Sitting of 1 February 1993

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

    Garden Festival Wales
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Garden Festival Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The national garden festival was an extremely successful event and, despite the adverse weather from July onwards, it succeeded in attracting more than 2 million visitors.
    Mr. Bruce: In congratulating the Welsh Office on its role in promoting the garden festival, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there was a greater benefit to the economy in general, not only through visitors and tourists, but in expanding the economy and demonstrating that the Government are wholly committed to regenerating jobs in south Wales?
    Mr. Jones: On behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations, which are very much due to Philip Weekes and everyone else who worked with and for Garden Festival Wales Ltd. They did an exceptional job,
    2
    as did the local authorities—Blaenau Gwent borough council and Gwent county council. I remember that thousands of people attended on the last day and everyone who went to see the garden festival came away impressed by what can be done in reclamation and by the positive images of Wales that it presented.
    Mr. Llew Smith: While I accept all the remarks about the people who made such an outstanding contribution to the garden festival, and while the Government helped to finance the festival and to bring about those good works, on the other hand the Government have brought about a situation in which basic credit approvals for Blaenau Gwent have been slashed by more than £600,000. Environmental schemes in other parts of the constituency will have to be slashed, so the good work done through the garden festival is being outweighed by bad works in other parts of the borough. Will the Minister meet the local authorities to discuss the fact that the basic credit approvals for Blaenau Gwent are the lowest for any district council in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I am certainly not so pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman. I seem to recollect that the Government provided more than £30 million in support for the garden festival. That was a substantial and worthwhile investment for the local authority to build on. I know that Blaenau Gwent borough council and Gwent county council have formed a partnership with the Welsh Development Agency—the Victoria partnership—which has some interesting plans to take that forward. I look forward to developing the end use of the site.

    Capital Programme
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be in a position to announce the capital programme for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I am pleased to announce that in 1993–94 the planned gross capital expenditure in respect of my Department's

    3
    programmes will total approximately £1,500 million for the first time ever. With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall arrange for details to be printed in the Official Report.
    The information is as follows:

    1. Planned gross capital expenditure for 1993–94 in respect of all programmes within my responsibility totals some £1.5 billion.

    2. The expenditure plans of my Department, including those public expenditure programmes with capital components, will be set out in the Departmental Report to be published in February.

    3. The provision of £1.5 billion covers a range of Welsh Office capital programmes.

    The main components are:

    £ million

    (i) Local authority gross capital expenditure

    620

    (ii) Central government roads and transport

    180

    (iii) Central government health (including NHS Trusts)

    138

    (iv) Housing for Wales

    130

    (v) Welsh Development Agency

    124

    (vi) ERDF grants

    70

    4. Lists of major projects included in the programmes are as follows.

    Major capital projects in progress include:

    Estimated Total Spend £ million>

    Central Government Roads

    A55 Pen-y-Clip Tunnels

    121

    M4 Earlwood—Lonlas

    59

    M4 Briton Ferry—Earlwood

    60

    A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass

    14

    M4/A4042 Brynglas Tunnels/Malpas Road

    69

    A483 Welshpool RR

    16

    M4 Baglan—Briton Ferry

    37

    A55 Aber

    11

    A465 Glynneath—Aberdulais

    84

    M4 Link to 2nd Severn Crossing

    53

    Transport Grant Schemes

    A472 Maesyowmner—Newbridge

    36

    Talbot Green Bypass Extension

    11

    Pontypridd Inner relief road

    35

    Butetown Link

    132

    Hospitals

    Ysbyty Maelor, Wrexham

    20

    Ysbyty Gwynedd II

    9

    Morriston IV

    33

    Torfaen Community

    6

    Arts and Libraries

    Museum development of Cathays Park building

    21

    WDA Land Reclamation Schemes

    Bargoed Colliery and Tips

    11

    Oakdale Colliery and Tips

    8

    Pentre Colliery Tips

    5

    Phurnacite Works, Abercwmboi

    3

    Georgetown Cyfarthfa Tips

    3

    Major capital projects planned to commence in 1993–94 include:

    Estimated Total Spend £ million

    Arts and Libraries

    Provision of third library building

    11

    Central Government Roads

    A4042 Llantarnam By-Pass

    18

    A5 Glyn Bends

    11

    A470 Pentrebach-Cefn Coed

    58

    A483 Llandeilo Eastern By-Pass

    18

    Transport Grant Schemes

    A4048 Tredegar By-Pass

    9

    A4067 Swansea Valley Dualling Stage 1

    16

    Hospitals

    Singleton Theatre/SDU Development

    9

    West Mon Community

    7

    Barry Neighbourhood

    8

    Cardiff Neighbourhood

    7

    Other Environmental Services

    Cardiff Bay Barrage (subject to Parliamentary approval)

    147

    WDA Land Reclamation Schemes

    Maerdy Colliery Tips Phase 2

    2

    Brymbo Steelworks

    10

    Barry Marine

    13

    Mr. Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that represents an 8.5 per cent. increase in spending in the last year? Will not those record figures accelerate the transformation of the Welsh economy that we have seen in the past 13 years, particularly in view of the new industrial projects which I understand are to be announced today?
    Mr. Hunt: I am, indeed, pleased to confirm that seven new industrial projects, involving investment by companies of more than £13 million, the planned creation of 614 new jobs and the safeguarding of more than 260 others are being announced today. That is very good news for Wales and, in particular, for the county of Clwyd. As well as the projects in 1992, my Department has been able to give regional selective assistance to help to create a total of 12,690 jobs in Wales.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that we need a garden festival every week in Wales to recover from the industrial dereliction of the past? The present programme of capital funding is by no means adequate to deal with the problems in the south Wales valleys. When will he give special treatment to the valleys so that they can recover from the situation caused by the decline of heavy industry?
    Mr. Hunt: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman constantly pleads the cause of his part of the valleys, the Rhondda, but I hope that he will recognise that since my predecessor announced the programme for the valleys in 1988 there has been a remarkable transformation of those valleys—[Interruption.] Of course there is much more to be done. That remarkable transformation, which came about as a result of a positive partnership between local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency has resulted in the largest land clearance programme anywhere in Europe and has attracted an enormous amount of

    5
    private sector investment. I hope that from time to time the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to my predecessor for having initiated such a successful programme.
    Dr. Spink: Do the figures given by my right hon. Friend include the second Severn river crossing, and what impact will those excellent figures have on jobs in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: The figures that I have announced today do not include the £300 million project for the second Severn crossing, which is a private-sector-led project. The record level of capital programme in Wales invested by the Welsh Office, combined with the enormous projects such as the second Severn crossing, will involve the biggest capital spend ever seen in Wales. That is good news for Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the capital investment programme is a deliberate strategy aimed at cracking the unemployment problem, particularly the black spots in Gwynedd, Dyfed and the valleys of Glamorgan, where thousands of young people are unemployed and where construction workers are looking for work? There is work to be done on schools, hospitals, housing and roads, but we seem incapable of bringing the two together and cracking the problems.
    Mr. Hunt: Of course, I recognise that parts of Wales need capital investment and I shall do my best in terms of housing, education and the Welsh Development Agency. Where possible, all capital programmes will be directed in the best possible way to secure, among other aims, growth. The Welsh economy is already at the forefront of the economic upturn in the United Kingdom and I am confident that there will be many more job announcements in the coming months and many more job opportunities in Wales. I agree that we need to ensure that we do everything possible to reduce the difficult rise in unemployment throughout Wales, but we must recognise that we in Wales are doing better than the rest of the United Kingdom, Europe and many other parts of the world.

    NHS Units (Allocation of Funds)
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance has been issued by his Department on the way in which finance is to be allocated to NHS units by health authorities in Wales; what assistance he has sought from the Audit Commission in ensuring that this is done fairly and in the best interests of patient care; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Welsh Office guidance to health authorities has rightly concentrated on securing quality health care rather than the allocation of budgets to providers. The Audit Commission's current study will further inform health authorities. I am pleased to announce that I have today agreed the release of an extra £750,000 for health authorities to secure additional hospital treatment before the end of the current financial year.
    Mr. Michael: Is the Minister aware that, even with the additional money provided, there is still capacity in Llandough hospital to deal only with very urgent and emergency operations and that the hospital cannot undertake elective surgery for chest and geriatric patients? Will the Minister undertake an independent investigation into the way in which money is provided—or not provided
    6
    —to the units in South Glamorgan? Will he let us have an objective view of exactly how the finance will be spread among the different units?
    Mr. Jones: What the hon. Gentleman asks for is already in hand. My officials are in touch with the health authority on the question of Llandough hospital. In terms of South Glamorgan more generally, I met the chairman and general manager on Friday afternoon, when they were able to tell me about the progress being made. In the first seven months of this year, more operations were carried out than in the previous year and by the end of this financial year they expect, like the other health authorities in Wales, to have achieved another record throughput.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I put it to my hon. Friend that the most important ingredient in health care is the patient? Does he accept that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that infinitely more patients are being treated in Wales, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, than were ever treated under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Jones: I could not agree more. Let us quantify it: since this Government came to power in 1979, a further 161,000 patients per year have been treated in hospitals, as well as 126,000 more out-patients and 133,000 more day patients. All in all, the health service in Wales is now treating almost 400,000 more patients each year—and the number is increasing all the time.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister help the House by telling us how, after 1 April, he will ensure that the financing of health units in Wales will be able to continue and that enough urgent and non-urgent hospital beds will be in place? He will know that under a Welsh Office circular issued in 1991 elderly people can choose, with their relatives, not to be discharged to private nursing homes and be means tested but to have the entire cost borne by the health authority. Will he provide money for that?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, we have already made money available under both headings. I have been able to announce a further £38 million for social services departments throughout Wales for care in the community and we have already announced that spending on the national health service in Wales will have increased by significantly more than the rate of inflation—by 5.2 per cent., in fact. I look forward confidently to next year's figures showing another record number of patients treated by the health service in Wales.
    Mr. Fabricant rose—[Interruption.] The Opposition may jeer, but my mother was born in Wales and brought up in Aberavon, so I am as Welsh as Welsh Opposition Members—and is not Wales part of the United Kingdom anyway?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that only this morning, in the "Today" programme, evidence was given that more and more people are being treated by national health service trusts? Would he agree that trusts in Wales are showing themselves to be equally as successful as those in England?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right. I am delighted to find a strain of Wales healthily represented in his blood. Our national health service trust in Pembrokeshire is already treating more patients this year than last and I am looking forward to the new health service trusts coming onstream from 1 April this year following suit. One

    7
    obvious factor is the growth in day treatment cases. Since the Government came to power there has been a dramatic 329 per cent. increase in such cases in Welsh hospitals.
    Mr. Morgan: In the light of the figures recently published by the Minister showing that the number of senior bureaucrats in the NHS in Wales has been rising almost as rapidly as the number of English Tory Members coming to Welsh Question Time to ask phoney questions—the numbers have risen from 180-odd to 850-odd—may I ask the Minister how he intends to curb the increasing number of bureaucrats and accountants who are running the NHS in Wales? If he does nothing, in five years' time there will be more accountants than medical consultants working for the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Jones: Clearly, something as important as the NHS in Wales has to be properly managed. There is no point in taking selective figures, often out of context, when what really matters is the number of patients being treated, which continues to increase in Wales. Last year was a record and the current year looks like being a record. Given the above-the-cost-of-living increase in funding that we have provided for the health service, I am confident that next year will be a record as well. That is the important test.

    Flooding
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the local authorities and water companies to discuss the effects on Welsh commerce of repeated flooding in urban centres.
    Mr. David Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, on 4 December I visited Pontypridd and Tredegar to see for myself the difficulties being faced by many people as a result of the flooding. I took the opportunity to meet representatives of the local authorities and the National Rivers Authority.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that for far too long the rivers of industrial south Wales have been treated as little better than open sewers? The sewerage systems serving the communities along the banks of those rivers are mainly of Victorian vintage and in heavy rain they discharge back into the streets causing misery to households and threatening the livelihoods of many of our commercial centres. Will he recognise that rebuilding those sewerage systems and reconstructing the waterways of Wales is a great civil engineering project that the Government should take seriously? It would provide a great focus for jobs in south Wales, help to reinvigorate the heart of our commercial centres, and lift the fear of flooding.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes many points and I shall address the main one—
    Mr. Skinner: Money.
    Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman says, that is money. Since 1979 my Department has grant aided £34 million worth of flood prevention works in Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to Welsh Water for the way in which the quality of our water has improved. Welsh Water's investment programme is now running at £500,000 per day. Of course there is still a need for schemes to be presented. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my
    8
    Department does not have power to carry out the works, but it has power to grant aid schemes. I hope that some imaginative and innovative schemes will be presented so that we may address them from the point of view of grant aid.
    Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the recent problems in Monmouth town. Can he add to what he said on the last occasion and make a statement?
    Mr. Hunt: With regard to investment and the Bellwin rules, authorities incurring expenditure on eligible works have to submit their initial claims by 1 March. Three authorities—Blaenau Gwent, Rhondda and Cynon Valley—have told my Department that they will be able to make eligible claims. I understand that the remaining authorities' expenditure is below the threshold. I am awaiting a further report on the flooding in Monmouth and will obviously look carefully to ensure that such flooding can never happen again.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Bellwin formula applies to spending after flooding and that much misery and hardship could have been avoided if proper preventive measures had been taken in the first place? Will he undertake to carry out a survey of river banks in Wales that are most at risk and ensure that the survey will involve special funding by the Welsh Office to our local authorities and the National Rivers Authority?
    Mr. Hunt: As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), my Department does not have power to carry out the works, but we have the money to grant aid those who have such powers. I have already said that since 1979 the Welsh Office has grant aided £34 million in making sure that those projects can be taken forward. I have been given evidence from within my Department that if those works had not been carried out Wales would have suffered much worse flooding. Of course I am interested in any other schemes to prevent further flooding, especially in certain parts of Wales. The hon. Member for Pontypridd knows what I have said about Pontypridd and I undertake seriously to consider any schemes that are put forward.

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the value of tourism to Wales in 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Figures for 1992 are not yet available, but in 1991, despite a difficult economic climate, the tourism industry showed considerable resilience. There was an estimated increase of 5 per cent. in the number of tourism trips taken in Wales by United Kingdom residents, compared with 1990, while expenditure by domestic tourists remained unchanged at £900 million at current prices. In addition, the Wales tourist board estimates that earnings from overseas tourists in 1991 were about £120 million.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that somewhat cautious answer. Does he agree that there is every reason to think that the figures for 1992 will confirm a similar rising trend for tourism in Wales? Does he further agree that credit for that goes, first, to the Wales tourist board, which has carried out excellent work, and secondly,

    9
    to the fact that section 4 grants continue to be available in Wales? What figure does my right hon. Friend estimate for section 4 grants for last year?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: As my hon. Friend knows, it is a little premature to speak of tourism in Wales in 1992, but I hope that he is right. On the question of giving credit for the success of the tourism industry in Wales, there is no doubt about the important role played by the Wales tourist board. There is also no doubt that section 4 grants have helped enormously to improve the tourism product in Wales.
    In 1991–92, some £4.2 million of expenditure was approved in support of 258 projects with an estimated capital value of £23.7 million. It is anticipated that almost 500 jobs will be created as a result of those projects. It is clear that the leverage factor of 1:5 in terms of section 4 grants is extremely good and the grants are very much valued by the Welsh tourism industry.
    Mr. Hain: Tourism is no substitute for proper investment in industry. What action is the Welsh Office taking to promote tourism in the Neath area? The Wales tourist board official guide, "Wales 93", which is the bible of visitors to Wales, does not give Neath a single mention, although almost every other parliamentary constituency is mentioned. The guide takes no account of the fact that the Penscynnor wildlife park attracts the second largest number of visitors to any tourist attraction in Wales. There are many other scenic places, such as Gunsmoke in Seven Sisters and the Resolven canal. The Welsh Office should be promoting the many opportunities for tourism in that area.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The fact that we all know of Penscynnor and the other attractions in Neath says a great deal about the area and the work that has been done not only by the WTB, but by the local authority and others to attract tourists to the Neath area.
    Tourism is an industry which provides employment for 95,000 people in Wales. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think that it is not an industry; it is an important industry.
    Mr. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend help me with a conundrum? He said that the £4 million of section 4 tourism development grants were very much valued in Wales. Can he explain why the tourism industry in my constituency and in the constituency of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is denied access to such grants?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend knows that I have no responsibility for tourism outside Wales. All that I can say is that we are extremely glad that Wales has section 4 grants. We have been allowed to retain them because the industry in Wales is rather different from the industry in England. We do not have major hotel chains, and so on; our industry is very much based on small family-sized and medium-sized companies.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the prime importance of the seaside resort of Porthcawl in any strategy for raising money for tourism in Wales. Having failed to give Ogwr borough council money under the urban programme to redevelop and improve the promenade in Porthcawl, will he now have discussions with the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that money
    10
    is made available under its tourism initiative to bring Porthcawl into the 21st century, to help tourism and to provide facilities for residents?
    Mr. Roberts: Of course I shall look at the situation in Porthcawl that the hon. Gentleman described. I can only reiterate that we lay enormous emphasis on tourism and the benefits that it brings to Wales. For example, the tourist board recently devised an overseas marketing strategy. We hope that the number of overseas visitors to Wales will increase over the next three years.

    Wages
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the wages of the lowest decile of Welsh wage earners.
    Mr. David Hunt: I always do my best to attract in Wales the sort of investment that will do precisely that.
    Mr. Flynn: Why does Wales have the highest proportion of low-paid workers of any region in the United Kingdom? Why is it that since the present Secretary of State took office there has been a 6 per cent. deterioration, in relative terms, in the personal incomes of the people of Wales? How long must the Welsh people continue to be the skivvies and drudges of Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any jobs to offer today that are more rewarding than the weekend offer for people to be tied to posts while high-speed trains speed past?
    Mr. Hunt: I announced today another 614 new jobs. The hon. Gentleman is selective in his use of statistics, and I will give the correct figures. Since I became Secretary of State, wage levels in Wales have increased faster, at 16.7 per cent., than in Great Britain as a whole, where the figure is 15.8 per cent. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is it not the case that in the past week the Confederation of British Industry has referred to a great improvement in terms of orders and optimism in Wales, and in the intention of many businesses in Wales to invest more in training next year even than their English counterparts? Is it not true also that wage levels in Wales will depend ultimately on the success of those particular businesses, which are now demonstrating more confidence than is the case nationally?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. One has only to look at the headlines of the past week or so, such as
    "Welsh firms much more confident",
    and
    "Welsh optimism holds on to its record rise",
    and
    "It has been an encouraging start to 1993, with signs of green shoots all round".
    —[Laughter.] Those are not my words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] they are the words of John Smith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am referring to someone whom I will call the enlightened and far-sighted John Smith. He is the John Smith who used those words in the Western Mail. I am, of course, quoting the former Member of Parliament for the Vale of Glamorgan, I quote him again:
    "It has been an encouraging start to 1993, with signs of green shoots all around us."
    I hope that Labour Members will permit me a moment of reflection, because this is the first time I have ever agreed

    11
    with a John Smith—not the John Smith who masterminded Labour's election defeat but the man who suffered as a result. It is about time that Labour Members faced the facts and stopped being the merchants of doom and gloom.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the wage earners of Point of Ayr, Taff Merthyr and Betws see green shoots in the weeks ahead? What representations are being made by the Secretary of State and his Department to the President of the Board of Trade—who was born in Wales—to ensure that the jobs in those pits, and those communities, are still here in the months to come?
    Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot possibly anticipate the results of the energy review and the publication of the Government's White Paper, on which I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Despite his earlier histrionics, the Secretary of State knows as well as any Opposition Member that Wales has grievous economic problems—the problems of low pay and high unemployment. Surely, one way of tackling the problem of low pay would be to do something about the current appalling levels of unemployment.
    Last week, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry made it clear that the coal industry's future now depends on political decisions. Will the Secretary of State give Welsh Members a direct and unambiguous assurance that he will not accept in Cabinet any decision to end mining, and the hundreds of jobs that depend on it at the Welsh collieries—Point of Ayr, Taff Merthyr and Betws?
    Mr. Hunt: I have already explained that I cannot anticipate the results of the Government's deliberations. I shall certainly not do what Labour did in the 1960s, when it shut many of our Welsh pits, often without providing job alternatives. More than 70 pits were closed in a single year.
    I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was rising to agree with his former colleague, John Smith, and to start talking up the Welsh economy instead of talking it down. He has indeed become noted in Wales—as the merchant of grunge.

    Credit Approvals
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the basic credit approvals for capital provision for (a) Mid Glamorgan and (b) Welsh counties in total for 1993–94; and what the figure was for 1992–93.
    Mr. David Hunt: The basic credit approval issued to Mid Glamorgan county council for 1993–94 is £14,626 million, compared with £19,086 million for 1992–93. In total, basic credit approvals for Welsh counties for 1993–94 are £77,067 million, compared with £99,050 million for 1992–93. The reduction in 1993–94 reflects the transfer of responsibility for further education institutions to central Government. Separate provision has also been made available to local authorities for 1993–94 to cover expenditure which is to be reimbursed by grants from the European regional development fund.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that—not only because of those capital cuts but because of the
    12
    threat of capping—many county councils, including Mid Glamorgan, are now having to abandon, postpone or cancel vital school and road-building projects, all of which could have created employment? At the same time, hundreds of jobs are going in every Welsh county as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's rate grant settlement proposals. How does all that square with the idea that public expenditure-led growth is possible in Wales, particularly in Mid Glamorgan?
    Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the overall totals for the next financial year compared with those for the current year, and at the gross capital provision, he will see that in Wales the settlement is expected to yield gross capital spending of £620 million by local authorities. That is an increase of £61 million, or 11 per cent., and does not take account of the £70.6 million that I set aside to cover expenditure to be reimbursed by ERDF grants. The figures speak for themselves.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will understand that, because of the introduction of his capping criteria, Gwynedd, for example, will have to cut a standstill budget by at least £3 million this year. Inevitably, that will mean the closure of old people's homes and of some schools, and the loss of jobs. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue seriously? I invite him to speak again to local authority leaders in Wales and to ensure that they are properly resourced this year.
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that we are dealing with basic credit approvals. Provided that you, Madam Speaker, are happy that I should extend the answer to cover the whole local authority settlement, I would point out that in Wales it represents a 3·1 per cent. increase over the equivalent figure for last year. Per capita expenditure amounts to over £900 for every man, woman and child in Wales, towards which the Government will be providing through aggregate external finance, £810. In all respects that is a reasonable settlement, bearing in mind the present difficult economic circumstances. I pay tribute to all those involved in local government who, like the Government, are having to face up to those difficult decisions, against a background of difficult economic circumstances.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Something is obviously worrying the Secretary of State, because we have had an increasingly eccentric performance from him this afternoon. As he does not live in, and as he does not represent, a Welsh constituency, obviously he does not understand the problems of Wales as we understand them. Does he not realise that the tight revenue settlement, together with capping, means that many local authorities are unable to spend even their reduced capital budget and that that will mean cuts and job losses in the schools and road building programmes and in homes for the elderly and the fire service? When will the Secretary of State acknowledge that unemployment in Wales is rising because of the Government's policies, not despite them?
    Mr. Hunt: If eccentricity is a virtue, the hon. Gentleman displays it on every occasion in his comments to the Secretary of State. He must face up to the realities of the present situation, which are, clearly, that today we have been able to announce a record level of capital spend for next year over this year and that local authorities on their current account are having to face up to some very difficult

    13
    decisions, just as the Government are having to face up to those difficult decisions. If the hon. Gentleman calls eccentric a performance by the Treasury Bench which has just won one Welsh Question Time seven nil, then I am quite happy to plead guilty.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Land
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his latest estimate of the numbers of hectares of land administered by the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): At 31 December 1992, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 62,000 hectares of mostly let farmland.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Church Commissioners to re-read the beautiful passages in Isaiah, chapter 11, and Hosea, chapter 2, on the kinship between human kind and the animal kingdom and then to reconsider their policy of allowing the barbaric cruelty of deer hunting, hare coursing and fox hunting on Church Commissioners' land, or is their Christian charity confined to one single species?
    Mr. Alison: I shall certainly read the scriptures that the hon. Gentleman prescribes. By going back even earlier in the Old Testament, the hon. Gentleman will recall the earliest provision of all made for derelict human kind after the fall, which was the slaughter of innocent sheep to provide woollen clothing.

    Investment Policy
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the investment policy of the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners' investment policy is to seek to achieve the best total return on their assets—that is, growth of both income and capital. This reflects their primary objective, which is to provide adequate financial support for the Church's serving and retired clergy.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of some of the recent investments in property suggest that God works in a mysterious way his miracles to perform? Does he also agree that these failures will lead to the Church having to raise more money in the parishes, which is probably in the long-term interests of the Church of England?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will note that the losses suffered by the Church of England in its investment in property have been matched by the losses suffered by most of the secular world at home at the same time. There is nothing exceptional, therefore, about that. My hon. Friend will recall that the diversity of our investments meant that when the stock exchange crash occurred in 1987 we were scarcely affected by it. My hon. Friend, however, is absolutely right. There is enormously more
    14
    scope for contributions by the man and women in the parish. I look forward very much to that contribution increasing in 1993.
    Mr. Enright: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's views reported at the weekend that there should be no investment in the 10 pits, will he urge the Church Commissioners to love their neighbour rather than to pursue his "beggar my neighbour" and "am I my brother's keeper?"-type policies?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman refers to a press quotation which does not ring a bell as being correct, but I must stay in order, Madam Speaker: the Church Commissioners have no direct investment in coal property or coal mines.

    Ordination of Women
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy have been in communication with the pensions board because they are contemplating leaving the ministry as a result of the decision of the General Synod to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood.
    Mr. Alison: About 500 clergy have been in touch with the pensions board on that matter since the vote by the General Synod. Most have given no indication of their intentions.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is strong feeling on this subject among the clergy in my constituency and that it would be unfair if individual clergy who chose to leave the Church on a matter of conscience were in any way penalised as a result of pension implications?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but, as I think he knows, provisions have been made for substantial financial compensation for clergy who wish to leave the Church of England as a result of the clergy ordination measure. We reckon that the cost is likely to be in the region of £1 million per 100 clergy retiring per annum, so the compensation figures are substantial.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to the effect of increases in lawyers' fees on the legal aid budget; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): All matters relating to total legal aid expenditure are taken into consideration when setting provision for legal aid.
    Mr. Mullin: What thought has the Parliamentary Secretary's Department given to reducing the legal aid budget by making the courts more efficient, even if it is at the expense of inconveniencing the odd judge or two?
    Mr. Taylor: Very tempting. Considerable efforts on a very broad front are being made urgently in the Lord Chancellor's Department to try to reduce delay. The hon.

    15
    Gentleman and the House will probably agree that we must all be the enemies of delay because it is expensive and demoralising. We are introducing a White Paper and a Magistrates Courts Bill to try to get best practice among magistrates and the inspectorate and better block listing. Likewise, in the county courts, cases below £1,000 will be dealt with far less formally and more cases will be dealt with in the county courts in lieu of the High Court. These are only a few examples of a broad front endeavour to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes.
    Mr. Dickens: When the new proposals for legal aid are laid before Parliament they are not debatable, so does my hon. Friend think that the Lord Chancellor would accept amendments?
    Mr. Taylor: No, I do not think that the Lord Chancellor, having satisfied himself at the appropriate moment that he has it exactly right, would be such a man —he will stick to his own proposals, explain them and, if necessary, defend them.
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he will adopt to publicise the availability of legal aid; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Legal Aid Board produces leaflets and posters on the legal aid scheme and distributes them widely.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that, whatever amount of money is spent on advertising, about 7 million people in Britain will lose access to legal aid? Does he accept that in Wales, tens of thousands of people on low wages, but just above benefit level, will be excluded from access to legal aid? Even at this late stage, why does he not tell the Lord Chancellor's Department that it should think again about its reprehensible decision?
    Mr. Taylor: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman may find that the position in the Principality is more reassuring than he suspects. Since 1979, the number of acts of assistance given under legal aid has increased from 900,000 to 3·1 million and, during the immediate forecast period of the next three years, it is expected to rise to 4 million. So far from our having cut legal aid, it has doubled over the past four years and is due, under the autumn statement, to increase in the next three years by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. It is available to almost half of society and more than one fifth of society will receive it free. It is arguably one of the most generous systems of legal aid in the world.
    Mr. Stephen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the figures that he has just given, but does he accept that the key question to be answered is what proportion of our national resources can we afford to spend on the dispute settlement system?
    Mr. Taylor: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. We may need better ways of resolving disputes and, in considering the application of resources, we must certainly consider the interests of one party who is a party to every legal aid case—the taxpayer. All too often, the taxpayer seems to get left out of such considerations.
    Mr. Boateng: Bearing in mind the concern that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Lord Chancellor's legal aid proposals, will the Minister
    16
    tell the House by what authority and at how much expense the highly contentious document going under the misnomer "Legal Aid—The Facts" was produced? Will he answer that question bearing in mind the widespread concern about the Lord Chancellor's proposals in the profession and among consumer associations—of which he is well aware—and the fact that the real fact of the matter, which the document does not reveal, is that up to 12 million people will lose all eligibility to free legal aid?
    Mr. Taylor: I just cannot see how 12 million people can drop out of a system that is being used by 3.1 million people; it does not make sense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know who is prepared to accept responsibility for the document in this House, the answer is—I am.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of achieving the best use of the Lord Chancellor's budget for legal aid is to improve the efficiency of the courts? Does he accept that a higher quality of court manager and therefore a better use of the listing system—through, for example, computers—is something to aim for, and will he endeavour to ensure that his Department trains court listing officers to the highest possible degree?
    Mr. Taylor: I am entirely sympathetic to the drift of my hon. Friend's question. It seems to me to be a proper ambition—and it is perhaps becoming an urgent ambition —that the various courts should be linked by computer. In that, I include the magistrates courts. Often, as one Opposition Member found to his cost not long ago, a defendant may be summoned to appear in two magistrates courts simultaneously, may choose the one of his own liking—or least disliking—and may simply not tell the other court that he does not intend to turn up, causing great inconvenience and cost to that other court. I am sympathetic to the aim of linking the courts, their records, their information and their planning by means of modern information technology.

    Judges and Magistrates (Election)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will now introduce legislation to elect judges and magistrates.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: No. The Government do not consider that elections would provide a suitable basis for appointment or be compatible with the principle of judicial independence.
    Mr. Skinner: He was quick to do it with the trade union leaders, though. Why is it that judges are seemingly alone in not having been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world? Instead of simply dressing up in powdered wigs and kinky clothes, why do not judges have to fight for their jobs? Why are they not selected and reselected like Members of Parliament? And why do not the Government clean out the freemasonry? Why, in working-class communities, are there more Tory magistrates than Labour magistrates—even in areas where the Labour vote is three times greater than the Tory vote? The whole thing stinks and it is time that they got rid of patronage, had judges elected and re-elected and made them fight for their jobs.
    Mr. Taylor: There is no reason why a judge should not be a freemason—[Interruption.]—or a member of Rotary or Round Table. The judge takes a judicial oath, and that oath will guide him as to his interests in any matter and whether he is qualified to deal with it.
    I am anxious to answer the hon. Gentleman fairly and squarely in dealing with the question of the composition of benches and the background to them. It may be useful for him to know that in Derbyshire, his county, the Lord Chancellor is confined to those who offer themselves for appointment in the first place. That is the recruiting ground. To be a magistrate, a candidate should apply. To become a judge, it is necessary first for the candidate to apply for part-time judicial service. So the Lord Chancellor is limited in his recruiting ground to those who offer themselves.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is puerile to call for the election of judges and magistrates and that should such an unfortunate development ever occur, it would lead to the politicisation of the judiciary, which would seriously undermine the independence of our justice system?
    Mr. Taylor: Our judges and magistrates are, by their oath, independent. There are elections for judges in the United States and I am not sure that the results are always very edifying.
    Ms. Eagle: Does the Minister feel that if judges were elected, we might end up with a more representative sample of society serving on the bench, including more women, remembering that at present there is a disgracefully low level of women sitting on the bench? Is he aware that that leads to people taking perverse views of the roll of women in society and to some comments that are unfortunate, to say the least, being made in some cases?
    Mr. Taylor: The uppermost rule must always be that the best people are chosen, though I share the hon. Lady's view, as does the Lord Chancellor, that there should be more women and more representatives of minorities. The problem at relevant past times in the recruiting grounds in the legal professions was that there were not enough representatives of the right ages of those minorities. But they are joining the legal professions in far greater numbers now, so that shortly, when they move to the age when they will be eligible for appointment, they will be there for promotion. The hon. Lady looks forward to that time and it may surprise her to hear that I do, too.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the growth in cost of legal aid since 1979.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Net expenditure on legal aid has risen from £99 million in 1979–80 to £906 million in 1991–92. It is estimated that legal aid will cost more than £1·1 billion this financial year, some 28 per cent. more than last year.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that increase of 10 times underlines the need for the reforms that the Lord Chancellor is introducing? What are the
    18
    income limits below which legal aid will still be payable under those proposals, and how do they compare with 1979 income limits?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend asks whether the increases that I reported in my answer were of themselves a fundamental reason to get legal aid under control. The answer must be absolutely yes, they are.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that the changes will be extremely damaging to women who want to apply for aid in domestic violence cases? Is he further aware that if he is serious about wanting to bring about cuts in the legal aid budget, he should consider the rapid appointment of several stipendiaries, a step which would not only clear court cases but, in the long run, save an enormous amount of money?
    Mr. Taylor: In the instance that the hon. Lady gives, of a woman at threat and risk of domestic violence, she will find that in all normal cases—if that lady goes for representation—the solicitor, quickly satisfying himself that she is eligible, will give her an emergency legal aid certificate, start to represent her and get help for her, such as perhaps restraining orders, at a very early stage.
    I believe that we have about the right number of stipendiaries. Our long tradition of a lay magistracy has served the country well. The stipendiary must be seen as complementary and not an alternative to the lay magistrate.
    Lady Olga Maitland: In view of the staggering increase in spending on legal aid, and recalling that my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world, would he spell out how Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world because it is a fantastic success story?
    Mr. Taylor: I have never said that Britain's legal aid system is the most generous in the world, but I suspect that it may well be. Legal aid is available to half of the population, and it is available to more than one fifth of the population for no contribution at all. Far from the legal aid system being cut in the autumn statement, it is due to increase by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. in the next three years. The number of acts of assistance is expected to increase over that period from 3·1 million to 4 million. That is generous.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will amend the rules relating to the availability of legal aid in order to assist those individuals involved in class action.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Legal Aid Board has recently established special procedures relating to multi-party actions which are intended to assist the progress of such actions in appropriate circumstances.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that the 1,700 people who are involved in the class action against the manufacturers of valium librium and mogadon have had their legal aid suspended, and that the reason given for that suspension is that some of them have weak medical support? In the light of the decision to suspend legal aid for those people, will the Minister review the guidelines to which he referred a moment ago to ensure that those with strong legal cases are not denied legal aid because of the weakest case? In particular, will he take urgent steps to

    19
    review the decision which has been taken to suspend legal aid from those involved in the valium, librium and mogadon action?
    Mr. Taylor: No, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that in any civil case there must be enough medical and other evidence to make the grant of legal aid
    20
    reasonable. As with privately funded cases, the prospective winnings should also be enough to make litigation worth while despite its costs. However disappointing it may be for the plaintiffs, it is not fair to ask the rest of the tax-paying community to pay for cases that will not prosper or, if they do, will produce no net winnings.

Bosnia
3.33 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"securing peace in Bosnia."
With the collapse of the Geneva peace talks, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen are going to the United Nations Security Council to ask that United Nations pressure be applied for the acceptance of their peace agreement. We are faced with the prospect of the United Nations being asked to apply political, economic and military pressures on any party which refuses to accept the Vance-Owen proposals.
The House has not debated Bosnia for a considerable period. The people of Bosnia, the British forces who are risking their lives in Bosnia and the British public—indeed, hon. Members of the House—are entitled to know the policy on Bosnia of Her Majesty's Government. What instructions will be issued by Her Majesty's Government to our representatives in the United Nations in the coming days when the life and death decisions are to be taken?
If the Vance-Owen plan remains unacceptable, and if even the United Nations action to enforce the agreement fails, what will Britain, the European Community and the rest of the international community do to stop the slaughter, lift the sieges, stop the ethnic cleansing, feed the hungry, provide safe havens for those in great danger and stop the rape of women and of girls as young as six?
The terribly difficult future for Bosnia should have been aired in the House many times before now. I plead with you, Madam Speaker, to give the House the opportunity of debating how we can secure an effective peace for the people of Bosnia and that poor and very dangerous country.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"securing peace in Bosnia."
I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member has said. I have to give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Among your many onerous duties—I cannot pretend that this is a major matter—you are responsible for the supervision of the customs, practices and behaviour of the House. You will know that on Thursday night there was a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule. When the vote took place, 15 members of the Liberal party voted for that suspension. One gained the impression that it was their intention to pursue and follow the debate thereafter. Apparently, that was not so. There was a subsequent vote between 12 and 1 o'clock and only one Liberal member was present.
Is it appropriate that people should vote for the House to carry on its business into the early hours of the morning and then absent themselves into the darkness of the night and leave it to other people—
Madam Speaker: Order. As Speaker, I do not listen to points of order about matters which arose when the House was in Committee.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As reported in The Guardian, the Post Office Board and the Government are conspiring to privatise the Post Office—Post Office managers to line their pockets and Ministers to line the Treasury coffers. Surely we should have a parliamentary debate about that. Have you had any request from the Government to make an urgent statement about the matter before they make their final decisions?
Madam Speaker: No Ministers have let me know that they wish to make a statement on that issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement about the takeover of LBC? I wonder whether you and others are aware that the previous company, Crown Communications group, ran LBC into bankruptcy. It has now been stated that some of the personnel who brought the company down and made it bankrupt will run the new company, with Lady Porter as a backseat driver. It is high time that we had a statement.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Ministers that they wish to make a statement today on that matter.

