason for this present order can, I think, be put very simply. Without an increase in the judicial strength of the supreme courts, they will not have sufficient judges in 1994 to deal with all their commitments.
There is, first, the commitment to deal expeditiously with appeals, both criminal and civil. These have increased very substantially in recent years and three appeal courts are now sitting on virtually a continuous basis, thereby requiring a total of nine judges. Secondly, there is the requirement to deal with first instance criminal business. Projections based on cases which have already entered the system indicate that no fewer than 12 judges will be required through much of 1994 to deal with first instance criminal business. Thirdly, there is first instance civil business which requires to be dealt with expeditiously if the interests of the private individuals and public companies are to be protected.
In recent years, the workload of the supreme courts has increased at an annual rate of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. That has placed a very considerable strain on the supreme courts and has generated the need for the present order.
Over the past decade, legislative provision has been introduced in order to provide some supplementation to the judicial resources of the supreme courts. Under the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 retired judges may from time to time be recalled to sit on the bench until they have reached the age of 75. Over the past eight years, retired judges have made an important contribution to the work of the supreme courts but there are, now, only two who are eligible to serve in this way.
The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 made provision for the appointment of temporary judges to the supreme courts. There are at present eight temporary judges in office. Of these, two are practising members of the Faculty of Advocates and six are full-time sheriffs, whose experience in the handling of criminal business is especially useful in the High Court of Justiciary.
The allocation of temporary judges to courts and to cases, is a matter entirely and properly for the Lord President. I am advised that his policy is to use temporary judges only where that is necessary to make good a temporary shortfall due to absence in the existing complement of full-time judges, or in other exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.
It is clear, I believe, that temporary judges are making an important contribution to the work of the supreme courts and have helped to maintain the efficiency with which the business of those courts is conducted. It is worth reminding your Lordships that it was a distinguished member of the Bench of the Court of Session in Scotland, Lord Maxwell, who first proposed that the use of such temporary judges should be available to the court.
There have been a number of changes in practice and procedures over recent years which have improved the efficiency of the courts and brought about some relief of the pressure on them. I should like to refer to only one. A report to the Lord President on the handling of commercial causes in the Court of Session has been completed very recently by a working group under the chairmanship of Lord Coulsfield. I understand that the working party has recommended certain changes relating to the procedures applying to commercial causes in the Court of Session. I am advised that the Lord President considers that, if implemented, the proposed changes would serve to improve the quality of service provided to all those conducting business in Scotland and that these could usefully be incorporated in the Rules of Court.
An important part of the recommendations is that organisational changes should be made in order to ensure that the commercial judges are available whenever required for this work. The present draft order will, if approved, be particularly useful in facilitating the provision of any additional judicial resources which may be required to secure these much needed improvements in the services provided by the Court of Session.
It is, I believe, very much to the credit of the Lord President and the work of all the judges and staff of the supreme courts that in spite of the very heavy increases in workload experienced in recent years the quality of

1081
service provided by the courts has generally been maintained at a high level. Waiting periods for many different types of business have been maintained at or within the optimum intervals recommended by the Maxwell Committee, to which I have referred. It is, however, now abundantly clear that to maintain the efficiency of operations in the supreme courts an additional judge is required immediately, and the present draft order, when approved, will allow that need to be met.
The House will note that the draft order also recognises that a further additional judge may be required in due course. In the light of what I said earlier about workload trends, I trust that the House will agree that it would be only prudent for us to take the present opportunity to create a second additional post. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [41st Report from the Joint Committee 1992–93].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this order is a very short one but it is very important in relation to the administration of justice in Scotland. It is welcomed on this side of your Lordships' House, as it was in another place where a very full debate was held recently. I do not intend to go over all the issues raised in the course of that debate. I agree with the Minister that it is a welcome and positive contribution to the proper administration of justice in Scotland and to the maintenance and continuance of the high quality service to the public in the courts of Scotland.
I have noted with interest the assurance given by the Lord President to the noble and learned Lord about how temporary judges are being used since the inception of that particular post following the passing of the 1990 Act. But I am bound to say that this order comes at a time when there is seen to be an unhealthy increase in the use of temporary judges both in the High Court of Justiciary and in the Court of Session, dealing, first, with criminal matters and, secondly, with civil matters. The increased use of temporary judges gave rise to fears, justified or otherwise, that we were witnessing the establishment of a two-tier system in the administration of justice, particularly in the Supreme Courts but also in the lower courts, with the mixture of the full-time judge and the temporary judge.
The figures recently given to me in answer to questions which I set down some time ago indicated that so far as the use of temporary judges was concerned, they were used on 177 occasions in the year from 1991–92. But rather startlingly that figure rose to 211 in the half year to September of this year. If that trend is continued, temporary judges will have been used on over 400 occasions in either the High Court of Justiciary or the Court of Session. That is an unacceptable use of the device, if I may so call it, of using temporary judges. I pay tribute too to the work done by retired judges. But the very fact that there is such prolific use of temporary judges and the requirement to use retired judges clearly indicate the need to supplement the full-time judges in the supreme courts by an order such as this.
1082
I wish to raise several questions on this occasion. I noted what the Minister said. about the implementation of the provisions of the order. The order itself amends the Court of Session Act by altering the maximum number of judges from 25 to 27. As I understood the Minister's remarks, the prospect for the administration of justice in Scotland is that one appointment will be made fairly shortly once the order is in force and the other will be held in abeyance. I find that a fairly startling proposition, bearing in mind the issues that I raised in relation to the use of temporary judges at this moment. There is a belief—I put it no higher than that—widely circulating within legal circles in Scotland that in fact the grubby hand of the Treasury is involved in this matter; it was the Treasury that said to the administration that it would not sanction the appointment of two new judges at this point and that for Treasury reasons only one early appointment could be made and the appointment of the second judge must be delayed for some time, whenever that may be.
It is no doubt true that, whatever administration is in power, the Treasury will always want to ensure that money is being properly used. On 7th September 1993 the Lord President of the Court of Session, in a powerful address to the Law Society of Scotland, made some serious observations about what is happening in the judicial system in Scotland. I take this opportunity to put on record what he said. Dealing with the professional judiciary in Scotland, he said:
"They are better trained than they ever have been and work harder and with greater efficiency—which is just as well, because there is no doubt that the demands on them have increased markedly in recent years. If I were to be asked, therefore, for my view as to whether the system which I have described is still able to respond effectively to these demands, I would say yes it is—provided it is properly funded. It has been said before, and I shall say it again, that, to underfund the justice system is a dangerous economy".
At a later stage he said that:
"we [the judges] cannot go on providing a service of quality, in the face of the continuing rise in the sheer volume of business in our criminal courts, without a significant additional commitment of public money. More money is needed to ensure not only that the public has access to justice, but also that justice is provided to the best ability of all those who are there to provide it. There is no doubt therefore that we need more full-time judges in the High Court"—
not just one full-time judge, if I may say so—
"unless our ability to provide a proper service to those in need of our services in the civil justice system is to be severely compromised … unless more judges are appointed to enable us to provide the service which is required. The request for more judges has been made by me, and I know that it is being considered carefully. In my judgment it is essential that it should be granted if the quality of both criminal and civil justice in this country is to be maintained".
No doubt the Lord President will interpret his own words as he meant them to be understood. But to myself and perhaps many others that would appear to be a plea from the Lord President not just to appoint one judge when this order goes through but to face up to the realities of the commitments of the judiciary in Scotland and to appoint more judges and not just one. If such an administrative restriction has in effect been made by the Treasury, it goes against the spirit of the order.
If this order is the government response to those observations and the request of the Lord President, particularly in relation to the High Court, and if it is a

1083
measured response, presumably made after consultation with the Lord President, it follows as night follows day that both appointments must be made in the immediate future with minimal delay. It is all very well to build into the system the availability and use of part-time senior judges to whom the Treasury has no permanent salary or pension commitment, but care must be taken to minimise their use to only when necessary and for good reason—the unavailability of full-time judges, for example, through illness or when another full-time judge's case overruns—and not, as it appears to be, as a blatant cost-cutting exercise by the use of a second tier of judges. The word "temporary" must not be allowed to become de facto "permanent" in the administration of justice.
Let me ask these questions. Are the Government satisfied that these appointments—or the appointment, as I understand the Minister—when made will diminish the requirement for the use of temporary judges and keep it to the minimum, rather than have them apparently built into the structure of the administration of justice? Are the Government able to comment on the widely held view of practitioners in the law in Scotland—and indeed some have told me that this has happened—that part-time temporary judges appointed by statute to High Court duty are not allowed by direction to deal with rape or murder cases? That is despite the fact that in terms of the 1990 Act, as well as being temporary judges in the Court of Session, they are in fact holders of the office of Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, with no limitation whatsoever placed upon them in the statute. Therefore they should be of equal status with the full-time judge and be able to deal with any case which comes before them in the High Court of Justiciary.
The sheriffs, who are in the majority, are judges who are well versed in dealing with very serious cases before juries in the sheriff court. It is difficult to see what logic or reason there is behind any such restriction, if in fact it exists. I am told by some practitioners at least that they have experienced a situation in which there has been slack in the take-up of cases in the court which could not be dealt with because the case was either a murder or a rape and the temporary judge who was available was not allowed to deal with it. If such an administrative restriction has been placed upon temporary judges in the exercise of their duties in the High Court—I emphasise "if" because I have no way of confirming it—no doubt those in practice in the law in Scotland would like to know by whom and for what reason such restriction has been placed on them.
The question must be asked, if such a practice is being carried out, whether it occurred with the noble and learned Lord's anticipation of the appointment and use of temporary judges. If such a practice exists, does it not make nonsense of the appointment of temporary judges and create élitism within judicial ranks? Can the Government say on what basis temporary judges are being allocated work?
As I said earlier, I noted what the noble and learned Lord said and what the Lord President indicated. But, with the greatest respect to the Minister and the Lord
1084
President, the facts of the matter seem to suggest that the temporary judges are becoming part of the permanent structure. I cite for example the court list for 20th December 1993, that list having been amended on 6th December 1993. It allocates one temporary judge to High Court duty on circuit along with two full-time judges. That situation was mirrored in the list of judges for a circuit on 13th December 1993, and on 29th November we have the allocation of a full-time judge and a temporary judge to a circuit. All that was done well in advance of the circuit giving notice as to who the judges would be. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if there were so many full-time judges unavailable or ill that it required temporary judges to be allocated to fixed circuits in advance of the event taking place.
In the parliamentary Answer given to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, he said:
"The assignment of Temporary Judges to particular courts and to particular types of case is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government but for the Lord President of the Court of Session".
I accept that. But it is astonishing that the Government are apparently not monitoring the reasons requiring the use of temporary judges—creatures of statute created by this Government.
I am not basically opposed to the order on this side of your Lordships' House. The monitoring could be done on a purely factual basis, without interfering with the necessary independence of the Lord President. When tabulated and analysed, such knowledge would be of immense value in assessing whether the needs of the court system are being fully met on a constitutional basis and not by a cost-cutting Treasury exercise leading to the excessive use of temporary judges. The noble and learned Lord does not need to answer—indeed it is up to him whether he answers at all—but perhaps the Government will undertake to obtain that information, from whatever source, and publish even on a general basis the specific reasons for the use of temporary judges on all occasions on which they were being used and what work was allocated to them.
I understand—and the Minister will know better than I—that there is a permanent requisition in the sheriff court in Glasgow (said to be the busiest court in Europe) for six temporary judges. Is that the case? If so, is it not an appalling situation? I understand also that over 150 temporary sheriffs exist in the system.
Finally, will the Government indicate whether it is proper in principle for a full-time sheriff to be taken away from his sheriffdom and the court to which he was appointed, with the appropriate salary and pension, to sit as a temporary judge in the High Court and the Court of Session when there is work to be done within his own sheriffdom and that work requires the allocation of a temporary judge to the sheriffdom? It seems wrong in principle that that should happen in any case. Perhaps it was not anticipated when the Act was passed. But it leads to a full-time judge serving almost simultaneously in two different levels of judicial authority, and that is not good for the system. In addition, it may cause severe embarrassment.

1085
I am advised that on one occasion a litigant who was first inclined to go to the lower court in his sheriffdom was advised to go to the Court of Session, to the higher court. Had he taken that advice, encountering great expense in instructing Edinburgh solicitors and counsel, he could have walked into the Court of Session to find himself faced with the sheriff that he would have appeared before had he gone to his local court. I do not make up these matters as I go along. They were brought to my attention by practitioners.
The measure is welcome but it does not allay the basic instinct and current rumblings in legal circles that the efficiency of the Scottish legal system is being seriously undermined by the present practices of the whole of the working at judicial level. The Court of Session, the sheriff courts and the High Court require urgent review, with consultation with interested parties, and an analysis of how the work is being done in the courts. That should be made available to the public so that the people for whom the system exists will be satisfied, from the information provided to them and made publicly available, that they either are or are not obtaining value for money.
Apart from those observations, I wish to say nothing further on the matter. I see a look of great relief creeping over the face of the noble and learned Lord.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for at least one comment that he made: that he approved of the order that the Government are introducing this evening in your Lordships' House. I appreciate that he prepared his speech before he knew what I wished to say. However, I would have been grateful if he had paid a little more regard to the answers that he received from my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry on a number of issues that he raised, the answers having already been given to him in a written form. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on them.
I must take up only one matter with the noble Lord; that is, the suggestion of appropriate monitoring of temporary judges by the Government. As the answer to him indicated, the assignment of temporary judges to specific courts and specific types of case is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government. It is a matter for the Lord President of the Court of Session. I should have thought that the noble Lord considered that to be entirely appropriate—that it should not be for the Government to interfere in a direct way in the organisation of judicial business. I thought that that was a position which enjoyed general approval in Scotland.
I have no intention of trying to monitor the performance of the Lord President of the Court of Session in the decisions that he takes to allocate specific temporary judges either to specific courts or specific types of case. Many people would regard that as a quite unwarranted interference in his judicial expression. If the noble Lord wants to obtain such figures which may be appropriate for the purposes of an order such as this, to discover the number of days that temporary judges sit
1086
in Scotland, that information is available. Indeed, it was information provided to the noble Lord in a number of the answers he received recently.
I accept that there has been an increase in the utilisation of temporary judges in Scotland. In part it is for that reason that the order is being introduced this evening. It provides for one judge. As I indicated, he or she will be in post in the very near future. The second one will be introduced as and when the workload of the Court of Session requires it.
As I sought to indicate, the use of temporary judges—which I understood the party opposite agreed in principle was not a bad idea—is to deal with what are difficulties which occur from time to time through illness or unavailability of permanent judges and what are from time to time undoubtedly, as the noble Lord will be aware, surges in business beyond immediate prediction. They have been used and it is right to place on record that those temporary judges who served in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary discharged their duties extremely well. I should not like there to be any aspersion cast on the discharging of those duties.
Clearly there is a requirement of fiscal responsibility in all this. If and when a further judge is required, that judge will be provided. The Lord President is clear that if he provides the necessary information to the Government in terms of workload, his request for a second full-time additional judge to be provided is one that will receive the most careful consideration.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I can make clear that I accepted what was said in the answer given to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. Indeed, I quoted from the answer, which I have before me. But I followed that with the words, "Be that as it may". I accepted that it is entirely correct that the Lord President should decide on the use of temporary judges. However, I then went on to another theme. It goes without saying that I cast no aspersions on the quality of work done by temporary judges and never intended so to do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Limit) (Scotland) Regulations 1993
7.50 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the two sets of draft legal aid regulations before us are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. They were approved after a debate in another place on 7th December.
These regulations make legal aid available to two categories of prisoners, in the light of recent

1087
developments in both statute and case law. It may be of assistance to the House if I describe briefly the effect of the regulations.
The first category of prisoners who will benefit from the new arrangements includes discretionary life prisoners as defined in Section 2 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. When a court imposes a life sentence as the maximum penalty for a crime or crimes other than murder, it may under Section 2 of the 1993 Act make an order specifying a period known as the "relevant part", which is in effect a period to be served as punishment for the offence. Once the prisoner has served that period, he is entitled to require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Parole Board. If the board is satisfied that the prisoner no longer needs to be confined for the protection of the public, it is empowered to direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence.
For the purpose of such referrals, the Parole Board will take the form of a tribunal appointed by its chairman and itself chaired by a judge. That is in accordance with the Parole Board (Scotland) Rules 1993 which, like the relevant provisions of the Act, came into force on 1st October. Under these rules, the proceedings of such a tribunal will be akin to those of a court. Among other things, the prisoner will be entitled to be present and to be legally represented.
During the passage of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, undertakings were given that prisoners appearing before such tribunals would be entitled to legal representation. These undertakings were implemented by the rules to which I referred, and the regulations before the House today make the necessary provision for legal aid in connection with that representation.
I should perhaps add that the category of prisoners concerned also includes prisoners sentenced before 1st October who have, by virtue of the transitional provisions of the Act, been brought within the scope of the relevant provisions in Section 2 and elsewhere. We expect the first hearings before discretionary lifer tribunals of the Parole Board to be held early in the new year.
The second category who will be entitled to legal aid in future comprises those prisoners who are permitted by the governor to be legally represented at disciplinary hearings before him. Extending legal aid to cover representation at disciplinary proceedings simply aligns the Scottish position with the English one.
We have tried to make the provision of legal aid in these cases as simple and straightforward as possible. The form of legal aid provided will be assistance by way of representation—known in shorthand as ABWOR. ABWOR, which is already available for certain other types of case, is an extension of the concept of advice and assistance and can be provided by any solicitor.
ABWOR adds to the standard arrangements for advice and assistance coverage of the costs of legal representation of a person at a court or other hearing—in this case, in front of a Parole Board tribunal or the prison governor.
We expect that ABWOR will be available to all prisoners who have to appear before the hearings in question. They will be subject to the normal means test for advice and assistance, but in the vast majority of cases prisoners will not have significant means of their own.
We are not providing for any test of the merits of their case, since by definition the hearings will be looking at serious issues such as the possible release of life prisoners and it can therefore be taken that the provision of ABWOR is in the interests of justice. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, both sets of regulations are welcomed on this side of the House. I am sure that they will add to the fairness of and ensure fairness in the proceedings and may indeed eliminate unnecessary complaints emanating from the areas within which they will apply. We welcome them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1993
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to the earlier regulations, I also covered these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drift Net Fishing
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to cease North-East drift netting for salmon and sea trout in the United Kingdom, so that the United Kingdom is in conformity with all the other north Atlantic countries.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I should like to thank Dr. William Currie, consultant editor of Salmon, Trout & Sea Trout, and many other North Atlantic salmon experts for much of the material in my speech.
This morning a petition with tens of thousands of signatures was handed in to No. 10 Downing Street requesting that drift netting should cease forthwith. My Lords, 1993 is the cause for celebration over the historic Copenhagen Agreement, negotiated and signed by Orri Vigfusson, founder and chairman of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, and Anthony Sigstad, chairman of KNAPK, the Association of Hunters and Fishermen of Greenland. This agreement virtually closes the Greenland drift-net fishery. Thus, Ireland, England and