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

Statutory Instruments, &c

  LICENSED BETTING OFFICES
  That the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 51) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Scotland Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 68) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  ENTERPRISE ZONES
  That the Lanarkshire (Motherwell) Enterprise Zones Designation Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 24) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Lanarkshire (Hamilton) Enterprise Zones Designation Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 23) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Lanarkshire (Monklands) Enterprise Zones Designation Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 25) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the Orders of the Day—[Interruption.] Order. We do not want any side meetings going on here. There is an important one going on at the moment from the Chair.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 28 January]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  3.37 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We are proceeding with a Bill which deals with all aspects of European union at the very moment when the previous showcase of European union, the exchange rate mechanism, is in tatters. Is it appropriate for us to proceed further, especially with the debate on citizenship of what is described as the union, without a Minister coming before the Committee to tell us the latest position on the ERM and the impact and influence that it will have on the pound? It seems to me that we are proceeding down a Utopian and impractical road when the previous scheme is already in tatters and no statement has been made to the House or the Committee. I should like your guidance accordingly.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman's point does not have too much relevance to amendment No. 12. I suggest that we proceed with the debate on that amendment.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said about the demise of the ERM, as this Maastricht debate is closely connected with the ERM, which has seemingly reached a state of collapse, could it not be argued that we should not proceed with this tinpot Maastricht Bill? It is meaningless. France or one of the Benelux countries may well be the next to suffer the domino effect. The whole thing is crazy. We keep debating this issue despite the fact that it is dead. It is time we directed our attention to questions that matter to the people—unemployment, housing, education—and stopped pottering about with a Bill that ought to have its neck wrung.
  The Chairman: As the hon. Member is aware, the Bill was given a Second Reading by a majority of 244. I am therefore duty bound to ensure that we proceed with the Committee stage and that we have a fair debate.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: You, Mr. Morris, know that today's business was decided last week. You look at me in a quizzical manner, but it is a fact that the menu for this week was decided through the usual channels. Last week, it was decided that we should debate this Bill today. However, since that time certain events concerning the exchange rate mechanism have taken place. The Bill is, in large measure, about European monetary union—a system based on various rules and regulations which, after the events of the past weekend, will not be appropriate. European monetary union can work only through arrangements different from those provided for in the Bill.
  How is it possible for the Committee, at this late stage, to make the necessary contact with the Government to secure a change in today's business? It is quite obvious that this Bill is no longer appropriate, as the European

  25
  exchange rate mechanism is dead, and monetary union is buried. We are legislating for something that is manifest nonsense. May we have your assistance, Mr. Morris?
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but the rules of the House of Commons are such that I have to accept the business that is set down for today. The first amendment for debate is No. 12, which deals with citizenship.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I do not know when we shall reach the question of cohesion, but that debate may not be far off. I am aware of the fact that, in dealing with large numbers of amendments, the Chair faces difficulties. However, I have to say that, in respect of this question, it seems that two debates are joined. It is quite clear that at least half of these amendments are sponsored by hon. Members who are interested in the composition of the Committee of the Regions. As different parts of the United Kingdom are represented here, I understand the widespread interest. However, there is a distinct sub-cluster of amendments dealing with the substance of regional policy—a matter of great importance. Have you, Mr. Morris, been able to consider this matter, and will you give some thought to the possibility of our having two separate debates for this group?
  The Chairman: I am especially grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, to whose letter I have responded. He may find my reply on the Board, although it will not have been there until about 2.30 pm.
  In essence, many of these categories represent a confederation of issues. I have to look at the opening amendment and consider the implications of those that are attached to it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that, in the end, it is a matter of judgment. On the question of cohesion, my judgment is that all the amendments that are linked pull to the centre. It may well be that some of the regional issues will develop, and it will be in order, in the course of speeches relating to certain amendments, to allude to them. Nevertheless, as they have particular relevance to the lead amendment, I am not inclined to break down the groups.
  Mr. William Cash: We are about to turn to the question of citizenship, which is, of course, related to elections and, in turn, to the rights of voters, who, at general elections, determine matters relating to monetary affairs. From all that is happening in the markets, it is abundantly clear that the exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union are dead.
  The Chairman: Order. That may have been an ingenious way of reintroducing the question of the exchange rate mechanism, but I have already ruled on that matter, and I do not want any further references to it.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We all appreciate the problem that the grouping of amendments pose for the Chair. You told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that the important debates on the constitution and the powers and activities of the Committee of the Regions are linked to the broad issue of cohesion, which covers north-south regional assistance. According to your ruling, those amendments will be taken together. Will you bear in mind that if the amendments
  26
  were to be incorporated in a Bill it might well contain 10 or 12 clauses and two schedules, as was the case when we discussed the question of asylum last week? Will you bear that and the range of subjects under discussion in mind when making any decision about the conclusion of the debate?
  The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair is willing to listen sympathetically to particular points made and especially to distinctive points, as I have said during discussions on earlier amendments.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You said that you did not want to take any more points of order on the exchange rate mechanism and, as always, I abide by the ruling of the Chair. I should like your guidance on the circumstances in which you would be willing to consider a manuscript amendment, if events in the outside world make our debate irrelevant.
  The Chairman: When I see the manuscript amendment.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You mentioned that you were minded to consider the closure with sympathy and with regard to the number of amendments in the group. Can you confirm that, on average, during the passage of the Single European Act, three amendments were grouped together? The next group contains 12 and, under the heading of cohesion, 23 amendments and four new clauses are grouped together. Am I right in thinking, therefore, that each debate should be roughly seven times as long as the average during our consideration of the Single European Act?
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my earlier remarks is entirely wrong. I do not think that I said anything to that effect, and frankly I am surprised that he picked it up. The number of amendments is irrelevant to the length of the debate. It is open to hon. Members to put down a host of similar amendments. I have served on Bills when there have been even more amendments than there are for this Bill. It is the Chair's responsibility to ensure that there is a full debate on and around the lead amendment and the matters that flow from it.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. On the subject of closures, a serious matter is at issue. If a Bill is timetabled, right hon. and hon. Members know exactly how much time they have to deal with each stage of the legislation. We are working to a totally arbitrary system of closures—at the whim of the Government, it seems. Will you use your discretion and, at the very least, will you not cut off an hon. Member in mid-sentence, as happened to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), because it appears discourteous? You, Mr. Morris, did not do that—it was one of your colleagues in the Chair—but it is a discredit to the Committee.
  The Chairman: I must make it clear that the acceptance of a closure is not at the whim of the Government, but is entirely a matter for the judgment of the occupant of the Chair, who decides whether the amendments have been adequately debated.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Is it a new point of order?
  Mr. Marlow: It is totally new, as it has only just occurred to me. My intention is to be helpful. Obviously you and the Committee do not want to legislate for nonsense and we have difficulties because of the monetary situation. Would it be possible to suspend the sitting for a short time because of the great pressure—
  The Chairman: Order. No. Clearly, as the point has only just occurred to the hon. Gentleman, it cannot have had much consideration.
  Before I call the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to move the amendment, perhaps the Chair will be allowed a point of order on a subject about which a number of colleagues have written to me. I appeal to members of both Front Benches to speak into the microphones in front of them and to resist the temptation to turn round to address their colleagues, as other Members cannot then hear their arguments.

Clause 1

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  `(except Item C on pages 11 and 12 of Cm 1934)'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(other than Article 8)'.
  No. 125, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  `(excluding Article G C, on pages 11 and 12 of Cm 1934).'.
  No. 128, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(excluding Article 8e on page 12 of Cm 1934).'.
  No. 165, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  `(except Article 8 on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.
  No. 166, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 8a on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.
  No. 167, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 8b on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.
  No. 169, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 8e on page 12 of Cm 1934)'.
  No. 317, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 on page 11 of Cm 1934)'.
  No. 364, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 8c as referred to in Article G on page 12 of Command Paper number 1934'.
  No. 424, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'other than obligations arising from Articles 8 or Articles 8(a to e) on pages 11 to 12 of Cm 1934, concerning Representation of the People Acts and matters related thereto.'.
  No. 427, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'other than duties imposed in citizens of the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise after the coming into force of this Act in respect of Article 8, paragraph (2) in Cm. 1934, page 11, other than those incorporated in an Act of Parliament specifying those duties.'.
  No. 428, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'other than Article 8b of Cm. 1934, page 11, except where arrangements existed prior to 1st January 1993.'.
  No. 429, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except for the second paragraph of Article 8e on page 12 of Cm. 1934.'.
  No. 44, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert 'but not Part Two thereof'.
  No. 115, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
  '(3) The above subsections shall only come into force subsequent to the laying before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government of a Command Paper concerning "Citizenship of the Union" which shall include: (i) a description of the
  28
  duties of citizens, as referred to in Article 8(l) of the Treaty on European Union; (ii) the likely implications for the United Kingdom of Article 8a (Freedom of residence); (iii) the need for any derogations in respect of Article 8b (Municipal membership and voting); (iv) the effect on the personnel, organisation and financing of H.M. Foreign Service in respect of obligations imposed by Article 8c (Common protection by diplomatic and consular authorities); and to approval of the terms of such a document by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Blair: This amendment raises the issue of citizenship and the new article 8 of the treaty of Rome that is provided for in the Maastricht Bill. New article 8 declares that every person holding nationality of a member state becomes a European citizen. However, it is made clear that the countries themselves will determine nationality. Under new article 8, such people are deemed citizens of the European Community. The article is partly symbolic as it establishes for the first time the formal concept of citizenship in the European Community. It confers new rights on those citizens. We want to ask the Government questions about their policy on those issues and have debates on them so that everyone may have a full understanding of article 8.
  Article 8a provides for a right to move and reside freely within member states, subject to treaty conditions, which include many of the directives promulgated under the treaty of Rome that affect the ability to reside and freedom of movement. Article 8 effectively reiterates, but also slightly expands on, article 8A of the Single European Act 1986. The term "resides" is added in new article 8 in the treaty, but I should have thought that that was implied by the provisions in the Single European Act.
  Under new article 8a(2), the Council may unanimously act to facilitate the rights of people as citizens after a proposal from the European Council and the specific assent of the European Parliament. Article 8b gives citizens the right to vote in local elections of the country where they are residing, subject to details that will be drawn up by the Council by the end of 1994, after a proposal by the Commission and consultation with the European Parliament. There is also an additional safeguard of derogations being permitted where warranted by the specific problems of a member state. That gives, for the first time, a right to vote in local elections where the nationals of any member state are residing in a member country.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the word "municipal" does not necessarily mean local? In European law and in the Court of Justice, the ruling has already been given in an important Italian case that the word "municipal", as applied to the treaty, would also mean national. The word "municipal" is regarded as referring to national in the context of the European Community. Therefore, it is highly debatable whether the hon. Gentleman can say that, in this context, the word "municipal" means local.
  Mr. Blair: Of course, I shall study the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should have thought that the word "municipal" was used here precisely to distinguish such elections from national elections. I would be deeply surprised if, in that context, the word "municipal" had the opposite meaning of national.
  The details of how the procedures are to be implemented will provide a further opportunity to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The details are to be the

  29
  subject of proposals drawn up by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission and after consultation with the European Parliament. The procedure is time limited, and should be complete by the end of 1994. Will the Home Secretary say whether there are any procedures to be undertaken in the event of failure to reach such an agreement, which is possible?
  Some nations—as I understand it, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands—already grant some form of right to vote in local elections. This country gives such a right to Commonwealth and Irish citizens. Article 8b(2) has the same procedures, but on a slightly different timetable, on the ability to vote in elections for the European Parliament. The details of such procedures are to be agreed by the end of 1993. Article 8c extends the protection by diplomatic or consular authorities of all member states to any of their citizens.
  Mr. Max Madden: As my hon. Friend knows, the main qualification for voting purposes in the United Kingdom is residence on a given date at a given address. Under these arrangements, what will be the qualification for residence for a European union citizen? How long will he have had to live in the United Kingdom before residence can be claimed? What information will be sought: to whom will it be sent? Will there be any right of appeal if residence is refused? What would happen to a person denied the right of residence, given that there are no deportation rights under these provisions?
  Mr. Blair: That is a fairly lengthy list of questions. The issue of residence will be justiciable by a citizen of Europe in exactly the same way as it is now under our domestic law. As for the test of residence, article 8b makes it clear, in respect of this and in respect of voting for the European Parliament, that detailed arrangements are a matter to be discussed by the Council on a proposal from the Commission and from the European Parliament. Those are the circumstances in which some of these questions will be answered.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I think that my hon. Friend is saying that the House of Commons is not to be given the information because it is not available. Does he intend to deal with article 8.2, which he has not yet mentioned but which speaks not only of enjoying rights, but of the fact that
  "citizens … shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
  What does he imagine that those duties will be?
  Mr. Blair: The duties are set out there are duties laid down in the treaty of Rome. As I understand it, article 8 is not an article of the Maastricht treaty. It is to be a new article of the treaty of Rome, so the obligations set out in it are those of the treaty of Rome. Article 48, for instance, concerns the freedom of people to work in other member states. It imposes rights and obligations. I should have thought that the idea of taking rights and obligations together was entirely sensible—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blair: It is an extraordinary feature of these debates that saying something that one thinks is entirely uncontroversial provokes a storm of outrage.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why do all the entitlements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred require citizenship?
  Mr. Blair: Citizenship is established by the new treaty, but the rights that people have are rights that they already have to a certain extent under the Single European Act —the right to move around freely within the Community, for example. The purpose of citizenship is to add, in part symbolically, to the rights that people already possess. Citizenship follows entirely naturally from the fact that people are given certain rights and obligations in the Community. The notion of citizenship is sensibly derived from those principles.
  Mr. Marlow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual supreme courtesy. I should like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). All these rights and obligations will exist if and when this Bill is passed. They already exist under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, so why do we need the concept of citizenship? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel this way, but many of mine certainly do not want to be European citizens, which they will be forced to be if the Bill is passed. Why does he want to impose that on people when there is no benefit to be had from it?
  Mr. Blair: As I have just said, these obligations and rights exist anyway—
  Mr. Spearing: No.
  Mr. Blair: I think that my hon. Friend will find that they do if he looks at the treaty carefully. Citizenship merely formalises the relationship. Many people see no contradiction between being citizens of Europe, as defined by the treaty, and being citizens of their own national states.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Under any of the provisions, will it be possible for a person to renounce his citizenship of the union?
  Mr. Winnick: If it is, may I apply now to opt out?
  Mr. Blair: I note that my hon. Friend wishes to add to the opt-out list.
  Surely the position is exactly the same as the one that currently exists for a citizen of this country. One does not renounce that here or in Europe.
  Mr. Wilkinson: That relates to the question that I wish to pose. How on earth can a citizen of the union renounce his citizenship without renouncing his British birthright or British nationality that he acquired by naturalisation? Surely there is a great distinction. There is no process for renouncing European citizenship, whereas a British citizen can renounce citizenship whenever he or she wishes.
  4 pm
  Mr. Blair: If a British citizen renounces his citizenship, it will have an impact on his citizenship under the treaty, but I see no great problem about that. I shall speak about citizenship towards the end of my speech. I accept that there is a fundamental disagreement between those who regard the concept of citizenship in Europe as awful and those who do not. We would do well to recognise that at the beginning.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Blair: I should like to make some more progress before allowing any more interventions.
  Mr. Spearing: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to intervene before he leaves his present point.
  Mr. Blair: Of course.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on this matter, may like to consider my intervention. My hon. Friend says that the provision does not change much: it just gives a new name to obligations under the treaty of Rome. However, we are not to become citizens of the treaty of Rome or even the city of Rome because article 8 states:
  "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye may well want to become a citizen of the European union under the treaty of that union which, of course, subsumes the treaty of Rome. Why does my hon. Friend think that at midnight on a certain day every citizen of this country will become obligated to the duties imposed by citizenship of the union, which may well be greater than the duties imposed by citizenship of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Blair: Some of us feel that the advent of citizenship in Europe is not a loss of national identity. That is the point at issue. I do not at all regard it as a loss of national identity because I think that we shall gain something from it, and that that gain will outweigh any theoretical loss.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has been diligent in allowing interventions by those who do not share his and my outlook on this issue, and it is fair to allow an intervention putting the other side of the case. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is extremely well established in the United Kingdom. No one among those hon. Members from Wales and Scotland who have been most active and vociferous in the debate suggests that people from Wales or Scotland are any less Welsh or Scottish because they happen to be British subjects. They are subjects rather than citizens, and many of us think that it is worth establishing citizenship in this country and in the wider European Community as well.
  Mr. Blair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that we shall be entirely persuasive on this matter.
  Article 8d gives the right to petition the European Parliament and to apply to the ombudsman. The procedures for doing that are set out in articles 138d and 138e of the treaty of Rome. The ombudsman is given the important power to investigate maladministration in the European Community. Article 8e imposes an obligation on the Commission to report progress in relation to citizenship and it allows rights to be added or strengthened by the Council unanimously on a Commission proposal after consulting the European Parliament. That change can be effected only in accordance with the constitutional requirements of member states.
  Those are the rights that are set out. The article is in part symbolic and in part it confers certain rights to vote, to petition the European Parliament and to go to the ombudsman. The procedure gives certain rights and imposes certain obligations, but it also has a formal status. Many people understand that the European Community has a power over the citizens of the Community, so it is entirely sensible that, where people are both ruled and
  32
  have a share in ruling, citizenship should be established for them. Indeed, we should be looking for new and better ways to involve the citizens of Europe in the decisions that will affect them.
  Article 8 is at least a beginning in that process. It does not mean that we scrap our nationality or citizenship, or even that we subordinate it. It means that running alongside our rights and obligations as British citizens will be a European citizenship.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend accept that obligations under the treaty include, for everybody over the age of 18 in this country, conscription for military service?
  Mr. Blair: As far as I am aware, it does not include that obligation.
  The Single European Act, which was passed some years ago, allows people to move freely around the European Community. Article 8 builds on and extends that. We have had that provision for some time without any of the deleterious effects suggested by some hon. Members.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy; he has taken many interventions from both sides of the Committee. Does he agree that, however much he wishes to minimise the position, the article formalises in the Bill and in the treaty a new and revolutionary development? What authority or mandate do we have from the British people to introduce a citizenship of the union? I know of no mandate or authority that would allow us to follow that route.
  This may be a revolutionary idea for both Front Benches, but would not it be far more appropriate to ask the British people whether they agree with the proposal? If, by a majority, they say that they do, I shall accept that that is their will. What authority or mandate do we have to follow what is undoubtedly—although the word is not used for obvious reasons—a federal route? It is a paving step towards total federal union.
  Mr. George Robertson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Winnick: It does not matter how much my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) shakes his head, it is a federal route. Once we follow it, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the tide. We must have a mandate from the British people before we proceed in that way.
  The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was shaking his head because he knew that the matter was not covered by the amendment.
  Mr. Blair: Our mandate is derived from our ability as Members of Parliament to represent our constituents. Article 8 will allow people the right to vote in both local elections and European elections. It will also allow them to petition the European Parliament and to go to the ombudsman. I cannot for the life of me see why those rights are so inconsistent with our ability to function effectively, either as a country or as individuals within a country, that some hon. Members should construct an edifice of outrage. I think it to be an entirely sensible notion.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blair: I want to conclude to allow someone else to speak, but I will take a final intervention.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has obviously studied the matter carefully. Is he right to say that there is a real bonus in all this? I have a residence in Southend-on-Sea and another in Glasgow, but British law states that I can vote in only one of those places. If someone who is a resident of Paris also becomes a resident of Southend-on-Sea, will he be able to vote twice? That could be a dramatic development. Is there the hidden bonus that someone who has residences in two countries can vote in both, but someone who had two residences in this country can vote only once? That would be a dramatic bonus for the democratic system.
  Mr. Blair: Of course one could not vote at two places in the same election, but one can do as the hon. Gentleman says now. Article 8 does not affect those arrangements. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that we shall lose something by the notion of citizenship in Europe. For a generation that has seen and liked a Europe in which barriers to co-operation are coming down, citizenship provides something of a symbol.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will it be two votes or one?
  Mr. Blair: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question many times. Viewed through the eyes of young people in particular in this country today, the prospect of a closer Europe is good. It is not frightening; it does not alarm them. It can even excite and sometimes inspire them. I do not believe that the concept of citizenship will be in any way detrimental to our country or those who live in it. Viewed sensibly, it will be part of progress towards a better, more stable world—and the European Community has a place in that.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for moving his amendment in the way that he did. Having returned to these debates, I am glad that they make a welcome change in the distribution of labour between the two Front Benches. Normally, it falls to the Minister to explain particular provisions and to answer interventions, but I am spared that in large part, because the hon. Member for Sedgefield has already subjected himself to cross-examination on every aspect of article 8.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as I did the other day, on giving answers that are entirely in line with my understanding of article 8. It is becoming increasingly clear to me as we debate parts of the Bill in which the hon. Gentleman and I have been involved that—as I have long suspected, for as long as we have been in the House—the hon. Gentleman's views on the European Community are indistinguishable from my own.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman rises to find a difference. He has an unfortunate mental block on the social chapter, which I know that he wanted to see included in the obligations on us, whereas we declined to be drawn into that. The hon. Gentleman holds different views also on economic and monetary union. Labour's position is that we should have assented, whereas the Government decided to opt out of the immediate
  34
  provisions of EMU and to reserve questions such as a single currency for a later date. As some of my hon. Friends have said, in current circumstances that date looks further away rather than nearer.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now. For the sake of defending his own back, as I appreciate, he is trying to find some difference between his opinions and my own.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to answer my question before I ask it. If we wholeheartedly agree on those issues, why is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared, as is every other party in Europe—socialist or conservative—to agree to the social chapter and make sure that social Europe is part of the new Europe that we want to create?
  The Chairman: Order. Perhaps that discussion could take place elsewhere, because that aspect is not covered by the amendment.
  Mr. Clarke: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Morris, because that topic was debated at considerable length last week.
  On citizenship, I agree entirely with the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. Like him, I feel no sense of outrage at the idea that, together with being a national of the United Kingdom, I shall be a citizen of the European union. I understand that some people in this country feel qualms about that proposition, but I do not believe that their view is held by the majority.
  When the concept of European citizenship is examined in the context of article K, the practical consequences should not raise fears in anyone's mind. In fact, important new rights will flow from it to the citizens of this country.
  Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to respond to the debate if he manages to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris? He is putting the Government's case now, and several speeches will follow. It would be helpful if we knew that, after those speeches, he will respond; otherwise, it will be difficult for hon. Members to know whether to intervene at this stage.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Clarke: I am not usually accused of being too withdrawn in debates, or of being glued to my seat. Perhaps unfortunately, I regard the matter as fairly straightforward, and I am speaking now mainly to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. As I said in our previous debate, whether I speak again rather depends on what points are raised. If points are raised that have not been dealt with so far, I may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris. Let me, however, keep my options open by saying that I see no point in doing so if I find at that stage that I have nothing new to add, or that no new points have been raised.
  Mr. Rowlands: Whatever the joys and benefits of citizenship of a European union, will it be possible for someone who does not wish to belong to that union to renounce his or her citizenship?
  Mr. Clarke: For as long as a person is a British national, that person will be a European citizen, under the terms of the treaty and the Bill. As was said earlier, if someone wishes to renounce British nationality, certain

  35
  consequences will follow; but there is no separate provision whereby a person can remain a United Kingdom national but renounce citizenship of the European union. As I hope to illustrate, trying to renounce citizenship would have few practical consequences for such people; indeed, they would be giving up important new rights— albeit of a limited kind—conferred by the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. Cash: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being the first Secretary of State to attend the Committee stage. I should like to hope that some of the others will appear to speak about foreign affairs and, indeed, Treasury matters. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend on the way in which he is taking all this punishment.
  Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the word "municipal" is important, in relation to the question of citizenship? The European Court of Justice has already ruled that the word "municipal", in relation to the Community, means "national": that raises serious questions of interpretation, in regard to whether the right of a national to vote in other countries' elections will arise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that a careful assessment is made by his legal and other advisers?
  Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that questions are also raised in relation to the duties imposed under title II, including questions relating to allegiance and possible conscription? Many such matters are dealt with effectively by provisions in the citizenship section of the treaty, which seem to be more like a blank cheque than anything else.
  Mr. Clarke: Let me deal with my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. The treaty and the Bill impose no new duties on individuals. It is the existing duty of us all to comply with the law, including such European Community law as is directly applicable in this country, or has been introduced by Parliament following a European directive. Sometimes a United Kingdom court judgment will impose a duty on an individual to comply with what is the law of the land because of our European Community membership, but no new duties are being inclosed.
  I am glad to say that the idea of a duty to serve in a European army, or to be conscripted into military service of some kind, is entirely unfounded. I understand that that issue featured extensively in the Danish referendum: one reason why many Danes were induced to vote against the treaty was the fact that campaigners had persuaded them that they were about to be conscripted into a European army. According to all my study of the treaty and all the advice that I have received, there is no such risk.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I am still replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
  His questions lead me to the new rights granted under new paragraph K, including the extremely important right to vote and stand for election in certain elections. The right to vote and to stand for election is in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in whichever member state the citizen resides.
  My firm opinion, and the advice that I have received, is that "municipal" does not mean national general elections.
  36
  The choice of the word "municipal" in the relevant article was designed precisely to rule out elections to national Parliaments. If my hon. Friend is correct when he says that he has seen a judgment of the European Court which he believes leads to an interpretation of the word "municipal" as meaning national elections, I shall be happy to look at it and give it further consideration; but, as I stand here, it is my firm belief that what we are talking about are local government elections, probably with effect from 1995, and the European Parliament elections in 1994.
  British citizens are thereby given the right to vote or to stand for election in those elections, if they are resident in another Community state—a right similar to the right that is given to Community nationals who are resident here.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is it the Home Secretary's understanding that the Queen becomes a citizen of the union of Europe under the provisions of the Bill?
  Mr. Marlow: Has she been asked?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give further consideration to that question, but I do not see why not.
  Mr. Shepherd: She must do.
  Mr. Clarke: The Queen is undoubtedly a British national. She, being a national of the United Kingdom, is likely to become a citizen of the European union. [Interruption.] I shall reflect upon that point, but I very much suspect that that is the position. I do not believe that we should expand upon the position of the monarch at length, but I do not see why the Queen should be any more fearful of that prospect than anybody else is likely to be.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On the question of citizenship and the right of people to vote in elections, is the Home Secretary aware that across the continent of Europe there are 15 million people who are not citizens of any European country but citizens of countries outside Europe—political refugees, economic migrants and so on —who are denied any political rights in national elections in any country whatsoever? Does he not think that it is time that this aspect of prejudice against people who live and work in Europe was addressed?
  Mr. Clarke: Every country obviously reserves the right to restrict its franchise to particular nationalities or citizens. We have always done that in this country. Voting in United Kingdom elections has always been open to citizens of the United Kingdom, citizens of the Irish Republic and certain Commonwealth citizens, but we do not give voting rights to other people who are nationals of other countries. Those who take up long-standing residence in this country and feel themselves to be deprived of the right to vote in general elections are always faced with the perfectly straightforward choice of whether to apply for British naturalisation, if they feel that they are excluded from—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My understanding of the rules of the House of Commons is that, when anything touches upon the Queen's prerogative or upon the Queen's majesty, a Minister of the Crown brings a statement to the House attesting that the Queen herself has no objection to the provision. I should be grateful for your ruling, Sir.
  The Chairman: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes relates to the Second Reading or Third Reading of the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Let me make a little progress, arid then I shall give way again, I am sure.
  Mr. Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. If that has not been signified at Second Reading, surely it has an implication for the subsequent Committee stage, when the Government go on to reduce or subordinate the Queen's position relative to the ultimate law-making authority within the Community, the European Court of Justice.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will have studied the Order Paper and looked at page 3397, which clarifies the position.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris. I do not believe that anything that I said touched upon the Queen's prerogative. I also believe that it has always been the position that the monarch of this country is subject to the law of this country, and has never sought to be otherwise.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Let me move on. There will be plenty of other opportunities for hon. Members to intervene.
  We are at least beginning to deal with the practical rights which flow from European citizenship. I said that four new rights were established by this section of the treaty. The first is the right to vote in certain elections. The second is the right to consular protection in states where the member state of which a person is a national is not represented.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, under the treaty as it stands, the ex-leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), stood for election in Italy?
  Mr. Clarke: British citizens have done so. Several member states of the European Community will not have to change their law to comply with this provision. In the past, there has been a disparity in practice between the 12 member states. As a result of the agreement, the United Kingdom is proposing to give new rights to vote in, and to stand as candidates at, municipal and European elections, Personally, I see no objection to that, if someone has established his right to residence here, especially when one remembers that the same right will be extended to the leader of the British Liberal party not only in Italy but in every other member state once the provision is in place.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to speak at some length on what he dismissed most airily as "the Danish point" in fearing a common European army. The preamble to the treaty clearly states that it was resolved
  "to implement a common foreign and security policy including the framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
  It is not obvious that, if citizens of the new united Europe are all able to vote for an increasingly powerful European Parliament, it would be irresponsible for them to be able to vote for war without having to bear the
  38
  consequences of having to fight themselves or having their family fight? As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the cases of Casement and John Amery show the horrible dilemma of a person who has a citizenship of which he cannot dispose and which leads him to be tried for treason, in this case because of forced loyalty to a European identity which he might want nothing to do with.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend ingeniously seeks to read across from other provisions of the treaty dealing with foreign and security policy—perfectly properly—which are part of the so-called second pillar of Maastricht. The second pillar of Maastricht will proceed as the third pillar on interior and justice matters, by a process of intergovernmental co-operation requiring the unanimous consent of any of the members to a change of policy.
  It is also plain that defence policy will proceed on the basis of developing the Western European Union as the European arm of NATO. It has repeatedly been the Government's policy to remain committed to NATO as the main arm of our western defence policy, the Western European Union being part of the European commitment to that. There is absolutely no suggestion of our Government, or any Government, contemplating forming a European army. There is no treaty obligation on us to do so. There is absolutely no question of this country being committed to war through a process to which we have not consented.
  To go beyond that to the subject that we are now discussing, and to try to extract from it a fanciful notion that, under this part of the treaty, we are paving the way for conscription may have worked with a few gullible Danes, but it should not be seriously argued in the context of this debate. [Interruption.] I hear sounds of shocked outrage at that attack on the Danish nation—
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is not it disgraceful, and insulting to a foreign nation, to refer to its members as gullible? If you were to look in "Erskine May", would you not find that that is a remark that the Home Secretary should withdraw?
  4.30 pm
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. Let me make it clear to hon. Members that we are to have a full debate on foreign and security matters a few days hence.
  Mr. Clarke: I should make it clear—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) thinks that I said that all Danes are gullible, he plainly misheard me.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must not persist in standing when it is clear that the Secretary of State does not propose to give way. They must resume their seats.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Let me relate the point to the provision before us—
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Let me first reply again to the points that are being pressed.
  In so far as there were Danes who voted against Maastricht because they believed that there would be conscription to a European army, it remains my firm opinion that those Danes were gullible. They may indeed have been few, as I said. In so far as there are hon. Members of this House who believe that the provisions pave the way for conscription to a European army, they are extremely gullible—and again, they are few, in my opinion, in number. The position under the treaty is that there is no obligation to have conscription—
  Mr. Budgen: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give himself a new intellectual treat? Will he turn to page 5 of the treaty, which, I remind him, is the page on which the preamble—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which he hasn't read."]—which I am sure he has now read—occurs. Will he explain to the House what this means:
  "the … framing of a common defence policy, which might"—
  The Chairman: Order. Not this afternoon Mr. Clarke.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, you ruled out of order an hon. Member who wished to quote the preamble to the treaty. Moreover, you hinted earlier that reference to article J—the intergovernmental area relating to foreign policy—was not in order in a debate that concerns the duties of citizens. I put it to you, Sir, that the two are closely connected.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  The Chairman: Order. What I ruled out of order was the request by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to the Home Secretary to explain the preamble. Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, who were here at the time know that we had a full debate on the implications of the preamble. Moreover, elements of the preamble are covered by a whole host of amendments, and those relating to armies, armed forces and defence matters will be covered in later groups on foreign and security policy matters. That is my ruling, and that is all.
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I be clear about this? Is it the position that we may discuss the advantages of European citizenship but are not allowed to discuss any of the potential disadvantages or obligations? That seems to be what your ruling implies.
  The Chairman: I am here to serve the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is engaging in pure argument. The Committee has before it amendment No. 12; that is what the Committee is supposed to be discussing.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I think that we all understand the difficulties of trying to debate the Bill and the series of amendments with which we are confronted; they cover a great deal of ground, and many of them are interdependent and linked. I imagine that your ruling is not meant to signify that you regard the series of debates as essentially a series of mutually exclusive watertight compartments. The fact that a topic has been, or is about to be, debated principally in
  40
  connection with one group of amendments surely cannot preclude a reference to it for the purpose of illuminating the principal subject of another group of amendments. I understand that to be the purpose of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I hope that you will regard that, as in order, so long as it is not carried to the point when the principal subject of the debate becomes different.
  The Chairman: If it was his intention to make an allusion or reference, the hon. Member was in order, but I did not understand that to be the implication of his suggestion. Otherwise, I confirm what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) says.
  Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to the preamble to the treaty. I suggest that there is a direct connection between the amendment that is before the Committee and the preamble. The first part of article 8, which is the subject of the debate, says:
  "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established."
  The preamble to the treaty says:
  "Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries"
  That is followed immediately by the words quoted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. So there is not only an allusion but a clear link between the treaty preamble and article 8.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. He will clearly see the paragraph that says:
  "Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries."
  It then goes on to another paragraph. The reference that the hon. Member quoted and I have re-quoted is in order. The next is not, apart from a passing reference or allusion to it. I hope that that clarifies the position.
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you for clarifying the position, and I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that the temperature should cool a little. To ensure that I understand the will of the Committee, may I ask whether you are ruling, on reflection, that we may discuss the potential obligations of European citizenship? If so, the discussion of an evolving, and no doubt idealistic, European defence policy and even a European army are subjects that may impinge on the obligations of European citizenship.
  That is the only limited point that is raised. I have known the views of my right hon. and learned Friend for 30-odd years and I appreciate that he is an idealistic supporter of the European ideal. I dare say that he would like his son to have the chance to fight and die for a European army. We are giving him an opportunity to explain all that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that, if hon. Members are rising to put points of order, they are new ones, because we have traversed the situation. References and allusions are acceptable.
  Mr. Clarke: To restate my point, which is firmly based on the treaty—including the preamble and article 8—citizenship of the union involves no new duties on individuals beyond the existing duty, in so far as it is extended, to comply with European Community law, as

  41
  enforced where necessary on us all as individuals by the United Kingdom courts, and there is no new duty to take part in any European army. Indeed, there is no reference to a European army from beginning to end of the treaty.
  If at a later stage—I shall not deal with the point in detail now—we return to the text of the treaty, I shall ask my hon Friends to bear in mind, when referring to page numbers, the fact that they are all using the British edition, whereas I am using the European Community's—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] The words are the same, but the page references are different.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Enthusiastic though the Secretary of State may be with his European credentials, I urge him to recall that the treaty that was laid before this Parliament in Cm 1934. No wonder, if he has not been reading that, he does not know much about it.
  Mr. Clarke: I assure my hon. Friend that the text of the two are the same.
  To return to what we are discussing, there are no new duties: there are a number of new rights. I have already referred to the first two rights—voting and consular protection abroad. The third is the right to petition the European Parliament, and the fourth is the right to apply to a European ombudsman.
  I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said. I cannot believe that anybody could reject the concept of being given the right to petition the European Parliament or to apply to a European ombudsman. Indeed, I suspect that a large number of our critics in the Committee at present will take advantage of both those rights with considerable frequency, once they have accepted that they have become citizens of a European union when we have ratified the treaty.
  Sir Richard Body: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he has spoken about duties as they exist at present? Can he give the Committee an assurance that no fresh duties will be imposed on our citizens in future as a result of a decision either of the European Court or of the Council of Ministers?
  Mr. Clarke: Any development of the European union would involve fresh treaty obligations. We have not yet ratified this treaty. The question of what future treaties might come along is a matter on which I certainly must not speculate. In effect, the duties that fall on us as a result of Britain's membership of the European Community, and any future membership of the European union, will arise from those legal obligations on us all to obey the law of the land.
  As far as the law of the land will incorporate European legislation, either directly applicable or passed by the House to give effect to European directives, we all have a duty to follow it. If we do not follow the law, the United Kingdom courts, occasionally, with reference to the European Court on a point of difficulty, will in the end impose an obligation on us.
  Mr. Winnick: The Home Secretary said there were no new existing duties. I do not understand that, but perhaps he will clarify the position for the Committee. The word "existing" does not appear in article 8.2. I am taking the position, if you like, before the treaty is put into force. The treaty makes it clear that there will be a common security policy.
  42
  If that is the case, why does the Home Secretary tell the Committee with such confidence that under no circumstances in future will a common security policy mean whatever may arise on the international scene, with duties and obligations imposed on British citizens which will arise from the treaty? How does the Home Secretary come to the conclusion that there will be no new existing duties? I do not understand that.
  Mr. Clarke: I said that no new duties will be imposed on nationals of the United Kingdom as a result of the treaty, save the duties on us all to comply with the law as it evolves under the treaty. As for the reading of "security policy", I will not stray out of order, Mr. Morris.
  The point of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is relevant to the so-called pillared approach from Maastricht, which has been fundamental in most of the debates that we have had. The second pillar of foreign and security policies and the third pillar, which we are now discussing, of justice and interior affairs are outside the competence of the European Community. They do not proceed subject to the institutions of the Community.
  The Commission has no sole right to initiate foreign or security policies. It is not subject to the European Court of Justice. We are talking about provisions under which we co-operate Government to Government. So far as we enter into new policies or new obligations, it is by the unanimous consent of the member states.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I have not finished yet.
  I should make it clear that it is open to us as a sovereign country to have a common foreign policy with our Community partners if we wish to enter into such a policy. For as long as I have been in the House, many people who are fairly sceptical about the European Community have often urged the virtues of a closer foreign policy among the members of the European Community.
  The idea that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom or the foreign policy which the United Kingdom has agreed to in alliance with its allies and the rest of the European union imposes personal obligations and duites is extremely limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said a moment ago, it can be treason to work contrary to the United Kingdom's security policy.
  Apart from that, however, I do not think that the matter is relevant. We should return to matters which are relevant to what we are now talking about. With great respect, it does not help the case against Maastricht when blatant red herrings are drawn across the trail, obscuring what European citizenship comprises.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I suggest to the Minister that he may well be wrong on this issue, because the possibility of a European army, which is decried, is not a red herring at all. There has been considerable discussion or thought about the establishment of a European defence force. In 1992, the Government and the Minister's Cabinet colleagues announced to the House that the British Army would be the lead unit, the core unit, of the rapid reaction force which will be established on a European basis.
  Substantial arguments have been advanced on the establishment of a European defence force. If it is an army,

  43
  a navy or an air force, it is still a force. That does not detract from the Minister's argument, but he should get his facts right.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Clarke: We have a history. Let us simply take the post-war part. Parts of the various defence forces in the United Kingdom have been committed to NATO or deployed in alliance with our European neighbours. There is nothing new about that. So far as there have been such commitments, the British Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have been committed in that way. But I am being drawn out of order again.
  No hon. Member can claim, while keeping a straight face, that we are entering into any obligation to merge our Army, our Air Force or our Navy with anyone else's army, air force or navy. The leap of imagination that goes beyond that—to say that people might be conscripted into any merged force—was an argument unworthy of the Danish referendum, and it should not be deployed here.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Surely there is every difference in the world between an alliance and obligations which follow from citizenship. I find it difficult to fathom this from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. I believe that he is against a formation of a new state of Europe, yet citizenship implies the formation of such a state. How does the Minister square those two matters?
  Mr. Clarke: I am against the formation of a state of Europe. It seems that our arguments on the Bill are slightly beside that point. The most significant part of the Maastricht treaty is that the 12 member states abandoned any suggestion that they would go down the path towards a common state. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, having known each other very well over many years, in my case, any more is a change of mind on my part.
  The idea of the founding fathers—to use that rather pompous phrase—who created the original treaty of Rome was that the institutions of that treaty would extend Community competence to wider fields of whatever sort. In.the end, one effectively has the institutions of a state with a common Parliament, a common court, a Council of Ministers, an embryonic Government and so on. In practice, that has not worked out in the past 20 years to the satisfaction of many people, most especially in the United Kingdom. As I sometimes say, the result is that we are all Gaullists now.
  The Maastricht treaty, compared with all previous European agreements, marked a most sharp change of direction from the common institutions in the direction of extending what we now call a European union into new areas on a different basis of co-operation between sovereign Governments. Article 8, which we are now talking about, is part of establishing that co-operation by a variety of methods.
  I see nothing wrong with the idea that article 8 refers to citizenship of a European union. It involves no derogation from our citizenship of the United Kingdom. Its practical consequence is to impose no new duties. It is to impose the four new rights. The people of the United Kingdom did not have two of those rights before, vis-a-vis the European
  44
  institutions. I see nothing in article 8 which is contrary to the Government's policy or the interests of the United Kingdom.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I hope to move shortly to a conclusion.[Interruption.] I will not give way simply to the hon. Member who shouts the loudest.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has reflected on the conflict of law. For instance, I cannot imagine the circumstances, but it is still held that Parliament may revoke our membership of the European Community. Under the provisions of the Bill, we are citizens of the union. My right hon. and learned Friend seems to be more uncertain about it, but my argument is that that is a superior citizenship, because the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent of the European union. Where does my allegiance and duty lie? Is it with the laws of the United Kingdom or with those of the European union? How would one resolve a conflict should it arise?
  Mr. Clarke: I have not said at any point that I regard European citizenship as superior to British citizenship. The position remains that my hon. Friend, like me, remains a subject of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the courts of the United Kingdom. The courts of the United Kingdom will enforce the duties imposed on us by the laws of the European union, to which Britain will be adhered. So there is no great difficulty.
  If my hon. Friend had the right, which he appears to want, to renounce European citizenship, he would not rid himself of any duties to which he might object, because no duties are imposed on him beyond those which we already contemplate. He would renounce the four new rights which I have advocated. We are discussing an attempt to build around that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: If hon. Members catch your eye, Mr. Morris, they may seek to enlarge the debate and read into the provisions of Article 8 things which are not there.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield and I have already sought to chase off many of the shadows. There is a great deal of talk of waving around documents, reading them and contemplating them. I recommend that my hon. Friends read article 8, in whatever edition they prefer— [Interruption.] It has become clear during these debates that I have not only read far more of the treaty, but have understood it with rather greater clarity, than most of my critics. I will listen to their points, but meanwhile I commend article 8 to the Committee, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield on tabling this probing amendment.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall be brief because there is clearly a great deal of interest in article 8 among hon. Members on both sides of the House. By speaking in support of article 8, I shall by definition speak technically against the amendment. However, judging by the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I believe that he, at least, does not seek to press the amendment to a Division. What other sections of the parliamentary Labour party do will become clear later.