1089
Wales are the only remaining countries of the north Atlantic to allow drift-netting round their coasts. It is anticipated that Ireland will shortly cease drift netting entirely, leaving us in the totally invidious position of being the last drift-netting country in the north Atlantic.
Mr. Vigfusson said after signing the Copenhagen Agreement:
"Conservationists around the globe congratulate Greenland for its wise and courageous decision. Greenland has chosen to stand firmly with those nations leading the way towards sensible harvesting of the world's natural resources. And what is more, Greenland's commitment to salmon conservation serves to further isolate those nations which persist in antiquated and irresponsible resource exploitation practices".
Why are we the only offender in this indictment? Why are we in this invidious, increasingly embarrassing position? Thousands of British voices sing Orri Vigfusson's praise; namely, anglers, sporting associations, conservationists, ecologists and, last but not least, the vast local employment agencies in the river catchment areas.
Her Majesty's Government are silent to this historic and positive decision for the future of the salmon. In fact, the Government reveal by their silence that they are seriously compromised by a shameful ongoing anomaly of their own making. Scottish coastal waters have been clear of drift netting since September 1962–31 years ago—as a result of the far-sighted Hunter report, but Her Majesty's Government continue to condone a major drift-netting fishery off the North-East coast of England.
By this retrogressive stance, Britain seems to be fast losing its international credibility as a salmon nation and coming close to bringing the country itself into disrepute. In continuing drift netting, Britain seems to be insisting that wild salmon and sea trout should be harvested at sea, absolutely contrary to the United States, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Greenland and the Faeroes and any other neighbours in NASCO. Why are the present Government blind to the key value of the salmon in rural life, particularly in Scotland, where the economic welfare of thousands of people centres on the return of salmon to their rivers, which the North East drift-net fishery directly intercepts?
In short, there seems to be no economic, ecological, social or political reason for not closing down the North East drift-net fishery, either immediately or within a very short run-down period. Not to follow this course is to fly in the face of reason and good management and to call into doubt the present Government's interpretation of the British national interest. It makes farcical their role in the international community.
Salmon fishing with such nets has been prohibited in almost every country including Scotland. Renegade England remains almost alone in continuing to license this abhorrent method. Up to 1970, using traditional methods, the North-East drift-net industry caught a sustainable 5,000 salmon each year. Following the introduction of the devastating, invisible and non-destructible monofilament nylon nets the figure rose rapidly to an annual average of 50,000 of which 80 per cent. is wild stock bound for Scotland.
Continuing drift netting is a serious threat to the economy of Scotland and indeed to North-East England. Compared to the thousands of jobs dependent on
1090
recreational fishing and the associated tourism, with the scores of millions of pounds brought directly into the economy, the value of the drift-net fishery is minute.
For years anglers and local businesses involved in salmon welfare have made a strong case for the banning of drift netting off English, Welsh and Northern Irish coasts. Salmon migrating back to their home rivers from their ocean feeding areas in the North Atlantic follow certain routes. Those migrating back are heading for their home rivers in Yorkshire, Northumbria and Scotland. On their final hazardous route up the North-East coast of England these fish are in waters under the control of England and it is here that the north east fishery operates. Virtually the whole salmon resource of the North-East of England and the main easterly rivers of Scotland are exposed, vulnerable and intercepted by the north east drift nets, the last legal, large scale fishery of its kind in the whole of the North Atlantic salmon area.
The drift netting of salmon off the coastline and on the high seas is known to be highly efficient, wastefully indiscriminate, outdated, exploitive and out of line with all current ecological and resource management thinking. The North-East drift nets mismanage the resource, seriously deplete the stocks of the endangered and important fish returning to spawn in their home rivers and then threaten the economic viability of many rural communities and put thousands of local jobs at risk.
I should add that that is aside from the indiscriminate carnage of the by-catch wreaked on all other forms of native marine and bird life, from the fragile puffin to the larger mammals which become entangled and also the thousands of non-targeted fish species.
North East drift net fishery is no longer a traditional form of regional employment which should be preserved. A recent report showed that there are 181 netting licences issued by the north east water authorities between the Humber and the Tweed. Prior to 1959 there were about 90 netting licences in the Northumberland Water area. In the early 1970s this escalated to an average of 156. Due to the new nylon monofilament nets which made drift netting more deadly, the average declared catch was raised from 120 fish per licence to 336. Thus, in the early 1970s, the specific north east fishery was transformed in nature and extent. A recent report (1989) accurately states that,
"Neither the method of fishing nor the number of fish now caught in the Fishery can be referred to in any way as 'traditional"'.
So, what is the total North East drift net fishery catch and how many additional fish and other forms of wildlife are damaged by the drift nets? The average annual catch of the Yorkshire and Northumberland net operators over the past 20 years is declared as 58,000 salmon and grilse and 50,000 large sea trout, averaging four pounds or more. To this must be added a percentage of fish unaccounted and unrecorded catches for which there is good circumstantial evidence—add, say, 30 per cent.
There are also fish killed in the nets by seals not included in the catch numbers and for them add, say, 20 per cent. In addition, some fish escape but are damaged

1091
by the drift nets. A high proportion of these fish die due to infection, disease and disablement. Salmon show an estimated 35 per cent. escape rate from the nets, but subsequently they have a 75 per cent. mortality rate. The average year's total is 109,330 salmon and grilse plus 81,000 sea trout. Thus a total of 190,330 salmon, grilse and large sea trout are lost through the operation of the North-East interceptory fishery.
What are the economics of the North-East drift net fishery compared with the rod fishers? There is an income to the regional water authorities from net fishing licences and from rod licences at current rates. The figures in 1987 for the net catches for salmon, grilse and sea trout total 63,409 while those for the rod total 4,508. The disparity in these figures is obvious. In 1988 the gross drift netting income was about £355,000. The total estimated expenditure on sporting salmon angling in Scotland in 1982 was around £50 million. That is based on the Tourism and Recreation Research Unit Report from the Scottish Office. Applying average retail prices index factors from 1982 to 1993, that would now be about £87 million.
If the North-East drift net fishery was closed completely, there might be a net loss of 40 to 50 full time equivalent jobs. Perhaps genuinely displaced netsmen could receive some form of compensation and this could be provided from government sources without loss to the Exchequer since the cost would be more than recovered from additional VAT on the local community's revenues, including hotel bookings and associated local industry.
In Scotland alone, direct and tourist-related employment generated and funded by salmon and sea trout angling has been independently assessed as providing 5,000 full-time jobs. Do we want to see a situation where we create another wave of what are now euphemistically called "jobseekers"?
Over the years, anglers, sporting associations, research bodies such as the Salmon and Trout Association and the Atlantic Salmon Trust have presented the case against drift netting to DAFS and MAFF. A major presentation of evidence was made on behalf of salmon and sea trout anglers in the North of England and eastern Scotland under the provisions of Section 30 of the Salmon Act 1986. The presentation was compiled in 1989 by AGAINST (Action Group Against Interceptory Netting of Salmon and Sea Trout) and was circulated to your Lordships and to Members in another place.
The case against drift nets was presented to the then Minister, my right honourable friend John Selwyn Gummer. As I have already mentioned, this morning a very large petition has been compiled with tens of thousands of signatures protesting against the continuance of the North-East drift net fishery. Questions relating to the fishery have been asked in both Houses of Parliament. Many articles have appeared in the angling and general press; papers have been given at conferences and in general a high level of activity creating widespread concern has been maintained.
In late 1992, my right honourable friend John Selwyn Gummer, the then Minister, announced that the
1092
orth-East drift net fishery would be phased out over 30 years by simply allowing the existing licences to lapse. That was greeted with dismay and disbelief by the angling public, by conservationists and by many local industries. It was generally believed that the natural wastage relied on by this net limitation order would only reduce the number of licences by 50 over 10 years and that the urgent goal of immediately protecting the salmon from this last remaining, exploitive, interceptory fishery would not be achieved.
In this hopelessly inadequate order, Her Majesty's Government not only missed an important opportunity to rectify a dreadful anomaly and relieve the nation's ecological disgrace, but showed themselves to be unconcerned that the United Kingdom is now the last major exploiter of the Atlantic salmon resource which all other countries have now accepted must not be harvested at sea. At this point I feel that it is appropriate to pose the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, in his speech at the Salmon & Trout Association (Scotland) annual lunch in October this year:
"Once Orri Vigfusson has sorted out Ireland, and dealt with some international hooligans on the high seas working under flags of convenience, will the Whitehall Department and the NRA be shamed into civilised behaviour or will they be sufficiently unprincipled and parochial to leave it to an Icelander to buy out their drift netting licences?".
The Government seem to suggest in their attitude that it is not in the national interest for this country to support salmon conservation as do all the other countries of the north Atlantic salmon community. This is a sad and disgraceful state of affairs if it is true and, if it is not, the Government owe the British angling public and the whole community of salmon nations of the North Atlantic an immediate statement clarifying the United Kingdom's position on conservation generally.
Happily, the Minister has changed in MAFF and we understand that a high-level delegation representing angling and salmon conservation interests in the United Kingdom met the new Minister early in November and re-presented a strong case for the review of the North East drift-net fishery, among other major issues. Anglers, conservationists and the local tourist industries, therefore, call on the Government to remove this most serious and embarrassing problem forthwith.
That government policy makes no environmental sense is perhaps not so surprising, but it is remarkable that it makes no economic sense, either.
No doubt my noble friend when he replies will say that scientific evidence shows an adequate spawning level and also that rod catches have in some instances increased. But, so-called scientific evidence means nothing as it does not tell one anything about the returning adult fish numbers. The evidence is the substantially reduced lettings on prime rivers. The increased rod catch is in the backend of the season, after the removal of the stake nets! Therefore, commercial netting equals high exploitation and low value; rod fishing equals low exploitation and high value.
My right honourable friend Mr. Gummer has now gone on to other matters and we welcome my right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard in his stead. Will she be a good shepherd and look after the welfare of the stock in her care? Or will she continue the disastrous