  45
  When we are discussing citizenship, it is important to remember what was pointed out earlier in the debate before the cacophony began which it is the speciality of the Home Secretary to whip up, especially among his hon. Friends. He did so when he served in other Departments and still does in his present Department. Before that cacophony got going, it was pointed out that it was up to the member states of the Community to define citizenship. That is an important prerequisite which comes in front of much of the argument or, if argument is not the right word, many of the points which have been swapped across the Floor of the House.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment if she will let me complete this opening thought.
  As we have seen from the balance in previous debates on this treaty-related legislation, not many of the hon. Members who have attended the debates subscribe to the notion of Europe. However, an increasing number of people—judging by the evidence of one's eyes—and especially younger people see Europe as a natural entity. Irrespective of article 8 and—with respect—what people may say at the Dispatch Box, young people already feel European. They class themselves as European and want to remain in that mould. In giving effect to that outlook for the future, article 8 does the right thing and the House will do the right thing by supporting it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer—
  Mr. Kennedy: I never will be.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address the point in article 8.2 which has been carefully avoided by both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Home Secretary. What does the hon. Gentleman think is meant by:
  "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby"?
  Does he believe that in plain English that seems to say that citizens will not only enjoy the right, for example, to go to the European ombudsman but must respond to the obligations imposed? Is it not likely that all those European young people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers might be slightly less anxious about being European if they suddenly discovered that their future was to be determined by a large organisation in which they had a tiny say?
  Mr. Kennedy: I am glad that the hon. Lady stressed that I was not a lawyer. By definition, my answer will be a lay person's response. It is a straightforward philosophical argument. Any set of rights which citizens enjoy in a nation state or any democratic set-up carries with it responsibilities. We argue about rights and responsibilities —two sides of the same coin—on a host of issues including the economy, domestic social policy and law and order. We argue time and again about the rights of individuals and the responsibilities that those rights carry with them. Article 8 is a classic example of that.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall first complete my answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Who knows, I may even satisfy the hon. Gentleman by fully responding to her point. I doubt it, but I shall try.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned the right to petition the European ombudsman. Let us assume that the treaty will be ratified by Britain and that at some point beyond the end of this year, a citizen of Britain petitions the ombudsman on some grievance. If the ombudsman upholds that grievance, the Government of the day or the institution involved will have to address that grievance and set it right. I am sure that any Member of Parliament would support that process if the grievance were legitimate.
  Rights and responsibilities run in two directions. They are not all from the top down. The institutions which we are creating must have responsibilities in an accountable sense to the citizens of the member states and of the union as a whole. That side of the argument must be put robustly because it is correct and valid.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has many opportunities to speak so I should like to begin by giving way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
  Mr. Gill: My question is short. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion as a layman, is the assertion that the Secretary of State made this afternoon that it is possible to create citizenship without creating a state correct? Is there any truth in that statement?
  Mr. John Fraser: What about Commonwealth citizenship?
  Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has looked rather wider than I might have done to answer that question by saying that one can talk about Commonwealth citizenship. That is an adequate answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. There can be a category or classification of citizenship which goes beyond the nation state.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I give way to the hon. Gentleman because the show would not be complete without Punch.
  Mr. Cash: That is very good, although I daresay that the hon. Gentleman would not particularly want to be called Judy. Does he agree that the discussion is not simply a matter of philosophy? He mentioned the idea that some obligations might arise in connection with the economy. He fails to understand that, under this title, citizenship comes within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the duties imposed by the treaty will be adjudicated upon by the European Court of Justice. The slithery attempt, which the hon. Gentleman has tried on the House, to get past that question by saying that our arguments are nitpicking legalese will not succeed.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the hon. Gentleman a simple and straightforward question. She asked whether he believed that duties would be imposed by the treaty. Will he answer that question?
  Mr. Kennedy: The party of which I am a member can be accused of a range of things, and frequently is by both Conservative and Opposition Members, perhaps even on occasion with justice and correctness. But, in respect of matters European, we can hardly be accused of slithering. Let hon. Members recall the vote that took place here last November.
  The longer this debate goes on, with arguments about very detailed legal definitions, the more we lose sight of the fact that political common sense must be applied. The political common sense of what has been negotiated and agreed, as well as the political circumstances surrounding the entire process since the original Maastricht weekend summit, suggests that some of the fears that have been raised are phantom fears, and the Home Secretary is correct in suggesting that they were introduced during the referendum in Denmark. There is no doubt that votes in Denmark were swung as a result. But these matters must be addressed in a sensible manner. I do not believe that there is some great design going beyond the art of the possible and the politically deliverable, not just at Community level but at the level of individual member states. That is the way in which we should approach the issue.
  5 pm
  Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as the Home Secretary. It has been suggested that the Danish voters were misled by a rumour about the establishment of a European army. The fact is that European countries have already got together and decided that a European defence force would be a good thing. A rapid reaction force has been set up, with Britain as the lead country. That is not a bad thing. Indeed, it may well be a good thing.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am not levelling that accusation; such suggestions have come from other quarters. But let us take the obvious comparison of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Note the word "Treaty". Tragically, in the name of NATO, a British service man was recently killed on active service. That person was a member of the British armed services, which are committed to NATO under the terms of that treaty. It is a treaty to which this country gave its name and to whose implementation, in terms of pursuance of the law, as seen by successive Governments, troops have been committed.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is extremely courteous.
  I should like to put to him the fundamental point that NATO is an association of free and independent sovereign states and that there is no NATO citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out, history contains no instance of the conferring of citizenship on an individual other than by a state or by an empire, such as the British empire, the Roman empire or the Soviet empire. There is no such thing as Commonwealth citizenship. Commonwealth nationals resident in this country have the citizenship of the nations to which they belong, and we choose freely to grant to them certain rights and privileges of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Perhaps, if he catches your eye later, Mr. Morris, we shall hear his argument
  48
  developed more fully. In the meantime I am having the greatest difficulty in understanding the focus of his comments.
  Let us consider the United Kingdom itself. In this regard my remarks are directed not at Labour Members who are hostile, concerned or critical in respect of this matter but at Government Members, who are members of the Conservative and Unionist party. I am a Scot. I am from a country with a distinct culture, a distinct education system, a different Church and a different legal system. Some Scots are happy, and some are not, but we are represented in the United Kingdom Parliament and contribute as a part of the kingdom.
  Some Scots like the idea of dual citizenship. For example, the late Iain Macleod always entered "Scottish" in the nationality column of hotel registers. Some Scots feel Scottish in some contexts but British in others. Different instincts may prevail at different times. But that does not make either identity less valid than the other—a point that has been missed entirely in respect of European citizenship, which is regarded as an element of this union. What we have here is a question of confidence in one's personal and national identity. If, in this respect, the European level can be furthered, so much the better.
  On the question of the definition of citizenship, we welcome recognition of the reality of freedom of movement and freedom of employment. Then there is the question of voting rights—something that exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides. In this context, there has been discussion of the meaning of "municipal". I have not seen the legal ruling that has been referred to, but I am somewhat reassured by the Home Secretary's remarks about what was in mind when the treaty was being drafted.
  In this regard, two further points ought to be made for the benefit of those who are critical of the right to vote in local—I shall not use the word "municipal"—or European parliamentary elections. There is no doubt that that is a significant extension of rights and of their political effects on individual member states. However, it remains open to the electorate in any constituency, whether in a local election or in a European parliamentary election, to cast their votes as they please. If people are not satisfied that a candidate from another member state is sufficiently local to represent them properly, they may vote for someone else.
  In this regard, I agree with what was said about my right hon. Friend the former leader of the Liberal party, who, as a matter of principle, put the theory to the test in Italy some years ago and was rejected at the ballot box. It was his right to exercise that freedom under Italian law, as it was the right of Italian voters not to accept him as a parliamentary representative.
  Mr. Cash: With regard to the word "municipal", the European Court of Justice said in 1972:
  "the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law, whatever their nature, can be legally invoked."
  It is quite clear that, in that context, "municipal" means national.
  Mr. Kennedy: As I have already said, I am not a lawyer, but that definition is very legalistic and forensic. I am not in a position—certainly not off the top of my head—to discuss "municipal" in this context and come up with something authoritative. No doubt the hon. Gentleman

  49
  has himself sought legal opinion, and we look forward to hearing what it is. I am quite sure that he would not have raised the matter in this way without having satisfied himself. We look forward to hearing from him.
  Mr. Fraser: As distinct from international law, which is law governing several countries, municipal law means domestic law and has nothing whatever to do with local authorities.
  Mr. Kennedy: For the second time during my short contribution, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  I do not wish to go beyond the bounds of this group of amendments, Mr. Morris, but article 8 carries with it an extension of voting rights and opportunities. That is an important constitutional and political development and it is fundamental. It is a matter of principle and is one of the reasons why I take the view that the British public should have the opportunity to cast its verdict on the treaty, outwith the normal scope of a general election, as and when we have completed the procedures and processes of this House. That is why we should have a referendum and that is why I shall cast my vote in favour of the opportunity for such a process, as and when we get that right.
  Although I differ entirely some hon. Members on their analysis of the viewpoint, I recognise that the issue is one of principle and as such goes beyond the normal confines of party politics.
  Mr. Toby Jessel rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: This will be the last intervention that I shall allow, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extension of voting rights in local municipal elections and elections for the European Parliament to people from the continent, as the treaty refers to both. Does he not think that that could be the thin end of the wedge for a proposal to extend voting rights to foreigners in parliamentary general elections, which could distort the result in a way that most of us would not want?
  Mr. Kennedy: I stand open to correction, but I think that citizens of the Irish Republic have voting rights in United Kingdom general elections. If it is the thin end of the wedge—to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase—then it was not inserted by anything decided at Maastricht, but has been accepted in the House for decades. If hon. Members are so concerned about the breach or the establishment of that principle, why did they not try to deal with it through all the procedures open to them as Back Bench Members of Parliament, such as ten-minute Bills, Adjournment debates, private Members' motions and all the rest? Why has it suddenly become such a fear when it is suggested as a part of the Maastricht treaty? I do not accept that argument.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: No, I gave a fair response to the previous intervention and I wish to finish now.
  In conclusion, it is interesting that the concept of citizenship is assuming increasing salience in domestic and international politics among the centre-left or reformist politicians—whichever terminology one chooses–—as opposed to the traditionalists. It is being much debated
  50
  within the Labour party. When Governor Clinton was running for President he stressed the sense of empowerment and of the citizen being able to assume more rights and as a result have more access to activities within his or her country. Definitions of citizenship have become a subject and focus of debate in the Liberal and Labour parties as well as elsewhere in this country.
  The present Foreign Secretary, as Home Secretary under the former leader of the Conservative party, set out his views of "active citizenship" in the United Kingdom. Clearly, citizenship is a political idea whose time has come. That being the case, it is appropriate for it to be highlighted in article 8 of the treaty. The article is partly practical, and it points towards greater political and institutional integration. It points in a more federal direction and I welcome that. The article is also partly philosophical because it deals with citizenship and begins to redefine and consider the notion of the nation state freshly and more fully. As such, I believe that the article commands our support and we are pleased to welcome it as part of the legislation before us.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: I suspect that this apparently insignificant but detailed debate may, with hindsight, turn out to be one of the turning points in our debate on the Bill. If people outside this place fully comprehended what the proposed treaty of European union will do to their identity, they would call into question the legitimacy of what the Government are calling upon the House to endorse.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who is the long spokesman for the Liberal party on such matters and a great enthusiast for Europe—as we all are—shed a ray of candour on our proceedings when he said that the issue of citizenship was so important that it merited a referendum.
  I had my Damascus road conversion on the proposed treaty of European union when those "gullible Danes" —as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary so enchantingly put it—in their considered majority rejected their Government's proposal that the treaty should be ratified. The British people are not gullible. If they had the chance—as they certainly deserve—they would vote against a citizenship of the union as proposed in article 8 of the treaty.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that, in his frank speech—which I was pleased to listen to when he called for a referendum—the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty, and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) made it clear that he had limited time for the nation state?
  Is it not clear that the ardent federalists in this House, not least the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—who has stated time and time again that he is in favour of a federal arrangement—are keen on the treaty because they understand that is it the paving stone to reach that state, whereas the Home Secretary and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman refuse to concede that fact? Would it not be more frank of the Government to say that outright, rather than trying to mislead the Committee and the British public, which cannot be forgiven?
  Mr. Wilkinson: That may be so: I would not seek to gainsay the hon. Gentleman. It is instructive to note that the title of part II, which contains article 8, is "Citizenship

  51
  of the Union". It does not even say "citizenship of the European Community". The word "community" gives the sense of a free association of sovereign states. The title suggests citizenship of a union—a political entity, a new creation. It is a highly centralised creation. It is not even a federation, with proper checks and balances between the constituent elements and the centre, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred. It is a union—a centralised united states of Europe.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): There is nothing in the treaty to imply that the union is taking on the essential attributes of statehood. The union has no legal personality. It has to act through those of its component parts which have a legal personality—the communities —whenever there is a question of giving rights enforceable in law. That is why the citizenship provisions are included in the Community treaty. They are there, rather than in intergovernmental provisions. The union does not have a legal personality.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I did not know that I was being so provocative. I thought that I was merely stating the truth.
  Mr. Gill: Is not the question, do the British people believe what the Minister has said? Does the Committee believe what the Minister has said? If it does not, the Government have got it wrong, and those of us who are opposed to the treaty have got it right.
  Mr. Wilkinson: We are not permitted to know the answer, because the British people have not been allowed to exercise their judgment on that crucial issue—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yet.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We should have a referendum.
  Article 8.1 of the treaty states:
  "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established."
  Citizenship is precious to us. It is an attribute most dear to an individual, and primarily acquired by virtue of birth. If it is not acquired by birth, citizenship is acquired by conscious and carefully considered application—in this country by a process of naturalisation.
  I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, have been involved in many such cases, and may have had to affirm as a Member of Parliament that an applicant was worthy of British citizenship. Therefore, you will know that it is something that our state considers important.
  It is so important that I well recall sitting along into the night during the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, when the issue of citizenship was considered at great length as we thought that it could not lightly be given away. We thought that British citizenship was being abused and that we should be careful to whom we should grant it. The signatories of the proposed treaty of European union are not careful—by fiat and edict, they think that they can bestow it on anybody, whether or not he or she wishes it, so long as the individual happens to hold citizenship of a European Community country.
  Mr. Marlow: Is it not an insult to the concept of citizenship if people are obliged to have it whether or not they want it?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: What about the citizens charter?
  Mr. Marlow: Yes: if my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were to look at the citizens charter, he would see the value bestowed on it—a value that will be devalued by the Bill.
  Mr. Wilkinson: That is true. The only other means whereby, historically, citizenship has been acquired has been by a process of conquest. That is how citizenship has traditionally been imposed on those who did not wish to assume it voluntarily.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is not building an elegant tower on shaky sand. It seems that the vast majority of citizens of the union have been born within the European Community. If they have the sort of citizenship that makes them eligible for citizenship of the union, it will have been bestowed on them with the same sort of care as that shown when bestowing citizenship on British citizens.
  Mr. Wilkinson: As usual, my hon. Friend attributes the best of motives to those involved. That has been the trouble throughout the passage of the legislation. We have all been bored into attributing the best of motives to those who have enjoined us to ratify the legislation, but it is not our job to be gullible. Our job is to subject the proposed legislation to the most careful scrutiny and make people outside realise exactly what is at stake, so that, even if they do not rise up with sticks and staves, they rise up in anger at what is proposed and say that their birthright is worthy of protection. Those people are willing to accept another citizenship, but only if it is their democratic desire so to do, as expressed by their majority will in a referendum.
  Mr. Spearing: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it was not easy to scrutinise the legislation because the Home Secretary used his favourite device of provoking a riot and retiring under the protection of the procedural police?
  I wish to raise the issue of citizens' reponsibilities to the Crown in the armed services, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) may have knowledge. If the Crown is subject to a single authority in relation to foreign security policy, and therefore its military consequences—which it is—is the citizen serving the Crown as determined by Ministers of the House, supported by Parliament? Or is it the case that, in the words of the treaty in article J.5:
  "The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy"?
  Will they not serve the president of the union for the six-month period, rather than the Crown responsible to the House?
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a nice point, and one to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought vainly to reply. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought to provoke a riot—I cannot imagine anybody less likely to provoke a riot. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have known each other, and I have had the privilege of being his hon. Friend on and off, since about 1970, and he is a man with whom it is difficult to take issue, as one instinctively warms to him. However, I do not instinctively warm to his arguments on the issue under discussion, and I am not gullible.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretaryof State is a nice person, and in case he is in danger of being gullible on the issue of citizenship—like my right hon. And learned Friend the Home Secretary—I ask him to read the EC Commission's report on citizenship, published in a supplement on 21 October 1990. It stated that European citizenship as in the treaty was
  "the setting of targets for the definition of an individual's civic, economic and social rights at a later stage."
  Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Commission and Parliament that that is an important issue, not an insignificant one as has been suggested?
  Mr. Wilkinson: The supplement does contain that statement. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was trying to distinguish between the respective applicability to citizens of the union of those parts that are strictly within the competence of the treaty, with relevance to the European Community, and those parts that lie within intergovernmental co-operation—defence and security policy. All I shall say on the second category is that, although the preamble has no legal effect and is not justiciable—
  Mr. Budgen: It is important to state that it is almost certain that the preamble is justiciable and something that the European Court of Justice is obliged to take into account. When we consider that the European Court of Justice describes itself in political terms as the agent for greater federalism, we see that my hon. Friend has made no small mistake.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has clarified that issue. If he is right, the resolution in the preamble
  "to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence"
  is germane to those citizens of the union who, through no fault of their own, find themselves with an additional citizenship conferred by article 8 of the treaty.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend should also read the concluding phrase:
  "thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and the world".
  Plainly, the identity of a state is enhanced by a single army. That is a way of reinforcing the European identity. Independence plainly means the independence of Europe not only from other nation states but from subordinate nation states below it.
  It is no good saying that the preamble is a vague aspiration. It is part of the legislation, and it will be the basis of the discussions in 1996 when the EC settles down for a further period of what it calls steady progress towards a federal union.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: I will not follow my hon. Friend's detailed points, except to say that, in my lay judgment, the citizens of the union will in effect have the rights and obligations normally associated with the citizens of a single state. That, at least, is how I read the treaty.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of military and defence matters, and he and I have often debated them here over the past few years. I am sure that he will recall the establishment of the rapid
  54
  reaction force, which was intended to be the precursor of an army in which every citizen of the Community and every country of the Community would take up their obligations. Time and again we have argued that it would be better if not only France and Britain but the rest of the European Community took up certain international obligations.
  Conservative Members who have raised the spectre of such an army are absolutely right, and the Home Secretary is wrong. This is indeed the beginning of a development towards a European army, but I remind Conservative Members that they welcomed the statement in which the Secretary of State for Defence announced the establishment of a rapid reaction force, and that more than once they have advocated the deployment of joint forces from Europe—especially in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia.
  Mr. Wilkinson: That was interesting, but I will not pursue it. I am more interested in the citizenship aspect, which is strictly relevant to this group of amendments.
  A more exact parallel was shown by the judgment of the French National Assembly when, in 1954, it rejected the proposed European defence community, recognising that a unified European army was a step too far for the citizens of France—just as this treaty is a step too far for our citizens, unless they are given the opportunity, as they morally should be, to express their will in a referendum. If they are not given that chance, Her Majesty's Government will show themselves either undemocratic in this matter or exhibiting a rare lack of confidence about the outcome.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that my hon. Friend had made a mistake in thinking that the preamble was not justiciable. May I reassure my hon. Friend that he is in good company? When we debated the Single European Act, Baroness Chalker, as she now is, speaking for the Government, was repeatedly questioned on whether the preamble had any meaning or justiciability. She said that it did not. She was wrong, just as my hon. Friend is wrong. So, although we have been reassured time after time by Ministers that all our anxieties about citizenship are as dross, we should beware.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Again, I do not intend to pursue my hon. Friend's historical allusion, except to say that, in a number of instances important matters of fact and of principle have not been dealt with by Ministers, who have relied on the closure and the sheer weight of votes to close the argument. I hope that you, Mr. Lofthouse, will permit us the time that the importance of this group of amendments merits.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend creates a great deal of interest by his protestations against closures and the authoritarian behaviour that has so often marred and marked discussion of this Bill. My hon. Friend gives us to understand that parliamentary democracy is not working in these circumstances. Even those of us who, in general, dislike referendums are coming round to the belief, albeit reluctantly, that one may be necessary in this case.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Indeed. I was going to say, in the context of the first paragraph of article 8, that the parallels to which I referred earlier, dealing with how citizenship has traditionally been conferred, are historically correct: that is, by birth, by naturalisation, by registration in the case of Commonwealth citizens, or by conquest. There was a time

  55
  when the very word "subjecthood" encapsulated the status of those who possessed British citizenship. It was the same sort of status as that to which St. Paul referred when he stood up and said, "Civis Romanus sum". It was his assurance that he would be subject to the due processes of Roman law.
  With citizenship goes the right to deny oneself citizenship—to give it up. The Home Secretary suggested that the only way in which a European national could renounce his European citizenship was to renounce the nationality of his birth or the nationality that he acquired by naturalisation. That is most unsatisfactory. The treaty should provide for renunciation of citizenship.
  It is very broad in scope:
  "Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union".
  I should like to hear what Home Office Ministers have to say about British overseas citizens—an important category. We in this Parliament decided that those who had some connection with the United Kingdom for historical reasons—British subjects of Asian origin living in East Africa, say—should have this category of overseas British citizenship bestowed on them. That would be useful, in as much as they would have a British passport of a kind, but it would not entitle them to residence in the United Kingdom.
  That is an important distinction, which the treaty does not mention. I therefore take it that, under the treaty, British overseas citizens would have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and duties as other British nationals. I presume, too, that British overseas territories citizens would have the same rights and duties. It is an extremely important point, because of the immigration and freedom of movement aspects of the proposed treaty of union.
  I assume that, with European union citizenship, people with British overseas citizenship could go to France or to another European Community country and establish residence there. It would be interesting to see how the courts decided whether such people could move to the United Kingdom. The first such case would be fascinating. Many Chinese people in Macao hold Portuguese nationality. I assume that, as citizens of the union, they could, if they wanted to, come here. Perhaps 5 million Hong Kong Chinese cannot come here, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) tells me that 100,000 Chinese from Macao with Portuguese nationality and thereby European citizenship could come here. That is interesting and important.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend argues that European citizenship should be capable of renunciation by those who do not wish to hold it any longer. I am puzzled by that argument, because it would mean that European citizenship was independent of the citizenship of EC nation states. That would mean that European citizenship would have its own status, independent of the independent state to which the person also belonged.
  That would confer on European citizenship a status similar to the kind that I understood my hon. Friend was arguing against, the citizenship of an independent unit— the European Community. Therefore, it is illogical to demand that a citizen should be able to give up that
  56
  citizenship when it must and should be entirely dependent upon his citizenship of another European Community country.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend touches on an interesting point. A person holding British nationality and residing in this country should be able to exercise choice about whether to acquire that additional nationality. It is not for a Government, by virtue of a treaty that they happened to sign in a small town in Holland, to decide to confer on all British nationals a new citizenship, unless of course the majority of those citizens so desire in a referendum. Likewise, in all equity they should have the right to renounce citizenship that has been conferred upon them, especially if it has been conferred without their express authority, democratically given in a referendum.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the hon. Gentleman's response to that intervention, may I ask whether he is saying that a United Kingdom citizen, a professional soldier in our armed forces who finds that his unit is being committed to the United Nations to perform, for example, peacekeeping duties, can say, "No, I do not agree. I am quite willing to be a British soldier, but I am not prepared to wear a blue helmet and serve on behalf of the United Nations, because I did not support the treaty which instituted that state of affairs." That is the logical corollary to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. Wilkinson: In no sense is that a logical deduction from what I said. I think that the hon. Gentleman had to be out of Committee when I referred to his speech and his false allusion to NATO. There is no comparison between NATO, a free association of independent, sovereign states, and the European union in terms of conferring obligations on citizens.
  It is noteworthy that NATO is such a free association of independent states that the French, since De Gaulle's time, have decided, in their own sovereign manner, to remain independent of NATO's integrated military structure. NATO has always been a free association of independent states and quite different from the union. Certainly it never had citizenship; nor did it confer obligations on citizens of member states.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. NATO was established by treaty, and as a result we have obligations to it. It is true that some members, such as France, opted out of some responsibilities, in exactly the same way as the Government opted out of some of their responsibilities under Maastricht—for example, the social chapter. I wish that we could get away from the irrelevant argument about citizenship in terms of defence-related security, which we shall discuss under another group of amendments. It ill becomes a party which has subscribed to these international organisations and which has waved the flag time and time again now to start knocking it down.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman on this—far from it. It has not been my desire to bring the debate so dominantly to the issue of military obligations. We have taken up some time on that, but only because some hon. Members remain confused about what the obligations of citizens of the union may be in that regard. That is because of the unclear and unsatisfactory dichotomy between those aspects of the

  57
  treaty that fall within the ambit of the Community and those that fall within the ambit of intergovernmental co-operation. I shall gladly move on—I am sure that you, Mr Lofthouse, will be pleased at that.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the Scottish, Welsh and Irish examples. I was elected as a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, and nothing made me sadder than when the Conservative party broke from Unionist party in 1972 upon the dissolution of Stormont, against which I voted. The great distinction is that there has already been a democratic process in all three of those parts of the kingdom. At various times, they each had a referendum about their status in the United Kingdom. There was one in Northern Ireland, and at the time of the Bill on devolution there was one in Scotland and one in Wales.
  I agree that those soundings of opinion may have been unsatisfactory. Perhaps they were not ideal, and the wording may not have been perfect, but our citizens in those parts of the kingdom at least had a chance to exercise their right to vote. What is so different and wrong today is that all the people in our country are not to have the chance to express an opinion about whether they wish to be citizens of the European union.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: How many hundreds of letters has the hon. Gentleman had from his constituents demanding to become members of the union of Europe?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I look forward to receiving the first. When it arrives, I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, so that I may read it to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office. It will he quite an historic document.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and wide-ranging speech. I am sure that he will come to that aspect of the treaty which allows our constituents to petition the European Parliament. I am sure that he is aware that, as they do so, article 138c will apply. That important article, of which I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware, allows 25 per cent., a mere quarter, of European parliamentarians to set up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged—I stress "alleged"—contraventions in the implementation of Community law.
  If we are not seen to be applying Community law, a petitioner from my hon. Friend's constituency could go over his head to the European Parliament and, on the basis of a mere 25 per cent., an inquiry could be set up to investigate why this country was not applying the law of citizenship in the way that European institutions might, at a later stage, decide.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his intervention helps me to make progress and to move on to article 8a.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before leaving this matter, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that there is a real problem in Europe that is not dealt with in the documents, by the Commission or by the European Parliament? Large numbers of people who are nationals of non-European member states enjoy no political rights in Europe, but that is not dealt with in the treaty. That is especially so in the case of Germany, where it is virtually impossible for a non-German to gain German nationality.
  58
  Such people are very much second-class citizens and will remain so in the European union envisaged by Maastricht. Should not that issue be dealt with, as it involves the civil rights of people throughout the world?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to such an important point. It would have been a great mistake to move on too quickly and to overlook it. He and I have a mutual family interest in this matter.
  An aspect of equity is involved. In the old days, the position was anomalous, because Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic—although it left the Commonwealth in 1949—enjoyed all the rights of British nationals without having to obtain British citizenship. In those days—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would call them the bad old days— European Community citizens did not enjoy those rights. It was an extraordinary position, because Commonwealth nationals from, perhaps, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who spoke no English could vote in European parliamentary elections, while European Community nationals could not.
  Even if, by some misfortune, the treaty were to be ratified—every hour that passes on the international exchanges makes it look less likely—there would still be an injustice. Citizens of the United States, of Canada and of other non-Community European countries who are resident in Britain, fulfilling all the qualifications for the franchise, would be unable to enjoy it even though they use as many local government services as, for example, European Community nationals also resident in Britain. The question is only partially and inadequately dealt with in the treaty.
  Paragraph 2 of article 8a contains the real impetus behind the provisions. The driving force for making the citizenship provisions work is not the national Parliaments, not the national electorates and not the will of the people; it is the Council of Ministers. How will the Council be impelled to do what it collectively believes to be right? It will not be in response to popular will or to the wishes of constituents exercised through hon. Members in this place—it will he by a proposal from the Commission.
  It is not we, Members of this sovereign imperial Parliament at Westminster, who will be consulted; it will be the Members of the European Parliament at Strasbourg. As you will know from your lengthy experience, Mr. Lofthouse, it is an extremely remote body. I doubt whether Members of the European Parliament receive more than 10 or 20 letters a week—probably only half the amount that we receive every day. They certainly have little opportunity to see their constituents and, sadly, their constituents see little of them.
  Mr. Jessel: They do not know who they are.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend has the misfortune to be poorly represented in the European Parliament. The Member of the European Parliament who represents me is also a Member of the other place, so I see him frequently. It is a good example of the benefits of the old system, when Members of the European Parliament could also be Members of the British Parliament. There was a much better cross-fertilisation and Members of the European Parliament were more realistic. Indeed, they

  59
  would have been more realistic about citizenship issues, because they would have been better in touch with the ordinary electorate. The same applies to article 8b.
  I have no quarrel with article 8c. It is common decency that European Community countries should afford consular access to nationals of other Community countries that happen to have no representation in a particular third country. It is right that, between civilised nations, humanitarian assistance should be given to those in distress. That is spelt out in the treaty in belt-and-braces fashion.
  Article 18 would give every citizen of the European union the right to petition the European Parliament. British citizens have known since time immemorial that they have the right to petition our Parliament—and not just to petition it, but to come here to see us, and even to badger us if need be. We are the most accessible legislators in the world.
  That cannot be said of Members of the European Parliament. Apart from anything else, they are always on the move and we cannot catch up with them. One week they may be in Strasbourg, the next in Luxembourg and the next in Brussels. If we are lucky, we might catch up with them in the lounge at Frankfurt airport. That position does not inspire confidence.
  Mr. Rowe: It is another example of how Maastricht has adopted another good British practice for the edification of the other 11 countries that have not, thus far, aspired to such good practice.
  Mr. Wilkinson: That is right. If the European Parliament betters itself by a process of osmosis, that is all to the good. I am not belittling that. I was trying to show that, time and again in the treaty, on the most sensitive matter of citizenship, the Maastricht signatories must defer not to national Parliaments but to the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. There is hardly a word in the treaty about national Parliaments and their role.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is treating the Committee to a careful examination and perusal of article 8, but he passed quickly over article 8b(2), which concerns arrangements for voting in European elections. They shall be decided on a proposal from the Commission, through the Council of European Parliament. There is the possibility of a derogation, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the derogation is always time-barred and time-limited. Is my hon. Friend an enthusiast of proportional representation? If not, he may find that it will be imposed on the United Kingdom by that measure.
  6 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. In my strong desire to make progress, I overlooked that important point—as I did in respect of article 8b, where the same applies to municipal elections: arrangements
  "may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State."
  Again, there could be moves in the Community to harmonise elections for municipalities on, for example, a proportional representation basis—which would be anathema to most right hon. and hon. Members, who
  60
  believe that the strong connection between the councillor and his ward electorate is crucial to the satisfactory functioning of our democracy.
  It would also be damaging for European Parliament elections to be by proportional representation, which I am sure is the desire of the majority of Community member states. It is important for our citizens not to go down that road but for this country to obtain the derogation to which my hon. Friend alluded.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: My hon. Friend has several times denigrated the role of the European Parliament. He was very rude about it, despite the fact that a number of MEPs are members of our party, and presumably are not subject to the kind of criticisms that my hon. Friend was offering? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the declarations on the role of national parliaments in the European Union and on the conference of the parliaments, proposed on page 127 of the treaty? They would solve many of the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention.
  Mr. Wilkington: I must resist the temptation to respond, because I am trying to stick strictly to the amendments on citizenship, and not deal with matters relating to the place to which my hon. Friend so dearly aspires.
  Article 8e states:
  "The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council, and to the Economic and Social Committee"—
  a body of bureaucrats, not a national parliament—
  "on the application of the provisions of this Part."
  In other words, it will report on progress in the matter of European citizenship.
  That is, once again, a fundamentally undemocratic procedure, which flies in the face of the natural obligation of the signatories to the treaty to recognise that sovereign national parliaments are the custodians of the most dear and sacred rights of their citizens—the rights of citizenship.
  Mr. Fraser: I support the treaty's proposals for union citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, although it is currently nothing more than a symbol, it is an important token of membership of a multinational, multilingual and multi-faceted community.
  Two of my three children were able to work and live in the Community without work permits or restrictions on their ability to move about. Many members of the younger generation find it extremely difficult to understand the narrow nationalism portrayed by so many of the artificialities and distortions that I have heard from Conservative Members over three days.
  To the younger generation, the restrictions on individual citizenship and divisions between European countries have become archaic. The symbolism provided by citizenship of a greater Community should be welcome. I represent a multilingual, multiracial and multi-coloured constituency. If people have both a United Kingdom and a United Kingdom and European union citizenship— albeit that it will give them only nominal rights in other countries initially—that will diminish the divisions that have proved dangerous in society and in the world.
  It is important to have at the beginning—the word "beginning" is what matters—formal but tangible recognition of the rights of European Community citizens in the Community.
  Sir Richard Body rose—
  Mr. Fraser: Having sat here for three days, I made a promise to myself not to give way to any Euro-bores—but perhaps just this once.
  Sir Richard Body: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency, as I have, a large number of Irish people. They have the opportunity to vote for him, although they are not citizens of this country. I see no reason why that principle should not be extended throughout the Community. I would welcome that. It does not mean that we must have a supranational citizenship imposed upon us, with accompanying future duties and obligations of which we do not know.
  Mr. Fraser: It will probably be best if I continue with my own speech.
  Although it is only a beginning, that is no reason to vote against it. Citizens ought to have enforceable and equal rights. One of the first times that I voted against my own Government was in 1968, when the concept of United Kingdom citizenship was being diminished in relation to Kenyan Asians. If we are to have European citizenship, it must be meaningful.
  There are three deficiencies in the union citizenship that the treaty promulgates. The first is specific and regrettable —the omission of the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Under the treaty, people will have the right to vote in municipal elections—that is, local government elections, in case Conservative Members do not understand the meaning of the word "municipal". They will also have the right, not surprisingly, to stand for election to the European Parliament and to vote in European elections.
  It would be crazy to be a citizen of the Community and not to have those rights. Those who live, work and currently reside in another member state should have the right to vote in parliamentary elections also, and that right ought to be conferred by the treaty. It is completely incomprehensible that a German, Italian or Greek can live, work and reside in my constituency for his entire lifetime but not have the chance to vote in a parliamentary election, whereas the Government can give the right to a person who has lived on the costa del crime for the past 12 years, or who left this country because he did not like it and now resides in South Africa, to get on the electoral role and to play a part in British parliamentary elections. It is extraordinary that the latter can happen, yet a fellow European citizen who has worked here and lived here, even if not for his entire life, cannot play a part in parliamentary elections.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney rose—
  Mr. Fraser: No, I will not give way.
  My second point relates to immigration and dependency rights. I believe that, if there is to be a right of union citizenship, the rights attaching to such citizenship should be equal, and should be harmonised. At present, a rather odd distinction exists. If an Italian, a Frenchman or a German living in this country—and exercising his economic rights in the Community—should marry, no primary purpose rule will apply to the marriage: under European law, that person's wife can remain with him. If they want to bring their children under the age of 21 to this country, they can do so. Indeed, they have the right to bring their grandparents, and any other relatives.
  62
  That right, enjoyed by other European Community citizens, is superior to the right currently held by United Kingdom citizens. Surely there is a deficiency in a citizenship that does not harmonise the rights involving dependants. I want those rights to be harmonised upwards rather than downwards—and the Government, in the intergovernmental conference, seem to be trying to harmonise them downwards.
  Let me now deal with what I consider to be the principal deficiency. I believe that the Rome treaty, as amended by the Single European Act—it is, of course, to be amended further by the Maastricht treaty—is seriously deficient, in that it does not contain a declaration of principle, and does not confer a specific competence in relation to freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, colour, national origins or social status. Generally speaking, all those grounds are mentioned in the European convention on human rights and the United Nations charter on the subject. For the sake of brevity, I shall call them the "freedom from racial discrimination" grounds, although the definition in the convention is rather wider.
  We are discussing the creation of a reality from article 8, which concerns the freedom to reside and to move freely. A person subject to discrimination in regard to housing, for instance, cannot reside freely in another country.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Article F says:
  "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law."
  Mr. Fraser: That, I believe, is in the preamble to the treaty. I am arguing that the provisions should be rather more specific. It is true that the preamble contains a reference to the convention; it is possible that articles 100 and 235 confer a competence, and that the social chapter does the same, although very marginally. What I want is a specific reference in the treaty, as an adjunct to citizenship rights, to the elimination of discrimination; the treaty should both make a declaration and provide the necessary machinery.
  That is done elsewhere in the treaty. Article 119 is specific about women's rights in relation to equal pay. From that article developed the equal pay directive, which in part had already been translated into English domestic law but whose translation was then completed. I believe that one of the concomitants of union citizenship should be a provision similar to article 119, which would deal with racial discrimination and would enable the Commission —by way of a directive—to develop the machinery to make a declaration of principle enforceable.
  If I am to remain in order, I must make a speech about citizenship. Let me make it clear, however, that, if I were out of order, I would be arguing for a general freedom from discrimination, irrespective of citizenship. I had better say that in case I am thought to be leaving out the question of migrant workers and those without European citizenship.
  Mr. Corbyn: Do not the Maastricht treaty and the whole thrust of European thinking and legislation completely ignore the political rights of 15 million people who live and work on the continent of Europe, many of

  63
  whom are refused nationality in their own countries? None of the legislation is addressed to them. Maastricht will make the current two-tier residence in Europe worse rather than better.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Fraser: I agree. I think that the rights of migrant workers—and those of people who are simply dependants —should be exactly the same as those of citizens. I should have liked to speak about that in relation to the social chapter. One of the most regrettable features of the Government's failure to support the social chapter is the fact that the country has been robbed of the authority, and the credibility, to press the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the context of the chapter. Although the treaty may contain competences and declarations elsewhere, opting out of the social chapter makes it much more difficult to argue that the Commission should initiate legislation in which the Government wish to play no part.
  Although there is no constitutional right in this country to be free from racial discrimination—because we have no constitution, although, of course, we are party to the European convention on human rights—we have done rather well. When I first represented my constituency—being a multiracial constituency, it has been racked with riots—discrimination was blatantly exercised. I believe that it is a happier constituency, and that this is a happier country, since the introduction of the Race Relations Act. We have a good record. It is no good just stating principles; the machinery must be created, in this country and in the Community, to turn those principles into reality.
  Other countries have built such principles into their constitutions. The very phrase "liberty, equality, fraternity" must imply freedom from racial discrimination. Every other member of the European Community has acceded to the European declaration on human rights, and all of them—unlike Britain—have imported it into their domestic law. We, who have not adopted the constitutional principle, have done better than the countries which have not. That gave us an authority, undermined by our rejection of the social chapter, to introduce laws relating to discrimination.
  My point is that, given that we have a Race Relations Act, and given that all other Community member states accede—either directly in their constitutions, or by importing the provisions of the European convention into their domestic laws—not including such matters in more detail in the treaty represents an omission from the rights of citizens and, pace my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, from those of others.
  Declarations of principle are not enough. According to the American constitution, it is self-evident that all men are horn equal. That did not help the slaves until 1864, and it did not help a lot of black people until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. We need more than a declaration of principle: we need the machinery to implement it.
  It is the Labour party's view, expressed at our European conference late last year, and the view of the European parliamentary Labour party that there should
  64
  be a directive on such matters. I endorse that view, and I consider that such a directive is an important ingredient of citizenship. It is important for these reasons.
  First, freedom from discrimination is, in one way or another, part of the governing principles of every member of the Community. Therefore, it is a gross omission for it not to be spelt out exactly in the treaty.
  Secondly, the danger inside the Community and Europe as a whole is not discrimination on grounds of nationality. People are no longer, if they ever were, discriminated against specifically because they are French or German. It is much more likely, as happened before the war, that people are discriminated against because they are Jewish, or gipsies, or Arabs. Discrimination always was, perhaps, discrimination on the grounds of membership of a group, not on grounds of nationality. It is self-evident from what is happening in Yugoslavia that discrimination against people because of their membership of a group has to be dealt with.
  Thirdly, freedom from discrimination is important as a matter of self-interest. Let no one ever imagine that to allow discrimination can be in anybody's self-interest. It is not; it is the reverse. One only has to look at the history of Northern Ireland and at what is happening now in Yugoslavia. If people were motivated only by self-interest, they would want workable laws against racial discrimination. That is why it is so important to incorporate this principle into the practice of the Community. In a cohesive Community, differences of race and social origin would be unimportant.
  It is also important that the European Community should set an example to the rest of the world. One hears talk nowadays of fortress Europe, of a European Community that is distinct and different, that sets itself apart and makes itself exclusive in terms of the rest of the world. When the Community deals with racial discrimination, we shall demonstrate to the rest of the world that the Community has a wider view. At the moment, unfortunately, the Community has an image of being largely white and largely Christian. It is, however, a Community that will eventually incorporate not an Islamic state but Muslims. Turkey is a secular state, but if Turkey or Cyprus becomes a member of the Community, the Community will also incorporate a Muslim tradition. Therefore, it is important for us to demonstrate to the rest of the world what the Community has in mind.
  I have listened to several days of the debate, and I have been surprised by the lack of vision and the lack of idealism. Last weekend, the world deplored, not celebrated, the rise of Hitler 60 years ago, a rise that was largely helped by the hatred of foreign nationals, Jews, gipsies, Slays and minority groups. Six years after Hitler's rise to power, there was a world war. That world war became the basis for forming a community in Europe. The prime purpose of its formation was to prevent that from ever happening again. But we need more than that. If we look at what is happening in Germany and other member states, we see that we also need to learn other lessons about the rise of Hitler to power in the 1930s.
  If we are to have citizenship of the union, it must be a full and equal citizenship in which each man and woman has equal dignity. Citizenship should be broadened to the extent of having real declarations and real machinery for the elimination of discrimination throughout the

  65
  Community, and they would apply not just to citizens of the Community but to everyone living within the Community.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: What worries me about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is that if, against the will of the British people, we are forced into a union where the laws and requirements are not consistent with the wishes of the British people, it may fan those very hatreds that the hon. Gentleman, with the rest of us, is so anxious to stop.
  There was much in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I agreed. The aims that he spelled out are aims with which we can all align, but they can be achieved through intergovernmental co-operation, not by forcing through a pattern of co-operation against the wishes of the people and against sensitivities of our British history and tradition.
  This is the first time that I have made a speech in the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and I hope to be brief, but that is not to say that I shall be patronising towards those who wish to intervene. I shall not call them Euro-bores because everybody here has some contribution to make. I speak as someone who, although he is on this side of the discussion, is a European, has always been a European and hopes always to be a European.
  When the time came for us to try to make sure that the British people were persuaded that Britain should stay in the European Community, I took a very expensive three weeks away from my practice at the Bar in order to spend every day, as in a general election campaign, persuading people that we should stay within the European Community because of the many advantages to them if we did so. My bona fides, therefore, are clear.
  I want the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Community. If we do not give our approval to Maastricht, we shall stay part of the European Community. I do not wish the United Kingdom to leave it, but I do not think that the way in which the European Community is going is necessarily the way that would meet with the agreement of the British people. I want this country to stay in Europe, but I ask: what kind of Europe do we want to stay in? I am not sure that I want the kind of Europe that Mr. Delors, with the support of a large number of people in the European Community, is marking out for us.
  The Government say of the citizenship proposals in the treaty, "We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens." I assume that the Government intend to convey the meaning that, for us, British citizenship will be first and foremost. I ask, will it be? The Government say, "European citizenship is additional to British citizenship. It simply confers extra rights on all EC national citizens. Does it? Is that all that it does? That is certainly what is suggested in the Government's booklet. As far as I can see, there is not one mention of duties which will be imposed upon us by being members of this European citizenship.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, said in an earlier intervention that there is no question of us wanting a European state or of there being a European state. What, then, is the purpose of citizenship? Citinzenship is all about allegiance to the state. It does not mean anything else but allegiance to the state. I shall return to that point in a few moments because I believe that these Government
  66
  statements or interpretations are very misleading. They imply to those who listen to them and who look no further under the meaning of the words that nothing very much will change from what it is now, except that we shall have the benefit of an additional citizenship—citizenship of the union.
  Such manifest nonsense is spoken about it that one wonders whether the Government can be serious. Euro-citizenship confers not only extra rights but extra duties; there is no doubt about that. Article 8(2) states explicitly:
  "Citizens … shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby."
  We shall have duties imposed on us as citizens of the union; but what are those duties? One will be the duty to pay taxes to the union, or state. If there is a Euro-tax regime, as there will be if we ratify Maastricht and follow the route planned for us, we shall have to abide by it. Britain will be forced to adopt that regime whether or not the British people or the British Parliament want it.
  6.30 pm
  If the Euro-tax regime demands that we do away with zero rating because it does not want to zero-rate children's shoes, or books, transport or food, we shall, in the interests of the whole Community, have to agree to one value added tax regime. We shall not be able to argue that we cannot implement such a regime, because we should be taken to the European Court and fined if we did not. The new Euro-state will therefore be able to impose that duty on us.
  One of the fundamental duties of the citizen is to defend the state. If the state is the Euro-state, defence of the Euro-state will be an obligation placed on British citizens, whether or not they agree. If the British citizen or the British Parliament, has doubts about whether it is sensible to send an armed force to Iraq or for an armed force to go to Bosnia but the Euro-state says that that is Euro policy, we shall have to conform because our Euro-citizenship will place a duty and an obligation on us to abide by that demand.
  Mr. Bill Walker: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, other European Community countries operate conscription. Does he think that Scots, as British citizens, can look forward to the delightful duty of being conscripted into as future European force?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I was going to deal with the question of conscription, but now I need not do so. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is why the preamble about a common defence policy is so important to the debate on citizenship. Few things are more important to citizenship than the obligation to defend the state.
  Mr. Knapman: Greece is a member of the Community, but Turkey is not. Would my hon and learned Friend care to consider what would happen if there was trouble in Cyprus, for instance?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the dark points—the relationship between Greece and Turkey and the way in which it will bear on the future of the European Community. I have an immense regard for Greece and Turkey. As hon. Members may know, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we produced a report on the future of Cyprus. There are immense problems for a union which excludes Turkey but retains Greece, and which may or may not take

  67
  in Cyprus. It has many other ramifications, but I do not wish to pursue that subject. My hon. Friend has made a sensible point. Such a state of affairs might involve decisions contrary to the feelings of the British nation, but, because we shall be citizens of the state, we shall have to conform.
  Duties are nowhere expressly defined in the Maastricht treaty, but we can be perfectly sure that what is and what is not a duty will be interpreted not by a British court but by the European Court of Justice. In the fulness of time, because that is in the nature of things, we shall have additional duties loaded on to our shoulders which we did not dream of when we first discussed these issues. They will be loaded on to our shoulders by interpretation of the European Court of Justice.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department must take on board on behalf of the Government, the fact that when we visited electors in our constituencies during the general election, if we had knocked on doors and said, "Excuse me, I want you to vote for me because I want more duties loaded on to my shoulders as a result not of what the British Parliament and Government have decided but of what other Parliaments and Governments in the rest of the European Community have decided", no one would have voted for us.
  Mr. Marlow: Front-Bench Members have mentioned the various benefits arising from this part of the treaty, including petitioning, the appointment of an ombudsman and being able to vote. We can discuss whether or not they are benefits, but would it not be possible to have those benefits, or disbenefits, without having to be citizens of the European union and having citizenship imposed on us? My hon. and learned Friend talks about duties. Could we not have the benefits without citizenship and imposed duties? Why do we need them? Why did the Government agree to them?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend makes another of his excellent points. Intergovernmental co-operation can achieve the benefits. What worries me is the forcing of our will into a Community decision of the state with an obligating citizenship. That was the issue that I began to explain in response to the hon. Member for Norwood, who has been so disgusted by my remarks that he has left the Chamber.
  Mr. Jessel: A minute ago my hon. and learned Friend mentioned canvassing in the general election. Does he agree that, in the general election, the Maastricht treaty was hardly an issue at all because there was agreement between the three main political parties on it, and certainly agreement between the two Front Benches, so that it was a matter of controversy between the political parties? There was much dispute in the general election—we can all remember disputes about the health service, rates of income tax and so on—but if one looks at, say, the headlines of all the main newspapers throughout the three weeks of the campaign. Maastricht hardly featured and was not an issue on which people voted.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely why a referendum is necessary. I am one of the members of the Conservative party who do not
  68
  believe that, in the normal way of things, a referendum is an acceptable way to proceed. We are Members of Parliament, elected by the people to represent their views, and we cannot go through the whole catechism of issues for a referendum, but, on a matter of constitutional importance about which the people have not been given a specific opportunity to say yes or no, a referendum is required.
  Mr. Shore: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that the treaty was not published until May whereas the general election was held on 9 April greatly reinforces the case for a direct reference to the British people?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Not only was the treaty not published but the explanation was not given. As I hope to point out in due course, the explanation that has been given is even now misleading and should be corrected before the British people have the right to decide in a referendum whether they want the treaty.
  My second point about the misleading nature of the Government's assertions, no doubt made in the utmost good faith, is that Euro-citizenship is not just an additional label and does not simply provide additional duties; it changes the nature of our relationships. Acceptance of Euro-citizenship is not a voluntary matter. We will have to accept it; it says so in article 8. That means that we can no longer renounce our citizenship and move to France, Germany or elsewhere within our cultural area. If we want to renounce anything, we shall have to live outside the European Community, in America, the old Commonwealth or the new Commonwealth—if we can get in. Euro-citizenship changes fundamentally the relation-ship that we had with the state when we could decide voluntarily whether to stay or go.
  Moreover, questions regarding the position of Her Majesty the Queen under a system of Euro-citizenship require some answers. Her Majesty has British citizenship. She will no doubt become a citizen of the union and presumably will be subject to the duties conferred on her by the treaty. Does that mean that she will be obliged to pay Euro income tax or any tax that the Euro-state requires her to pay?
  Mr. Rowe: I am listening with avid attention. I am not in any sense a constitutional lawyer—I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer of great excellence—but it seems to me that, arguably, Her Majesty the Queen is not a British citizen, in the sense that she is not allowed to exercise many of the attributes of citizenship.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is generally accepted by international lawyers, as well as by the Home Secretary and the Government, that Her Majesty the Queen is pre-eminently the British citizen and is therefore subject to the law of the land as any citizen would be. The last member of the royal family who said that he was not a British citizen and that he was not subject to the laws and obligations of the land had a little walk further down Whitehall, which ended in the loss of an important part of his body and a number of years of civil war.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Of course.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose speech should be carefully noted because of his experience in these matters and the office that he holds. He may recall that, earlier this afternoon, the Home Secretary feigned ignorance when asked about the position of the Queen. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly been asked about the position of Her Majesty—or, to be more accurate, the monarch of the day—and have repeatedly failed to answer.
  Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, unlike legislation of the Community, which would bind the duty of the monarch or legislation of this House, consequent on a legislative programme of the Community, under the intergovernmental parts of the treaty that require a single process, it would become the duty of the Crown and its prerogative—meaning government, which traditionally has not been completely within the grasp of this House—to concur with whatever the intergovernmental institutions. decreed? For the first time, the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the Crown itself, would become subject to the macro-treaties of which we speak.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right; but I will not hear criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He is one of the busiest and most preoccupied Ministers in the Cabinet. Morning, noon and night, he has to apply his mind to the problems of the police, prisons, immigration, the fire service and a whole range of activities that are totally time-consuming. I will not accept any criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend for not having accurately considered every single matter in the treaty. I merely make the point that, to reassure those who are concerned about these matters, it is most important that Ministers should be present who have had time to consider them in greater detail and can answer questions concerning, for example, the role of the Queen.
  6 45 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I see that my hon. Friend can answer the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary could not.
  Mr. Wardle: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will appreciate the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend catalogued his many responsibilities, which do, indeed, make him a busy man. Let me clarify the point that is of concern to the Committee. The Maastricht treaty does not in any way affect the constitutional position of the monarch. Her Majesty as an individual would of course enjoy the same rights within the EC as any other United Kingdom citizen.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In view of what the Minister has just said, why is it that the Queen's consent is required on Third Reading? If what the Minister said was correct, it would surely not be necessary for Her Majesty's consent to be signified.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me; it is a question for the Minister.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said—that Her Majesty the Queen has the same rights as any other member of the Community. That being so, it must surely follow that she would have the right to vote in European elections and to stand for the European Parliament. She would even have the municipal right—it is clear from the treaty that that right is regarded as important—to vote and stand in local government elections. If she wished, Her Majesty could stand for election to Westminster city council. Those are rights and duties that I believe Her Majesty would gain under the Maastricht treaty. I merely make the point that the treaty alters the relationship that Her Majesty has with her citizens and with the rest of the European Community. The treaty changes the basis of citizenship as we know it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Surely the whole point is that, although we are debating a Bill that imposes upon all the citizens of the United Kingdom a new duty—and the word "duty" ought to be underlined—Ministers are still receiving advice from the Box on fundamental matters. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to come here and joke about the gullible Danes—who, incidentally, follow the democratic process—but the fact is that the Committee is being asked to vote on a number of basic duties of citizenship without any clear idea of how far the provision goes, of what is involved or of the commitment that we are making on behalf of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Frankly. I find that both frightening and irresponsible.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with the hon. Lady. We have just seen what can happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had one view of the Queen's position and that view was corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister.
  These matters are important to the British people. It may be nostalgic and old-fashioned—the result of some feeling rather than of rationality—of us to feel so strongly monarchist and to have such regard for the royal family. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Bill affect the rights and duties of the royal family for the future, and those rights and duties must be clarified so that the British people can feel confident about the future.
  My hon. Friend the Minister says that Her Majesty will have the same rights and duties as any European citizen. In that case, it is in the nature of that relationship that she must be a citizen of the Euro-state. As she is a British citizen, she will become a citizen of the Euro-state and subject to the Euro-state, whose leader—the President—will presumably have rights similar to those that Her Majesty enjoys in Britain at present.
  Is it seriously suggested that the British people would have wanted Her Majesty the Queen to be a subject of Mr. Delors, remembering his thoughts about the future of Europe? By what right should we expect the Queen to be so subject? Would the British people have voted for us had we been able, with the right information and existence of the treaty, to ask them about such matters at the last general election?
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend is approaching a delicate and important point. By the kind courtesies of the government of the European state, Her Majesty will be a citizen of that state. She will be Queen but Mr. Delors will be President. He will be President of the whole organisation—President of Europe—while she

  71
  will be Queen of a mere participant in Europe. Who will take precedence at official functions? Will it be Mr. Delors, with Her Majesty playing second fiddle to him? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that our constituents will be worried about the legislation if it turns out to have that effect?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Let us be realistic. Seldom does the Prime Minister go to a meeting of Staffordshire county council, so that the question whether he should have precedence over the chairman of the county council does not arise. Such events rarely happen now and they are unlikely to happen often in the future. The question of precedence is probably not of importance, though my hon. Friend's intervention underlines my point that the relationship of the British citizen will alter under the treaty, just as the duties imposed on British citizens under it will be greater.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. and learned Friend said encouragingly that we should be realistic. We are debating the Maastricht treaty, which imposes no specific duties on individuals. The only duty is to obey provisions of EC law which impose an obligation on individuals. The rest must be speculation and, as we are considering article 8, that speculation would be subject to the double lock in article 18.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: But if the law being created by the European Community creates more duties, we are subject to them, for the very reason adduced by my hon. Friend the Minister—in other words, there will be more duties and a changed relationship.
  Others will have rights to join in and interfere with British citizenship here in the United Kingdom. Citizens of other states will be able to vote in our municipal elections and Euro-elections. There are a number of marginal seats in this country, some with very small majorities. Consider one such constituency about which it is known from public opinion polls and canvassing that the result will be on a knife edge.
  What will stop sufficient French farmers, for example, coming here, being here on the night that is necessary for registration as electors, perhaps by virtue of their European citizenship being able to come backwards and forwards for long enough to comply with the six-month residency in the constituency rule before voting, and thereby getting the MEP they want? Such an MEP might stand for policies which the Euro-farmer particularly wants but which the British farmer does not want.
  Mr. Cash: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is no residential qualification in the treaty relating to citizenship? We should be told the latest Home Office thinking on the matter. After all, even the trespassing CND women at Greenham common managed to acquire a period of residence that was suitable for the purposes of the residential qualification. If that could be achieved, I have no doubt that all manner of people could be brought in from across the channel.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right, because the law requires some residential qualification.
  Mr. Wilkinson: We have recently enacted provisions by which British expatriate nationals have the right to vote in United Kingdom elections. I presume that EC nationals who have in the past acquired residence in this country could go to Timbuctoo or anywhere on the globe and vote in British elections. It is unsatisfactory that expatriate nationals who will acquire, by virtue of the treaty, citizenship of the European union will not have their rights clearly defined in electoral law.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter. We make to other groups all sorts of concessions that other countries do not make. Likewise, they make concessions to groups that we do not make. One such concession is the voting right given in certain circumstances to expatriates. Other nations in the EC may not wish to accept that type of regime and will test the issue in the European Court of Justice. We may find that a concession that the British people, through their Parliament, considered to be right is taken from us.
  Another example is extremely worrying. We have made a special exception in relation to the Irish. They can come here and stand for election, vote and sit on juries. That was part of the agreement with Ireland in the post-1920 era. That concession may have served us well, and people have opinions about whether the Irish should have those rights. When we questioned the matter a year or so ago and asked why the same rights were not reciprocal with Eire, the Irish Government quickly changed the law so that anybody who wants to stand or vote in an Irish election can do so, and I believe that it is possible for anybody who wishes to do so to serve on an Irish jury.
  I merely make the point that we are discussing one of those rules that the British Parliament has decided and has not revoked. Such a variation in our rules might not be acceptable to our partners in the EC, who might take the matter to the European Court. It might be ruled to be in breach of undertakings given in Maastricht and be contrary to the Euro-citizen rules laid down in the treaty. We would find ourselves obliged to change what had been a traditional attitude towards the people of Ireland.
  I am not saying that that will happen. I am discussing a number of situations that could arise once we open the doors and allow them to happen, and that is what the Maastricht treaty does. Further, it does it without consulting the British people to see whether they want it to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out.
  The nationals of other countries and the citizens of the Euro-state will be able to come here and play their part in municipal—county, district and parish council—elections. They will be eligible to come here and stand and vote and thereby affect the future of British society. That represents a considerable change in the present situation and, by itself, contradicts the assurance we have been given that the treaty will improve matters and will not take anything away. Many people may not want the French to decide who our district, county or parish councillors should be.
  I ask this question in all seriousness: can my hon. Friend the Minister give a guarantee that "municipal" means only district council, county council and paris council? [Interruption.] It is not a joke. It is clear, not simply from the case in 1972 but from a number of other references, that the European Community sometimes used the word municipal as the counter to community—municipal not meaning municipal elections to district

  73
  councils, country councils and parish councils but meaning pertaining to the nation state. It may well be that that is not the meaning which will ever be used in this case.
  The question of what "municipal" actually means—whether it will be restricted in that way—may well have to be referred to the European Court of Justice. If the word "municipal" has been used time and time again in France, Italy and the European Court to mean national, can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that it will never give Euro-citizens a right to vote in our general elections? It is not such a silly question.
  If there is a Euro-citizenship which entitles people to have a right to vote in parish, district and county council elections, what is the argument in principle about not letting them vote in a general election? I can see a difference in degree, but I can see no difference in principle. If there is no difference in principle, who will guarantee that the European Court of Justice will say that there is no difference in principle and that "municipal" must mean municipal in the way that we mean it?
  Mr. Cash: My hon. and learned Friend is addressing what he and I regard as a serious point. I am sure many other people regard it in the same way. Unfortunately, the point is that, if the treaty is ratified, the cat is out of the bag and the Court of Justice has grabbed it.
  It does not matter a fig what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks. What he thinks on this subject probably is not worth a row of beans, because he is not a lawyer who is likely to appear before the European Court. I am not interested in the opinion of his Foreign Office lawyers, because they are wrong more often than they are right. We found that out with the Canada Bill. I could give the Committee a list as long as my arm of the times when they have got things fundamentally wrong.
  In this particular case, the matter can arise only after ratification. If the Court of Justice takes the view which it has taken in the past, it will not matter a damn what the Foreign Office lawyers and the Minister have said, because the Court of Justice will have the right, under the European Communities Act 1972, to decide the matter.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: As is often the case, my hon. Friend underlines and concludes the point that I am making much more effectively than I could have done, and I accept what he says.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall move on because it is important that I should do so.
  Article 8b does not define the phrase
  "residing … in which he resides"
  before a Euro-citizen can cast a vote in one of our elections. Euro-citizens must reside in Britain under the rules which apply at present before they can vote in our elections. Surely that means that such citizens must be in the United Kingdom on a day in October or whenever and have been here for a period of residence. However, we do not know that, because it is not set out in the treaty.
  7 pm
  The question of who a resident is, who will vote or who can stand for election to the county council, district council or parish council may have to be decided in the European Court of Justice. That decision will be made not by a British court but by a European court. It will be made
  74
  not by somebody who has been brought up in the history and traditions of the British system but by somebody or a number of learned men who have been brought up in a system in another country which bears no relationship to the traditions of British government.
  I shall give another example of power being taken from us and residing in a body in which we will have some right to participate and perhaps some strong right to influence but not the right to make a final decision in the interests of the people. Article 8d gives Euro-citizens the right to petition the European Parliament. What will happen if such a petition succeeds? Will it succeed over the decisions of the British Parliament? Is that an example of the European Parliament taking power over the Westminster Parliament?
  How many people would have voted for me if I had knocked on doors at the last general election and said, "Please vote for me because I want to surrender power to the European Parliament. I do not want the Westminster Parliament to have the powers which it has at the moment. I want fewer powers. I want to give people the right to petition a European Parliament and to oblige the European Parliament to oblige a Euro-citizen in Britain to go along such a path"? We are talking about the surrender of power away from a Westminster Parliament. That is my bottom line. What moves me most about the Maastricht treaty is the surrender of power away from the Westminster Parliament. People have not been consulted, and I know perfectly well that they do not want it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The interesting point is that we have the right to petition the European Parliament at present. Since there is no extra extension of advantage, why is the treaty written in such a way unless the unwritten intention is that the decision can be enforced? At present, after we have petitioned the European Parliament, a decision cannot necessarily be enforced. Are we to assume that in the future we shall have to conform with whatever decision is taken?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: It seems that the power to petition the European Parliament is excluded in the treaty because it will give more power than exists at present, or there would be no point in including it.
  Mr. Rowe: In my general election campaign, I made it abundantly clear that I thought that the Maastricht treaty was a good thing and that the European Community should be strengthened. It may well be that my constituents share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whose views of our officials, our lawyers and our constitution seem to be so denigrating. For that reason, it may be that my constituents substantially increased my majority.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend's personal powers and charm must have persuaded a large number of people to give him the benefit of any doubt which they may have had because they could not have seen anything in writing and they would not know the explanation of the things in writing. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's majority increased or decreased.
  Mr. Rowe: My majority increased.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend's majority would have increased much more if he had been able to say to the

  75
  electors of Mid-Kent, "I am standing up against the desire to grab the powers from the Westminster Parliament and give them to some Parliament elsewhere in Europe."
  Mr. Cash: Is it possible—as it were, vicariously through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—to remind the citizens of Mid-Kent that it was those massive marches to preserve their homes and so on which led my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent to charge up to No. 10 and so on? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will have an opportunity to prove his point when undoubtedly he will vote against the rail privatisation Bill tomorrow and sustain the reason why he got so much support in the 1992 general election in addition to the other support which he has already.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Again, I can only accept the observation of my hon. Friend. I make no comment about it.
  So far I have said that, contrary to the assurances that have been given, there will be changes to the rights and duties of the British people as a result of Euro-citizenship. Maastricht will provide us with more duties, change our relationships and give other people the right to interfere in the rights and activities of the British people. That is what will happen.
  Mr. Winnick: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to his next point, may I ask him whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who shares our views on this subject, said that the two Conservative candidates in Southend borough received more or less the same percentage of support? One was opposed to Maastricht and one was in favour. Is not the point that the treaty was not an issue at the general election for either of the two main parties? The British people clearly did not make up their minds on that issue. Hence the need, before power is taken away from the House of Commons to a much greater degree than previously, for the British people to say yea or nay.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: With great respect, we have flogged that one. We are talking about the need for a referendum. Although the point needs to continue to be made, perhaps it does not need to continue to be made so often.
  One must ask two questions: first, will Maastricht as it is drafted be better for the British people? Secondly, will it be better for the British people if the intentions which are clear in the treaty are translated? I have just dealt with the question whether the treaty would be better for the British people in the form in which we have examined it so far and insofar as it diminishes the rights and increases the duties of the citizen in Britain. The answer to that question is no.
  So what are the intentions for the future of the framers of the treaty and its signatories? It seems obvious to me that the intentions are to diminish the nation state and the concept of national citizenship in favour of the Euro-state.
  I come to that conclusion for the following reasons. First, if all that were wanted were reciprocal rights, there is no reason why they could not have been provided without the concept of citizenship. All that would be required would be some such statement as, "The rights accorded under the French constitution are hereby accorded to the citizens of the United Kingdom, Germany,
  76
  Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal," and all the others. That is all that would be needed for us to enjoy each other's rights. But that is not want we have. We have the concept of citizenship.
  The concept of citizenship came about because the Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, said that it would be a good idea if we could bind the concept of a union together with European citizenship. On page 79 of its opinion of 21 November 1990 to the conference drafting the Maastricht treaty, the Commission approved the concept because it would
  "encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration."
  Those are weasel words if ever there were any.
  There is only one point in creating citizenship, and that is to set up an obligation to a state. So the Commission proposed that the European citizen would have a right of free residence and movement and a right to vote in local and European parliamentary elections. It said that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights would be set at a later stage.
  Mr. Wilkinson: It is interesting that my hon. and learned Friend referred to the origin of the concept of European citizenship. He accorded the origin of the idea to Felipe Gonzalez, whom he said claimed that European citizenship would grant to the holders of that citizenship a greater sense of belonging and integration in the Community. Can my hon. and learned Friend clarify what the Gibraltarians might think of that idea and what their status is under European citizenship?
  7.15 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, but I can guess. As we are going into a little history, I might add that I was present with other colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Strasbourg when President Mitterrand made a speech to the European Parliament in which he explained that he thought that the time was nigh for European political and economic union. I noticed a gasp of dismay among my Conservative colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at that time, most of whom will troop through the Lobby with the Government for the very political and economic union which had them so aghast when they first heard it from the mouth of President Mitterrand in Strasbourg.
  The intention is that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights will be set at a later stage. Everything is done by a step-by-step approach. We manage to tame the abuses of union power not by means of a massive change but by the step-by-step approach. Everyone has learnt that if one wants to achieve something, one does it by the step-by-step approach. One signals one's intention with weasel words, which can mean anything, so that people cannot say that they were not warned. We are warned that by European citizenship we will encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. In years to come people will say that they made it clear that they wanted Euro-citizenship.
  Targets will be set for the definition of civic, economic and social rights at a later stage. No one can say that he was not warned that we were going even further down the path of reducing our national rights and increasing our international burden, and changing the relationship

  77
  between the British citizen and the Queen or British citizens and other citizens of the Euro-state. No one will be able to say that we were not warned.
  I looked at the literature which was circulated during the 1975 referendum campaign to see whether we were promised that something would not happen that subsequently happened. I wanted some ammunition. When I looked at the words, I saw that they could mean anything. They could mean yes and they could mean no. It was clear that those who used those forms of words did so in a way that would make it possible for them to behave or act in a different way later when the demand came.
  Looking back at all those words, it is difficult to say that we were not warned. We were warned, but it depended on how one interpreted the words.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. and learned Friend is dealing with the important question of the dynamic nature of the treaty and the fact that it points to the future. Does he agree that it is because the treaty is dynamic that the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was so unsatisfactory? My hon. Friend dwelt on exactly the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes when he talked about defence. He talked about policies "which might in time lead" to a common defence policy. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that point was never properly answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? My hon. and learned Friend puts in context the questions that ought to be answered about where the whole thing will lead in the future.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not mean to be offensive when I say that civil servants, in their answers, must be as inscrutable as possible so that, in five years' time, a Minister will not be hauled over the coals for saying something quite different. Time and again in this debate we have heard answers that could mean yes or no, could mean one thing or another. If one were to ask, "Will the position of the Queen he changed?", one might be told, "No. She will be as any other citizen of the European Community. The position now is as before".
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In this debate, Front-Bench Members are not coming clean with the Committee. Hon. Members are therefore unable to come clean with the people about the way in which citizenship is being fundamentally altered, ratchetwise—especially by this treaty. Will my hon. and learned Friend direct his attention to that matter? Surely it is quite wrong to change the status and role of citizenship without informing the people of what is being done in their name, especially as it appears that Front-Bench Members on both sides do not themselves know what is in the treaty.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The only answer I can sensibly give is yes.
  On the question of setting targets at a later stage, I have to say that the Community will take over and define the key aspects of the individual's relationship with the state. That is what is intended. The Community will look at the matter again at a later stage. It is all set out in article 8e. There are to be reviews, at intervals of three years, of the rights of European citizenship. The Council of Ministers will be empowered to strengthen or add to the rights
  78
  already laid down. When this legislation has been passed and the Maastricht treaty has been ratified, provision for those reviews will be in place.
  Will that be done by unanimous decision or by majority decision? Even if it is to be by unanimous decision, the Minister may not by then have any means of signifying in advance what he wants to talk about and what decisions he will have to make. We have tried to make the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs the monitor of the intentions of Ministers. By contrast, a Scrutiny Committee can only consider matters after the event. I am not by any means convinced that we shall know sufficiently in advance what a Minister will do under the give and take and the compromise of the Council of Ministers.
  However, it is clearly provided—no one will he able to complain afterwards—that the Council of Ministers can strengthen the rights and duties already laid down. That is what we will be agreeing to if we ratify this treaty. As the duties are not defined anywhere in the treaty, it will be for the European Court of Justice, which includes judges from several other countries—judges, I say with respect, who have no experience, knowledge, wisdom or understanding with regard to the day-to-day working of the British nation—to define our duties for us.
  I do not want to labour the points that I am making, but I wish to summarise. The duties are more onerous, the relationships are changed, and there is potential for further change, yet these are matters that we are called upon to support in the context of citizenship. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" defines citizenship as the
  "relationship between an individual and state, defined by the law of that state, with corresponding duties and rights".
  It is manifest nonsense to say that these proposals do not contemplate the formulation of a state. There is no point in having citizenship if there is no state. Euro-citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a Euro-state.
  Chancellor Kohl had absolutely no doubt when he said:
  "The European union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which, within a few years, will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war—the united states of Europe."
  By "united states" he clearly meant states as in America. That European state will be superior to the existing nation states. It will have the power to decide and to enforce rights and duties. It is true that a person from the United Kingdom is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and a citizen of Burton-on-Trent, or Staffordshire, or somewhere else, but that is a confusion of the real meaning. Citizenship ought to indicate where ultimate power lies.
  Can the Government put their hand on their heart and promise us that, if Maastricht is ratified, the importance of British citizenship will not be progressively downgraded, that Euro-citizenship will not become more important, or even all-important? The inability to give that undertaking will signify to the British people exactly what we are doing here.
  The Government have introduced a citizens charter giving more power to the individual citizen and less power to the state. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said:
  "It is a testimony to our belief in people's rights to be informed and to choose for themselves."
  Do we have any right to choose or reject Euro-citizenship? Article 8 is not subject to qualified-majority or unanimous voting, nor is it subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers. It states unequivocally:

  79
  "Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
  People will not be able to say no. Things will be compulsory. People will not have asked for something, and will not want it, but they will get it anyway. There will be no referendum. So much for the citizens charter. It must be very embarrassing for Ministers to speak so highly in favour of the citizens charter, to speak brilliantly round the country about the free choice of citizens in John Major's Britain.
  If it is clear that we shall not remain British citizens exactly as we are now, if it is clear that article 8 confers extra duties in many aspects of public life—and not just extra rights, as has been promised—if it is clear that we shall have no right to say no, it must be clear also that these amendments ought to be supported. They should be supported not just as probing amendments but as provisions that are necessary in their own right. If they win the day, there will be some hope of the Maastricht treaty's not being ratified. If the Maastricht treaty is not ratified, there will be some hope of the British people's being able to remain British in the full sense and of the Westminster Parliament's being able to retain powers that we are in danger of losing, powers that we know perfectly well we were not sent to this place to give away.
  Mr. Gould: We are accustomed in these debates to complain about opacity of the Maastricht treaty provisions. Indeed, the comments of many outside observers almost exclusively concern the difficulties of understanding the arcane procedures that we are pursuing.
  There can be no complaint about confusion or opacity over this issue. The treaty, which is entitled "The Treaty on European Union" is very clear in its opening words where it says:
  "By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'."
  As we have heard, article 8 of the treaty provides that
  "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
  The remaining provisions of article 8 specify, or at least allude to, the rights and duties that pertain to that citizenship. The new rights are spelt out—rights to consular protection and to vote and stand in municipal and Euro-elections.
  7.30 pm
  Under the provisions of article 8e, the Council is given the right and power to strengthen and add to those rights as it sees fit. There can hardly be a clearer statement.
  Of course, it is tempting—one knows of many hon. Members and people outside the House who are prepared to yield to the temptation—to say that the treaty is just a piece of Euro-waffle. We are accustomed to our continental partners talking in rather grand metaphysical terms. We are accustomed to telling ourselves, in our rather superior way, that we like to stick to black letter law, practicality and the pragmatic aspects of policy making. We tell ourselves that we can safely ignore all that verbiage.
  Yet those opening words and the provisions of article 8 could hardly be more specific, deliberate, considered or portentous. They are meant to matter and, as so often in the past, we ignore them at our peril.
  80
  It is not even the case that the treaty is simply a restatement of something that has gone before. We are often told that what appears to be a major new step towards the creation of a European state is of no account because it was already implicit in something that we did before. However, the Home Secretary was right—at least he knew something about that matter—when he conceded that this is a new provision. It is an innovation and it sets out a new concept of centralisation. We have heard about the origins of that concept this evening.
  There is no question but that the treaty of Maastricht does a new and important thing—it creates citizenship of something called "the Union". What does that mean? It is extraordinary that that apparently important provision is passed by with virtually no comment whatsoever. Until this debate I was hardly aware that anyone, other than one or two people who are interested in such matters, had ventured to comment on what might be thought to be a matter of some considerable importance.
  Mr. Marlow: That is certainly true of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Danes were allowed to consider the treaty. In their referendum the concept of citizenship was of massive significance and importance to them.
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was directing my remarks to Britain. One might have thought that such concepts would have been of some interest and importance here, but it is here that the debate has been most notably lacking.
  There has not even been much by way of explanation. The Home Secretary, representing the Government, spoke to the Committee on the subject and was unable to answer some of the most important and central questions that arise from the provisions.
  Mr. Rowlands: While I accept the general tenor of my hon. Friend's case, and that the matter has not been properly investigated, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs took a considerable amount of expert legal advice on the matter, which I hope we shall be able to discuss this evening, to establish the concept of the union. A confusing concept emerged, but nevertheless we endeavoured to do so.
  Mr. Gould: I wish that the Home Secretary, among others, and even the Minister of State, who is with us, might have familiarised themselves with what the Select Committee was able to do.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most disgraceful aspects of this entire farce is the fact that there has been no White Paper? Whereas the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right to refer to the fact that some extremely good evidence is scattered among Select Committee reports and so forth, there has been no clear and coherent attempt to bring it all together in about 20 pages for the benefit of the British people, which is quite possible. That negligence lies behind the whole of this farce.
  Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is the central point, and what I am seeking to explain in this part of my speech. Other people may well have dealt with the question, but the Government have not done so and they have offered no explanation, by way of