1093
and inexplicable policy of her predecessor? Will she come to the rescue of the salmon, or will she stand aside and watch with indifference the ultimate destruction of this precious, unique, vulnerable and valuable natural resource?
8.12 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley for introducing this subject this evening. In supporting him, I must declare an interest as a Tweed riparian owner. On the Tweed, we are concerned about the scarcity of fish—a scarcity which is partly caused by the North-East drift netting and which we share with other rivers on the East coast of Scotland. We look back on the better years when the river system was stocked with fish running through the system at all times, and we hope for a recovery.
There are various factors which have contributed to this deterioration: increasing fishing at sea; the Hoovering of the sea bed; and the advent of salmon disease have all added to the decline. So it would be wrong to blame the dearth of salmon in our river entirely on the drift nets.
As my noble friend has pointed out, as a result of the North-East drift netting, some 190,000 salmon and sea trout —a very sizeable quantity of fish—are being lost from migrating shoals of fish heading for the Tweed and other East coast rivers. We, for our part, are doing our best to increase the breeding stock by helping to buy out Faroese and Greenland netting stations; by improving the breeding habitats in our small tributaries; by removing obstacles and by improving fish passes in our upper reaches. We should like to see this work complemented by the offer of protection of our salmon on their way through the shallow waters off our coast. It is within the power of the Government to provide that protection—and I would ask my noble friend the Minister to convey to his department our hopes that steps will be taken to provide it. The urgency is not only because of the damage to fish stocks, but also because of the threat to our economy North of the Border.
Whereas the value of the income to our hotels and shops and to the gillies who look after our visitors to Scottish rivers is in the region of £87.5 million, the value of income to the North East fisheries is less than half a million pounds.
During the course of the debates on the Salmon Bill in 1986, there was a possibility of including a clause to ban drift netting. Because of advice from several Members of another place from constituencies South of the Border that to do so would endanger jobs in the North-East of England at a time of high unemployment, the proposal was jettisoned. It was also felt that to do so would be to favour the privileged landowners in a way which would cause resentment. The privilege of owning fishing on the River Tweed is great; but I would submit to your Lordships that the arguments on which the decision were based are no longer valid.
The number of jobs which would be lost through banning drift netting would be the equivalent of 40 to 50 full-time jobs. This is an equivalent number because of the part-time nature of the job. The number of individuals involved would be larger. The point is that
1094
being part-time, they would not be deprived of a full-time livelihood. In the Border country, there is a risk of damaging the structure of rural employment at a time when the traditional concerns of agriculture and textiles are at a low ebb.
I would ask my noble friend the Minister for a clear statement that the Government will revise their intention to phase out drift netting over a long period and that they will follow Scotland's lead and join forces with the rest of Europe to eliminate drift netting now. In the present situation, the incomes of hotels, shops, tackle shops and of the estates which pay the wages of boatmen are at risk. The income to the Tweed Commission from the revenues from our few remaining river nets where our men are being paid off is at risk. That means less; money available to pay for the cost of river management. It is on behalf of the Tweed Commission, to which I belong, that I urge the Government to listen to my noble friend Lord Kimberley's good plea this evening.
8.17 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Haig, I too am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has put salmon on our debating menu tonight. It gives us all a chance to review the position and to make the Government aware of what should be being done to maintain and improve this enormously valuable natural resource.
But I do not want to go as far as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in holding out wonderful vistas of many more fish on your line and in holding out wonderful vistas of surging employment in the rural areas of Scotland because I fear that it probably will not follow even if we are successful. We have to be realistic about these things.
I think that it is quite wrong to get too excited about drift netting or any other form of poaching or predation upon the salmon species; but it is equally wrong to ignore it. What has gone wrong with the drift nets off the North East coast of England is that an old, traditional method of fishing has been perverted, one can only say, by the people who have exploited it. They have increased the size and the length of their nets and the length of time at which they are fishing. They have double-crewed boats. They have done all sorts of wrong things to over-increase the efficiency of their operation. This is the same sort of thing that happens in the white fish industry and in almost any other predatory industry that brings us food to our table.
I support the plea made by both noble Earls to stop that fishery, but I should hate to think that we would go on from there to attack the coastal netsmen in the hope of having ever increasing returns of salmon to our rivers. The facts show that that would not happen. One has only to look at the Dee to see what happened when the nets were bought off at the mouth of that river. The result was that the spring catches on the Dee fell considerably. I believe that about six small grilse, on average, were caught for 10 years after the nets were taken off. That provides a poor return for the cost of taking off a traditional fishery from the mouth of the river.

1095
What is happening now? Because there is no one at the bottom of the river watching and defending the stock, we are getting seals miles up the river attacking nothing but trout, sea trout and salmon. If we kill off our coastal netsmen, we shall be exposing our rivers to other dangers. Coastal netsmen are controllable by controlling their means of netting, and by the closed times of fishing. They are observable. In Scotland, they contribute to the running of the river. They contribute money to the district fishery boards to look after the river.
If the nets are taken off, a great deal of watching for animal and human predators at the mouth of the river will be lost, as will the contribution the nets used to make to the coffers of the district fishery boards. I should hate to think that in supporting the plea made to the Government by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to take a firm line about monofilament drift netting in the North Sea, off the coast of Northumberland, we were in some way starting an insidious attack upon the traditional coastal netsmen. It is most important that we do not do that.
One way of dealing with drift netting in the North Sea would be to offer fixed nets to the traditional netsmen to get them to give up this indiscriminate method of fishing on the high sea and to come ashore and harvest the fish near the mouths of the rivers that produce them. This is a resource which we have exploited for thousands of years. Our rivers were formed only 9,000 or 10,000 years ago, when the ice melted off the country. It was not until the rivers were formed that the salmon came here, having presumably originated in Panoceana, as the Pacific was then called. They then rapidly colonised the rivers because there were no predators, no diseases and no competition from other species. Man quickly began to prey upon them. In olden days, one of the ways man preyed upon the salmon was with a fish spear when they were spawning. There were many ways in which man preyed upon salmon which would appear to be destructive, and yet the salmon species overrode those predations. They returned and continued to swim up and down our rivers.
I agree we can go too far with modern inventions such as the monofilament net. I applaud the wisdom of the Tweed Commissioners in employing scientists to advise them and doing improvement work on the upper reaches of the river where their salmon stocks spawn. If we only did more of that, we would obtain a bigger return. We could then offer people some hope of returning glory to the salmon.
I support the questioner. I wish to know whether the Government will introduce the phasing out of drift netting as quickly as possible, possibly by compensation, possibly by allowing the fishermen to come inshore and to have fixed engines along the coast. I support the noble Earl who asked the Question, but I hope that we shall not go too far and start mounting an attack upon the inshore salmon industry, because it is doing a valuable job. If we damage it, we shall be damaging something that helps the rod fisheries.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, when I listen to the noble Viscount, I always feel that his contributions to these debates are made almost with one hand tied behind his back, because of the effective and substantial sweep net fishery that he operates in the mouth of the Thurso River. In introducing the debate, my noble friend Lord Kimberley used the words, "unaccounted and unrecorded". As one who has picked up some 900 yards of illegal drift net off the north coast of Scotland, I can assure him that it is the most wasteful and murderous way of fishing. It uses a monofilament gill net. From practical experience, I estimate that 30 per cent. of the fish killed in those nets are never harvested. The nets are, as my noble friend said, wasteful and destructive. What is worse, they are in no way related to the proper management of any run of fish returning to its river of origin.
Noble Lords will remember Lord Hunter's report, in which it was made clear that the harvesting of fish in any river should be related to the fish that are running that river. What happens, especially in a drought year, as noble Lords are aware, is that the salmon run around the north coast of Scotland and down the east coast in concentric circles. They go all the way around the north coast and down the north-east coast. The bulk of the fish try to return to their river of origin. But in periods of drought when the flow of the river is not encouraging the fish carry on down the coast. The urge to reproduce yourself and find a spawning ground is so great that you go on hoping that you can find a more hospitable place, until you reach Northumberland, where, if you are not caught in a drift net, you turn around and proceed up the coast of Scotland again.
So the drift net fishery, operated under licence granted by the Northumberland River Authority and the Yorkshire River Authority, is set at a lethal point of the salmon's journey around our coast. I believe that the noble Viscount will agree that in his nets, and in the nets that I used to run, we caught a great deal of fish from other rivers. One can recognise a Dee fish. I believe that we used also to catch some of the noble Viscount's fish, as they reached us first. There is no question but that fish of other rivers go around the coast and wash in and out on the tide in the other estuaries as they go by.
We want to look carefully at the dramatic fall in the Scottish catch by rod and line, because it is not caused just by the drift net fisheries. Other factors have been mentioned. We must be realistic about predation on salmon stocks. The last time rod and line salmon fishing was any good was in 1964 before the arrival of UDM. At that point the grey seal population around the coast of Scotland was limited to 24,000. That is plenty of them. Today, the Sea Mammal Research Unit at Cambridge has published its latest report. It estimates—of course the number is counted by helicopter and so it is pretty inaccurate—that there are now 86,000 grey seals around the Scottish coast. The population has multiplied four times. Worse still, new breeding colonies are being established. Applications by the district fishery boards for a cull of grey seals are always hindered by the report of the Nature Conservancy