  81
  a White Paper or statement of any sort, to suggest for a moment that they recognise the importance of what they are proposing to do through the Bill. Given that the concept of citizenship is newly fashionable, as several hon. Members including the Liberal Democratic party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) have said, it is surprising that the Government have not done so. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) mentioned the citizens' charter. Citizenship is said to be the basis of a raft of new rights and duties. It is the current fad, is it not?
  A year or two ago the present Foreign Secretary was full of ideas about something called "active citzenship", although I confess that we have not heard much about it recently. That was to be the basis of a new contract between the citizen and Government, but we hear nothing about that from Ministers. They even seem to be embarrassed when they are asked simple questions about what the change—the creation of a new citizenship—may mean.
  As other hon. Members have said, the truth of the matter is that citizenship in a vacuum is a meaningless concept. It only means something as part of a relationship —the relationship that links the individual to the political structure in which he or she lives or is governed. Citizenship links the individual to the monarch, to the Government, but most of all to the state. Citizenship without a state—in this case, without a union—is meaningless.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: One should be cautious about laziness and the slipping of language when referring to the citizens charter. That only serves the new Conservative-Labour Front Bench arrangement. It is not a citizens charter but merely a customer or consumers charter. The distinction must be made and we have to be precise because we are talking about the most intimate relationship—that of the individual and the state—and not about the relationship between a customer and a business.
  Mr. Gould: I agree and I am seeking to argue that. It is precisely that relationship which is at issue.
  The terminology is difficult. We have had to grapple with concepts of nationality and with being a subject. When I arrived in this country I was a New Zealand national but a British subject. I am glad to say that I have gone through the process of naturalisation, and I am proud to be a British citizen. Nationality, citizenship, subjecthood, the citizenship of the citizens charter are all slippery concepts that have been chopped and changed to such a degree that it is sometimes difficult to know what is intended when the terms are used. Even the treaty is obliged to talk of citizenship as it has to define the citizenship of the union by reference to the nationality of member states.
  Let us be under no illusion: citizenship in terms of the treaty is, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from nationality as it applies to the nation state. How does that change affect the rights and obligations of British citizenship or nationality? It is tempting to say—we hear the argument advanced all the time, especially from the Front Bench teams—that we have nothing to worry about and the changes make no difference to British citizenship. It is suggested that we are being offered a sort of add-on
  82
  extra—a bonus, a sort of Green Shield stammp that brings only benefits, no duties. The terms of article 8 give the lie to that suggestion.
  It is not a provision for a shared arrangement or reciprocal swapping and exchange of rights and duties. As others have said, that could have been done without creating a citizenship of the union. The Home Secretary professed that the provision simply created new rights. He glossed over the issue of duties and said that there were no new duties, but massive new duties have been created that are now owed, not just to a British nation state, but a totally new organisation: the European union—whatever that may be.
  Mr. Winnick: The Government sometimes argue that the treaty will not make that much difference. They say that, whatever their views on Maastricht, all Labour Members of Parliament are and always have been enthusiastic about the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I certainly are. We also accept our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We are not little Englanders, and have made that clear on numerous occasions, and we carry out and recognise our international obligations. Is not there a fundamental difference between all that I have mentioned and the new scheme in the treaty that completely changes the concept, both of citizenship and the authority of the House? I am not aware that the authority of the House has been diminished as a result of our involvement with the United Nations and the rule of law on the international scene or our membership of NATO.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right. It astonishes me that there is so often a failure to distinguish between the obligations under international law taken on by the Government through signing treaties and the creation of a new political entity with its own Government, structures and, we now discover, citizenship.
  How will such citizenship impinge on British nationality? Is there any competition between them? What happens if they are in conflict? What I am about to suggest may seem far-fetched and hypothetical, but one of the acid tests of citizenship or nationality is that it defines the duty of allegiance. If allegiance is ignored, it gives rise to serious charges such as treason.
  Let us imagine that, in a far-fetched scenario, the issue was tested in a court case. Other hon. Members may say that that is unlikely, but there are cases of treason charges. What if the defence offered in the British court were to the effect that the allegiance owed to the British state was superseded by a superior allegiance owed to a different political entity and that the action complained of was not regarded as treasonable under that superior law? What would be the outcome of such a case? Would such a defence succeed?
  It is important to understand—as has been made clear on numerous occasions—that the par excellence would be decided by the European Court of Justice, which regards itself as the instrument of European union and a constant upholder of the superiority of Community law. Can there be any doubt that, given the right case, that defence would succeed and immediately establish as a matter of principle that citizenship and allegiance are, at bottom, in conflict and cannot be held together. Such a conflict would be resolved in favour of citizenship of the union.
  Mr. Budgen: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in fairness to the European Court, all the statutes of the European union speak of a progressive move towards the union? It is only here in the House of Commons that Ministers pretend that we can accept one measure and that will be the end of it. I am sorry to refer to the bad old days of Lady Thatcher, but she used to be so unwise as to talk about the ratchet effect. May I remind some of her erstwhile supporters—I do not want to embarrass anyone —that she used to be cheered when she talked about the ratchet effect. As we all know, the party has grown out of that vulgar and silly way of talking about things now that it is a pragmatic party, but it may have a certain truth to it. It is the ratchet effect to which the constitution of the EEC assigns the European Court as an essential instrument.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Gould: I certainly intend to come to precisely that subject later. I merely observe in passing that I wish that Lady Thatcher had sometimes been a little more aware of the ratchet when she was turning it.
  I am still engaged in an exposition of the case, and have yet to comment on the desirability or otherwise of the developments. I shall now mention another aspect that has rightly attracted some attention—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to another subject and while he is still making his exposition, will he speculate for the Committee on why he believes that the Front Bench teams are not prepared to be honest with the people of this country about the fundamental changes that are being made in their name? Is not it wrong that we should bring about the changes by ratifying the Maastricht treaty without people being able to show that they sought those fundamental changes to our citizenship, which they certainly did not at the last election?
  Mr. Gould: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion and shall speculate a little later on why we are confronted with so many people who seem unwilling or unable to recognise their true responsibilities in the House.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—coming, as he does, from his wing of the Labour party—has difficulty with a new concept. It is undoubtedly true that citizenship of the European Community is a new concept. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that article 8 of the treaty makes it clear that there is a difference between that citizenship—there may be a better word for it—of the European Community and nationality as allegiance to the nation state? Article 8 makes that difference extremely clear, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have detected that difference. He now states that he or the European Court could suggest that European citizenship could be seen as superior to nationality. Will he say where, in article 8, even a hint of that possibility arises?
  Mr. Gould: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman either was not listening or was unable to follow my argument. I was saying that there certainly was a difference between citizenship of the European union and the
  84
  citizenship of member states—the latter would be subordinate to the former. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will go on to develop that point.
  I return to the example of a person who uses as his defence when the issue of citizenship becomes critical the fact that he owes a superior duty and allegiance to the European union. That displaces his duty to the British state. That may or may not be right, but it was an interesting illustration of how the conflict could arise. If it did arise there is no doubt that the European Court of Justice would find in favour of the superiority of Community law. If it failed to do so it would be breaking with the body of precedent that it had itself established.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while it might seem far-fetched, there was a recent and relevant historical parallel? A number of brave nationals of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and the Ukraine owed allegiance to the nations of their birth but paid for it, in some cases with their lives, as they were not prepared to accept citizenship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was imposed on them against their will.
  Mr. Gould: I am happy to agree, and I hope to refer to a point of similar political significance in a moment.
  I come to another aspect of the new relationship—one that has already attracted some attention and on which I propose to comment only briefly. I refer to the position of Her Majesty the Queen. The Home Secretary was quite unable to answer a question about whether the Bill, if it became an Act, would bind the Queen in any way. Would she, as a British national, become a citizen of the European union? The Minister of State read out what I imagine was a note prepared for him by his civil servants, but it hardly answered the question.
  I suppose that it could be argued that the Queen is beyond the reach of this Bill. That would be odd, because I think that the Minister of State confirmed that she would be a beneficiary of the rights of European citizenship. It must therefore follow that she will incur the duties of European citizenship—that she owes some sort of allegiance by virtue of it. It is a remarkable thought that the Queen, the supreme citizen of our political entity, would owe allegiance to some higher, wider authority.
  I profess no infallibility on these questions; I merely point to possible interpretations, and this is what the law and the treaty appear to point to. We must therefore imagine a sort of sub-monarch in a sub-state, owing allegiance to some wider state. It follows that the debate on which we appear to be embarking may be entirely beside the point. The issue of whether a diminished monarchy would be good or bad may be beyond the competence of this House and the British people. It may be resolved by the treaty of Maastricht and the introduction of the citizenship of the European union.
  At the very least we should be clear that we have created a new form of citizenship which is a relationship with a superior body of law and a wider geographical entity: a super-state. That relationship must be superior to the relationship that we all enjoy with the British state.
  In a curious way we can already see the practical effects of this change when we arrive at Heathrow and are required to submit our passports not as British citizens but as citizens of the European Community. In a sense that was jumping the gun, but it was a practical manifestation of the effects of the new citizenship.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend's speech deserves the widest possible subsequent publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Oh yes, this is the most important speech that we have heard so far.
  Does my hon. Friend recall that when the original legislation was passed the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the position of the Crown was not affected, forgetting that direct legislation circumvented both this House and the Royal Assen—so the position of the Crown was most certainly affected? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not only to take up allegiance to the constitution of this union but that, unlike the constitutions of states such as Australia and the United States of America, the union's constitution exhibits a particular political philosophy? That means that the allegiance is not just to the constitution but to the political philosophy as well. It is to he found in the preambles to the treaties, and they impose certain loyalties that may go beyond constitutional structures.
  Mr. Gould: I am about to support the point to which my hon. Friend has directed me.
  I have thus far not ventured an opinion on whether the changes I am seeking to describe are good or bad. I am merely saying that they are important. I shall go on to make the point that they are rather more important than many of those who would blindly accept the treaty realise. It is comparatively easy to sneer at terms which have a 19th century ring to them—allegiance, sovereignty and so on. They are wonderfully Diceyan in character. It is not so easy to sneer, however, at ideas like democracy and self-government—yet they are at issue if we are to impose on the British people or anyone else citizenship in a wider political entity than one which they have hitherto contemplated.
  This is a matter of democracy, because there is an unfortunate tendency for many people to argue that democracy is merely a matter of elections—that the democratic process is no more than a question of deciding which of competing sets of people within a given political entity ought to form the Government. That is certainly an important aspect, but democracy is also a form of Government within a defined political entity. It is self-government if it is anything. What is at issue here is the definition of that "self". If the self which is the subject of a democratic government is to be changed without the consent or authority of that self, that is a development of the greatest significance.
  We can elect representatives to our hearts' content to send to the European Parliament, from which, perhaps, a European Government could be drawn, but that will not of itself resolve the problem unless it is clear that the British people have signified their assent to be governed within the new political entity. Until that moment arrives —it cannot arrive until it is tested—those who would support the Maastricht treaty may sneer for as long as they like, but what they are doing is violating concepts that we are all in the House to verify, confirm and maintain.
  These issues are not to be sneered at. They involve democracy, self-government and our consent to being governed by those whom we choose to govern us.
  Mr. Marlow: I invite the hon. Gentleman to go further than that. If the treaty goes through without proper ratification by the British people in the form of a
  86
  referendum, and if as a result obligations and duties are imposed from Europe on them, does the hon. Gentleman think it right and proper that the British people should feel obliged to observe those obligations and duties?
  Mr. Gould: That takes us into deep waters. I fervently hope that we shall never reach the point where citizens of this country have to choose, as Germans did under the Nazi regime, between their preparedness to obey the law —which is the normal condition of citizenship—and their refusal to accept a legal system imposed upon them from outside.
  8 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: The hon. Member mentioned the European Court of Justice and its role in these matters—a subject that interests me. I tried to raise the issue a couple of weeks ago and it is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman mention it. He raises an area of conflict, and it is always such areas arising from the treaty that lead to that court. Does he agree that the natural progression is that it is not democratically elected Governments which will decide the issue but the European Court, whose boundaries and views have been clearly stated?
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I suspect that he is a lawyer, but perhaps not. I used to teach constitutional law and international law. One of the interesting questions for courts is to decide the principles on which to interpret the provisions of statutes and treaties and so on. One such approach is described as teleological, in which the purpose and the end result of the process that is set in train by the treaty or statute is understood, and the treaty or statute is interpreted to conform to the accepted objective.
  The European Court of Justice is interesting—I put it no more strongly than that—because of the overt way in which it has adopted, quite deliberately and selfconsciously—this teleological approach. It interprets every legal question that is brought before it in order to further the cause of European union. I do not say whether that is good or bad: simply that we should understand that that is what confronts us. When any of these questions have to be decided by the European Court, we should not be surprised, because we are on notice, at the court's view.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the questions that we were all taught to ask about international law was whether it had the characteristic of being enforceable? If eventually, as is suggested in the preamble, there is a European army, it is possible—I am not being fanciful or over-excited—that it could be used to enforce federal decisions against nation states. That could bring in the classic conflict of loyalty that we saw in the battle between the north and the south in America.
  Mr. Gould: I shall leave to one side the issue of whether there is to be a European army. In many ways the situation we are already in has progressed well beyond the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are not discussing a relationship that is defined by the principles of international law: we are discussing a new system of national law is already enforceable. The whole system operates as a hierarchy, as a pyramid, at the top of which is the European Court of Justice which makes sure that the provisions are enforced.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Gould: I shall not give way, because I wish to make progress. No doubt the interventions are well intentioned, but I have sat here for at least three or four hours and know how wearying it is for those who wish to speak to have to listen to a long list of interventions.
  In my view it is no accident that the treaty uses the term "union". The term has caused a great deal of difficulty in translation between French and English for a long time, but it is used specifically and deliberately. We tend to debate these issues in terms of whether what is proposed is federal, but that entirely misses the point. We believe that somehow a federal structure will be produced by taking powers from the nation states and giving them to a new federal government structure.
  That is not what the treaty proposes nor is it in the minds of those who are driving the whole concept of a European union. They have gone well beyond any question of a federation. They envisage, as the treaty makes clear, a union. For them that has to be, and as I hope to demonstrate is already, a unitary state. To them, federation is a derogation from that unitary state to subordinate authorities in the regions. They support federalism as a process that is entirely consistent with and demanded by the concept of subsidiarity, whatever that might mean. For them the starting point is the union. A federation is then achieved by taking judiciously and carefully a few minor powers and giving them to regional authorities.
  In this country, in our naivety, innocence and wonderful state of confusion and ignorance, we believe that we are confronted by a federation that will be constructed at some distant point in the future whereby a few powers are taken from the all-powerful nation states and handed over to a body in Brussels. We think that that is what is in store for us.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: As one who has already contributed to the debate, I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman's comment about interventions. I acknowledge the force of his argument that perhaps in this country we misunderstand the direction of the traffic when we speak about federalist or the federal movement. If the hon. Gentleman compared our set-up with the set-up in Germany, would he not acknowledge that many politicians in Europe who think and act and desire federalism envisage a degree of autonomy at local level in the nation states that is far greater than that which the regions of the nation states in the United Kingdom currently enjoy?
  Mr. Gould: I do not have the slightest difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I am a great exponent and supporter of regional devolution. My central point is that under these structures and concepts the starting point is the union. We must grasp that.
  I should like to refer to a speech by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He is not in the Committee and I apologise for not alerting him to the fact that I would refer to his speech. It was a good speech and I mean nothing personal when I refer to it. It was intelligent and effective. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member and his speech showed that he is very able. I quote from it simply to illustrate how easy it is to misstate the situation. I also apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I freely
  88
  acknowledge that I am using him as a surrogate for equally beside-the-point remarks by hon. Members on both Front Benches.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury said:
  "I hope that, over the next 10 to 12 years, we can move away from the federal model of Europe towards one which is more confederal, … and instead co-operate, one country with another, ceding limited and defined areas of policy, like the single market for decision on a supranational basis,".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1207.]
  On that interpretation of what was happening, the hon. Gentleman urged the Committee to support the Maastricht treaty. There was nothing remarkable about what he said: it is common currency in the mouths of almost all those who support the treaty. I quote it simply to show how mistaken such people are and how easy it is to assume that the process that we are describing and witnessing is one whereby power is being moved up to some federal structure whereas what is in the minds of the creators of the European union is a centralised unitary state from which minor derogations might be made.
  The Europe in the treaty is not the Europe that we were promised. It is not an open, decentralised, democratic and welcoming Europe; instead, it is a centralised Europe, a European super-state. It is exclusive because it closes its boundaries to others, it has centralised political institutions and it has all the trappings of a state. People who sneer at those who defend the British state are unaware of the fact that what is being promised is not some wonderful, evolutionary development that will be superior to the nation state, but the nation state writ large.
  That is a substantial claim, which I shall try to substantiate. Let us ignore the description "European union" and acknowledge, for simple purposes, that it has a head of state; a chief executive; a defined territory with a common external boundary; its own citizenship, by virtue of the treaty—a superior relationship between each individual and that union; its own Government; its own legislature, elected on a Europe-wide basis; its own supreme court, which is not just an ordinary court, but is the guardian of its own constitution; its own central bank, committed to enforcing its own economic policy; its own foreign policy—and is in the process of acquiring its own defence policy; a single market and, to all intents and purposes, a single economy.
  Let us also acknowledge that it provides a common diplomatic and consular representation; that it conducts its external and other trade relations in international negotiations as a single unit; and that it has a comprehensive governmental competence. When Mr. Delors said that competence would extend to 80 per cent. of legislation in the Community, he knew what he was talking about; he did not exaggerate.
  The Americans have a saying, "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." I say that the European union is a state—"federal" is a misuse of the language. We are being offered a single, centralised, unitary state. Whatever view we take of that development —and again I have not at stage criticized or condemned that development, but simply described it—we are ill served by those who try to pretend—but who know or, even worse, are too ignorant to acknowledge the truth —that that is not what confronts us. I do not criticise or condemn, I seek only to identify and describe. I believe that what I am describing is of far greater significance than

  89
  the Prime Minister and his Cabinet or, indeed, those on either Front Bench, have so far bothered to tell the British people.
  One of the most disgraceful aspects of this very long-running saga has been the extent to which we—and I do not mean just the House of Commons, but the peoples of Britain and Europe—have been edged along, step by step, always told that the next step is of little significance and was implicit in what we had done before. When we take that step we are told, "Surely, when you took that last step you must have known that implicit in it was that the next one was to be taken as well."
  There are those who have always been honest about their desire for a European super-state. I disagree with them, but I do not complain about the honesty with which they put forward that proposal. Those for whom I reserve a special scorn are the dishonest, who know what is involved but do not want us to see the shape of the whole concept. Even more do I reserve scorn for those who delude themselves, avert their gaze and will not look at the evidence or listen to the argument, but instead prefer to go along with the process. They tell themselves and others that nothing is involved in that process; it is like the United Nations or NATO, just another set of international obligations.
  I say to those people, "Delude yourselves as much as you like, but if you are Members of Parliament your self-delusion is unforgivable because not only are you deluding yourselves, you are denying those whom you represent the freedom and the power to make their own decisions. You are denying them the authority that they gave to you to come to this House to make decisions."
  It is not too late, I am not a great optimist on this matter, but I believe that it is yet possible for those who will listen to the argument and understand what is happening at least to take the one basic step that should never be ignored—that no irreversible change in the nature of the political entity in which we achieve self-government should be taken without first consulting the British people. That is the real issue raised by the provisions in the treaty on European union.
  8.15 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The House has been treated to three exceptionally powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I am sure that my hon. Friends will not take it amiss if I say that the most impressive was the speech made by the hon. Member for Dagenham. It was a remarkable exposition of the truth about the state in which this country now finds itself, with the prospect of being taken yet another step down the road to European union.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and others of my hon. Friends should breathe a sigh of relief that the hon. Gentleman was not successful in his attempt to become Leader of the Opposition. Had he been, the British people might have been offered the opportunity to choose between Europe and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. As it is, as as most of those who have spoken tonight have said, no such choice existed at the last general election and, sadly, no such choice exists now. There is a unity of purpose between the two Front
  90
  Benches, supported by the Liberal Democrats. They are determined to take us down a route that will be a disaster for the future of the United Kingdom.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham, I do not for a moment believe that those who are leading us down that route know what they are doing. It is tragic that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken from the Front Bench during our debates clearly do not understand the consequences of the treaty or what European union means. They do not understand the consequences of citizenship of that union. It is a tragedy for all our people.
  They are getting advice from many well-meaning and erudite lawyers, but that advice is wrong. The hon. Member for Dagenham, as an ex-teacher of constitutional law, is as qualified as any in the House to criticise what those lawyers advise. It would be otiose of me to add my voice to his. However, I have no doubt that he is right in what he has said—that the union proposed in the treaty is a union in fact, not a union in name.
  The wording of article 8 commits nations within the Community to move towards an ever closer union. I know that mathematically it may be possible always to move towards each other but never meet—but in practical terms, that is not possible. Although I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the stage that we have reached, there is no doubt that the definition of union that he gave is the one that we are heading towards and the one that will ultimately be our fate.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench deny that. They say that the union has no legal personality or meaning and that, therefore, to be a citizen of it does not matter. Having heard the arguments against the proposals made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to hear their arguments—because they are flying in the face of something that common sense and our constitutional history and law tell us is fact.
  The European union defined in the treaty has a legal reality, because it is justiciable by the European Court of Justice. As the court is supreme, the British Government alone can do nothing to go against the court's findings on matters concerning the rights and duties of a British citizen.
  I have exchanged extensive correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and clearly he has been advised that the duties under the treaty do not exist. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said as much earlier, when he claimed that the duties added nothing to those that already exist under our domestic law. Clearly that is untrue. As was rightly pointed out earlier, the European Court is not answerable to any nation state —in fact, it is answerable to no one—in the findings that it reaches. It decided of its own volition to see itself as a tool for the creation of that which other member states would describe as a federal Europe, and which we call a united Europe or a union of Europe.
  As that tool, for that purpose, the European Court would not be an independent judicial body. It would be unfit to sit as the ultimate arbiter in legal disputes between nation states or individuals within them; yet, under the treaty of Rome as amended in 1986 and again now, the European Court will enjoy that status.
  The duties to which we as citizens of the European union will be subject have yet to be decided. They will not be decided by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, Whitehall, the Government's legal advisers, any

  91
  system of British justice, or the terms of any British constitutional past and historic tradition. Instead, they will be decided by a European Court determined to develop the European union—and in so doing, it will supersede and crush the independence of the union's member states. It will be extremely difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to argue otherwise, but I look forward to hearing him try to do so later.
  As to voting in municipal elections, I should like a proper answer from the Minister to the question that was twice asked and twice dismissed with laughter by those who see themselves as European fans. "Municipal" has been determined by the European Court before as meaning "national". That may seem absurd to the Committee, as it does to me, but that is a fact. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Minister can guarantee that, when the European Court considers the treaty, it will not decide likewise. If it decides likewise, voting rights will be extended to national parliaments as well as, in British terms, to municipal elections.
  It is wholly illogical that someone can reside in this country and vote in all municipal elections and in the elections for the European Parliament yet not be permitted to vote in the parliamentary elections for Westminster. Where on earth is the logic in that?
  What advantage does article 8 offer the British people? It gives them rights exercisable in other countries—the right to vote in municipal elections in France, Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland, or Luxembourg. Marvellous. I cannot see any use to the British people in that right. Where is the advantage to counteract the many disadvantages and dangers described this evening? Where is the advantage to the British people in agreeing to become citizens of Europe?
  Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend's argument influenced by the fact that there are far more British citizens living in France than there are French citizens living in Britain, and far more British citizens in Spain than there are Spanish in Britain—and that they want to retain their national citizenship but pay national and local taxes, and would like a say in the local councils that govern them?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: No, I am not in the slightest moved by my hon. Friend's argument. I believe that British people living in Spain are happy to vote in British parliamentary elections. Many do so, and all those who corresponded with me want to do so. If they live in Spain as British citizens, their allegiance should still be to Britain. Neither their allegiance nor their voting rights should be transferred.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: There is a distinction to be drawn between a national and a local election. The reason is at the heart of the European Community's constitution, in which the Council of Ministers is the pre-eminent institution. It is therefore the expression of and subject to the views of the national Parliament—through its Ministers, effectively making decisions.
  On the other hand, those of our own citizens who can, under the Single European Act, live anywhere in the Community have a right to protect their interests in terms of local voting. I see no danger or difficulty about voting
  92
  in local elections—but I can understand why the Maastricht negotiators restricted voting to national citizens in national elections.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend will remember that my original point was that they may not have done so, and that the interpretation of "municipal" may yet give the right to vote in national elections. As to the distinction between municipal and national voting, I can see better arguments for saying, to use British terminology, "You can vote in the parish in which you live." However, it is not a right such as counteracts the article's dangers. If that is the only advantage to British citizens, against giving away all the sovereignty and right of the House to determine and to secure their rights and liberties, it is a poor trade.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not more likely that we shall find ourselves moving rapidly towards some system of proportional representation? For the past 15 years, it has been Community policy to impose a uniform system.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I must avoid the temptation to be led down an entirely different road, but I take the hon. Lady's point and agree. If we take the Maastricht treaty route, I believe that proportional representation will come to this country.
  One danger that has not been directly addressed this evening arises from the provision to use other states' consular representation in countries where we do not have our own. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) rightly pointed out, in any case in which a friendly nation did not have representation, it would be astonishing if our consuls and ambassadorial activities were not placed at its disposal, in the event that its citizens ran into trouble.
  The danger is, however, that, once the system has been formalised and the resource has been pooled to some extent, it will be agreed as soon as possible to pool it entirely. The Treasury is very keen on such a move, which would lead to our having far fewer consulates, and probably far fewer embassies, than we have now. We are in grave danger of losing our truly British representation overseas, and of being represented only by the magnificent Greeks and others when our citizens run into trouble. I do not think that most British people would support that, or vote for it. Nor do I think that any of the rights in the treaty benefit British citizens—and, as for the duties, I believe that they could cause enormous pitfalls.
  8.30 pm
  Earlier speakers mentioned the monarchy. When anyone says that the monarchy, or the monarch in person, is put at risk by the treaty, the response is derision. When, not long ago, I suggested privately to the Prime Minister that the Queen might be brought to book under a European mandate, he said, "I'd like to see them try." The fact is, however, that, if we sign the treaty, the rights and prerogatives of our monarch will be brought into question by some European authority, perhaps even the European Court of Justice—not tomorrow, not next month, but some time in the future. I do not think that the British people want their monarchy to be put in that position, and I personally do not want our monarch to be put in that position.
  Is it correct, or—as has been suggested—not correct that the Queen will have a right to vote in municipal elections, in other countries if not in this one? If so, does

  93
  she really want that right, and do her people want it for her? What will be the consequence for the role of our monarchy of signing the Maastricht treaty, agreeing to a European union and citizenship of that union and possibly making the Queen a citizen by default?
  None of us, wants to be made a citizen of Europe at all. I have yet to meet one person who does—apart from one or two Conservative European fanatics, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who seems to think that he is Europe. I should not say that, when my hon. Friend is not present, especially given that his son and mine are great friends at school. I do not regret saying it, however, and I shall repeat it to my hon. Friend when I next see him.
  Some hon. Members are fanatically determined to take us all the way down the European road, and see a federal Europe, a united Europe or a state of Europe as a natural historical consequence; but they are few and far between. That is not the official position of our Government, or of any Minister in our Government, and it certainly is not the position favoured by the people of this country.
  Mr. Gill: Surely, under the citizenship provisions, our monarch would no longer be sovereign in this nation. My hon. Friend has some experience of the armed services. To whom, in his opinion, would our service men give their oath of allegiance in such circumstances?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Others have mentioned that subject, in the context of split loyalties and service in our armed forces, or possibly in a European armed force. Although it will not happen overnight, if we go further down the European path, the loyalty of the British subject will clearly be split between Britain and Europe. That will be true not only of members of the armed forces, but of every citizen who takes the oath.
  Which is more important, citizenship of the United Kingdom or European citizenship? As the hon. Member for Dagenham pointed out, there can be only one answer: citizenship of Europe must come first, because of the supremacy of the European Court of Justice if for no other reason, but also because it is the larger unit. There will come a time when, for both those reasons, European citizenship will override citizenship of Great Britain.
  I do not think that the House—or the other House, or even the monarch—has the right to do that without consulting the British people.
  Let me return to the point at which I began. The Bill attempts to remove the sovereignty of the House, and our right to represent the people and defend their liberties as we have done for more than 1,000 years. There has never been a time when we have given foreigners—other nations —the right to determine the laws of this land: the right to say what is and is not a crime in our courts, and to say what can and cannot be done in every aspect of British life. In a newspaper article, the Prime Minister said that he had no intention of doing any such thing. I accept that, but he is doing it. He is doing it because he is thoroughly badly advised, and because he and the Government do not understand the danger of the road down which they are taking us.
  I have to add that one of the villains of the piece is Lady Thatcher. In 1986, she forced through the Single European Act, refusing a referendum, refusing to lift the whipping system from any of the votes, refusing to tolerate any opposition to the terms of the act and refusing to
  94
  acknowledge that all that took us down the road to what was then called a federal Europe. She believed, and led us to believe, that the Single European Act was no big deal, and that it did not take us further down a road which she herself professed not to favour. Because of that, I—like others—am deeply sceptical about the message that I am receiving seven years later about the next step along the road to European union.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) had reached his peroration. He is out of order, in that he is developing what has effectively become a Second Reading speech. We are dealing with a specific amendment on citizenship.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I take your point, Mr. Morris. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should rephrase the intervention that he is about to make, to bring it within the rules. I was becoming carried away by generalisations, but what I was saying is relevant to clause 1, which is critical to both the Maastricht treaty and the Bill.
  We are discussing citizenship of this European creation, and that prompts us to ask what we have created. Of what are we making the British people citizens, without so much as a by-your-leave? Peroration or not, I think that what I am saying is very pertinent to the decision that the House must make: do we or do we not ratify the Government's attempt to create a citizenship that will ultimately override and supersede citizenship of our country? I believe that we should not do so.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a long time. We were at Oxford together, and we have discussed this matter on many occasions. When he refers in this context to Lady Thatcher, would he be good enough to remember that the Foreign Secretary at the time was Lord Howe? I engaged in some illuminating correspondence with him and with Lady Thatcher.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That was an intriguing intervention, Mr. Morris. I am sure that you were greatly relieved by the last sentence. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said, and thank him.
  Let me summarise what I have said. If the amendment is accepted, we will alter, dramatically and irreversibly, the way in which the country is governed, now and for all time. If the British people are to become citizens of a Europe and of a European union that develops in the way that those who have created it wish it to develop and that we, as a Government and as a people, will be powerless to prevent, we shall have given away all the rights that this House of Commons fought so hard to achieve over so many years: to represent the people of this country and defend them.
  I end with a quotation from a poem by G. K. Chesterton which sets out, better than I could, the exact character of the people to whom we shall be handing over the people of our country;
  "They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
  They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
  They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

  95
  And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
  Their doors are shut in evening; and they know no songs."
  What a fate for a great people. What a definition of a European bureaucrat.
  Mr. Shore: My remarks can be brief. The essence of the matter has been brought out in the last two speeches, in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenam (Mr. Gould).
  One of the great contrasts in the debate is the approach of Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee, compared with that of those who sit on the Front Benches. I do not mean that those who sit on the Front Benches have entered into a cosy conspiracy, but it is perfectly obvious from the intellectual and analytical approach to the debate that those who sit on the Front Benches do not wish to consider the real meaning of citizenship and union.
  In their remarks, they have excluded these two dangerous areas from analysis and discussion. All they want to do is look at the 8a, 8b, 8c and 8d of article 8. I shall refer later to 8a. It was one of my problems when I last debated this matter when the Home Secretary was in the Chamber. I tried to press him about the real meaning of article 8a. He said that we should be coming to it later. However, he said nothing about article 8a earlier today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed to four or five features of citizenship under article 8a. In particular, he pointed to the right to petition the European Parliament. He referred to the establishment of an ombudsman under article 8d. He also drew attention, under paragraph 2 of article 8b, to the right to vote and stand as a candidate. Mention was made of diplomatic representation, or consular representation where we ourselves do not have a representative.
  If we were concerned only with these five particular additions, as it were, there would be no reason to have a separate section on citizenship. The right to petition the European Parliament and an ombudsman could easily be included under a later section dealing with institutions. There could be a simple declaration that there would be a right to petition and a declaration that there would be an ombudsman. There is no need for a separate section in the treaty to bring that about. Similarly, in the few cases where we do not have consular or diplomatic representation and another Community country takes it on for us, a new declaration of citizenship is not needed. All that is required is an agreement between member states to be of mutual assistance to each other.
  If they were concerned simply with the minor rights that are stated in article 8, there would be no reasons for a statement and a section under the heading "Citizenship of the Union." We are all in the dark about the real meaning of citizenship and the real meaning of union.
  I make that point with some emphasis because, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I tabled amendment No. 115, which I am sure that the Committee will wish to support. What we call for in that amendment—I believe that our call is more than justified by the course of the debate—is a Command Paper setting out the implications of this section of the treaty—citizenship of the union—and for it to be laid before Parliament for its approval before this section comes into effect. We should then obtain from
  96
  the Government what has so far been withheld from us —a serious explanation of the meaning of citizenship of the union. It is essential for us to have such an explanation.
  In a way, this has been a disgraceful debate, in that the Government have not volunteered that explanation. Every now and then, under pressure from other speakers, a Minister has intervened to pull aside the curtain just to give us a glimpse of what lies behind it. That is all we have had from the Government.
  8.45 pm
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not equally shaming that there has not been a series of tough questions from the Opposition Front Bench demanding precisely why the Government do not intend, presumably, to push this amendment to a Division?
  Mr. Shore: It is a great pity that the Opposition Front-Bench speakers have not been more critical, stringent, analytical and serious about the issues involved—that they have contented themselves, frankly, with the surface issues and the trivia of the section. They have not raised themselves to the intellectual level that this treaty requires.
  All of us have a duty to do our best to understand the meaning and significance of the treaty. We have a duty to our constituents, to ourselves and to the future to do just that and not to be gulled and lulled into acquiescence and silence while great decisions and events proceed to roll over us, only to find, a few years later, that the people who denied the House of Commons the information at the time come forward and say, "Well, it was implicit. You had already agreed to what we knew was in the previous treaty, so why can't you go along with it a little bit further?" That of course will be the case in 1996 when the intergovernmental conference is written into the treaty itself—the next step forward.
  Mr. Spearing: I hope that those who are sitting on both Front Benches have heard what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is not the picture even worse than that which he paints? Those on both Front Benches are not being fair to Parliament or to the people.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned amendment No. 115, which requires the deposit of a Command Paper in the House of Commons setting out those duties. Is it not usual in Committee for those who sit on the Front Benches to indicate their attitude to serious Back-Bench amendments? Is it not a fact that neither Front Bench—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is here and also the Home Secretary, because I do not like to say things behind people's backs: I always say them to their faces, if I can—made any attempt to address any of the serious amendments that have been tabled and that therefore they have not even dealt with in what is meant to be a serious debate? Do not those very facts bind, undergird and typify all the accusations that my right hon. Friend has just properly made?
  Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope very much that those to whom his remarks are addressed will respond to them. There should indeed have been comments from the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on what I believe to be a necessary amendment. I hope that we shall get them.
  One largely ignored aspect of the paragraphs of article 8 is the right to move and reside freely. The Home

  97
  Secretary will have heard me speak on this subject on an earlier occasion. I recall that he made some attempt to assist us in a previous debate. However, he did not make it clear what were the rights, limitations and conditions set out in the treaty. I am dealing now exclusively with European Community citizens who have the right to come here, not with third-world people.
  In an intervention on 28 January, the Home Secretary said:
  "On the question of freedom of movement and right of residence here, the right hon. Member is correct that under this Bill, there is freedom for any EC national to live and work here so long as they are self-supporting".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1167.]
  He went on to say that there were one or two exceptions based on public health grounds. I find it very difficult to understand the meaning and implications of the phrase "self-supporting".
  I know very well that such rules are made for people who come from third-world countries, but as all they have to do is to make what one Conservative hon. Member once described as "the Bangemann wave"—a bit of purple cardboard being waved as a person passes through Customs into the United Kingdom where he has the right to reside—how can such people be identified when they perhaps fall short of the necessary means of sustaining themselves in this country? If they have come here for purely frivolous reasons—for example, they merely want to spend some time here—what powers has the Home Secretary to remove those citizens of the union once they have come into this country? Some of them may be very undesirable.
  The last lime that I mentioned this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to Mr. Le Pen, whom we might not wish to have in this country. There are many other undesirables, such as those carrying drugs or those whom we suspect of having a criminal record. How can we control their entry if this ambiguous and almost unqualified right of entry, movement and residence is allowed? I hope that we shall receive further information about what exactly is being granted to such people.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I see that the right hon. Gentleman is pausing and looking in my direction for an intervention. As I have just been criticised for not replying to some questions, I shall intervene this time. Previously, I do not think that either the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or I were allowed to utter two sentences in succession without being interrupted by people pursuing us about the problem of conscription into a European army, which rather got in the way of dealing with the amendments.
  Any EC national is free to live and work in the United Kingdom and, as long as they are self-supporting, to remain here as a student, a retired person or for any other purpose. The only exceptions are those
  "excluded on public policy, public security or public health grounds."—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1167.]
  That flows not from the Maastricht treaty but from three directives on the subject of rights of residence which came into effect on 30 June 1992 and which we are about to put formally into domestic law. Contrary to what some hon. Members asserted earlier, the power remains, if necessary, to deport an EC national on the grounds of
  98
  public policy, public security or public health, or if they do not qualify for residence here under the directives that I have just cited.
  Mr. Shore: That is a helpful reply, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for making plainer what has been pretty obscure so far. However, the right of free entry into this country, unrelated to employment here, simply to reside here, is a considerable right to grant to people, even subject to those conditions. I have a strong feeling that restating it in the context of citizenship of the union is to make a claim for the new European union that it is something like a state.
  I know that we shall get into some difficulties about defining a state, but I have often said that the treaty of Maastricht makes it plain to anyone who wishes to observe it that its real character and objective is a union, a state. The citizens of the union are one of the first and most obvious claims for it being a state. One is a citizen of the union and therefore one has rights.
  Only a few rights are established under article 8(a), but the important 8(e) states:
  "The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee before 31 December 1993 and then every three years on the application of the provisions of this Part. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.
  On this basis … the Council, acting unanimously … may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  Clearly, it is envisaged that there will be an extension of the rights listed under article 8(a) to (d), but we do not know the nature of that extension or what the reciprocal duties are to be.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when it reviewed the working of the Single European Act. We did not always agree, but the concept of the right to move freely within the single market derived from the Single European Act. He is building a defensive argument against the concept of citizenship rights but, in many ways, his argument stems from the principles in the Single European Act which the House agreed. The entitlements of people who are now free to move around the Community are surely welcome—they are certainly welcome at the meetings at which I speak—because they give a clearer understanding of people's protections and expectations, wherever they happen to work and live in the Community.
  Mr. Shore: I suspect that the new union is claiming the powers of being a state. It claims the right to give citizenship to all the 300 million people of Europe. As the Home Secretary said, one cannot renounce that citizenship. The people of the nations involved have not been asked. I am not aware of any approach being made to anyone about becoming a citizen of the European union —it is a top-down, not a bottom-up, system. However, we are all to be brought within this chapter.
  The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) says that some of these rights were previously legislated for or given treaty form under earlier provisions, but, in a sense, that makes it even stranger that a separate section headed "Part Two—Citizenship of the Union" should now be included in the treaty.
  It is right to re-examine the common provisions to ascertain their purposes. Part two states that the union

  99
  shall set itself up—I shall not read all the provisions—but there are four essential objectives. The first is the introduction of a citizenship of the union. Another is to "assert its identity" on the international scene. I have not yet heard anyone explain what that identity is or what is the relationship between the union and the Community. Will it be the union that will sign treaties in future and act for the whole Community? We have not had an explanation of those matters from the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary. I think that we should. That adds still more relevance to amendment No. 115, which stands in my name and to which I have already drawn attention. I strongly recommend hon. Members—including those on my own Front Bench—to support that amendment.
  9 pm
  Mr. Rowe: When you were in the Chair earlier today, Mr. Morris, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described you as part of the procedural police. I must say that I am grateful to you for fingering my collar at this moment.
  The Maastricht treaty is a treaty, and treaties mark a particular moment in an evolutionary process. History shows just how often treaties are abrogated if they are seen to be unduly oppressive or if it is deemed to be to the short-term advantage of one of the signatories to abrogate them. The treaty of Union between England and Scotland has lasted nearly 300 years and has evolved remarkably successfully into something different from what the original signatories envisaged. As some Opposition Members constantly remind us, however, if sufficient numbers of Scots chose to rewrite that treaty, it would be possible to rewrite it.
  What has been the keynote of today's debate? Speaker after speaker has created a totem—a Baba Yaga—to inspire fear about what might happen. We would be a greater deal better off if we discussed the treaty as it is rather than its possible long-term evolution into something that frightens children.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should discusss such matters because article 8 provides for the scope of rights and therefore of reciprocal duties to be extended? It is our duty to look ahead.
  Mr. Rowe: I have no doubt that there are merits in looking ahead to some extent but, after each treaty that has been made so far, the European Community has evolved in a very different way from the way in which the signatories to that treaty expected it to evolve. It is always enjoyable listening to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and others creating wonderful chimeras only to shoot them down later, but it is not necessarily particularly illuminating.
  On the 50th anniversary of the opening of the second front, we should consider for a moment what the concept of citizenship in the European context is all about. Ours is a position of extraordinary luxury. We are the first generation this century that has not been involved obligatorily in a major European war. Millions of people have been killed and injured or have had their homes destroyed, and the legacy of those conflicts is tearing mainland Europe apart yet again.
  100
  It is in that context that, by hook or by crook, we need to find devices to prevent that from happening again. No one with any idea of how human nature works or how political processes create institutions would suggest that what the Maastricht treaty postulates is perfect or could be perfect or is thought to be perfect even by those who signed it. It represents one credible way of diminishing the risk that our children and grandchildren may once again be faced with a holocaust of the kind that has set Europe on fire twice this century.
  We have heard some persuasive but, I believe, not wholly well-founded arguments about citizenship. Two powerful ideas about citizenship have held most of Europe in their grip for centuries. The first was the idea of the civitas dei—the city of God. In political terms, all those who subscribed to the Christian Church—whether they believe in its principles or not—were citizens of the city of God. That was an attempt by philosophers and politicians to overcome the tribal and national battle lines that were constantly threatening to plunge, and often plunging, parts of Europe into war.
  Similarly, the holy Roman empire was another idea which ended in complete mockery, described in the end as being not holy nor Roman nor an empire. But it had existed as an idea for about 1,000 years. The idea of it was the same—that somehow, if only there could be sufficient agreement among the great powers of Europe, they might be prevented from plunging one another into war.
  For that reason, the Maastricht treaty creates a citizenship of the union. There is no shame in saying that it is, at least in part, powerful as a philosophical idea and that the rights and duties attached to that citizenship are of less importance than the philosophical concept that we in the European Community are all citizens with equal rights and importance, and that if it is made to work it will protect minorities, remembering that the dreadful failure to do that has torn Yugoslavia apart and bids fair to tear apart other countries, inside and outside the European Community.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: My hon. Friend is drawing some interesting parallels. What is so unstable about our belief in the concept of citizenship of the existing nation states in Europe that makes us feel that we must enable others to feel on a parity with us, or we with them, when all of us could exist in the single fact that we are equal and not greater than?
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend asks a good question which must be answered on the ground that many people, particularly the younger generation in all the countries of the European Community, have a growing understanding of the fact that the problems with which we must grapple are greater than the problems that can more easily be faced on the basis of the nation state alone. When considering matters of environmental pollution and the protection of wildlife—two matters that particularly concern the young —or the question of education and training for a market that enables people to work from one end of the EC to the other, it is believed that there is something greater than the purely national dimension.
  Mr. Rowlands: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another lesson to be learned from European history, from the holy Roman empire right through to the Austrian Hapsburg empire that collapsed in 1914, is that attempting to push in an imperial fashion the differences of culture,

  101
  policy, politics, ethnic divisions and everything that constitutes the nation state is as much the cause of war as nation states themselves?
  Mr. Rowe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I take issue with the implication of his question, in that I do not believe that there is such a great push. This is a question of politicians from all over the Community coming together in the knowledge that large numbers of their constituents care about a stable, peaceful, prosperous Europe working together.
  Mr. Jim Lester: My hon. Friend should bear in mind the practical point that, under the present Community arrangements, many British citizens choose in their retirement to live in various parts of Europe. They want to use their right to vote in a local election if they are currently resident in, for example, Spain. There is absolutely no reason why the add-on of European citizenship should not be of enormous practical value to those who choose to live anywhere in the Community.
  Mr. Rowe: That is absolutely right. Increasing numbers of people will be working on long-term contracts and in many other ways playing a major part in countries other than the country of their birth. One of the great features of citizenship is that it is valueless unless it secures some protection for the citizen.
  One of the points about the Maastricht treaty is that the whole idea of seeking diplomatic protection from a country in the European Community in which one's own country has no diplomatic representation seems to accord directly with the concept of protecting the citizen. It is an exciting concept. What is more, when two nation states or 12 nation states come together in such a treaty to create the sort of common citizenship which we are now adumbrating, it does not by any means necessarily carry with it a loss.
  Over the centuries, the Scots have gained considerable benefit from being citizens of the United Kingdom rather than simply of Scotland. Some Scots disagree with that, but there are so many of them on the Labour Front Bench that I am sure I shall command some support.
  We must remember two things when we attack the concept of European citizenship simply on the basis of the nation state. The first is that the nation state is a relatively modern phenomenon. The suggestion that nation states survive and prosper only if they can enslave or, at any rate, take over large parts of the rest of the world to finance themselves is arguable. What has happened is that the great nation states of Europe have been forced to withdraw to their own frontiers. They have lost their imperial back-up and are now—in my view, sensibly—looking to see whether there is some other way of organising their citizenship and general political relationships which will supervene and prevent yet again such appalling competition.
  There is no inherent reason why citizens should necessarily treat one another well. One need only watch in microcosm the way in which hon. Members treat one another from time to time to realise that being a citizen of a single entity is by no means a guarantee that people will necessarily get on especially well together. However, it substantially increases the chance of co-existence in a peaceful and stable way. That is what we are talking about in this debate.
  102
  The concept of the European citizen is one which will help us with one of the other great problems which the European Community faces. Let us not kid ourselves that at present there is a mixture of detachment and glee when we learn that there are terrorist gangs in Germany and that ETA, in the Basque country, is blowing up people. The detachment is that it does not really matter, it has nothing to do with us, it is a long way away and is it not reassuring that other countries have the same sort of problem as we have in Northern Ireland?
  Hon. Members are looking at me in shock. If they are honest with themselves, they will know that, when they see something going wrong elsewhere, many people think, "At least it means that we are not as bad as we thought we were. We are not alone in the problem." Until we can overcome that, and until we genuinely care as much when things go wrong for citizens of the rest of the European Community as when they do for citizens of our own country, we shall never have the wholehearted European co-operation which is necessary to eradicate such menaces. European citizenship is a concept on which we can build to educate our children into thinking about foreigners, and in particular European foreigners, in a way different from that which we have suffered so far.
  The rights which we are accorded under the European citizenship provisions are good things. It is a good thing that we can go to a European ombudsman. It is a good thing that we can turn to diplomatic representatives in countries where we have no representation of our own. It is a good thing that we can involve ourselves closely in the local affairs of the country in which we reside so that we feel able and want to take part in local politics. Those rights are of value, and I strongly support them.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a case for European citizenship on the basis that it will make us more internationalist and overcome national boundaries and national enmities, but does he agree that the main force for European citizenship and European federalism is a sense of competition and fear of the Americans and the Japanese? Should not the conclusion of my hon. Friend's argument be that, if we are to have a great international utopia, one thing that we should not have is a federal Europe which will stand out against and compete with other countries, particularly perhaps third-world countries?
  Mr. Rowe: At no point in my remarks did I mention the word "federalism". One of the important features of the Maastricht treaty, the negotiating procedures that led up to it and the negotiating machinery on which it and its successors will depend is that it leaves plenty of room for change and evolution. The Maastricht treaty is not the type of treaty which the people who signed the Single European Act expected it to be. The European Community which the Maastricht treaty envisages is not likely to be exactly the type of Community which will emerge in the end. It is a staging post to a destination which we cannot precisely define. The instability in the present exchange rate mechanism is a good demonstration of how it is extremely difficult to predict exactly how man-made political structures will evolve.
  There has been a lot of talk about the possibility that various unwelcome duties will be forced on European citizens. One example is conscription. The only occasions

  103
  on which there was conscription in the United Kingdom were when twice this century we were forced into it to repair the damage done by treating other Europeans as alien, strange, hostile and bloody-minded. In the end we came into conflict with them. There is much greater danger that conscription and other duties will be forced on us if we fail to make the concept of European citizenship work than if we do not.
  Mr. Winnick: This is undoubtedly one of the most important parts of the treaty. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to it as a staging post. In my view, it is a paving measure for a federal union—certainly a federal arrangement along very centralised lines, in some respects like the federal arrangements in the United States of America. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—during the Second Reading debate, I believe—illustrated the situation with reference to the United States, which, he said, had an arrangement suitable for Europe. That is the right hon. Gentleman's view, but it is certainly not mine.
  Citizenship of the union will be automatic. There will be no opting-out provision. No one will be in a position to say, "I do not want to be a part of this union." When the question of the Queen's position was raised, the Home Secretary said that he was not sure about it. But then he confirmed what the position must be. Would not the situation be odd and invidious if the Queen were the only United Kingdom citizen who was not a citizen of the union? Obviously she, like all her subjects, will be involved. Duties will be set out, and it is clear that there will be obligations.
  This is undoubtedly the most fundamental change in citizenship, yet the Government do not have any mandate whatsoever to proceed. When the Prime Minister is questioned about the matter of a mandate he refers to the last general election. He said that during the campaign it had been made clear that the Government were in favour of Maastricht. But everyone knows that that was not an issue in the general election. Can anyone—and we were all candidates—recall any clash between the two main parties about this issue? Indeed, it is difficult to recall a particular mention of it in any party political broadcast. Any reference to it was made in passing at most.
  No one—whatever side of the argument he takes—says that this is not an important issue. No one—not even the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—says that it is a relatively minor matter. What we have been arguing about for some time is whether this treaty is in the interests of Britain. Everybody—whatever position he takes—agrees that this is an issue of the greatest possible constitutional significance. It cannot be said too often that such a step requires some authority or mandate from the British people.
  The Chairman: Order. Indeed it cannot be said, as it is not relevant to this amendment, which is specifically about citizenship.
  Mr. Winnick: I accept your ruling, Mr. Morris. I have been making the point merely that, in respect of this issue, some mandate or authority from the British people is required. That will continue to be my view, as it will continue to be the view of others.
  104
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), have made much of the failure of the nation state. If the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was implying that peace will be firmly established in Europe only if we proceed along the Maastricht road, I find his case difficult to accept. We had the cold war for more than 40 years, and it did not become a hot war. Fortunately, Europe was not destroyed, as the super-powers were determined, even at the height of the cold war, that it should not become a hot war. Korea was the nearest we came, in a limited way, to having a hot war. I cannot accept the argument that this is the only way of guaranteeing peace and security in Europe.
  In some respects suppose that I disagree with other hon. Members who are against the Bill and who may be described—fairly or otherwise—as little Englanders. I am not a little Englander and no one has ever accused me of being one. I hope that the stand that I took on the Gulf war and other issues well before that demonstrates that it has never been my view that Britain should adopt au isolationist stance. Britain fought a war and stood virtually alone for two years because we were determined not to remain isolated and because we recognised our role in Europe.
  I also accept the obligations and duties that arise from our membership of the United Nations. NATO and the rest. We should not cut ourselves off from Europe or the continent and go into a corner and stop worrying about the rest of Europe. That is not my point of view and I doubt whether it is that of any other hon. Member.
  Although I was not enthusiastic about our membership of the European Community and had strongly disagreed with it and campaigned against it—I hope this is order —once the British people had decided by a majority in June 1975 that they were in favour of our continuing membership, I accepted the decision. Moreover, having been in the Community for some years it would not be in the national interest for us to leave. I therefore accept that we should remain in the Community.
  The argument is not about whether we should remain in the Community, but about whether we should proceed along a road that would seriously diminish the independence of this country. Bearing in mind our membership of NATO and the United Nations and the obligations that they impose, some people have said that we should not worry over much about the treaty because it is virtually the same. It is nothing of the kind. Our membership of the United Nations dates from 1945, and I believe that NATO was started in 1949, but they in no way diminish the independence of this country. There was no question of our having any duties that would diminish the authority of this House and the independence of this country. If that had been the case there would no doubt have been bitter controversy at the time. Therefore, it is not an honest argument to say that the road that we are taking now is virtually the same as our membership of the United Nations and NATO. It is nothing of the kind.
  To a large extent we are debating whether Britain shall remain an independent country in any meaningful sense. I am not saying that we are going to become a sort of satellite. I have no desire to exaggerate the argument. I do not doubt that, if the treaty becomes law, the House will continue to debate all sorts of issues. It would be odd if it were otherwise. However, on many issues of fundamental importance, including defence and foreign policy, the final

  105
  authority will no longer rest in this House but outside it. If that is not a matter of supreme constitutional importance I do not know what is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) seems surprised by what I have said. I am only surprised at his reaction. I do not believe that I was elected to—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech. He has hardly mentioned the word "citizenship" and has not referred to amendment No. 12. I understand that he feels strongly about the issues, but he must address the amendment.
  Mr. Winnick: I accept what you say Mr. Morris, but the citizenship of the union, as set out in the article that we are discussing, would severely diminish the independence of this country and the authority of this House and that is part of my argument.
  Article 8b relates to candidates for municipal elections and European elections. It is argued that it will not apply to those outside the United Kingdom who wish to stand for election to Parliament. Why not? I do not see the logic in that. If it is argued that someone outside the United Kingdom has a right to stand here for local elections or the European Parliament—as set out in article 8b—how can it be argued that he should not also stand for Parliament?
  9.30 pm
  Even if, in the context of today's debate, municipal does mean local, surely once the law is passed, the obvious logic is that, if people outside the United Kingdom can stand for local elections and for a British constituency in the European Parliament, they should be able to stand for Parliament. Once we pass certain measures, it is not long before other measures are taken which further diminish and erode our independence.
  It is dangerous for Parliament to be out of step with the wishes of the majority of people on a major constitutional issue. It is for that reason, among others, that I fully support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), under which the Government would be asked to set out in a Command Paper the duties and obligations of citizenship of the union. That is a reasonable amendment, and it is unfortunate that the Government are unlikely to support it.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the point of having a White Paper when article 8e states that, every three years, the Council can add to the rights and duties of European citizens? We are not debating a static position involving merely the right to vote. Under article 8e, the duties and responsibilities can be extended every three years. Would it not be better to have a White Paper published every three years to take account of exciting new duties and responsibilities that the EC decides that we have to undertake?
  Mr. Winnick: I agree. The Government's first step should be to adopt the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, but I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that that should not be the end of it. If the treaty becomes law, the least that we should require of the Government of the day is that there should be a continuing review of the position. We should press for that.
  106
  I am sufficiently pessimistic to accept that the Bill and the treaty will become law. If that happens, the controversy will not end. Hon. Members who support the Government and the Labour Front Bench team believe that by the end of February or March the Bill will have completed its Committee stage, then go to another place and afterwards receive its Third Reading, but the controversy will not end. The issue will become and remain a festering sore in British politics. If authority and independence is taken away from Britain and the House without the consent of the majority of British people, the issue will remain one of great importance and controversy, and will undoubtedly cause many sharp clashes both inside and outside the House.
  For those reasons, I believe that the Government should recognise the depth of feeling among many of us. I do not know whether we are in the majority, but to take the steps that the Government propose, as set out in article 8, without the mandate or authority of the British people is wrong, and can only cause tremendous resentment outside the House. Therefore, I hope that at least the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and others will be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. Shepherd: I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 12, which is why I listened with particular care to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I expected an analysis of the text of the article, given that the Opposition propose to remove all the citizenship provisions.
  What I found, however, was that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advanced with a powder puff and caressed the provisions set out in the treaty. So reassuring were his arguments for the removal of this part of it that the Home Secretary thought it unnecessary to argue in favour of the treaty thereafter. We witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the Home Secretary expressing his admiration for a speech by an hon. Member who was trying to remove the citizenship provisions from the treaty and who did it so persuasively that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to curtail his own speech.
  We have heard no analysis, either by Ministers or Opposition spokesmen, of what citizenship means or how it affects the Queen in Parliament. When asked, the Home Secretary was not sure whether the Queen would become a citizen of Europe. Very little thought has been given to that when preparing the briefings that the Home Secretary receives from the Department. We know from the fanciful little cards sent to Members of Parliament from the Home Office that royal matters concern the Home Secretary, yet no inquiry has satisfied him to enable him to answer with confidence questions about the position of the Queen under the treaty.
  We all know that we are forming a union. If I were a bureaucrat, the one provision of the treaty that I would want to secure above all others would be that governing citizenship. It is the one that tells us our relationship to the state, and it is the one that I want to discuss this evening.
  I was elected as a Conservative, and as such I have always believed that, at the heart of our philosophy—to this I subscribe wholeheartedly—is the maintenance of our constitution, which is a democratic, self-governing constitution. That is the fundamental line of trust linking all Conservatives. But the Government propose that we

  107
  become citizens of a new political structure in which, as if by an afterthought, the Queen is apparently to become a citizen.
  These are profound matters, touching on the heart of nationhood and citizenship. Ultimately, they are a question of sentiment. Despite the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about international law, we all know that what lies behind these relationships is the question of who we are—our sentiment. I am glat to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I am one by birth, but more importantly by sentiment. The Government trivialise that.
  I suggest that from sentiment follow all manner of things. I support the laws of the state of which I am a citizen. This I do gladly and by an exercise of free choice. When I am told that I am to be made a citizen of anywhere else, I feel like Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians must have felt when they were told that they were to be made citizens—to use the language of this treaty, irrevocably and irreversibly—of the USSR.
  So there is no choice in these matters, and it is impertinent of Front-Bench spokesmen to tell Parliament, which is the sovereign representative of the will of the people, that the Government propose to make us citizens of somewhere else without seeking our advice first. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked by what mandate such an important change was to be made.
  This is the one proposal in the treaty above all others for which I suggest the sanction of the individuals who will be most affected—the citizens—must be sought. There has been no mandate on that.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's sincerity and passion are well understood in the Committee. Two matters in his speech puzzle me. He says that at the heart of his understanding of British citizenship is the concept of being, within the constitution, part of a representative governmental system. As a result of that system, we have a Government who won an election and who made clear their commitment to the treaty. That is my first puzzle about what the hon. Gentleman places at the centre of his thinking of what it is to be British—he rejects the result of the election.
  Secondly, we live under a constitutional system in which the rights of citizenship are not defined. The hon. Gentleman describes them in almost metaphysical terms, and that is correct. There is a much greater definition of what citizenship might mean in the context of a framework constitution for the European union than we have had in 700 years of British history.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not the maker of the speech for the Liberal Democrat spokesman, because at least his intervention contained some reflection. I was speaking about democratic self-government being the heart of our constitution. I am truly surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an election is the end of the democratic process or the conferment of a mandate as such.
  108
  All that was achieved at the last election was what in constitution terms is referred to as a general mandate. I am arguing for a specific mandate, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have understood that. That is a constitutional concept in our history. It is referred to by authorities, and for the past 25 years this country has sought to exert it on profound constitutional issues. That happened first under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), secondly under the premiership of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and thirdly under the premiership of Mr. Callaghan.
  For every major constitutional change during those periods, it was considered necessary to seek a specific mandate from those who would be affected. Therefore, that is part of our constitutional requirements. The fact that it was fudged in 1985 and the fact that the Government run away from it now is understandable. We are in the hands of ideologues who wish to force through this measure without regard to the—[Interruption.] We know the fashions as they come and go, and I well understand why we had South Sea bubbles.
  I have watched the Government come to their knees on the ERM, and I watch them now as they prepare to force through a contention of citizenship for which the Home Secretary could not even wave a concept. We have not had one testing thing about what it amounts to, nor did we have any indication as to where it leads.
  Each of us in his heart—because it is a metaphysical concept—must ask, what is nationality, what is citizenship, to whom do we owe allegiance, and why? I owe allegiance because I am confident that all the laws and rules of this land are ultimately under the control of the citizens. It has nothing to do with the mere sanction of an election, because if I as a Conservative am allowed to misappropriate Burke yet again, I would say that it was the process of consent and acquiesence that Governments and laws seek. Without consent, they have no foundation, and they are seen to become unjust.
  When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was advancing that argument, in essence he was saying that these matters cannot be processed without the consent of the people. Citizenship is the relationship of us to the state. How can it be that the Government cannot advance one argument in favour of the necessity to subordinate current citizenship, given by birth and allegiance, to European citizenship?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I should like to continue.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about the construction of the state. If the United Kingdom, as one of the high contracting parties, is a subordinate constituent of what those high contracting parties are forming—the union of Europe—the citizenship of one of those subordinate constituents must be subordinate to that of the greater proposition. That is the only point that has been established this evening.
  Therefore, in all matters that affect the union, where it has competence which is not a settled and finished matter, which is extended—I would say grotesquely—in the treaty of Maastricht, there has been a profound change. That means that United Kingdom citizenship must of itself be

  109
  subordinate. Therefore, my first duty to support the laws and maintain the structure will be to the union of Europe rather than to the United Kingdom.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Whitney: Earlier in his remarks, my hon. Friend asked himself two questions—what is nationality, and what is citizenship? He was right to ask those questions. However, he should accept the definition of European citizenship, which, as we all agree, is a new concept and something that we must learn to develop and understand. He should also acknowledge that the treaty clearly defines nationality. I understand his propensity—
  Mr. Nicholas Baker rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
  Mr. Marlow(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is well known that it was anticipated that most hon. Members would be here at 10 o'clock for a vote. Because the Government have got their people here first, they are trying to have the Division early. Why cannot we keep the debate going until 10 o'clock, when most hon. Members will be here?
  The Chairman: The timing of the Division is nothing to do with the Chair.
  Sir Teddy Taylor(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: I will take it later.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Order. I will take it in a minute—[Interruption.]
  Sir Teddy Taylor(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some of us have been here for 28 years. Do you really think that it is adding to the dignity of democracy that, for the fifth time, we have had a major debate but no ministerial response? How on earth is it possible for you to consider a closure motion when there has been no ministerial reply to fundamental and important issues raised in the debate?
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give reasons from the Chair.
  Mr. Rowlands(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have a simple question. When will you refuse a closure motion from the Government?
  The Chairman: I have already said that the Chair does not give reasons, but I have refused a number of closures.
  Mr. Budgen(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be very grateful—and, indeed, you might be very grateful—if you took the opportunity to explain what you meant when you said that the question of the time was not within the discretion of the Chair. There is a rising sense of frustration on the Conservative Benches. We feel that you should explain your position so that we may decide our action—
  The Chairman: Order. It is very clear. I do not choose the time at which a closure motion is moved. That is the point.
  Mr. Budgen(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Surely you decide when to accept an application, and the time may be relevant to your consideration.
  The Chairman: I accept a closure motion when I believe that there has been a full and fair debate.
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 285, Noes 267.

  Division No. 136]

  [9.45 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alton, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bates, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Faber, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Booth, Hartley

  Forman, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gallie, Phil

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Butterfill, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, William

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Couchman, James

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  111

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, David

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mates, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tracey, Richard

  Merchant, Piers

  Tredinnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Trend, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Trotter, Neville

  Mills, Iain

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tyler, Paul

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Welsh, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Whitney, Ray

  Norris, Steve

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ottaway, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Page, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  112

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dobson, Frank

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Ainger, Nick

  Dowd, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Allen, Graham

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Enright, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Battle, John

  Foulkes, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fraser, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bell, Stuart

  Galbraith, Sam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Benton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gerrard, Neil

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Gill, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blair, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blunkett, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boateng, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Graham, Thomas

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Gunnell, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hain, Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Butcher, John

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Caborn, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Heppell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cash, William

  Home Robertson, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Coffey, Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Jessel, Toby

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cran, James

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Denham, John

  Legg, Barry

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  113

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lord, Michael

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McAllion, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McLeish, Henry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Short, Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan

  McWilliam, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marlow, Tony

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Vaz, Keith

  Olner, William

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Parry, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pawsey, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  Watson, Mike

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wilkinson, John

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prescott, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wray, Jimmy

  Randall, Stuart

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. John Spellar.

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 75, Noes 280.

  Division No. 137]

  [10.1 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cohen, Harry

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Connarty, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Cran, James

  Callaghan, Jim

  Cryer, Bob

  114

  Davidson, Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gerrard, Neil

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Gill, Christopher

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Simpson, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harvey, Nick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Knapman, Roger

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Lewis, Terry

  Wilkinson, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lord, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Audrey

  Marlow, Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Mr. Ron Leighton and

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Pawsey, James

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alton, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Couchman, James

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Baldry, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Day, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dover, Den

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Duncan, Alan

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Freeman, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  French, Douglas

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gale, Roger

  115

  Gallie, Phil

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maclennan, Robert

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Madel, David

  Gorst, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malone, Gerald

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mans, Keith

  Hague, William

  Marland, Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mates, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Harris, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mills, Iain

  Heald, Oliver

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hendry, Charles

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jack, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Page, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Pickles, Eric

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Key, Robert

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Redwood, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Robathan, Andrew

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

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knox, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sackville, Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lidington, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luff, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  116

  Shersby, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sproat, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sykes, John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thomason, Roy

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and

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

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  COMBINED TRANSPORT NETWORK
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8066/92, relating to the establishment of a combined transport network; notes that the growth of a combined transport network is in line with Government objectives, provided that it is consistent with the need to ensure fair competition between freight transport modes; and endorses the Government's aim seeking agreement to cost effective measures aimed at promoting efficient combined transport services.

  TIMESHARE
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8043/92, relating to the protection of purchasers in contracts relating to the utilisation of immovable property on a timeshare basis; and supports the Government's view that the draft directive is a necessary measure of consumer protection which, subject to some amendment, will be acceptable.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.

  Bomb Damage (Newtownbreda)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I am delighted to be called at this early hour, albeit to talk about treason in the United Kingdom. Treason has just been committed by the Government in the earlier debate on Maastricht—[Interruption] I am now referring to a second aspect of treason.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
  The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) used the word "treason".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear what the right hon. Member said. If he used that word, I have no doubt that he will wish to withdraw it.
  Mr. Taylor: I am talking about treason in the United Kingdom by the IRA, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight's debate is about bombing by terrorists in the United Kingdom, especially in the village of Newtownbreda, in my constituency. Treason is bad, and that is why hon. Members in all parts of the House deplore treason when it is committed, and we know when it is committed.
  On 23 September last year I left my constituency and caught the evening plane to come to the House for a special sitting to debate the decision by Her Majesty's Government to leave the exchange rate mechanism, a decision which most hon. Members welcomed, even though at the time some people opposed it. Those who opposed it and referred to it as black Wednesday now gratefully refer to it as white Wednesday. Such is the change in politics in this country.
  As I arrived at my home in Westminster that night, I switched on the 11 o'clock news to learn that there had been a major explosion in what was described as south Belfast. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the Chamber. Naturally, I was anxious to obtain more details about the explosion, so I listened to the midnight news. To my horror, I discovered that the explosion was not in south Belfast but in Strangford, in my constituency, at the forensic science laboratory in the village of Newtownbreda.
  It was a major explosion, one of the largest to have occurred in the United Kingdom. It resulted in damage to 1,002 homes in my constituency, in Brerton crescent, in the large Belvoir estate and in widespread areas of Newtownbreda. I came to my office at 6.30 the next morning. I went on Downtown Radio and BBC Radio Ulster to broadcast to the people in my constituency concern about what had happened and to advise them what should be done. We then had the debate in the House on the economic crisis facing the United Kingdom.
  On the next day, Friday, I flew back to Northern Ireland with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who visited Belvoir. I am glad to say that on the following day, Saturday, she visited Belvoir for another three hours, accompanied by the local Presbyterian minister, Rev. Brian Black, who took her
  118
  around many of the homes. For the first time she saw the reality of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland. I shall quote what the hon. Lady said at that time:
  "It is just devastating. One had to be on the spot to really appreciate the cruelty of this terrorist attack in a residential area. I am overwhelmed by the kind welcome given to me and by the sheer guts of the people of Newtownbreda to overcome this criminal attack. I am very impressed at the quick response of the various support agencies, but obviously much more needs to be done."
  That IRA attack on the forensic science laboratory in Newtownbreda damaged 1,002 homes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that had happened in your constituency or in any constituency in England, it would have caused a national crisis and would have attracted the Government's urgent attention. It certainly would have gained the headlines in all the national newspapers. I am sorry to say that such a major event in Northern Ireland is almost dismissed in London.
  Elderly and young people were made homeless. Forty-two houses were totally destroyed and made uninhabitable. Five months after the explosion, many people are still not back in their homes.
  The IRA commits outrages almost daily in Northern Ireland. It has been happening for 23 years. The majority community in Northern Ireland is critical of the Government's failure to bring the terrorists under control, but that is not the subject of tonight's debate. The subject is the specific problem in the Newtownbreda and Belvoir area. The people of Belvoir were by far the largest section of the community affected by the bomb. They have responded magnificently to the challenge from the IRA.
  On the Sunday after the bomb explosion, I went to the united church service in the Presbyterian church hall. The Presbyterian church was destroyed, as was the Methodist church and the Church of Ireland parish church. The Church of Ireland parish church is now in ruins, but I am glad to say that it is rising from the ashes. The other two churches are now back in operation.
  I went to the united church service and was greatly encouraged by the spirit of the community. At the same time, a second service was held in the Belvoir activity centre. That service had been organised by the Church of Ireland. My wife attended the service. She came home with the same experience of a people who would not be beaten into the ground by the IRA terrorists, but it is easy to say that. None the less, families had great economic and social problems and stress was placed on them. Those are challenges which the Government and politicians face.
  Of the 1,002 houses which were damaged, 42 were damaged to the extent that the people had to get out. Many of those people are still not back in their homes. I have a parliamentary reply to confirm that 10 per cent. of the houses—more than 100 houses—were badly damaged. Of the 1,002 houses that were damaged, 428 were privately owned. Belvoir is a mixed estate in which some houses have been acquired by the residents and are now privately owned. The others remain under the ownership of the public housing authority, which in Northern Ireland is called the Housing Executive.
  I must place on record the appreciation of the community at large of the response of the public authorities. Under the leadership of Castlereagh borough council, of which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I have the honour to be members, the Belvoir activity centre became the nerve centre for the

  119
  reaction to that IRA terrorist outrage. The council is particularly proud of that centre, which opened one year ago.
  At the centre, the Housing Executive, the Law Society, the social services agencies, the Northern Ireland Office and other public institutions set up offices to help and advise people on how best to respond to their terrible experience. I understand that experience because I have had five properties bombed by the IRA in the past 23 years. I know exactly the procedures through which one must go. In the early 1970s, when I was a member of a firm of consulting engineers and architects, I acted in a professional capacity on behalf of more than 500 claimants for compensation and settled their claims, I hope successfully. We dealt with the old county councils and subsequently with the Northern Ireland Office.
  I have praised the various public agencies. I should also like to mention the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the two local community policemen had not seen the bomb in the van outside the forensic department, tragedy would have taken place. Bad as the bomb was, the great thing is that no lives were lost. We can replace bricks and rebuild homes—it is happening—but we can never re-create lives. Luckily, lives were not lost. That is why religious services were held in Belvoir. They were services of thanksgiving that, despite the misery of the bomb explosion, no human life had been lost.
  Those who live in privately owned homes are still suffering. The Housing Executive carried out a first-class operation. It moved in immediately and made all houses, rented and privately owned, watertight by putting tarpaulin over the roofs. It then proceeded to concentrate on repairing its houses—about 500 out of the 1,002. It rightly took pleasure in stating before Christmas that all its 500 houses were repaired and the people were back in them. That was to the credit of the Housing Executive. That must be placed on record, because the bomb damage was a major challenge for the executive. It was a major crisis.
  I am sorry to say that the problem continues for the private owners. I foresaw that and stated it on the radio at 6.30 on the morning after the explosion, fewer than 12 hours after the explosion. I warned that the problem would be the owner-occupiers. From my experience of dealing with such problems, I realised what the problems were. I realised, such was the extent of the damage, involving more than 400 private owners, that there would be a major problem.
  On 23 October 1992, one month after the bomb exploded, the Northern Ireland Office had received claims for compensation from the occupiers of 890 out of the 1,002 houses damaged. I am sorry to say that, a month after the bombing, each claimant had received an average of only £30. On 6 November 1992, of the 42 private house owners, only five had received more than £2,000 in compensation. Yet on 24 September, one day after the bombing, the Government were able to state that 10 per cent. of the 1,000 houses had been badly damaged, and that 42 were wrecked.
  Anyone with experience in the construction industry, or in the allied professions, would have known from walking around those homes that many would need expenditure of between £20,000 and £30,000 for them to be restored and
  120
  made habitable again. Given that, the Northern Ireland Office should have been able to make an immediate interim award of £10,000 or £15,000 to the people concerned so that they could start to rebuild their homes. People had lost their roofs; their ceilings had caved in; their kitchens were wrecked; their beds had been destroyed; their sitting rooms were in crisis. Some were sleeping on the floor, with water dripping on them. Emergency action was required in the form of interim compensation awards; but such action was not taken.
  No ordinary person in Belvoir, Newtownbreda, Belfast or anywhere in England can produce £30,000 overnight to restore his home. A person who loses his home, as a result of a bombing or any other tragedy, will need money with which to restore it; but after securing that money, he is caught in a trap—unless he has a very kind bank manager.
  The public authority homes—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes—were being repaired steadily and efficiently; all credit is due to the executive for that. Meanwhile, the owner-occupiers were waiting for their interim compensation awards, and receiving very little. As I have said, they were receiving an average of £30 each a month after the bombing, and on 6 November five had received just over £2,000 apiece. Even on 10 December —just before Christmas—only three applicants in Belvoir had received an interim award of more than £10,000.
  When I went to the midnight Church of Ireland communion service on Christmas eve and met the people again, they confirmed that little progress had been made. Of the 42 who had lost their homes, 14 were living in caravans on that frosty night, in dreadful conditions—surrounded by muck and quagmire, running up big electricity and heating bills in the mobile homes to which they were not used, and still waiting for major compensation.
  The Government must respond quickly to the needs not just of those in Housing Executive homes but of those in privately owned homes. The Northern Ireland Office, and the Northern Ireland compensation agency, must adopt a new approach to home owners. To its credit, the Northern Ireland Office recognises that a problem exists; but it was caught unawares by the bombing on 23 September. It emerged that the Department had no policy to deal with a bomb that affected such a large number of privately owned homes.
  Eight days after the bombing—not the day after, but eight days later—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced a new policy: the Northern Ireland Housing Executive would take over responsibility for reinstating the privately owned homes. But it was too late. Not one person from the 428 privately owned homes took up that offer. Why? Because it was too late.
  The law in Northern Ireland is simple. When one suffers damage because of a terrorist bomb or an illegal organisation, one must serve notice, within 10 days of the atrocity, that one intends to apply for compensation. As a result of the enterprise of Castlereagh borough council at the Belvoir activity centre and the various agencies that were working so well in the community centre at the time, the people were well organised.
  The Secretary of State has complimented the borough council and the people for being so well organised and for responding so efficiently to the outrage. They had appointed their solicitors, quantity surveyors and builders, as they were told to do. Having made those commitments, and knowing that they had to serve notice of a claim within

  121
  10 days, they suddenly read in the Belfast Telegraph, nine days after the explosion, that they need not have done so at all. I see that the Minister is nodding his head—
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Males): No; I was shaking my head.
  Mr. Taylor: The proof is in the pudding, and not one person from the 428 privately owned houses took up the offer from the Housing Executive to fix their houses because it came too late.
  Regrettably, the Government did not have a policy. They have one now and have applied it to other major bomb explosion—for example, recently at Glengormley, in the constituency of Antrim, South. Private owners there have taken the opportunity of getting the Housing Executive to repair their houses. That could not apply in Belvoir because it came too late. That is why the way to resolve the problem was to get urgent interim compensation awards made to the house owners.
  Four months after the bomb, people are still living in caravans and running up large bills. I want the Minister to explain to the House and to my constituents whether those electricity bills, which are much larger than the bills that they would have received had they been in their homes, will be considered when the final compensation awards are made.
  I also want the Minister to reconsider the operation of the Northern Ireland Compensation Agency. I am not criticising the staff of the agency, who have worked hard during the past three months and have had to deal with 2,500 compensation claims during that time, which is 50 per cent. of their normal work load for a year. The limited staff in the Northern Ireland compensation agency were extended to the limit because of the lack of staffing and the increase in republican terrorism in Northern Ireland. I know that that costs money, which is always a problem in public life.
  If the Government are presiding over increased republican terrorism, they must provide more staffing for the Northern Ireland compensation agency. Without adequate staff it cannot respond quickly in a case such as Belvoir. Four months after the bomb people are still living in caravans. The tarpaulins that were put on their roofs on 24 September 1992 have finally been removed during the past two or three weeks. Therefore, much as we appreciate the work of the compensation agency, we hope that the Minister will increase its staff.
  Finally, will the Minister remove the forensic science institution from Newtownbreda? It is the second time that we have had a bomb explosion. The people of Belvoir, Brerton crescent and the surrounding district cannot be asked to endure the possibility of a third explosion at those premises.
  10.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I am glad to have the chance to reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), and I shall try to cover all the issues that he raised, although he has left me very little time.
  More than 1,000 tenants and owner-occupiers suffered damage to their homes as a result of the outrageous attack on the forensic laboratory, and it is right that the right
  122
  hon. Gentleman should be concerned that everything possible has been done to alleviate the problems that were, and are still being, faced by many of his constituents.
  By that callous act, the Provisional IRA has demonstrated yet again its utter disregard for the lives and property of ordinary people. It was mostly fortuitous that nobody was killed or seriously injured. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute, not only to the two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who warned people and saved lives, but to the two local security guards inside the forensic laboratory who raised the alarm. They acted with great courage and speed, which is why we are not discussing the deaths of many people.
  As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I visited the scene on the day after the incident and saw the destruction, pain and suffering at first hand. It is a tribute to all the people in Ulster that they continue to be so resilient in the face of such acts, not just in Ulster but elsewhere.
  The right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that the Government had no policy. They have a perfectly good policy, which was created when the right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility for such matters and set out rules on criminal compensation for damage. Although they have been varied, they remain roughly unchanged.
  The Newtownhreda incident was exceptional because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there were involved many Housing Executive houses and many private houses, most of which had been purchased from the Housing Executive by people in the middle to late stages of their lives. We faced a problem, and the first thing that happened on the morning after the incident was that an executive decision was taken that instant repairs would be made to private houses as well as Housing Executive houses. Clearly it would have been wrong if panes of glass and leaking roofs were not mended as an emergency action.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the Housing Executive, which took on that job. I join him in paying tribute to all the agencies—local government, Northern Ireland Office and voluntary organisations—that quickly set up shop and remained there throughout the weekend. They all did a marvellous job—from the solicitors who advised people to the volunteers who provided creche facilities for the children. Other services, including the social services, were present. People who had suffered trauma were counselled. The people charged with responsibility in such a major disaster came out of it with great credit.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that on 1 October my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Housing Executive could carry out repairs for owner-occupiers in the district in return for an assignment of compensation. That was in response to the massive amount of damage, and to give owner-occupiers the opportunity to have the same service as had been available to Housing Executive tenants who were living beside them.
  It was an unusual situation as one house was a Housing Executive property and the next one was private, the next Housing Executive. After consultation we took the decision that it would be right to offer them all the same treatment. It has been suggested—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman suggested it again—that the announcement came too late for the owner-occupiers because of the statutory requirement that a notice of intention to claim compensation should be lodged within 10 days.

  123
  However, the timing of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's announcement had no bearing on the matter as it was made perfectly clear that anyone intending to have their repairs carried out by the Housing Executive had to make an application for compensation. Therefore, the claim for compensation had to be made, no matter who was to carry out the repair. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that those who had taken advice and potentially spent money on lawyers, architects and accountants would have received the same service. The money would have been repaid to them. We were taking on the offer to repair the houses and agreeing to treat them in the same way—the Housing Executive would have been repaid by the compensation agency.
  None of the owners took up our offer. That was their right; it was their right to make their own decisions on who should carry out the repairs. Having taken all the advice available to them, they chose to stick with the private sector, and I do not argue with that decision. However, they cannot blame us for not having made the offer, because our offer was clearly made.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I would not want the Minister to get the impression that the policy, as it is now stated, does not work satisfactorily. Although it was not taken up in the Belvoir case, largely because people had committed themselves to builders and others, the Minister should not do away with the policy. He should publicise it and make it better known so that in other incidents—please God that there be no more—the offer can be taken up more quickly.
  Mr. Mates: We were attempting to make the peculiar circumstances of that disaster match the Government's response. The right hon. Member for Strangford said that the policy has been used since, but the following bomb to which he referred largely affected commercial property and caused very little private damage. Each case is different. The Government are trying to approach each problem sympathetically and to provide a solution. The right hon. Gentleman is right—
  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 at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Harbours Act 1964
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he plans to bring into force the amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 made by schedule 3 to the Transport and Works Act 1992;

  (2) what consultation he will be carrying out with organisations representing users of public rights of way on the implementation of the new provisions for enabling harbour revision orders to be made which will divert or extinguish public rights of way.

  Mr. Norris
  The amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 made by schedule 3 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 were brought into force on 15 July 1992 by the Transport and Works Act 1992 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 1347 (c.45)). We shall ensure that, when application is made for a harbour revision order which would divert or extinguish a public right of way, the applicant notifies user organisations of the application so that, if they so wish, they may make objection to it.

  Braer Disaster
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the departmental investigation into the causes of the Braer disaster in Shetland will include consideration of the nature and duration of insurance arrangements for the vessel, and the arrangements which were in hand for any extensions to the period of insurance cover.

  Mr. Norris
  It has already been established that the Braer complied with the requirements to have compulsory insurance cover in respect of any pollution damage she may have caused up to the owner's liability under the 1969 civil liability convention on oil pollution. Other forms of insurance on the ship—for example, in respect of her hull or cargo—are not compulsory and are matters for the owner or cargo interests.

  The purpose of the marine accident investigation branch investigation is to establish the cause of the accident and consider measures to prevent a recurrence. It will not look further into the insurance arrangements unless there is good reason to believe that they are directly related to the accident. The general issue of insurance is within the remit of the inquiry which has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies had been made of the effect of the channel tunnel on the income from light dues.
  2
  Mr. Norris
  The light dues income from vessels using ports adjacent to the tunnel is estimated to have been £650,000 out of a total light dues income of £45 million in 1991–92. The effect of the opening of the channel tunnel on income from light dues is therefore likely to be minimal.

  English Channel (Traffic Separation)
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 270, what action is taken at the time to prevent a collision if a vessel is observed to be contravening the traffic separation schemes in the English channel.

  Mr. Norris
  An identified vessel observed contravening the traffic separation scheme will be contacted and a warning broadcast made to all other traffic using the scheme. In addition, this information will be included in the routine broadcasts transmitted.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of money planned by London Underground to be spent on the Northern line during 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport has not yet finalised its spending plans for 1993–94.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are under his proposals for the railways for the services provided by the royal train to be put out to private tender.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall consider arrangements for the royal train in due course.

  Ipswich-Lowestoft Railway Line
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the closure of the Ipswich to Lowestoft railway line.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. It would be for British Rail to bring forward proposals to close passenger lines or stations. I am not aware of any such proposals concerning the Ipswich-Lowestoft line. Under our privatisation plans a full statutory procedure will continue to apply to closure proposals.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of the collapse of Charterail for his Department's franchising arrangements for British Rail and the proposed use of charging policy to freight companies for track use.

  Mr. Freeman
  The collapse of Charterail has no implications for the franchising of British Rail services, nor for the access charging regime for rail freight operators.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the joint Environment/ Transport European Council meeting in Brussels on 25 January.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 28 January,Official Report, column 796.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he received, following his White Paper on rail privatisation, from(a) the passenger transport executives and (b) British Rail about the restrictions on capacity and train paths which exist on the Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham section of track over which the west coast main InterCity route operates.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are aware from general discussions with BR that this is a very heavily used section of the network.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he received following his White Paper on rail privatisation in respect of the reduction in train paths that would be a consequence of the required or planned renewal of track and infrastructure forming the InterCity west coast main line route;

  (2) what advice he has received following his White Paper on rail privatisation on the scope for allocating adequate maintenance periods on that track and infrastructure vested in InterCity west coast main line between Crewe and Carlisle.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Decisions on maintenance and train paths will primarily be a matter for Railtrack.

  Railways (Disclosure of Information)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the regulator, franchising authority and Railtrack will have to demand disclosure of information concerning customer numbers using routes, and other matters which would normally be deemed as commercially confidential.

  Mr. Freeman
  The rail regulator will have the power to require relevant information from operators under the conditions of the licences that he will issue to train operators; the franchising director will be able to require information under the conditions of franchise agreements; and such powers for Railtrack are considered unnecessary.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body will be responsible for certifying that a locomotive or rolling stock which has been the subject of a train failure is safe to move following the vesting of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  The train service operator will have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of his 4
  locomotives and rolling stock in line with the arrangements contained in his railway safety case validated by Railtrack.

  Rail Incidents
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who he intends shall be responsible for marshalling and providing customer action teams and increasing at short notice the staffing levels both in the retail and operational management area following either a major delay, incident or rail crash.