1097
Council on the analysis of seal droppings. That was taken at haul-out time—that is, when the seals haul out to breed. The droppings which were collected on the shore showed a high percentage of sand eel remains.
The only accurate evidence that we have of the damage which grey seals cause to salmon was produced in 1973 by the marine research unit at Aberdeen. Grey seals were shot and collected at sea and it was found that 80 per cent. of their stomach contents was made up of salmon. Seals shot at the nets do not give an accurate account because as they try to escape from the nets they empty their bowels.
Drift nets and grey seals are a major problem for the salmon stocks. When one adds to that the damage done by avian predation, it is clear that something must be done about the cormorants and shags. There is no need to protect cormorants and shags. If they come inland above the high water mark they should be shot. They are exploiting the spawning grounds and causing an enormous amount of harm to our salmon population. Action must be taken on all three fronts. Above all, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, we must urge the Government to speed up the phasing out of the drift-net fisheries which are licensed by the two water authorities in England.
8.31 p.m.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Kimberley on raising the issue and giving your Lordships the opportunity to debate again the subject of drift netting of the north-east coast. I say "again" because the serious problems of the north-east drift net fisheries were well debated in November 1992. There was then a unanimous view across your Lordships' House that drift netting for salmon was an activity that should no longer be continued in this country and that it should be abolished as soon as possible.
Sadly, my noble friend the Minister was unable to share that view or to offer any tangible hope of a change in the Government's position. As was said by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, since that date the situation internationally has changed considerably with the signing of the Copenhagen agreement, which virtually closes the Greenland net fishery. I wish to quote from an article which appeared in a recent issue of the magazine Salmon, Trout and Sea Trout. It stated:
"As a result of these changes Ireland and the UK are seen to be the only remaining governments in the Atlantic salmon areas still allowing drift netting around their coasts. Ireland has just announced a new policy to cease drift netting entirely, which leaves Britain in the invidious position of being potentially the last drift netting nation in the Atlantic Salmon World".
Is it really the Government's intention to be isolated internationally among all the salmon producing countries?
Before continuing, I must declare an interest as a Tweed riparian owner, a Tweed Commissioner and a trustee of the Tweed Foundation. Much has been made of the number of jobs involved. But, as a member of a Government responsible for employment across the United Kingdom, I find it difficult to understand how the Minister can justify protecting the interests of 160 part-time jobs in north-east England while 5,000 jobs
1098
are at risk in Scotland. Most are in upland areas where the sporting interests are invaluable to the community as a whole.
I wish to take up a matter raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. He believed that there was unlikely to be a large increase in the number returning to our rivers if the drift nets ceased to exist. In last year's debate I quoted figures from the netting stations still in existence on the Tweed. The drift nets cease to operate on 31st August and our nets cease on 14th September. During the past five years the average increase in the net catch in the September fortnight as opposed to the previous fortnight in August was 66 per cent. That is an ample example of the increased number of fish that suddenly arrive in the mouth of the Tweed following the cessation of the drift net fisheries. One must accept the likelihood that there would be an increased number in the river, which would in their turn be caught. As commissioners, we strongly support the netting presence on the Tweed. I understand entirely what the noble Viscount said but it is important that each river should have its own netting presence and be able to harvest the fish at source.
I have one question to ask the Minister and I await his reply with interest. Does he see the wild salmon primarily as a food resource or as a sporting resource? The only justification for the Government's present position on drift netting must be that they see the wild salmon as a food resource. Why else would they continue to sanction the removal from the seas of an average of 58,000 salmon and grilse, not to mention 50,000 large sea trout, simply for the value of their flesh? If on the other hand the Minister sees the salmon primarily as a sporting resource, why does he allow the netsmen to continue almost unabated with a token phase-out of the nets over a 30-year period? In all likelihood they will still be catching 50,000 salmon in 15 years' time.
During the previous debate the Minister regularly fell back on the argument that:
"in the absence of any evidence that the drift net fisheries pose a threat to stocks … there can be no justification for the Government taking action beyond that which has already been proposed".—[Official Report, 5/11/92; col. 1592.]
That stems from the almost dogmatic stance taken by the Government that salmon net fishing can be reviewed only if there is a threat to salmon stocks. That is supported by the terms of the review set out in Section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986.
In this day and age, that is arrant nonsense. It is an example of totally outdated thinking. If the Minister is prepared to admit that the Government see the wild salmon primarily as a sporting resource and not as a food resource, there can be no justification for the continued existence of the north-east drift net fishery because the removal of in excess of 50,000 salmon from the system will undoubtedly affect the angling sporting prospects of most east coast rivers. It will not necessarily affect the number of salmon returning to spawn, but that is not the issue.
Will the Government therefore be prepared to extend the breadth and scope of their thinking on salmon to consider the damaging effect of drift net fisheries on the sporting and angling exploitation of salmon and the

1099
value of such to the community at large in Scotland? Will they not concern themselves only with the limited problem of providing sufficient salmon returning to spawn? A ban on monofilament nets would be the simplest answer and I hope that the Government will give close and immediate consideration to that. I strongly support the points made by my noble friend Lord Kimberley and I await the Government's response.
8.38 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, when the subject was last debated in your Lordships' House I was present but chose not to speak. However, after careful consideration of that debate I realised there were comments that I should have liked to have made. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimberley for providing me with an opportunity to do so tonight.
I should inform your Lordships that I am an employee of the National Rivers Authority. Although that is the body responsible for managing the North-East drift-net fishery, I have no direct involvement in that fishery and the views that I shall express are entirely my own.
The subject of drift netting is not new to me. Before joining the National Rivers Authority, I spent the first nine years of my career as a fisheries biologist working for the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland. Part of that organisation's work was to gauge the extent of the exploitation by the Irish drift-net fishery and its effect on a specific salmon stock.
Today my duties as a fisheries manager in the NRA's North-West region include the regulation of a small drift-net fishery for salmon in the Ribble Estuary. I hope that I can apply that varied experience to make a positive and balanced contribution to this evening's debate.
As my noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe reminded us, a major feature of the previous debate was the unanimous view of noble Lords who spoke that an immediate, or much more imminent, closure of the fishery was required. Several arguments were put forward to justify that need. A number of noble Lords expressed the view that any form of interceptory drift-net fishery was wrong in principle and an anachronism. Are not all netting methods interceptory? Why should drift netting be singled out among all the other techniques used to catch salmon? Drift netting does not have to over-exploit salmon so long as it is effectively regulated and deployed in a location where single stocks predominate. For example, there are salmon drift-net fisheries operating within estuaries which are strictly controlled in terms of fishing effort, design and location and whose catches can often be less than those made by rods further upstream in the river.
Drift nets become a problem only when they are used to exploit mixed stocks or where they over-exploit all or certain components of the stock. Perhaps it is important to bear in mind that many other forms of netting are quite capable of causing those same problems.
In the case of the North-East drift-net fishery, both the Government and the NRA have accepted that mixed stocks are exploited and that, because of that, the
1100
fisheries should be phased out. That will aid and improve the management of individual stocks of East coast salmon and sea-trout rivers. However, in their reports neither the Government nor the NRA have accepted that the fishery can be shown to be over-exploiting stocks. But that was not a view shared by many noble Lords in the previous debate. Indeed, over-exploitation of stocks was one of the major arguments put forward for bringing the North-East drift-net fishery to a close. However, that argument is simply not supported by the available evidence as presented by the Government in their report Salmon Net Fisheries. The NRA has also assessed that and other data and concurs with the Government's conclusion that there is no immediate threat to stocks.
Rod catches of salmon and sea-trout in those rivers affected by the North-East drift-net fishery have generally been maintained, although it is accepted that increased angling effort and decreased netting in certain catchments will have contributed to that. MAFF, the Scottish Office and NRA scientists agree that there is no evidence of insufficient spawning escapements in Scottish rivers affected by the fishery, although the NRA believes that there is some scope for increased spawning escapements in certain English rivers.
Thus, given the current evidence on the status of stocks, at least on stock conservation grounds there is no clear case for the immediate closure of the fishery. However, I was reassured by the statement made on behalf of the Government by my noble friend Lord Howe during the last debate:
"If it becomes clear that further action is required in order to conserve stocks, we shall not hesitate to take it". —[Official Report, 5/11/92; col. 1595.]
It is not only damage to fish stocks which is commonly cited as a reason to ban drift netting but also the alleged damage it causes to other forms of wildlife. A number of noble Lords have referred to that.
Salmon drift nets have been portrayed, quite inaccurately, as having the same deleterious impact on wildlife as the oceanic drift nets used to catch tuna. There are of course significant differences such as the size of the net used and how they are fished. For example, while I believe that oceanic drift nets of up to 50 kilometres have been deployed, the maximum length of salmon drift net permitted in the North-East coast fishery is 550 metres in Northumbria and 370 metres in Yorkshire.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Appendix 1 of the NRA's published response to the Government's report, Salmon Net Fisheries. That assesses the impact of the North-East drift-net fishery on birds, cetaceans and seals and concludes that there is no current evidence that it is having a major adverse effect.
Of all the arguments put forward for the speedier closure of this fishery, it is that relating to economics which initially appears to be most convincing. A large number of studies have been carried out to assess the relative economic values of rod and net fisheries. It has been argued that rod-caught salmon are worth many times more than net-caught salmon and that the removal of the net fisheries would bring significant economic benefits to rod fisheries and those employed by them.

1101
The most recent report, published in 1991 and entitled Economic evaluations of salmon fisheries in Great Britain, was produced by Radford and Hatcher of Portsmouth Polytechnic. In their study it was pointed out that many of the earlier assessments were based upon anglers' expenditure and its impacts and that those estimates of gross expenditure are not a recognised measure of economic value.
Radford and Hatcher's study was based upon economic value and concluded that, for Great Britain as a whole, the recreational fishery is more valuable that the commercial fishery but they said:
"This does not constitute the case for a change in the current balance".
They go on to say:
"In order to make a judgement about the most valuable balance between the two sectors in the exploitation of a particular salmon stock, the effects of a change in the catches of one sector on the catches in the other sector would need to be confidently predicted. Our appreciation of the biological literature suggests that this would be difficult".
This is, indeed, a complex matter. The subject was reviewed in the government report Salmon Net Fisheries and their conclusion was that:
"Reductions in net fishing therefore lead to relatively small direct increases in the rod catch … the 'extra' fish make a larger contribution to the spawning stock assuming they survive".
When the North-East drift-net fishery ceases, it cannot be assumed that all the fish presently caught by the net fishery will necessarily become available to the rod fishery. Increased losses from other net fisheries, predators and poachers should be expected. Furthermore, rods will exploit only a small proportion, probably around 10 per cent., of the total stock, and there is increasing evidence that when more fish are present, a smaller proportion are caught.
Nor is it certain that increased stocks of fish will definitely result in more anglers providing greater revenue and increased employment. In their report the Government examined the number of rod licences issued in the Northumbria region during the period 1983–88. Despite a threefold increase in rod catches, the data suggested that there had been little, if any, increase in the number of anglers fishing Northumbrian rivers.
The economic changes brought about by the reduction and eventual closure of the drift net fishery remain to be seen. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I am not convinced that the economic benefits, which some confidently predict, will match up to expectations.
However, economic considerations cannot be divorced from social factors, as a number of noble Lords have stressed this evening with reference to those employed by recreational fisheries north of the Border. However, that applies equally to commercial fishermen in the North East. There is a widely held view, including that of the Northumberland County Council, that salmon netting is an integral part of the local industry and makes a vital contribution to the income of many fishermen on the coast. Furthermore, under the provision of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, the NRA does not have any powers to seek a reduction in netting effort in order to increase the share of the catch taken by anglers. The authority's present
1102
powers to regulate licensed commercial fishing are limited to the conservation of the resource and/or to improve the management of individual stocks.
Within that legal framework, and in the absence of any evidence that stocks are threatened, the NRA appears to have taken the only course of action open to it; namely, to phase out the drift net fishery in the interests of better stock management over a time-scale which allows all existing net fishermen to continue in the fishery until retirement.
8.50 p.m.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, I should like to interject at this point in support of the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, and voice the considerable alarm of people on the Scottish borders to what is happening on the River Tweed. We have rapidly falling numbers of salmon migrating up the River Tweed and, indeed, a diminishing size in those fish. Sometimes, we are catching fish of no more than two or three pounds in weight. That seems to be directly attributable to monofilament netting.
This year, the autumn run of salmon came early, before the nets were lifted at the end of the season. That resulted in most of the fish that were due to come up the Tweed falling into the hands of the drift netsmen. Indeed, so few fish have been caught this autumn that the practice of returning hen fish to the river has lately been augmented. That is on a voluntary basis among the more sporting of the angling community.
The Scottish Borders employ directly or indirectly a large number of people to look after the visiting anglers, be they ghillies, boatsmen, hoteliers or shopkeepers. In Scotland as a whole, as my noble friend pointed out, some £87 million is involved in the salmon fishing industry. That is not an inconsiderable amount of money by anyone's standards.
Research by the Tweed Commission into the spawning habits of the salmon and improvements to salmon spawning beds imposes a considerable financial burden which will have little point if the salmon cease to run in the river in viable quantities. The disheartened angler will take his trade elsewhere, no doubt to the Kola Peninsula in Russia, where there is ample untapped fishing and rumours of 80-pound fish being caught this season. Who can blame them?
It is my estimation that within five years or so anglers who are asked to pay large amounts for the privilege of standing on a cold bank of the River Tweed casting into pools devoid of life will jack it in. Government must act now while the time and opportunity to stop drift netting exist. They must stop it now.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for tabling tonight's Question and for enabling us to take part in a most interesting debate on a topic which is obviously of great importance to the drift-net fishermen in the North East and to others with a considerable riparian interest, especially in Scotland.
Perhaps I may start with the MAFF report of October 1991 to which reference has already been made. It said

1103
that spawning escapement was satisfactory; that catches of salmon and sea-trout in the area were generally satisfactory; that a reduction in net fishing would not lead to an increase in spawning escapement if that is already adequate; and that the primary cause of any problems was not the net fisheries. Then, with no apparent reason for the decision, towards the end of the report the ministry said:
"This review has not produced evidence of an immediate threat to stocks and thus any justification for depriving existing licencees of their licences at a stroke. It would, however, aid and improve the management of individual east coast salmon and sea trout stocks if the drift-net fishery were to come to an end. We consider therefore that it is desirable to phase out the drift net fishery, but gradually so as not to cause unnecessary hardship".
I must say that when I read it I was puzzled, as indeed was the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which was obviously disappointed. I can understand that frustration. It seemed that MAFF had ignored the scientific evidence in its own report. Perhaps the Minister can give us the reason for that in his reply.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, said in his excellent speech, in its report of August of this year the NRA said that it had no plans for a further phase-out of drift-net fishing. The authority also said that there was no evidence of that fishing having a major impact on marine mammals and birds. When I read that, I had to compare it with the words of the petition, which says that such nets,
"kill, mutilate, entangle and squeeze the life out of virtually every living thing in their path".
I presume that the petition is referring to industrial drift-net fishing and not the small-scale coastal interceptory netting about which we are talking this evening, especially as it refers to the 18-foot 2-tonne basking shark. I am not quite sure how many of those are to be found in Northumbria.
There was also a letter from Mr. David Curry dated 9th February this year to Mr. John Greenway, the Member of Parliament for Ryedale, in which he made it clear that, in the absence of evidence that the net fisheries posed a threat to stocks, there is no justification for the Government to speed up the phase-out. The letter also included a curious suggestion that somehow the buy-out of the drift-net licences should be privatised. I must admit that such aspects of privatisation had not occurred to me. If it is to be a private sector initiative, as suggested in Mr. Curry's letter, presumably that could be done without the approval of the Government or the NRA. If that is the case, I wonder what it would do for fisheries' management.
It is clear from the debate that there is a considerable division of views between those who wish to see an end to the drift-netting and the fishermen who make their living from the practice. When he replies, can the Minister explain the Government's position where opinion is so divided? Does the Minister still hold the view as expressed only a year ago when he repeated the words in the MAFF report:
"Your Lordships may recall that the review did not produce any evidence that these drift-net fisheries posed an immediate threat to salmon stock, or for that reason any justification for depriving existing netsmen of their licences at a stroke".—[Official Report, 5/11/92; col. 1590.]
1104
Is that still the Government's position? Further, are they still relying on the legal argument that if it is not possible to prove that drift-net fishing poses a threat to stocks, then compensation will have to be paid if licences are revoked?
A year ago the Minister pointed out that ending drift-net fishing would result in an average increase in rod catches from the Scottish east coast rivers of less than 7 per cent. Does that mean that the figures which have been quoted for job creation resulting from an expansion in rod fishing are perhaps a trifle overstated? I am genuinely puzzled on that point which was also referred to by the noble Viscounts, Lord Thurso and Lord Mills.
I have already referred to the conflict of evidence between the NRA report of August 1993 and the statement in the petition regarding the effect of drift-netting on wildlife. There is a further confusion in that the petition clearly refers to,
"every Conservation, Environment and responsible Fishery Body,"
supporting the petition.
I am sure that Members opposite will be aware of the letter from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is the partner in the UK of BirdLife International. I am referring to a letter to Mr. Vanya Hackel of 2nd December, just a few weeks ago, in connection with the petition. It made the RSPB's position on drift netting completely clear. It said:
"The RSPB is opposed to large scale drift netting, now banned by the United Nations. High seas drift netting for salmon has been highly damaging to wildlife. However we are not opposed to all drift nets and cannot support a blanket action against this form of fishing".
That does not seem to accord with the remarks in the petition about "every" conservation body being involved.
I should make it clear from these Benches that we are adamantly opposed to large-scale industrial drift-net fishing, but it is clear that the case against small-scale interceptory netting is, to say the least, "not proven". It somehow seemed appropriate to use the Scottish legal terminology when considering the riparian arguments which have been advanced in the debate. Moreover, like the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, I was slightly puzzled by the use of the word "interceptory" as if it were somehow derogatory. Indeed, what else does a rod fisher do but intercept? I imagine that he is more successful on some occasions than on others.
We know that to fish for salmon at sea is illegal and that the salmon which are so caught must be discarded. The point has also been made that there is no use made of drift netting in Scotland. Therefore virtually all the salmon going up river in Scotland are reserved for riparian owners. This has resulted, as we know, in illegal drift net fishing for salmon in Scotland. I am told this occurs on a large scale. The estimated catch is in excess of the reported legal catch in England and Wales. If anglers accept that the drift net fisheries on the north east coast are to be closed, presumably exactly the same will happen there. It has been put to me that the licensed fishermen act in a way as unpaid bailiffs.
Important points have been made regarding employment but there is a knock-on effect on

1105
conservation. Presumably the ending of the drift net fishing would divert the fishing effort to other pressurised stocks—for example cod, lobster, crab and others—with a consequent effect on the inshore fisheries. I believe the argument must be examined in greater depth than it has been in some cases.
As I have said, it is clear that the whole matter is by no means as straightforward as some of the arguments advanced in this debate have suggested. I conclude by asking the Minister when the Government expect the phasing-out process to be completed. Are the Government prepared to consider the question of compensation to expedite this process? Will the Government ban nylon filament gill nets or, if not, what is the Government's view on these nets? I understand they are in widespread use and that a high percentage of the Cornish catch is caught with these nets. Presumably there would be an effect on the white fish stocks if they were banned. I presume it would not be suggested that they should be banned only on the north east coast and nowhere else. This is a complicated matter and I do not believe it is as straightforward as some of the speakers have suggested. Like other noble Lords, I await the Minister's reply with interest.
9.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley and other speakers have reminded us, it is a little over a year since we last debated the subject of drift netting for salmon in this House. On that occasion I reminded your Lordships that the largest of the salmon drift net fisheries in the UK— that operating off the North-East coast of England—had been considered in great detail in a report of a review of salmon net fisheries which the then Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland jointly presented to Parliament in October 1991.
I also explained that the report noted that the review did not produce any evidence that the drift-net fishery posed an immediate threat to stocks and thus any justification for depriving licence holders of their licences at a stroke. It did, however, confirm that the fishery exploits several salmon and sea-trout stocks; and that the dependence of the fishery on this multiplicity of stocks made the task of conservation and management more difficult. The report recognised that a substantial proportion of the fish caught are heading for Scottish rivers.
The report concluded that it would aid and improve the management of individual stocks if drift netting were to come to an end. It was for this reason that Ministers decided that it should be phased out. But they took the view that in order to avoid hardship this should be done gradually by reducing the number of drift-net licences as licence holders left the fishery.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we had apparently ignored the scientific evidence as regards phasing out the fishery. We did not ignore the scientific evidence. As I have said before, the report made it clear that the drift nets intercepted salmon from a number of separate stocks and that made the management of
1106
individual stocks more difficult. It is precisely to improve the management that the drift-net fishery is therefore being phased out. Measures to implement the phase-out on the basis envisaged in the report were introduced by the National Rivers Authority last year and took effect on 22nd January 1993. These place new restrictions on the number of licences that may be issued and prohibit the reallocation of surrendered licences except in extremely limited exceptional circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley has asked when the Government expect the drift-net fishery to come to an end. It will come to an end when the last of those entitled to fish for salmon and sea-trout decides not to renew his licence. When it responded to the recommendations in the Government's report, the NRA estimated that a phase-out on the basis proposed might take 30 years to complete, with licence numbers falling by half in 10 years. This was based on NRA data on historic rates of departure of licence holders from the fishery. My noble friend gave the impression that the Government regarded this period of time as somehow fixed. Noble Lords may recall that during the last debate I emphasised that this was only an estimate, and that factors such as the fall in drift-net catches and the reduction in the value of wild salmon as a result of the increased availability of the farmed variety could result in a much faster rate of decline. This view so far appears to have been borne out by what has happened in the first year of operation of the new licensing system, which has seen licence numbers decline by 12.7 per cent. almost double the rate predicted by the NRA.
It is of course open to those who see a benefit from a faster phase-out to negotiate a private buy-out with the netsmen themselves, as has been done elsewhere. As I explained during the last debate, there is nothing to stop a driftnetsman from accepting payment in return for not renewing his licence. But I would say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as well as to my noble friend, that these are matters for private agreement and private capital and not for British taxpayers.
The arrangement mentioned by my noble friend that has been made by the North Atlantic Salmon Fund to buy out the Greenland drift-net fishery is a case in point. As I understand it, this is a private arrangement under which the Greenland fishermen themselves have agreed not to fish against the 213 tonne quota set by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation for two years in return for cash compensation raised by angling interests. As far as I know, the Greenland authorities have not banned drift netting. Indeed, under the terms of the arrangement a small subsistence fishery will continue. Nor does the arrangement remove Greenland's right to fish for salmon—a right that is recognised by all signatories to the NASCO Convention. The same is true of the Faroes, where the salmon long line fishery has also been bought out by private interests.
It is often said that most other North Atlantic countries prohibit drift netting for salmon. I would not dispute that. Some also impose river specific quotas on recreational fisheries, seasonal and daily bag limits, and catch and release. But I see no reason why any of this must influence the way in which we manage our own

1107
salmon stocks. We have a long history of regulation in the UK. The measures that we have taken reflect local circumstances and needs, as I am sure is the case in other countries. They also recognise the legitimate right of both rod and net fisheries to exploit the resource, and control both, to the extent that is necessary to protect stocks. The restrictions that apply vary from area to area. In England and Wales those on nets may include limits on the number of licences that may be issued, controls on the times when fishing may take place, on the size and design of the nets used and on their method of use.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley said that the Irish Government are planning to prohibit drift netting. In fact, the Irish Government have not made any proposal to end drift-netting for salmon in their territorial waters. They are undertaking a review of their policy on drift-netting. So far as I am aware they have not yet reached a conclusion. However, the Irish Government have made it clear that any change in the balance between commercial and recreational fishing would have to be carried through with great sensitivity, on a gradual basis and with a high degree of consensus.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made a valuable contribution to the debate by injecting a degree of balance. I am grateful to him for that. I note that he suggested offering fixed nets to drift-netsmen to encourage them to give up their drift-net licences. Our report recommended something similar. He may like to note that the net limitation order now in force enables drift-net licenceholders to elect instead for fixed net licences.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mills for the additional balance that he injected into this debate. If I recall correctly, he asked why drift netting should be singled out from other methods of catching salmon and suggested that all netting methods are interceptory. I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in arguing that fishing with rod and line is interceptory. After all, those fish that are caught are, unless released alive, prevented from reaching their spawning grounds, and there is little control over what component of a catchment's stock is taken. Should we ban angling too? What is important is to ensure that exploitation, by whatever method, is controlled and salmon fisheries are effectively regulated.
My noble friend Lord Mills also noted that other forms of netting are capable of exploiting mixed stocks. That needs to be remembered by those who point out that drift netting for salmon has been prohibited in many North Atlantic countries. Even Canada—often held up as a model by those who are critical of the UK's policy—still permits netting. The nets used may not be drift nets, but they still manage to catch salmon which originate in the United States. Norway is another country with a commercial net fishery. Its coastal nets intercept salmon returning to their home rivers in Sweden, Finland and Russia—a fact which is seldom, if ever, acknowledged by those who campaign for an end to interceptory netting in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley mentioned that a substantial petition was delivered to 10 Downing Street
1108
today. I am not clear about what it is that the petition seeks to achieve. The publicity material produced by the organisers proclaims that "drift nets must go!" It talks of the carnage that this method of fishing has wreaked throughout the world's oceans, claiming that the nets:
"kill, mutilate and entangle the life out of virtually every living thing in their path".
It refers to them as "walls of death". That is all good emotive stuff which seeks to capitalise on justifiable concerns about the use of large-scale fisheries with very long drift nets, on the high seas. But I am given to understand that that is not a petition against such drift nets but against drift netting for salmon and sea-trout—a fact that only becomes clear if one reads the wording of the petition itself. Nowhere is any distinction drawn between those two very different types of fishery. Indeed the two have become one in the minds of many. Only the other week a journalist wrote, in the context of the North-East coast salmon drift-net fishery, that drift-net fishing:
"involves stretching a huge net—up to fifty miles long—across the salmon's known routes".
He went on to explain that drift nets:
"can easily annihilate a whole migration, depriving distant rivers of most of their intake of fish".
Let me make one thing absolutely clear: there are no 50-mile long drift nets being used off the North-East coast of England—or indeed anywhere in Community waters. The salmon drift nets operating off the North-East coast are not even five miles long. The maximum permitted length of drift net which may be used to fish for salmon off the coast of Northumbria is 550 metres. Those used off the coast of Yorkshire are even shorter—370 metres. Nor could the nets "easily annihilate a whole migration". There is roughly one licensed drift net for every seven square miles of sea in which they may be used. They can only be fished during a specified period each year—26th March to 31st August in Northumbria and 1st February to 31st August in Yorkshire. They may not be fished at weekends, nor during the night. While the nets themselves may be efficient they are not all-embracing.
I accept that birds and sea mammals may occasionally become entangled in the nets. Our report on salmon net fisheries acknowledges that. But it also points out that drift nets must be attended at all times and notes that the netsmen endeavour to remove alive any bird or mammal that becomes entangled in them. There is no evidence, as far as I am aware, to suggest that such occurrences pose a threat to the survival of any of the species involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether we would ban monofilament netting. Perhaps he was thinking of what has been done in Scotland. The history and regulation of salmon and other fisheries in Scotland and England are quite different. A significant proportion of the whitefish catch landed in England and Wales is caught using gill nets. Their use in English and Welsh waters is already regulated by primary and secondary legislation. In those circumstances, further controls would be difficult to justify and would place undue restrictions on the activities of inshore fishermen.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley suggested that the drift-net fishery accounted for far more fish than was

1109
suggested by catch returns. I am also aware that a recent article suggested that the numbers of salmon and sea-trout killed as a result of the North-East coast nets is 90 per cent. more than the declared catch. That figure is highly speculative. The report on salmon net fisheries acknowledged that in addition to the declared catch some salmon and sea-trout were taken by seals and others died after escaping from the nets. It is estimated that losses for those reasons, together with undeclared catches by licensed netsmen and illegal fishing by unlicensed netsmen, amounted to about 25 per cent. of the declared catch. It should also be borne in mind that total mortality in other fisheries, rod and net, is also likely to be greater than that suggested by catch statistics.
My noble friend Lord Kimball mentioned predation by seals. It is unlikely that predation by seals has a significant effect on salmon stocks. Evidence available from various studies suggests that they are opportunistic feeders, whose feeding habits and ranges vary greatly from individual to individual. It is known that some seals may take salmon in estuaries before they enter rivers to spawn. Seals have also been known to take salmon from nets. However, by far the major part of their diet is made up of marine fish species such as sand eel, Norway pout, tusk and ling.
Drift nets are not of course the only method of fishing that can lead to the death of birds and mammals. Even angling gives rise to casualties. An article earlier this year in one of the magazines devoted to salmon angling drew attention to the perils of monofilament—not monofilament nets but monofilament fishing line. The writer spoke of finding a great crested grebe that had become entangled with a fly fisherman's lost leader; of mallard, teal, shoveller, moorhen, coot, heron, dipper, robin, blackbird and pied wagtail dying because of discarded monofilarnent; of a sheep that needed to be destroyed; and of a horse and cow that needed expensive veterinary treatment. In suggesting a ban on monofilament nets would my noble friend wish to go further? Regrettable as such incidents are, they are not the central issue.
I have already said that our report found no evidence that the North-East coast drift-net fishery poses an immediate threat to salmon stocks. Yet we receive many letters from individuals who are convinced that if drift netting is allowed to continue salmo salar will become extinct. Let us put the drift-net fishery in context. In 1988, the first year in which drift-net catches were separately identified, the reported catch of salmon in the North-East coast drift net fishery was 47,465. We estimate that 80 per cent. of those—say, 38,000—were heading for rivers in east and north-east Scotland. In that year the rod fisheries in those same rivers reported a catch of 39,000 salmon, and the Scottish net fisheries 78,000. In 1992, the last year for which we have complete data, the drift-net proportion of the total catch was smaller still.
However, I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue in Scotland and appreciate the work done by the River Tweed commissioners, district boards and others in their own areas to manage salmon stocks. But I think that even the commissioners would not claim that the
1110
present level of drift netting would lead to the extinction of the salmon. Rather it has an effect on the management of local fisheries. Our report recognised this and it is that effect which we are removing by the gradual phase-out of the drift-net fishery.
I am of course well aware of the importance of recreational salmon fishing to the Scottish economy. But the impact of the North-East coast drift nets on the number of salmon caught in Scotland is far less than some claim. The scientists' review noted that, if all netting off the North-East coast—by fixed nets and drift nets—were to come to an end, the average increase in catches in the commercial net fisheries operating in those Scottish rivers to which most of the salmon in question are returning would be less than 7 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned. The effect on individual rivers will vary. The benefit to southern Scottish rivers such as the Tweed would be greater—an increase of perhaps 14 per cent. in the net catch—but in some of those rivers further north it would be very much less than 7 per cent. Our scientists estimate that the increase in rod catches in Scotland would also be less. It is debatable whether increases of this magnitude would have a significant effect on the number of anglers fishing those rivers or on their expenditure.
There is a general belief among many anglers that the operation of the North-East coast drift-net fishery has in recent years resulted in a significant decline in the number of salmon caught by rod and line in Scottish rivers. But that is not borne out by the catch returns. The rod catch of salmon and grilse recorded in 1992, in those Scottish East and North-East coast rivers to which many of the fish caught by the English North-East coast nets are returning, was 34,592. That figure has been exceeded only three times since 1952—in the years 1963, 1988 and 1989. Even the 1991 catch, which at 30,656 was regarded as exceptionally low, has been exceeded only eight times since 1952. As my noble friend Lord Mills has noted, increased angling effort and a reduction in netting may have contributed to this in some rivers. But if it is the case that catches and effort have increased, then it must surely cast into doubt the assertion that anglers are deserting Scotland in their droves.
My noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe asked whether we regarded wild salmon as a food resource or as a sporting resource. I have to say to my noble friend that he poses a false antithesis. We regard it as both. The ministry is responsible for both commercial and recreational fisheries. We consider the needs of both on their merits and in the light of all prevailing circumstances.
Many of the points made in this House today were made by representatives of salmon angling and conservation organisations when they met my right honourable friend the Minister on 8th November. She listened carefully to what they had to say, but she made it clear that in the light of the findings of the report she could see no scope for changing the basis of the phase-out. She did, however, agree to reflect upon a number of the points made. In doing so, I am sure that she will take into account the views expressed here today. In the meantime, we will continue to follow the

1111
phase-out of the fishery closely, monitoring the state of the stocks, the levels of catches, licence numbers and fishing effort, and looking carefully at the connections between them. And I will repeat the assurance that I and
1112
other Ministers have previously given; that is, if further action is required in order to conserve stocks, we will not hesitate to take it.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.

  EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, 2nd DECEMBER
  EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, 2nd DECEMBER
  RUSSIA: MILITARY DOCTRINE
  RUSSIA: MILITARY DOCTRINE
  RUSSIA: DECEMBER ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM
  RUSSIA: DECEMBER ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM
  RUSSIA: UK SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY
  RUSSIA: UK SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY
  RUSSIA: POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
  RUSSIA: POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
  RUSSIA: PRINCESS OF WALES'S PROPOSED VISIT
  RUSSIA: PRINCESS OF WALES'S PROPOSED VISIT
  RUSSIA: NEW CONSTITUTION
  RUSSIA: NEW CONSTITUTION
  TOBACCO TAX REVENUES AND THE NHS
  TOBACCO TAX REVENUES AND THE NHS
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 2–3 DECEMBER
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 2–3 DECEMBER
  NUCLEAR TEST PARTICIPANTS: MORTALITY CANCER STUDY
  NUCLEAR TEST PARTICIPANTS: MORTALITY CANCER STUDY
  BRIGADE LEVEL FIELD TRAINING AREA
  BRIGADE LEVEL FIELD TRAINING AREA
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD: SAVINGS TARGET
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD: SAVINGS TARGET
  PRISON ACCOMMODATION AND POPULATION STATISTICS
  PRISON ACCOMMODATION AND POPULATION STATISTICS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CUSTODY