  Mr. Freeman
  It will be for franchisees and other passenger operators to decide their own arrangements for the care of passengers.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his intention on how diversionary routes shall be charged or costed out following the vesting day of Railtrack;

  (2) which body shall be responsible for deciding the apportionment of costs, charges or damages relating to delay or loss of customers due to a train failure where more than one operator had use of the track or train path, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are matters for access agreements.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whom he proposes shall be authorised to instigate diversionary routes, and the alteration of operators' timetables as train paths, where a train failure, crash or repair work impedes a particular route, following the vesting day of Railtrack;

  (2) who would be authorised to provide the appropriate staff when it becomes necessary for emergency hand signalling to be instituted, following the vesting day of Railtrack;

  (3) which body shall be responsible for managing the flow of train services around a train failure, following the vesting day of Railtrack;

  (4) whose responsibility it will be to remove debris and clear and restore the track and site when an operator's train has damaged or destroyed track or equipment, following the vesting day of Railtrack;

  (5) if the franchising authority would prepare the national timetabling through an iterative process; and by what criteria or basis the route which is first on the graph would be determined;

  (6) which body shall be responsible for organising repair, line clearance and restoration of equipment when more than one train operator was involved in an incident which resulted in the route or train path being blocked, following the vesting day of Railtrack;

  (7) which body would determine priority services and re-write the timetables of the various operators on those occasions when an engineering possession has been made to a section of track over which more than one franchise or operator of a service exists;

  (8) whose responsibility it will be, following the vesting day of Railtrack, to minimise delay in clearing the track following a train failure; and who will be expected to provide the rescue locomotive.
  5
  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack would have the lead responsibility for these matters, subject to the legislation currently before Parliament.

  Rail Ticketing
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures he proposes for ensuring inter-availability of tickets following a train failure, or major interruption or delay in a particular service or route after Railtrack's vesting day or the introduction of franchising over one or more routes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Arrangements for the inter-availability of tickets will be a matter for operators, subject to any requirements imposed by the regulator or franchising director.

  Euston Station
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from British Rail about additional train paths, junction layouts and platform capacity that may be available at Euston station for prospective franchisers to expand services operating from that terminus during peak travel times.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received no such advice.

  Rail Timetables
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to indemnify or exempt the franchising authority, or operators, from charges of collusive or anti-competitive behaviour when determining the national timetable and connecting services where there exist competing operators and demands for connections of services, train paths, track and related facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  There will be no need to grant such indemnities. Railtrack will allocate access to the network and prepare the operating timetable, subject to the oversight of the rail regulator, who will be responsible for authorising access agreements. The regulator will have duties to promote competition and to protect the passenger's interests, and will have to take these into account when deciding whether to authorise access agreements. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will not apply to the provision of railway services. The regulator will also have the power to refer matters related to the provision of licensed railway services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate whether they operate against the public interest.

  M3-A303-A30
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date the M3-A303-A30 southern route to the west country between London and Exeter will be entirely dual carriageway.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We intend to provide dual carriageways to replace all the remaining single carriageway sections of this route. The timetable for completing this programme of improvements depends on satisfactory progress through the statutory procedures, including public inquiries where necessary, and the continuing availability of funds.

  Dual Carriageways
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the stretches of road and the distances involved of the carriageway between Andover and Exeter along the A303-A30 which are not dual carriageway; and by what dates it is intended they will be developed to become dual carriageways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer to his earlier question today. The Department's schemes to replace the remaining single carriageway sections of the A303-A30 between Andover and Exeter are as follows:

  Scheme

  Next key stage

  A303 Amesbury-Berwick Down

  Public consultation, spring 1993

  A303 Wylye-Stockton Wood

  Public draft orders, late 1993

  A303 Chicklade Bottom-Mere

  Public consultation, spring 1993

  A303 Sparkford-Ilchester

  Publish draft orders, spring 1993

  A303 Ilminister bypass dualling

  Preferred route announcement, spring 1993

  A303 Ilminister-Marsh

  Publish draft orders, summer 1993

  A303-A30 Marsh-Honiton

  Re-publish draft orders, spring 1993, for public inquiry later in year

  A30 Honiton-Exeter

  Decision following public inquiry, autumn 1993

  Railtrack
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body shall be responsible for surveying any crash, or incident involving damage to track, locomotive or rolling stock, with a view to assisting in the apportioning of costs, charges or damages, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack and train service operators.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what form of regulation or arbitration he proposes in order to deal with incident costs when the charges that have been identified and attributed to a company or operator are disputed, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  The form of regulation or arbitration to deal with disputes over the attribution of costs after an incident will be a matter for access agreements which will be subject to the approval of the rail regulator.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will impose minimum response times on those charged with clearing routes, track or train paths, as well as subsequent safety inspections, in the event of train failure, crash or derailment, following the vesting day of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  This will be the responsibility of Railtrack, as it now is of British Rail. Any related contractual obligations would be covered in access agreements.

  Rail Franchising
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the franchising authority will be required to prepare a national timetable, and to seek franchises in response to bids by public or commercial bodies to operate existing or suggested services or routes.
  7
  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack, as the track authority, will plan and produce a working timetable for the rail network and will be required to ensure that a national timetable is published. The Railways Bill places a duty on the franchising director to designate services—whether existing or new—as eligible for provision under franchise agreements. It further provides that public sector operators may not be franchisees.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to maintain rail services in the immediate period following a franchiser or operator arbitrarily or unilaterally vacating a train path or service due to breach of contract or company failure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The franchising director will be able to step in and provide for continuity of service through the terms of the franchise agreement and the special railway administration procedures as set out in the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has received from British Rail of the increase in the total number of drivers that would be required by InterCity to have its own dedicated train crews following franchising or privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received no such specific estimate from British Rail. Following franchising it will be for franchisees to determine total staffing requirements in the light of their obligations to provide the services specified in their franchise contracts, and comply with the terms of their licence and their validated railway safety case.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his approach to deciding the conflicting bids for train paths, track, platforms and related facilities between the InterCity executive type services and those of the passenger transport executives where currently InterCity services are given priority in their planning and allocation.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that InterCity should maintain its existing rights to priority on train paths over those sections of track where it currently enjoys the status of lead business, following the vesting day of Railtrack and the introduction of franchising.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our intention is that the initial pattern of franchised services should be based on the services provided by BR immediately before franchising.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public access there will be to the land offered in exchange for land compulsorily purchased along the route of the east London river crossing under compulsory purchase orders 10 and 11, 19 November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We propose to plant 89 per cent. of the exchange land and protect it until the woodland becomes established. Access to these areas will be via the "Green Chain Walk" and an extensive system of subsidiary footpaths. The remaining areas of exchange land will be fully accessible for public use.

  Road Freight
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the total tonnage miles of freight carried by railways in the United Kingdom in each of the last 15 years for which figures are available; and what were the comparable actual and percentage figures for road freight transport in each of those years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Comparative data for Great Britain can be found in table 9.3 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Table 1.9 contains percentage figures for the years 1981–1991; comparable data for earlier years may be found in previous annual reports. Equivalent data for Northern ireland are not available.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the key factors in determining the currently used United Kingdom search and rescue helicopter response criteria as laid down by the helicopter coverage group.

  Mr. Norris
  I am replying as the Helicopter Coverage Group was established under the aegis of the Department of Transport.

  The key factors affecting the need for SAR helicopter coverage were:

  1. The usage by merchant shipping of UK waterways

  2. The increase in ferry traffic around UK waters

  3. Changing fishing patterns and the effects of EEC quota regulations on fishing vessels movements

  4. The increasing popularity of maritime recreational pursuits

  Bridges, London
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take responsibility for the co-ordination of works on the bridges of London between Hampton Court and the sea.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: I am currently considering whether any changes are necessary to the arrangements currently in place for managing the bridges concerned. I am not currently satisfied that any change would do other than add an additional layer of bureaucracy.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Civil Aviation Authority is taking to introduce emergency training for new air traffic controllers on their initial training courses and for ongoing emergency continuation training for experienced operational controllers as recommended by the air accidents investigation branch.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority's safety regulation group (SRG) intends to consult industry shortly on proposals for additional requirements for emergency training to be undertaken in all courses for trainee controllers, and as part of the continuation training for qualified operational controllers. In the meantime, National Air Traffic Services has already implemented additional emergency training which will meet these proposals.

ENVIRONMENT

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the derelict land grant projects funded in each of the last three years and the amount of funding allocation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, the following table shows,

  Derelict land grant expenditure 1989–90 to 1992–93

  Local authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Northern

  Alnwick

  0

  0

  350

  0

  Blyth Valley

  0

  0

  36,100

  100,000

  Chester le Street

  12,000

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland county council

  24,174

  35,401

  15,463

  120,000

  Darlington

  563,164

  668,018

  370,164

  714,000

  Derwentside

  180,005

  475,920

  15,000

  135,000

  Durham county council

  2,024,497

  980,666

  553,286

  1,500,000

  Durham city

  3,142

  2,035

  10,145

  10,000

  Easington

  406,866

  125,113

  149,290

  325,000

  Gateshead

  1,035,454

  1,303,606

  1,558,246

  1,700,000

  Hartlepool

  80,556

  256,776

  11,575

  500,000

  Langbaurgh

  202,313

  251,102

  27,809

  250,000

  Middlesbrough

  11,875

  50,284

  296,874

  550,000

  North Tyneside

  485,303

  773,567

  508,513

  750,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  194,298

  104,810

  538,561

  450,000

  Northumberland county council

  758,493

  1,429,134

  800,706

  2,055,000

  South Tyneside

  299,088

  341,907

  297,004

  200,000

  Sedgefield

  6,650

  10,169

  124,360

  160,000

  Stockton on Tees

  75,698

  34,885

  155,178

  500,000

  Sunderland

  1,239,592

  1,403,637

  1,593,509

  1,700,000

  Teesdale

  0

  0

  6,418

  0

  Tyne and Wear MCC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wear Valley

  129,549

  39,896

  429,818

  350,000

  TOTAL

  7,603,168

  8,247,030

  7,068,551

  12,069,000

  North West

  Allerdale

  1,331,491

  1,571,074

  312,648

  0

  Barrow in Furness

  0

  0

  3,000,000

  2,000,000

  Blackburn

  64,847

  370,811

  374,415

  200,000

  Blackpool

  21,179

  23,992

  0

  18,000

  Bolton

  9,318

  493,239

  221,066

  660,000

  Burnley

  26,257

  47,573

  81,182

  200,000

  Bury

  97,966

  156,165

  697,395

  660,000

  Carlisle

  0

  0

  216,043

  900,000

  Cheshire county council

  494,361

  1,070,145

  1,434,597

  1,500,000

  Chester

  0

  0

  0

  80,000

  Chorley

  1,876

  160,956

  228,034

  200,000

  Congleton

  151,707

  231,624

  47,564

  100,000

  Copeland

  0

  0

  163,190

  900,000

  Crewe and Nantwich

  42,870

  3,828

  30,538

  50,000

  Cumbria county council

  3,509,500

  2,117,590

  2,991,360

  0

  Eden

  0

  0

  0

  130,000

  Hyndburn

  205,085

  174,072

  115,890

  200,000

  Lancashire county council

  459,762

  740,240

  528,947

  300,000

  Lancaster

  58,000

  203,071

  421,906

  500,000

  Macclesfield

  42,691

  101,358

  74,661

  150,000

  Manchester

  32,820

  0

  372,930

  1,200,000

  Oldham

  324,247

  724,291

  676,265

  1,250,000

  Pendle

  27,159

  219,486

  0

  200,000

  Preston

  1,606,987

  19,240

  436,405

  300,000

  Ribble Valley

  6,522

  575,532

  249,009

  200,000

  Rochdale

  24,194

  34,444

  0

  310,000

  Rossendale

  601,336

  149,385

  120,095

  200,000

  South Lakeland

  0

  10,350

  0

  100,000

  Salford

  3,120,025

  563,947

  820,103

  2,680,000

  South Ribble

  0

  0

  41,876

  0

  Stockport

  0

  72,448

  13,931

  500,000

  Tameside

  272,665

  64,487

  1,263,999

  1,200,000

  Trafford

  12,316

  7,200

  19,688

  150,000

  Vale Royal

  123,000

  59,045

  134,157

  200,000

  West Lancashire

  6,454

  0

  59,709

  200,000

  10
  by region, the expenditure on land reclamation incurred by local authorities which has attracted derelict land grant over the last three years. About 95 per cent. of this expenditure was supported by grant at 100 per cent.
  11

  Local authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Warrington

  223,227

  313,164

  90,022

  200,000

  Wigan

  1,229,353

  691,342

  1,754,456

  1,500,000

  TOTAL

  14,125,215

  10,970,099

  16,992,081

  19,118,000

  Merseyside task force

  Cheshire

  208,000

  744,142

  101,794

  500,000

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  2,099,000

  2,185,766

  1,503,996

  1,650,000

  Halton

  1,334,000

  1,312,617

  914,466

  1,275,000

  Knowsley

  498,000

  378,728

  634,424

  650,000

  Liverpool

  403,000

  1,746,514

  3,047,190

  2,270,000

  Merseyside MCC/RB

  7,000

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  185,000

  605,741

  408,728

  1,200,000

  St. Helens

  646,000

  416,148

  1,368,914

  1,358,000

  Wirral

  175,000

  371,641

  351,419

  400,000

  TOTAL

  5,555,000

  7,761,497

  8,330,931

  9,303,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  2,086,627

  1,685,189

  877,713

  1,646,964

  Boothferry

  710,025

  773,560

  839,673

  140,000

  Bradford

  385,728

  780,617

  494,522

  396,000

  Calderdale

  381,416

  51,104

  2,970,946

  2,000,000

  Cleethorpes

  48,166

  10,900

  949

  0

  Doncaster

  501,180

  1,371,837

  702,420

  2,150,783

  Glanford

  1,935,770

  2,494,436

  3,612,119

  3,000,000

  Grimsby

  6,107

  99

  37,200

  106,383

  Holderness

  3,472

  115,612

  0

  0

  Humberside county council

  44,429

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  92,274

  38,856

  139,811

  62,386

  Kirklees

  766,500

  957,389

  1,054,334

  980,000

  Leeds

  227,886

  849,775

  770,696

  250,000

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  10,000

  Richmondshire

  0

  0

  21,621

  51,000

  Rotherham

  2,637,550

  3,876,401

  4,585,974

  5,149,396

  Ryedale

  57,725

  12,125

  0

  0

  Scarborough

  0

  45,157

  0

  0

  Scunthorpe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Selby

  12,039

  21,729

  2,581

  0

  Sheffield

  53,470

  133,873

  635,888

  559,929

  Wakefield

  517,207

  944,341

  1,160,250

  1,498,000

  York

  0

  0

  0

  10,000

  TOTAL

  10,447,571

  14,163,000

  17,905,897

  18,010,841

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  652,750

  281,537

  893,446

  1,224,000

  Cannock Chase

  39,505

  280,030

  152,138

  511,000

  Coventry

  2,161

  0

  0

  25,000

  Dudley

  3,656,203

  3,997,461

  4,887,623

  2,780,000

  Lichfield

  73,889

  215,464

  1,000

  103,000

  North Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  257,670

  1,239,612

  691,486

  1,614,000

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  1,557

  170,744

  50,554

  0

  Oswestry

  0

  0

  33,250

  50,000

  Redditch

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Staffordshire

  21,000

  6,074

  2,945

  1,000

  Sandwell

  1,321,731

  1,865,409

  1,023,621

  1,425,000

  Shropshire county council

  596,203

  1,458,615

  615,850

  1,291,000

  Staffordshire county council

  231,527

  275,262

  1,387,127

  601,000

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  0

  0

  6,000

  51,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  610,374

  256,706

  763,752

  695,000

  Tamworth

  0

  0

  0

  6,000

  Walsall

  3,778,999

  2,738,123

  4,222,623

  3,838,000

  Warwickshire

  116,269

  157,345

  36,760

  29,000

  Wolverhampton

  585,000

  447,375

  1,676,043

  1,981,000

  Wrekin

  693,189

  336,154

  672,755

  773,000

  TOTAL

  12,638,027

  14,725,911

  17,116,973

  16,998,000

  East Midlands

  Amber Valley

  15,889

  71,415

  0

  235,000

  Ashfield

  99,404

  54,773

  65,944

  24,000

  Bolsover

  0

  68,967

  33,549

  80,000

  Chesterfield

  0

  2,497

  864,493

  122,000

  Corby

  2,410,386

  1,374,391

  1,914,953

  1,927,000

  12 13

  Local authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Daventry

  0

  0

  0

  50,000

  Derby

  0

  0

  180,000

  25,000

  Derbyshire county council

  1,727,580

  2,958,839

  2,672,151

  2,597,000

  Derbyshire dales

  0

  0

  16,737

  260,000

  Erewash

  296,504

  308,066

  555,234

  1,000,000

  East Lindsey

  317

  0

  0

  0

  Gedling

  0

  0

  124,982

  27,000

  Hinkley and Bosworth

  11,719

  0

  0

  0

  Kettering

  0

  0

  6,875

  0

  Leicester

  0

  0

  4,000

  106,000

  Leicestershire county council

  569,656

  697,283

  367,717

  877,000

  Lincoln city

  0

  1,425,107

  694,932

  1,010,000

  Mansfield

  93,703

  249,176

  823,915

  1,168,000

  Melton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West Leicestershire

  655,749

  899,602

  5,618

  9,000

  Newark and Sherwood

  361,936

  0

  0

  77,000

  Nottingham

  8,753

  12,820

  176,280

  600,000

  Nottinghamshire county council

  1,888,648

  1,631,835

  2,638,540

  2,631,000

  North East Derbyshire

  2,727

  2,727

  43,669

  204,000

  Ruchcliffe

  0

  0

  0

  25,000

  South Derbyshire

  202,743

  467,923

  297,485

  7,000

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Derbyshire

  2,661

  42,550

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  8,348,375

  10,267,971

  11,487,074

  13,061,000

  London

  Barking

  148,333

  74,166

  0

  —

  Bexley

  38,197

  0

  0

  —

  Camden

  30,000

  15,000

  15,000

  —

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Enfield

  0

  6,358

  38,843

  —

  Greenwich

  86,585

  182,044

  81,884

  —

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Havering

  0

  17,640

  0

  —

  Merton

  118,000

  0

  20,521

  —

  Newham

  440,606

  0

  0

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  16,800

  8,400

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  54,535

  364,026

  1,963,775

  —

  TOTAL

  933,056

  667,634

  2,120,023

  2,193,000

  South West

  Bath

  0

  0

  139,755

  603,000

  Bristol

  0

  84,161

  138,741

  55,000

  Caradon

  0

  0

  0

  100,000

  Carrick

  0

  670,113

  0

  250,000

  Cheltenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall county council

  31,340

  25,289

  288,851

  432,000

  Devon county council

  43,954

  57,387

  94,053

  50,000

  East Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Forest of Dean

  0

  3,204

  142,417

  0

  Cloucester

  29,000

  3,684

  3,684

  0

  Kerrier

  389,100

  93,286

  1,728,293

  1,420,000

  Kingswood

  1,286

  1,286

  0

  0

  North Cornwall

  95,997

  16,596

  18,345

  20,000

  Penwith

  56

  0

  0

  60,000

  Plymouth

  67,887

  55,823

  82,000

  100,000

  Portland

  0

  30,882

  0

  0

  Restormel

  0

  0

  31,298

  250,000

  Sedgemoor

  0

  10,590

  0

  0

  Teignbridge

  687

  5,154

  5,354

  1,000

  Thamesdown

  96,927

  455,680

  33,659

  47,000

  Torbay

  4,715

  7,695

  0

  8,000

  Woodspring

  4,454

  1,919

  1,000

  2,200

  West Devon

  0

  0

  47,666

  15,000

  TOTAL

  765,403

  1,522,749

  2,755,116

  3,413,200

  South East

  Chichester

  0

  43,315

  941

  —

  Gravesham

  0

  0

  1,800

  —

  Guildford

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Hastings

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Isle of Wight

  62,181

  49,704

  0

  —

  Kent county council

  0

  11,747

  120,728

  —

  14 15

  Local authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  16,814

  —

  Reading

  0

  0

  10,279

  —

  Reigate and Banstead

  0

  3,777

  0

  —

  Rochester

  75,918

  0

  39,857

  —

  Swale

  0

  138,405

  0

  —

  Test Valley

  0

  0

  8,760

  —

  Thanet

  0

  0

  12,807

  —

  Wealden

  0

  0

  2,500

  —

  TOTAL

  138,099

  246,948

  214,486

  898,500

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  29,583

  —

  Braintree

  0

  7,753

  0

  —

  Breckland district council

  0

  0

  3,156

  —

  Broadland

  229,781

  45,837

  0

  —

  Hertfordshire county council

  22,540

  0

  15,000

  —

  Ipsswich

  0

  0

  11,812

  —

  Kings Lynn and Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Luton

  0

  0

  77,257

  —

  Mid Suffolk

  0

  0

  593

  —

  Norwich

  109,987

  126,408

  71,000

  —

  Norwich

  0

  0

  81,074

  —

  South Cambridgeshire

  0

  335,229

  142,039

  —

  Thurrock

  0

  0

  8,177

  —

  TOTAL

  362,308

  515,227

  439,691

  972,000

  GRAND TOTAL

  60,916,222

  69,088,066

  84,430,823

  96,036,541

  1 Forecast expenditure.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people applying to councils in each standard region were(a) accepted and (b) not accepted as officially homeless under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in each of the last three years.

  Mr Baldry
  Full information for regions is available only from April 1991. Estimates for the first complete year are as follows:

  Households, 1991–92

  Region

  Accepted as homeless

  Not accepted as homeless

  North

  9,010

  10,460

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,930

  21,020

  East Midlands

  10,530

  10,920

  East Anglia

  3,610

  3,670

  South East

  58,090

  61,740

  South West

  9,010

  10,100

  West Midlands

  18,550

  19,790

  North West

  23,100

  20,170

  England

  144,830

  157,870

  Those households counted as not accepted as homeless represent the sum of those whose applications resulted in a section 64 decision being issued during the year and who were found not to be homeless, or in priority need but intentionally homeless, or not to be in a priority need category and were not accepted for rehousing.

  In the quarter ended September 1992, local authorities accepted 35,520 households and 43,060 decisions of non-acceptance were issued.

  Regional estimates of acceptances for earlier years are published but these do not take account of the change in definition from April 1991 when intentionally homeless
  16
  people were no longer counted as accepted. Consistent information on non-acceptances is not available for earlier years.

  Figures for acceptances (including intentionally homeless provided only with temporary accommodation) for each quarter appear in table 1 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Results for … Quarter 19 … Supplementary Tables" and from the third quarter of 1990 in table 1 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Statistics for the … Quarter 19 …" Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward Government legislation on hedgerows.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government continue to support the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). It is too soon to anticipate that my hon. Friend's Bill will fail in this session.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any of the land offered in exchange for land along the route of the east London river crossing under compulsory purchase orders 10 and 11, 19 November 1991, is designated as(a) a site of special scientific interest or (b) as being of special character and metropolitan importance under the Greater London development plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  (a) None. (b) The land within the London borough of Bexley offered in exchange for public open space to be acquired for the east London river crossing is

  17
  designated as an area of special character in the Bexley borough plan, adopted in February 1985, which implemented the policy aims set out in the Greater London development plan.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1993 column 854]: Unfortunately, owing to a computing error, the notional amounts for Enfield, Gateshead, and Cleveland specified in the "Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1993–94", which was laid before the House on 28 January 1993, are incorrect. We are today laying before the House the "Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) (Amendment) Report (England) 1993–94" which specifies for these three authorities the correct notional amounts which are £199,624,000, £152,785,000 and £397,941,000 respectively. I shall arrange for copies of this report to be sent to all local authorities.

  CPS

  SFO

  DPP(NI)

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  R v. Pottle and Randle

  R v. Saunders and others

  —

  R v. Batley

  —

  —

  1990

  R v. Kokabi

  R v. Deller, Page and Rycott

  —

  R. v. Coren and Greenwood

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  R v. NatWest Investment Bank Limited and others

  —

  1992

  A current case

  —

  Latimer, Hegan, Bell and Allen v. Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland

  R v. Bennett

  —

  —

  The cases referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) are set out in the table. As explained in that answer, the information is provided from the recollection of officers since such information is not recorded centrally. There are two corrections to the original answer. R v. Coren and Greenwood was originally recorded erroneously as 1987. R v. Batley was counted twice and therefore the number recorded for the CPS in 1989 was two and not three.

  Forests
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from non-governmental organisations regarding the development of the United Kingdom's national plan on forests; and how he intends to involve non-governmental organisations in the process.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  I have received one letter on this subject, from Friends of the Earth.

  The Forestry Commission will be co-ordinating the preparation of the national plan for the implementation of the forest principles agreed in Rio de Janeiro, and will seek the views of non-governmental organisations before it is completed.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) of 21 January,Official Report, column 327, if he will indicate to which cases the public interest immunity certificates apply.

  The Attorney-General
  The information is as follows:

EDUCATION

  Special Learning Needs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the size of the GEST—grants for education support and training—allocation in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and projected for 1993–94 together with the size of the allocation(a) nationally and (b) earmarked for the training of teachers of young people with special learning difficulties; in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Forth
  Expenditure in England supported by the grants for educational support and training (GEST)
  19
  programme is given in the table. The GEST programme in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Cash £ million

  Real terms2£ million

  (a) GEST total1

  1990–91

  353

  393

  1991–92

  364

  389

  1992–93

  377

  377

  1993–94

  320

  311

  (b) of which GEST supported expenditure on the training of teachers of young people with special educational needs:

  1990–91

  7.1

  7.9

  1991–92

  7.5

  8.0

  1992–93

  8.1

  8.1

  1993–94

  10.0

  9.7

  Numbers of school leavers in England Examination attainments in modern languages

  Thousands

  Academic Years:

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  GCSE/O/CSE passes grades A-G

  French

  243.84

  242.24

  239.28

  231.18

  230.17

  225.45

  230.72

  229.21

  243.25

  German

  68.04

  67.90

  65.36

  63.71

  62.61

  62.63

  63.19

  70.52

  72.68

  Italian

  2.26

  2.44

  1.95

  1.78

  1.68

  1.75

  1.47

  1.55

  1.93

  Spanish

  13.80

  13.69

  13.03

  12.50

  13.12

  13.60

  14.61

  15.74

  18.17

  Russian

  1.48

  1.31

  1.34

  1.17

  1.38

  1.15

  1.04

  1.21

  1.29

  A/AS level passes grades A-E

  French

  16.23

  16.01

  15.16

  13.22

  13.50

  13.15

  15.13

  19.28

  19.79

  German

  6.42

  6.78

  5.88

  5.54

  5.36

  5.03

  5.68

  6.76

  7.45

  Italian

  0.26

  0.36

  0.21

  0.22

  0.33

  0.32

  0.16

  0.28

  0.31

  Spanish

  1.83

  1.89

  1.59

  1.91

  1.61

  1.53

  2.02

  2.36

  2.30

  Russian

  0.21

  0.26

  0.27

  0.26

  0.24

  0.28

  0.29

  0.33

  0.43

  Source:—School Examination Survey.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils entered for GCSE examinations in British government and political studies, citizenship and/or community studies, in each year since 1990; and what proportion of the total school population of 15 and 16-year-olds they represented.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not readily available for 1990 or 1991 but by the summer 1992, 589 pupils aged 16 attempted GCSEs in politics and 4,617 attempted GCSEs in community studies. These numbers represent 0.1 per cent. and 0.8 per cent. of pupils reaching the age of 16 in the academic year 1991–92.

  Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers have left the profession in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the numbers of teachers who left full-time service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England and Wales in each year. They include retirements and teachers who transferred to other sectors (such as independent schools, special education or further education) or to part-time teaching. In addition, many of those who leave service each year return to teaching after a career break. Surveys of teacher resignations carried out by the Local Government Management Board show that fewer than 1 per cent. of teachers annually leave teaching to take up other employment.
  20
  1 Total of expenditure supported by education support grants and LEA training grants. Figures include both grants and LEA contribution.

  2 Real terms figures are at 1992–93 prices, repriced using the GDP (market prices) deflator index.

  Examinations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students have passed O-level, GSE/GCSE and A-level examinations in languages in each year since 1982; and if he will give a breakdown of the languages concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated numbers of school leavers who have passed O-level/CSE/GCSE and A-level examinations in selected modern foreign languages for each year since 1982 are shown in the following table.

  Number of leavers from full-time maintained nursery, primary and secondary school sector

  Year to March

  Number

  1982

  33,291

  1983

  31,781

  1984

  31,274

  1985

  32,831

  1986

  32,473

  1987

  31,238

  1988

  31,711

  1989

  36,882

  1990

  38,330

  11991

  39,700

  1 Provisional.

  School Meetings
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has about attendance levels at school annual general meetings, costs of calling them and the numbers that are inquorate.

  Mr. Forth
  All parents of pupils registered at a school are eligible to attend the annual parents' meeting. Information as to the numbers of parents attending annual parents' meetings and the costs of calling them is not collected by the Department. It would appear that in general, parental attendance is disappointing, although there are instances of very successful meetings.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education by what date he will publish the January 1992 figures for the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery education in each local authority.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 21 January,Official Report, column 353.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which companies at present sponsor city technology colleges; and how many governorships those companies hold.

  Mr. Forth
  The following private sector sponsors have committed sums of £0.2 million or more to individual city technology colleges or to the development of the programme:

  ADT Group plc

  BAT Industries plc

  Boots Company plc

  British Record Industry Trust

  Cable & Wireless plc

  Mr. H. de Capell Brooke

  Dixons Group plc

  Sir Harry Djanogly

  Esmee Fairburn Foundation

  Findlay Publications plc

  Forte plc

  Haberdashers' Livery Company

  Mr. J. Hall

  Hanson plc

  Sir Philip and Lady Harris Charitable Trust

  IMI plc

  Kodak plc

  John Laing plc

  Landau Foundation

  Sir Geoffrey Leigh

  Mr. D. Lewis

  Lucas plc

  Mercers' Company

  Safeway plc

  Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  Tarmac plc

  Unisys Ltd.

  Vardy Foundation

  Wellcome Foundation

  Weston Foundation

  Wolfson Foundation

  Mr. H. Wong

  The major sponsors of each college form a trust which has strategic control of the management of the college. The trustees are responsible for electing a governing body, whose members will normally include representatives of sponsors, but no central record is held of the current composition of each governing body.

  School Reorganisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local authority school reorganisation proposals are awaiting a decision from his Department; and how many have been awaiting a decision for more than(a) one month, (b) three months, (c) six months and (d) one year.

  Mr. Forth
  At 28 January, 104 proposals published under section 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 were awaiting a decision. Of these, 101 have been awaiting a22
  decision for more than one month, 72 for more than three months, 31 for more than six months and six for more than one year.

  Proposals outstanding for less than four months may in certain cases fall to the local authority for determination.

  Schools (Performance)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those schools which have recently been sent a letter from OFSTED about their poor performance; and when each of those schools last had a full HMI inspection.

  Mr. Forth
  This is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. HMI have not inspected all schools on a regular basis, and OFSTED believe it would be invidious to publish the names of those which, on the basis of inspection evidence, give them cause for concern. The new inspection arrangements being established under the Schools Act will ensure that all schools are regularly inspected, and those at risk of failing their pupils are identified in a published report.

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications from schools for grant-maintained status are awaiting a decision from his Department and how many have been awaiting a decision for more than(a) one month, (b) three months, (c) six months and (d) one year.

  Mr. Forth
  At 29 January, 150 applications for grant-maintained status were awaiting a decision by the Secretary of State. Of these, 132 have been awaiting a decision for more than one month, 21 for more than three months, six for more than six months and none for more than one year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the size of the earnings disregards for claimants of income support in each year since 1988; and if he will express the value of the earnings disregard against changes(a) in prices and (b) in earnings over the period.

  Mr. Burt
  New, increased, earnings disregards were brought in with the introduction of income support in April 1988. The standard disregard is £5 and a higher, £15, disregard applies to certain groups of people—lone parents, long-term sick and disabled people, members of a couple who are both aged under 60 and have been in receipt of income support for two years and, from April 1993, carers.

  The table shows what the earnings disregards would have been if they had risen in line with changes in earnings and prices each year.

  Value of disregards against changes in:

  Earnings

  Prices

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1988

  5.00

  15.00

  5.00

  15.00

  1989

  5.00

  16.45

  5.40

  16.20

  1990

  6.00

  18.00

  5.90

  17.75

  23

  Value of disregards against changes in:

  Earnings

  Prices

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1991

  6.50

  19.55

  6.30

  18.85

  1992

  6.90

  20.75

  6.55

  19.65

  Source: The abstract of statistics general index of retail prices (all items) and average gross earnings new series index (whole economy) seasonally unadjusted.

  Note: Figures rounded to nearest 5p.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many claimants of income support have taken advantage of earnings disregards to supplement their income in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Cases where claimant has earnings

  121,000

  130,000

  124,000

  117,000

  Cases where partner has earnings

  34,000

  32,000

  31,000

  48,000

  Source: Income support annual statistical enquries May 1988 to May 1991.

  Note: All figures rounded to nearest thousand.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the operation or level of the earnings disregard for claimants of income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The earnings disregards are kept under review. From April 1993, carers will be entitled to the higher £15, disregard. We have no other plans at present to change the operations or level of the earnings disregards.

  Sickness and Maternity Benefits
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he will take to ensure that all employees are paid their full entitlement to sickness and maternity benefits by their employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Employers already receive comprehensive guidance and advice on how to operate the statutory sick pay (SSP) and statutory maternity pay (SMP) schemes through the medium of guides, manuals, free telephone enquiry service and training seminars. A quick guide to enable employers to deal with most cases under the schemes is revised and issued to all known employers annually and an updated version of the employer's manual to SSP will be issued to employers next month.

  Explanatory leaflets and a free telephone service are also available to inform employees of their rights. Disagreements between employer and employee can be resolved by an independent adjudication officer at the local social security office.

  As part of the Contributions Agency's 1992–93 target of 114,000 survey visits to employers to check their compliance with the legislation, the agency has introduced measures aimed at improving employers' performance in administering the schemes including a programme of 17,000 educational visits. The agency is also planning a random survey of employers to obtain a more representative view of employers' performance to identify and resolve areas of particular difficulty.

  Water Charges
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the introduction of a rebate scheme for water charges payable by lower income households; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  None. Water should be treated in a similar way to other items of expenditure in the family budget.

  Households Below Average Income
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the data from which figures 1 and 2 in "Households Below Average Income, 1979 to 1988–89" were constructed.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on the basis of the assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", what he estimates(a) the upper earnings limit and (b) the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions will be, as a percentage of average earnings in (i) 2015, (ii) 2025, (iii) 2035 and (iv) 2045.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the table.

  Earnings limit

  Percentage

  Lower

  Upper

  2015–16

  12.2

  91.4

  2025–26

  10.5

  78.6

  2035–36

  9.1

  67.9

  2045–46

  7.8

  58.5

  Assumes real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the direct costs savings which would arise from equalising the pension age at 65 years for men and women during each year of the phasing-in period, assuming that the new age is phased in beginning in(a) 2003 and (b) 2010; and that phasing-in takes place at a rate of (i) one year in one, (ii) one year in two, (iii) one year in three, and (iv) one year in four.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The savings' which would accrue from equalising the state pension age for women and men at age 65 assuming that the phasing begins in 2010 at the rate of one year in three (option (b) (iii)) are given in the table. Other information is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Amounts are given rounded to the nearest £100 million and, in common with those given in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", at 1991–2 prices.

  Amount saved in each year

  Year

  £ million

  2010

  2—

  2011

  2—

  2012

  500

  2013

  600

  25

  Year

  £ million

  2014

  600

  2015

  1,100

  2016

  1,200

  2017

  1,300

  2018

  1,800

  2019

  2,000

  2020

  2,100

  2021

  2,700

  2022

  2,800

  2023

  2,900

  2024

  3,400

  2025

  3,500

  2 Savings less than £100 million.

  Notes:

  Percentage

  2015–16

  2025–26

  2035–36

  2045–46

  Basic pension

  12.2

  10.5

  9.1

  7.8

  Average additional pension (women)

  13.8

  12.7

  12.7

  11.8

  Average additional pension (men)

  20.3

  16.9

  14.4

  12.9

  Notes: The additional pension percentages are based on the amount of SERFS payable in each respective year to an individual whom had average earnings in every year of his or her working life. They are not based on average AP awards to new pensioners as these cannot be estimated.

  Assumes real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum.

WALES

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to tackle homelessness in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Several. Most recently my right hon. Friend announced an extra £35,000,000 for Housing for Wales to provide additional homes for those in housing need.

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had concerning the closure of the Cardiff royal infirmary proposed by the South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Three.

  Discretionary Awards (Education)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount spent in each of the following years by Welsh local education authorities on discretionary awards(a) in 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93; and what is the number of students in receipt of awards in each year in each authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  About 11,500 students received discretionary awards from local education authorities in Wales in academic year 1990–91. This is the latest year for which this information is available. Details of local authorities' expenditure on discretionary awards is not held centrally.
  26
  Assumes real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent.

  Including effects on other social security benefits, income tax, national insurance contributions and the labour market.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age," if he will publish figures estimating the value of(a) basic retirement pension, (b) the average SERPs addition for men and (c) the average SERPs addition for women expressed as a percentage of average earnings in (a) 2015, (b) 2025, (c) 2035 and (d)

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the table.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from county councils on local authority funding levels for 1993–94 and in his capping criteria announced on 14 December 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Six.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the 1993–94 settlement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from six counties and 10 district and community councils.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the level of funding provided by central Government for local government at the county and district levels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from six county councils plus 10 from district and community councils and more than 600 other representations.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated by his Department to promote the enterprise allowance within Wales in each year since 1987–88.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The enterprise allowance scheme is administered by the TECs who are free to adapt it to local circumstances and who, in recent years, have introduced greater selectivity to ensure that assistance is targeted at those businesses with the most promising plans and prospects. We have made £5.3 million available for this purpose in 1992–93.

  With permission, figures for earlier years will be circulated in the Official Report: they total some £.53.4 million.

  The figures for earlier years are as follows:
  27

  £ million

  1987–88

  12.0

  1988–89

  12.9

  1989–90

  12.4

  1990–91

  9.0

  1991–92

  7.1

  Vineyards
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants are available for the planting of new vineyards in Wales; and if he will make a statement on Government policy regarding existing vineyards.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. We are approaching the point where, under the terms of EC policy, planting for new vines will not be possible. That being so, there is no justification for the provision of Government assistance for new vineyards.

  Cardiac Services (Report)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now publish the Touche Ross report into cardiac services in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend will announce the findings of the Touche Ross appraisal as soon as he has had an opportunity to consider the conclusions of the final report.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the subject of the proposed reduction in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from Welsh MPs, the Welsh farming organisations and individual farmers in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in Wales.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were unemployed in(a) Ogmore, (b) Mid Glamorgan and (c) Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unadjusted figures for Ogmore, Mid Glamorgan and Wales in December 1992 are 3,647, 27,374 and 134,929 respectively.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently unemployed in Wales and in Clywd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unadjusted figures for Wales and Clwyd in December 1992 are 134,929 and 16,848 respectively.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the figure for male unemployment in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The seasonally adjusted male unemployment figure for Wales was 105,700 in December 1992.

  Quangos
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy for appointments to quangos in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I seek those who are best suited to each post.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to promote the sale of Welsh bottled water.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh bottled water industry, like other industries, is able to take advantage of a number of schemes of assistance available from the Welsh Office, Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales. Advice and information on the marketing of food and drink products in Wales is also available from Welsh Food Promotion Ltd.

  Welsh Language Bill
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes making to the Welsh Language Bill to meet criticisms made of it.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's Welsh Language Bill represents a significant advance for the Welsh language and for the people who speak it. The Government have already signified their intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill concerning the use of Welsh in the courts and in statutory titles. We will consider very carefully any other suggestions aimed at improving the Bill which are put to us during its detailed scrutiny by Parliament.

  Young Offenders (South Wales)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will use his influence to help secure the speedy construction of a secure unit for young offenders in south Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am satisfied that the proposals for a new all-Wales secure unit are being taken forward energetically under the direction of the joint Welsh Office/local authority working party.

  Oak Woods
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being undertaken by his Department to protect Welsh oak woods from grazing sheep.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Good management of all woodlands, which includes protection from grazing animals, is encouraged by grants available under the woodland grant scheme, which also offers grants for the establishment of new woodlands, including oak woods. The Forestry Commission and ADAS give advice to farmers on the management of their woods, and specific grants for protecting farm woodlands from livestock are also available under the farm and conservation grant scheme. Further support for the protection of woodlands in Wales is provided by Coed Cymru, a Government backed initiative to encourage landowners, particularly farmers, to improve the management of existing broadleaved woodlands, particularly ancient and semi-natural oak woods.

  School Governors (Ring-binders)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the date on which contracts for the supply of ring-binders for school governors under the local management of schools scheme were put out to tender; if the tender was advertised in open competition or via a closed list; how many firms made bids; and if the winning bid was the lowest tender.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Tenders were invited from selected companies on 6 April 1989 and 17 August 1989. Four companies submitted bids for the first of these contracts and three companies submitted bids for the second contract. In each case the company submitting the lowest tender by the specified date was awarded the contract.

  Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those opted-out schools in Wales which have made an application to him for capital expenditure; which applications have been approved; and what were the sums approved in each case.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Bids were received from the three schools in the grant-maintained sector last year. I was pleased to approve the following projects:

  £

  Brynmawr

  Refurbishment of ground floor toilet facilities

  26,975

  Canteen

  55,575

  Refurbishment of first floor toilet facilities

  26,975

  Bishop Vaughan

  Improvements to gymnasium

  98,000

  Perimeter fencing

  61,000

  Creation of graphics/computer classroom

  105,000

  Cwmcarn

  Refurbishment of two-storey block—work to curtain walling

  67,000

  Refurbishment of single-storey block— work to windows and doors

  53,000

  Remodel front entrance and entrance lobby

  10,000

  Remodel and refit school kitchen

  25,000

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial provisions he has made for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 for(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure on opted-out schools.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–942 £

  Capital grant

  509,000

  6,000,000

  Annual maintenance grant

  4,286,742

  —3

  Other revenue expenditure1

  310,000

  2,125,000

  No decisions have been taken for future years.

  1 Other revenue expenditure includes transitional grant, special purpose grants, grant made to the grant-maintained schools centre, and payments to the Electoral reform Society for arranging the parental ballots.

  2 The 1993–94 details are set in Estimates which are subject to parliamentary approval.

  3 Annual maintenance grant reflects the sum the local education
  30
  authority would have spent on the school if it had continued to control it. Decisions on future levels of support cannot therefore, be taken until LEAs have resolved their budgets.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Jamaica
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Jamaican Government over their planned resumption of the death penalty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Jamaican Appeal Court is still in the process of reviewing the cases of those on death row into capital and non-capital categories. Those found guilty of capital offences can appeal to a panel of Appeal Court judges. It would therefore not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to make representations to the Jamaican Government.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the peaceful re-unification of Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our support for efforts to achieve a peaceful solution on the Korean peninsula is undiminished. We were generally encouraged by the talks between South and North Korea which took place during 1992, though much remains to be done. We hope that dialogue will resume before long.

  We also hope that bilateral nuclear inspections will get under way soon. Together with continued International Atomic Energy inspections in North Korea, these are an important confidence-building measure.

  Angola
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release of a British citizen held by rebel forces in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have raised the case of the three British citizens held by UNITA in Angola with UNITA representatives in London on 22 and 28 January, and with the UNITA delegation attending the UNITA/ Government talks in Addis Ababa. Our embassy in Luanda is working closely with FINA Oil and Weatherford Services, the men's employers, in order to obtain their release.

  Indian Subcontinent (Visas)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for officials at the posts in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh to make brief visits to the regional centres of those countries to assist people intending to apply for visas to visit the United Kingdom; if he will discuss with those countries' high commissioners in the United Kingdom how such facilities could be provided throughout the Indian subcontinent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. Information and assistance is already available at our four posts in India, two in
  31
  Pakistan and one in Bangladesh. Any person intending to visit the United Kingdom can visit, telephone or write to these posts for assistance.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what functions in connection with the royal family are covered by expenditure for the marshall of the diplomatic corps.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The duties of the marshall of the diplomatic corps are of an official nature. He makes all necessary arrangements for heads of diplomatic missions on state and official occasions, and for their duties in connection with the Queen as Head of State. There is no expenditure in connection with other members of the royal family.

  European Community (United Kingdom Presidency)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the outcome of the issues which arose during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Yes. I have placed in the Library a document produced by the Cabinet Office which gives details of the achievements of the United Kingdom presidency of the Community, from July to December 1992.

  Kenya
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the assessment of the treatment of the rights of opposition candidates in the recent elections in Kenya will be taken into account in future decisions of the granting of aid to Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 25 January at column 594. Grievances arising out of the electoral process are now a matter for the Kenyan courts, and we hope these will be swiftly addressed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the incidence for each year since 1986 of detected re-offending by terrorists who have already served(a) one to five years, (b) five to 10 years, (c) 10 years and (d) life sentences.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Since 1986 there have been four cases, two in 1990 and two in 1992, where individuals sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorist related offences and released on licence have been recalled to prison after re-offending. In all these cases the new offences were not related to organised terrorism.

  The rest of the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  "The Committee"
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further information he has concerning the allegations about RUC involvement in 32
  terrorist activity contained in the Channel 4 documentary entitled "The Committee" broadcast in October 1991 to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage referred on 17 December, Official Report, column 578; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am advised that police investigations in relation to matters arising from the programme are continuing. No evidence has emerged to support the programme's claims.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the absentee rate through sickness, injury and other causes relating to prison officers in(a) Crumlin Road prison, (b) Maze prison, (c) Maghaberry prison and (d) Magilligan prison during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Mates
  The information is as follows:

  Number of days lost through sick leave

  Prison

  Year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Belfast

  Injuries

  2,876

  5,542

  5,752

  Other sick leave

  20,641

  17,221

  19,764

  TOTAL

  23,517

  22,673

  25,516

  Maze

  Injuries

  1,438

  336

  637

  Other sick leave

  27,174

  23,698

  20,448

  TOTAL

  28,612

  24,034

  21,085

  Maghaberry

  Injuries

  575

  573

  722

  Other sick leave

  10,158

  12,500

  13,754

  TOTAL

  10,733

  13,037

  14,476

  Magilligan

  Injuries

  288

  403

  329

  Other sick leave

  8,655

  7,871

  10,357

  TOTAL

  8,943

  8,274

  10,686

  Crumlin Road Prison
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what type of violent incidents have occurred(a) between prisoners and (b) between prisoners and prison officers in Crumlin Road prison during each of the last three years; how many prisoners and prison officers have been involved; and what injuries have been sustained in each case.

  Mr. Mates
  Details of violent incidents in Her Majesty's prison Belfast during the last three years are as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Incidents between prisoners

  28

  71

  65

  Number of prisoners involved

  96

  179

  148

  Incidents in which prisoners directly attacked prison officers

  12

  17

  29

  Number of prisoners involved

  11

  72

  42

  The violence usually takes the form of fisticuffs or the throwing of hot liquid.
  33
  Details of the number of officers involved in these incidents are not recorded but the following numbers of officers were injured as a result of prisoner-initiated violence:

  Number

  1990

  100

  1991

  132

  1992

  84

  Most injuries were sustained when officers intervened in fights between prisoners.

  Details of injuries sustained by prisoners and officers in each case are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, apart from the bomb explosion on 24 November 1991, as a result of which two prisoners died, the most serious injury sustained by a prisoner was a broken leg. In most cases any injuries sustained were minor cuts and/or bruises. Injuries sustained by officers included serious scalding and fractures of the wrist and jaw.

DEFENCE

  International Defence Exhibition
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department plans to make to the IDEX 93 international defence exhibition to be held in Abu Dhabi in February.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) has been working with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Defence Manufacturers Association and the exhibition organisers to co-ordinate and encourage participation by United Kingdom industry in IDEX '93. The DESO will be represented at the exhibition. In addition, a Royal Navy warship and a Lynx helicopter from the Armilla patrol will be visiting Abu Dhabi during the exhibition and, subject to their operational commitments, will participate in its naval element. I hope to visit IDEX 93 myself.

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the code of conduct governing transatlantic trade in defence equipment between NATO partner states.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 26 January at column 645.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of biological weapons research still undertaken in Russia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following Russia's admission last year that it had possessed an offensive biological weapons programme, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia are now engaged in a trilateral process to ensure it has ended. It would be premature to make an assessment before that process is complete.

  Trident
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost/benefit analysis he has made of the Trident missile programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hamilton
  The Government carefully examined a range of possible options when they considered a successor to Polaris to meet the United Kingdom's continuing requirement for a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent. Its analyses and conclusions were set out in the Defence open Government documents 80/23, 82/1 and 87/01, copies of which are in the Library of the House. As reported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 21 January 1993 at column 419, the United Kingdom Trident programme continues on time and within budget to enter service in the mid-1990s.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships have been chartered by his Department to ferry supplies to the Falklands over the last 10 years; if he will list the period of their charter, the flags under which they operate and their ultimate ownership.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence ferries dry cargoes to the Falkland Islands using a liner service. This service is maintained by a contractor who is currently required to provide a scheduled shipping service departing the United Kingdom every 28 days. The vessels are chartered by the contractor and the Ministry of Defence is given priority in the allocation of cargo space on the scheduled voyages. In addition 10 tankers have been chartered by the Ministry of Defence over the last 10 years for periods ranging from two months to the current tanker which has been on charter since October 1987. The tankers have mostly delivered fuel to the Falklands as part of a schedule that includes Ascension Island and Cyprus. Records are not complete back to 1982 but the flags have included Bermuda, Denmark, Norway, Singapore and United Kingdom. The present vessel is on the Isle of Man register. The ultimate owner of these vessels is not generally known to my Department as the charter is with the operator who is, in most cases, not the owner.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships were chartered for the Gulf conflict; and how many were under the British flag.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 162 vessels were chartered in support of the move of men and equipment to and from the Gulf, of which five were British flagged. A number of vessels undertook more than one voyage.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicle breakdowns of specialist vehicles designed for the movement of nuclear warheads, bombs and other arms, whether loaded or unloaded, occurred in the counties of Durham, Tyne and Wear and Northumberland in 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1992 there was one instance where a mechanical problem with a vehicle designed for
  35
  the transportation of nuclear weapons caused a military convoy to make an unscheduled stop while travelling in the specified area. After inspection of the vehicle, the full convoy was able to continue its journey.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the vehicle reliability performance of(a) Mammoth Major nuclear arms material transit vehicles and (b) Foden nuclear arms material transit vehicles in 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Truck Cargo Heavy Duty (TCHD) Mk 1 vehicle (Mammoth Major) has been replaced by the TCHD Mk 2. Despite some minor teething problems, the new vehicles represent a significant improvement in mechanical reliability over the Mk 1 vehicles. Both old and new vehicles provided a safe and secure means of nuclear warhead transport in 1992.

  Rail Travel Warrants
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many railway journeys were made by service personnel using travel warrants in the latest available year; what was the total cost of that travel; and what were the normal BR fares charged for journeys over an equivalent aggregate distance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In financial year 1991–92 the latest year for which figures are available, 703,000 warrants were issued to service personnel. Information on the number of journeys is not available as a warrant can cover a single, return or season ticket. The total cost of this travel was £32,038,000 after discounts had been applied. Details of normal British Rail (BR) fares charged for journeys over an equivalent aggregate distance are not known. All service warrants for the year in question were charged at the normal BR fares however, to which an agreed percentage discount was applied. Season tickets were exempt from this arrangement.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of jobs lost since 1990 and planned to go by 1996–97 at Ministry of Defence establishments(a) in Dyfed and (b) in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 January at column 754–55.

  Immersion Temperatures (Survival)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the length of time a person can be immersed in water at(a) 8 deg C, (b) 9 deg C, (c) 10 deg C, (d) 11 deg C, (e) 12 deg C, (f) 14 deg C, (g) 15 deg C and (h) 16 deg C before standing at least a 50 per cent. chance of becoming unconscious; and how rapidly their chances of survival in percentage terms decrease at each of those temperatures.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the 1986 report of the United Kingdom civil rescue helicopter coverage working group, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions, in which years and at what cost the royal yacht Britannia has been refitted since her launch.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following is the information:

  Costs of repairing and refitting HMY Britannia in Her Majesty's dockyards

  Dates of refits

  Financial year

  £000 at outturn prices

  September 1954 to December 1954

  1954–55

  68

  October 1955 to March 1956

  1955–56

  100

  September 1957 to January 1958

  1957–58

  184

  November 1960 to March 1961

  1960–61

  218

  March 1962 to January 1963

  1962–63

  72

  December 1964 to April 1965

  1964–65

  333

  August 1967 to November 1967

  1967–68

  258

  August 1969 to December 1969

  1969–70

  481

  October 1972 to July 1973

  1972–73

  1,213

  1973–74

  January 1976 to April 1976

  1975–76

  1,286

  September 1979 to April 1980

  1979–80

  14,990

  September 1983 to March 1984

  1983–84

  16,000

  January 1987 to October 1987

  1986–87

  117,000

  1987–88

  November 1991 to May 1992

  1991–92

  17,000

  1992–93

  1 Best estimates. More detailed figures can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the refit on the royal yacht Britannia in 1992 was spent on(a) superstructure, (b) engines, (c) royal apartments and (d) other.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The work carried out during Britannia's refit in 1992 can be broken down as follows:

  per cent.

  Structure

  24

  Engines

  34

  Royal apartments

  6

  Other

  36

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions, on what dates and where the royal yacht Britannia has been used as a hospital ship.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Circumstances have not required Her Majesty's Yacht Britannia to fulfil the wartime role of hospital ship. In view of her age, and the availability of other more suitable vessels, it has been decided that there is no longer a requirement for Britannia to retain this role.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the refit on the royal yacht Britannia begun in 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximately £17 million.

  Gulf War Chartering (Fraud)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to investigate alleged fraud in the chartering of vessels for the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.
  37
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence police have carried out an investigation into alleged fraudulent activity and as a result papers were passed to the crown prosecution service on 6 November 1992. The Ministry of Defence police investigations continue into certain aspects, and further comment would not be appropriate at this time.

SCOTLAND

  Craftsmen
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to align the support given to craftsmen and women in Scotland with that in England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  I plan to introduce support measures to meet the special needs of individual craft makers in addition to the marketing support already provided to the crafts sector in general by Made in Scotland Ltd, set up in 1991. Following discussions with the Secretary of State for National Heritage I am arranging to make available for this purpose, through his Department, £300,000 in 1993–94. The money will be paid to the Crafts Council and the Scottish Arts Council. Through the existing mechanisms and expertise of the Crafts Council and the local resources and knowledge of the Scottish Arts Council support for individual craft makers will include: funding to equip themselves and set themselves up as small businesses; funding for training; publicity and exhibition facilities for their products on a United Kingdom basis. The details of these new arrangements, including their start date, will be publicised in due course.

  Radon
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total number of houses in each regional and island authority area which may exceed(a) a radon level of 200 Bq/M3 and (b) 20 Bq/M3; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: I cannot give such an estimate. Information on radon in Scotland is contained in a report by the National Radiological Protection Board, "Radon in Dwellings in Scotland" published on 20 November 1991. Copies are available in the House Library. A further report by the board is to be published this year.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy for ensuring that disabled employees, clients and members of the public have access to all parts of(a) new-build and (b) existing buildings for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: The policy is to ensure the easiest possible access for disabled people to Scottish Office buildings by providing ramps, wide access doors, internal lifts, toilets for the disabled, etc. The design of some buildings, particularly older buildings and smaller local offices, makes access difficult for those with disabilities but every effort is made to minimise these difficulties.
  38
  The proposed major new office building for the Scottish Office will be designed to meet the highest standards of provision for disabled staff and visitors.

  House of Commons
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of 16 December 1992,Official Report, column 415, if he will make a statement on his proposals to enhance the position of Scotland within the House of Commons.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: The Government are currently taking stock of constitutional issues affecting Scotland including the handling of Scottish business in the House. The outcome will be reported to the House.

  MV Braer
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans have been drawn up for compensation payments in the event of delay in the slaughter of fatstock due to contamination by toxic residues arising from the MV Braer oil spillage.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: The Government have made available assistance to producers who are suffering economic hardship through a bridging fund, which will be operated for the Government by Shetland Islands council. Details of the fund's operation were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in answer to a question from the hon. Member from Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on 21 January.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Minister for Overseas Development's recent visit to Kenya and the subjects that were discussed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development intends to visit Kenya between 5 and 8 February in conjunction with a visit to Somalia. She hopes to meet the President and other Kenyan leaders for discussions on a range of issues.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 11 November 1992,Official Report, column 808, if he will estimate the number of forest dwellers that are dependent directly upon the trade in tropical timber; and if he will outline the benefits derived by the forest peoples from such trade.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 17 December,Official report, column 467.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will give details of the proposals put forward(a) directly by the Government

  39
  and (b) through the European Community during the British presidency concerning reform of the international tropical timber agreement;

  (2) what mechanisms have been established by his Department to monitor the performance of the International Tropical Timber Organisation in attaining its target of sustainable management of tropical timber by 2000.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 15 December 1992,Official Report, column 127.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 December to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike),Official Report, column 302, what total amount in United States dollars has been committed as the United Kingdom's full share of the interim multilateral fund to assist developing nations to phase out chlorofluorocarbons; and over what time scale he envisages this full share being achieved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total amount committed as the United Kingdom's full share of the interim multilateral fund (known as the multilateral fund since 1 January 1993) is US $13,826,548. This will be drawn down against a disbursement profile proposed by the fund managers up to the financial year 1995–96.

  Guinea Bissau
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many aid programmes are being undertaken in Guinea Bissau; and what is their nature.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We assist Guinea Bissau mainly through our contributions to the aid programmes of multilateral development institutions. For example, the European Community has an indicative aid programme of 42 mecu (about £32 million) for Guinea Bissau for 1990–95: our share amounts to over 16 per cent. We also support the work of United Kingdom NGOs in Guinea Bissau and make available modest funds through the non-resident British ambassador for gifts with a developmental or welfare purpose.

  Aid (Contracts)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to link the overseas aid budget more directly with contracts of various kinds with British companies in addition to the existing criteria for aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Around 70 per cent. of our bilateral aid commitments (£934 million in 1991) are tied to British goods and services. In addition we estimate that for every £1 we commit to multilateral agencies (£918 million in 1991) an average of £1.40 is spent on British goods and services. We have no plans to tie a greater proportion of our bilateral aid.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if tobacco curing operations carried out in relation to Commonwealth Development 40
  Corporation-supported investments in the Rusitu region of Zimbabwe have used charcoal produced locally from natural and semi-natural forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Decisions relating to the appraisal, implementation and monitoring of individual investments are the responsibility of the board of the CDC. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member on the specific question he has asked and will arrange for copies of his letter to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities are supported by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the Rusitu region of Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: In the Rusitu region the Commonwealth Development Corporation has investments in enterprises producing milk, beef, coffee, tea, macadamia nuts and arable crops (primarily maize). The Commonwealth Development Corporation has also supported smalholder tea and dairy farming in the region.

  International Development and Co-operation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy initiatives he is planning to undertake in the next six months to promote international development and co-operation; what meetings he is planning to attend; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: We shall continue our efforts to promote international co-operation and sustainable economic and social development, and to reduce poverty. With our European Community colleagues we shall undertake further work on improving the co-ordination of European Community development policy, as agreed at last November's Development Council.

  We are working for effective follow-up to the United Nations conference on the environment and development last June, including the first meeting of the Sustainable Development Commission this summer. We shall continue to press for a satisfactory conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round. We shall also work for resolution of conflicts and the relief of suffering, particularly in Somalia and the former republics of Yugoslavia.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development plan to attend meetings with European Community, G7 and developing country partners, including the economic summit in Tokyo.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies the Commonwealth Development Corporation has regarding minimum standards for the conditions of workers employed as a result of investment it supports.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: It is the Commonwealth Development Corporation's policy to make investments only when it is satisfied that employment policies are in accordance with good local

  41
  practice. While the Commonwealth Development Corporation remains an investor it uses its influence to ensure that such good employment practices are maintained.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced in Abuja (Nigeria) on 5 January 1993 that in response to the summary execution of at least 26 alleged coup-plotters on 29–30 December we would suspend all new aid to Sierra Leone, withdraw our existing offer of £4 million in balance of payments support and consider what further measures might be taken, for example, on the future of existing projects.

  Our emergency relief aid, to help those displaced in the region as a result of the Liberian and Sierra Leonean crises, will continue.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from members of the British timber trade regarding the circumstances of mahogany production in the Amazon rain forests of Brazil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: We have received information from the Timber Trade Federation (TTF) and M&N Norman Timber Ltd. about claims that British imports of Brazilian mahogany comes from illegal logging in indigenous peoples' lands. A TTF representative is visiting Brazil from 1 to 6 February to hold discussions with relevant Brazilian authorities to seek assurances that imported timber is not obtained illegally or in a manner which infringes indigenous peoples' rights.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Savoury Snack Food
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has now concluded its review of VAT on savoury snack food; and what is the result of its inquiry.

  Sir John Cope
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is still consulting the trade but expects to complete its review by the end of February.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis upon which market testing is currently taking place in relation to the secretarial services provided to the Inland Revenue in the South Western area, including Southampton.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As part of the programme that we have agreed, the Inland Revenue is market testing typing and secretarial services in its South Western region. In doing so, it will compare the service provided by its own staff 42
  with tenders to be sought from external providers on the basis of the best combination of quality and price. Southampton does not fall within the Inland Revenue's South West regional area.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the tax yield from taxes imposed on surpluses in pension funds in excess of 105 per cent. of their liability in each year since the tax was introduced;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for the latest year the numbers of pension schemes proposing a contribution holiday to reduce a pension fund surplus in accordance with the Finance Act 1986;

  (3) what information he has concerning the extent of occupational pension scheme contribution holidays being taken by employers or employees.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Statutory rules for dealing with actuarial surpluses in occupational pension schemes were introduced in the Finance Act 1986 and took effect from 6 April 1987.

  Estimates of tax deducted from payments of surplus funds to employers for 1987–88 to 1991–92 are shown in table 6.9 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1992". The provisional estimate for 1992–93 is £135 million.

  Available information on occupational scheme contribution holidays is shown in table 6.8 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1992".

  Mr. J. Oliver
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects a reply to be sent to the letter sent by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to the Financial Secretary on 27 October 1992, about Mr. J. Oliver of Alnmouth, Northumberland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I replied on Thursday 28 January.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take in 1993 to fulfil the requirements of the Maastricht treaty in respect of moving to stage 2 of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: The requirements for action by member states before stage 2 begins are set out in article 109e(2)(a) of the Maastricht treaty and the Government will meet the requirements, as qualified by the provisions of the United Kingdom protocol to the treaty.

  Article 109e(2)(a) obliges member states to abolish restrictions on capital movements, to cease borrowing from central banks, to end the privileged access of public bodies to financial institutions and, if necessary, to adopt multiannual convergence programmes for assessment by the Council. Since the United Kingdom Government have no restrictions on capital movements, fund their borrowing each year by sales of debt to the private sector, have no privileged access to financial institutions, and regularly adopt a multiannual economic programme in the medium term financial strategy, this will not involve significant changes to current policies or monetary arrangements. But it may be necessary to make some technical changes to the methods of issuing Government debt instruments.

  Transport Infrastructure Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his consultations with the chairman of the European investment bank regarding the balance between public and private sector investment expenditure on transport infrastructure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: I have not had any such consultations.

  Queen (Tax)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to complete the arrangements for Her Majesty the Queen to pay tax by the start of the next financial year.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today at column 47.

PRIME MINISTER

  Maastricht (Social Chapter)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the amendments and additions to the social chapter of the treaty of Rome proposed by the social chapter of the treaty of Maastricht to which Her Majesty's Government do not assent.

  The Prime Minister
  The social chapter of the treaty of Rome will remain entirely unchanged after ratification of the treaty on European union. At Maastricht I made it clear to our Community partners that I was not prepared to accept treaty changes to the social chapter which would have increased industry's costs and jeopardised the jobs of British employees.

  On this basis the United Kingdom will continue to play a full part in sensible Community action on social affairs and to resist measures which would prove damaging to British industry.

  India
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made to him during his visit to India about the proposals of his Government to remove the right of appeal from visitors refused leave to visit the United Kingdom from India.

  The Prime Minister
  The Indian Prime Minister and I discussed our proposals and I was able to explain to him the reasons for our proposals.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the industrialists who accompanied him on his visit to India and the companies they represent.

  The Prime Minister
  The names are as follows:

  Sir Brian Shaw, ANZ Grindlays Bank plc.

  Mr. Roger Mabey, Bovis International Ltd.

  Mr. Richard Evans, British Aerospace plc.

  Mr. Norman Davis, British American Tobacco Co. Ltd.

  Mr. Robert Evans, British Gas plc.

  Mr. Norman Hawkins, Cadbury Schweppes plc.

  Mr. Patrick MacDougall, Chartered West LB Ltd.

  Mr. G. Douglas Gadd, GEC Alsthom Ltd.

  Mr. Richard Reynolds, GPT Ltd.

  44

  Mr. Brian Baldock, Guinness plc.

  Mr. Philip Daubeny, ICI plc.

  Mr. Andrew Cummins, Inchcape plc.

  Mr. Graham Hadley, National Power plc.

  Dr. Terry Harrison, Rolls Royce plc.

  Mr. Philip Hills, Samual Montagu and Co. Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Grant, Sun Life Assurance Society plc.

  Mr. Howard Davies, Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he took to raise concerns expressed by British citizens at the destruction of the Babri mosque during his recent visit to India; and what was the response.

  The Prime Minister
  During my recent visit to India, I had a long discussion with the Indian Prime Minister about the situation in India following the destruction of the Babri mosque. I also restated our support for the principles of India's secular democracy, rule of law, tolerance and protection of minorities.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of co-operation between the British Army and the authorities of the Republic of Ireland in dealing with terrorist attacks launched from within the Republic of Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  There is very effective co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and those in the Republic of Ireland. Both Governments recognise the importance of keeping existing measures under review, and that further improvements can be made wherever practicable.

  European Year of Older People
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what benefits he expects to accrue to pensioners in the United Kingdom from the European Year of Older People launched on 25 January.

  The Prime Minister
  The Year will bring lasting benefits for older people in the United Kingdom, and I was particularly pleased to welcome the initiative during our presidency of the European Council. In collaboration with many organisations we are managing a substantial programme of initiatives, connected with the initiative, focusing on four main themes: combating ageism, volunteering, health promotion and active leisure, and social and environmental integration. The programme is designed to secure the involvement of older people themselves, professionals who work with them, and the general public. I hope that many people will play a part. The outcome will be improved understanding between the generations and an increasing recognition of the vital part older people have to play in our society.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of ministerial standing and ad hoc committees of the Cabinet.

  The Prime Minister
  All the ministerial Cabinet Committees I listed in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 19 May 1992 at column 110 are still in existence. In addition one Standing Committee and one ad hoc group have been established,

  45
  and their membership and terms of reference are given below. Copies of the revised list, which includes minor revisions to the membership of existing Committees, are available in the Library of the House.

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (EDX)
  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (chairman)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord Privy Seal

  Lord President of the Council

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of' Reference
  "To consider the allocation of the public expenditure control totals and make recommendations to the Cabinet".

  MINISTERIAL GROUP ON REFUGEES FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (GEN 24)
  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  The Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Attorney General

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Minister for Overseas Development)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  The Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also receive papers and be invited to attend as necessary.
  Terms of Reference
  "To consider whether a visa regime should be instituted for citizens of former Yugoslavia in the context of the Government's overall policy towards that region and to review the practical arrangements for the reception and subsequent support of those arriving in the United Kingdom from this area taking account of the implications for the treatment of refugees from other parts of the world, and to report to Cabinet."

  Queen (Tax)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will report on the up to date position regarding the tax arrangements for the Queen.

  1981–82 and 1991–92 Police Fees and Charges Income expressed as a Percentage of Total Income—England and Wales

  Police Authority

  1981–82 Fees and Charges Income £

  1981–82 Fees and Charges as Percentage of Total Income

  1991–92 Fees and Charges Income £

  1991–92 Fees and Charges as Percentage of Total Income

  Avon and Somerset

  537,281

  15.0

  5,683,869

  42.9

  Bedfordshire

  149,697

  9.5

  1,611,714

  28.0

  Cambridgeshire

  174,520

  9.1

  2,775,513

  51.5

  Cheshire

  162,618

  6.0

  625,711

  5.3

  Cleveland

  277,216

  15.3

  393,431

  8.1

  Cumbria

  368,432

  24.4

  1,408,873

  33.0

  Derbyshire

  171,759

  7.7

  1,955,326

  26.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  636,094

  20.4

  1,450,048

  14.4

  Dorset

  124,315

  8.1

  324,383

  6.9

  Durham

  103,579

  2.2

  1,552,497

  23.5

  Essex

  224,736

  4.9

  586,790

  4.3

  Gloucestershire

  169,952

  15.5

  484,094

  13.0

  Hampshire

  338,137

  8.9

  754,269

  7.4

  46
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Discussions are continuing between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household. I will make a statement shortly about the arrangements for the tax year commencing 6 April 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for legislation to extend the range of offences which apply to the misuse of imitation firearms, following recommendations by the Firearms consultative committee.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The committee's recommendation to extend the range of offences which apply to the misuse of imitation firearms will be implemented at a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Hillsborough
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the local major disaster plan was not implemented in respect of the Hillsborough disaster.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the police initiated their major disaster plan at or shortly after 3.06 pm (paragraphs 96 and 252 of the Interim Report into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster (Cm. 765)).

  Police (Rechargeable Services)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991 the total income received for rechargeable services and the percentage this represented for each force of their total income.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Separate information on income received by police forces in England and Wales for rechargeable services is not collected centrally. Income from fees and charges is shown in the table (of which income from rechargeable services is a main component) and as a percentage of total income other than central government grant and local authority finance.
  47

  Police Authority

  1981–82 Fees and Charges Income £

  1981–82 Fees and Charges as Percentage of Total Income

  1991–92 Fees and Charges Income £

  1991–92 Fees and Charges as Percentage of Total Income

  Hertfordshire

  223,766

  11.4

  596,465

  9.1

  Humberside

  307,190

  11.4

  559,751

  7.7

  Kent

  382,645

  9.1

  1,117,164

  9.6

  Lancashire

  382,157

  7.7

  7,116,995

  51.3

  Leicestershire

  172,695

  8.2

  539,558

  6.0

  Lincolnshire

  268,179

  14.4

  2,959,043

  42.7

  Norfolk

  202,442

  9.9

  1,777,168

  32.1

  Northamptonshire

  92,228

  5.3

  463,554

  9.2

  North Yorkshire

  243,591

  10.7

  623,292

  8.9

  Nottinghamshire

  224,248

  7.0

  1,924,424

  21.7

  Staffordshire

  465,030

  12.5

  1,610,044

  22.3

  Suffolk

  205,486

  13.9

  448,902

  8.9

  Surrey

  211,643

  7.9

  2,364,356

  38.1

  Sussex

  419,199

  5.4

  1,481,460

  6.3

  Thames Valley

  437,266

  8.2

  6,522,527

  38.4

  Warwickshire

  379,530

  33.9

  403,739

  9.3

  West Mercia

  301,488

  9.5

  3,668,148

  42.4

  Wiltshire

  214,823

  14.1

  444,907

  10.0

  Greater Manchester

  600,625

  6.1

  28,290,410

  63.1

  Merseyside

  947,739

  9.3

  4,543,909

  15.1

  Northumbria

  359,206

  8.0

  8,086,496

  49.0

  South Yorkshire

  1,125,144

  29.6

  4,981,306

  36.5

  West Midlands

  1,059,067

  9.1

  8,165,880

  30.8

  West Yorkshire

  450,409

  8.4

  2,858,562

  8.8

  City of London

  232,618

  14.5

  862,945

  21.0

  Metropolitan Police

  1,017,044

  1.0

  62,429,000

  28.3

  Dyfed-Powys

  125,720

  9.7

  2,134,599

  43.3

  Gwent

  54,499

  4.0

  200,696

  5.4

  North Wales

  245,460

  17.5

  305,716

  5.3

  South Wales

  244,974

  5.8

  5,574,920

  42.7

  Total

  15,034,447

  6.1

  182,662,454

  27.0

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number, title and date of publication of all reports issued by the National Audit Office on the Metropolitan police since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There have been two reports:"Home Office: Control and Management of the Metropolitan Police Estate", published 22 June 1989, HC 455 of 1988–89.
  "Reducing Crime in London: A study of the partnership and other methods used by five Metropolitan Divisions", published 25 February 1992, HC 270 of 1991–92.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by police forces in England and Wales to improve the effectiveness of their fingerprint departments.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The effectiveness of fingerprint departments is being improved by the development of quality assurance measures and performance indicators to ensure the best use of resources and staffing; by the enhancement of training brought about by the establishment of a national training school at Durham; and by the introduction of automated fingerprint recognition equipment in the majority of fingerprint bureaux.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected cost of the 48
  proposed national automatic fingerprinting recognition system when it is expected to be in service; how it will be financed; what advantages the proposed system has over the fingerprint file put into operation by a consortium involving police forces in England and Wales; and what consideration he gave to adopting the consortium fingerprint file as the national system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The national automated fingerprint identification system is expected to have cost some £45 million by the time that it comes into service in 1996–97. It will be financed as a common police service. Because it is being designed specifically to meet national requirements and because it will incorporate more up-to-date technology, the NAFIS will offer advantages of cost, accuracy, and reliability over any system which is at present in use in the United Kingdom. Under the established rules of government procurement, a system of this size must be the subject of an open competition. It will be open to all suppliers, including those of the consortium system, to bid for the contract.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the planned dates of meeting of the ad hoc immigration group and its sub-groups; and what will be the subject matter of its meetings.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Danish presidency has provisionally allocated a total of 38 days to meetings of the ad hoc working group on immigration and its sub-groups, as follows:
  49

  Nature of meeting

  Date of meeting

  Asylum sub-group

  15 January 1993

  Ad hoc immigration group

  19 to 20 January 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  26 to 27 January 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group

  29 January 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group

  3 February 1993

  External frontiers sub-group

  5 February 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  10 February 1993

  Sub-group meeting to be confirmed

  18 February 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  4 to 5 March 1993

  Visa sub-group

  8 March 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group (am)

  11 to 12 March 1993

  Forged documents sub-group (pm)

  12 March 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group

  22 March 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  24 March 1993

  External frontiers sub-group

  29 March 1993

  Visa sub-group

  30 March 1993

  Sub-group meeting to be confirmed

  31 March 1993

  Ad hoc immigration group

  1 to 2 April 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group

  6 April 1993

  External frontiers sub-group

  7 April 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  21 April 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group

  23 April 1993

  Sub-group meeting to be confirmed

  28 April 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  30 April 1993

  Admission/expulsions sub-group

  4 May 1993

  Ad hoc immigration group

  13 to 14 May 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  24 May 1993

  Sub-group meeting(s) to be confirmed

  25 to 26 May 1993

  Sub-group meeting to be confirmed

  10 June 1993

  Visa sub-group

  14 June 1993

  Forged documents sub-group

  16 June 1993

  Asylum sub-group

  18 June 1993

  It will be for the Danish presidency to determine the precise agenda for each of these meetings as they arise. In general terms, however, the presidency has indicated that the groups will continue work currently in hand under the immigration and asylum work programme agreed by Ministers at the end of the Dutch presidency in December 1991, including discussions on admission for the purpose of family reunification, admission for the purpose of employment and self-employment, harmonisation of asylum procedures and measures to combat illegal immigration. The presidency has also indicated that the asylum and external frontiers sub-groups will continue work on the preparatory measures required for implementation of the Dublin asylum convention and the draft convention on external frontiers.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the British representatives who will participate in the ad hoc group on immigration and the sub-groups which will operate during the period of the Danish presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The United Kingdom delegation to meetings of the ad hoc working group on immigration will be led by Mr. A. R. Rawsthorne, an Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office.

  The United Kingdom delegation to meetings of sub-groups will be headed by other senior officers of the immigration and nationality department, as follows:

  Sub-group

  Heads of United Kingdom delegation

  Admissions-expulsion

  Mr. N. R. Varney-Mr. C. B. Manchip

  Asylum

  Mr. J. Casey

  External frontiers

  Mr. N. R. Varney

  Forged documents

  Mr. C. B. Manchip

  50

  Sub-group

  Heads of United Kingdom delegation

  Visa

  Mr. R. G. Yates

  Yugoslavia (special sub-group)

  Mr. A. Cunningham

  Heads of delegation will be assisted by other officers of the immigration and nationality department, and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Government Departments, as the business requires.

  Women Police Officers
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that women police officers should have the best available equipment to defend themselves from assault in the execution of their duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Decisions about the purchase and issue of equipment are matters for chief officers. My right hon. and learned Friend would expect all officers to be provided with the best protective equipment available which is appropriate to the situation.

  Prisoners (Training)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have received national vocational qualifications from their vocational training in prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the nine months up to December 1992, more than 1,000 prisoners had been registered with national vocational qualification (NVQ) awarding bodies, 276 had gained full NVQs and over 3,400 units towards full NVQs had been accredited. Prisoners do, of course, gain NVQs through work and other regime activities as well as through vocational training.

  WPC Kirsty Snellgrove
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Essex concerning the assault on 25 January on WPC Kirsty Snellgrove.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The investigation of criminal offences is an operational matter for the chief constable.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has on the level of juvenile re-offending after cautions or non-custodial sentences have been passed on such offenders, in the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on this is available firstly from a sample study of juveniles during 1985 and is given in the table. The figures are subject to sampling error. More information on this study is given in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin (HOSB) "Criminal histories of those cautionéd in 1985 and 1988".

  Secondly, information is also available from sample studies of cohorts born in certain years. Of those born in 1953, 1958 or 1963 who were convicted of an offence before they were 16 and given a non-custodial sentence at their first conviction, 35 per cent. were reconvicted of

  51
  another offence within two years. More information is available in HOSB 7/85 "Criminal careers of those born in 1953, 1958 and 1963", and results from both studies are regularly updated. Copies of statistical bulletins are available in the Library of the House.

  Number of juveniles cautioned in 1985 and proportion convicted within two years

  Percentage convicted

  Number cautioned1

  Under 14

  11

  834

  Age 14–16

  16

  1,327

  Under 17

  14

  2,161

  1 = 100 per cent.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Boundary Commission is expected to commence its inquiries for a review of the European parliamentary constituencies in Essex and to make recommendations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, the boundary commission for England is required to begin its revision of all European parliamentary constituencies in England, including those in Essex, when its current general reviews of constituencies for our Parliament has been completed, and an Order in Council has been made implementing the recommendations.

  The target for completing that review has been set by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992 as 31 December 1994.

  We shall, however, need to make some special arrangements, in time for the June 1994 European parliamentary elections, to give effect to the decision of the European Council to increase the number of seats for the United Kingdom by six. The Government are developing proposals on how best that might be done.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners were held in police stations in Greater Manchester on 22 January; what were the comparable numbers over the last two years; how many are being held in police cells in adjacent police forces; what progress is being made to phase out Operation Container; and when he now expects it to end.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 22 January, 202 prisoners were held in police stations in Greater Manchester. Figures for prisoners held by Greater Manchester police since April 1990 are given in the table, together with the national figures.

  Date

  Number of prisoners held by Greater Manchester police

  All forces

  1 April 1990

  0

  0

  1 August 1990

  329

  790

  12 December 1990

  283

  814

  1 April 1991

  245

  835

  1 August 1991

  169

  1,150

  1 December 1991

  217

  1,677

  1 April 1992

  271

  1,825

  1 August 1992

  244

  1,065

  1 December 1992

  210

  367

  52
  On 22 January, Merseyside police held 28 prisoners and Lancashire police held six prisoners.

  The number of prisoners held nationally on 29 January (the latest date for which figures are available) was 166, of which 161 were held by the Greater Manchester police and five by the Merseyside police. This represents a dramatic improvement in the national police cells position, although the burden on the Greater Manchester police continues. The reduction of the number in police cells to the current level has involved transferring large numbers of sentenced prisoners from the area to establishments elsewhere in the north and Midlands. The next step will involve substantial movement of prisoners awaiting trial although the prison service recognises that this would affect other criminal justice agencies. It is therefore not yet possible to say exactly when Operation Container will be closed, but the prison service hopes to reach that position in the near future.

  United States Citizens
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his practice that his Department should not provide any information it holds on a citizen of the United States of America standing for elected office without the Home Secretary's personal approval.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I do not propose to vary the policy explained in my answer of 14 January to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne),Official Report, columns 793–94.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts were made by his Department during the inquiry into Shamrock (GB) Ltd. to contact the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The inquiry into Shamrock (GB) Ltd. was undertaken following the "World in Action" programme shown last June, and in the light of two reports and other video material sent to the Home Office by the BUAV in July. The Home Office took the view that the BUAV would not have withheld any relevant information, and did not feel that anything would be gained by discussing the material further with the BUAV.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about possible irregularities in study 161/212 on primates at Hazleton UK; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 15 December at column 100.

  The case involving monkeys was one of a number of specific research projects using primates, the purpose or the methodology of which were queried by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in the context of its allegations about Shamrock (GB) Ltd. and Hazleton UK. The Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate has now examined the points made by the BUAV, and its observations will shortly be considered by the animal procedures committee.

  Public Alert System
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the need for a public alert system to warn the public of emergencies and disasters; and what system is to be installed following the dismantlement of the siren system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Future national arrangements for warning the public will be based on the use of television and radio broadcasts. Local arrangements are the responsibility of the authorities in the areas concerned. Home Office officials are holding discussions with local authorities in whose areas the siren system formed part of local warning arrangements.

  Prison Service Agency
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the responsibilities of the planned prison service agency will be in relation to private sector involvement in the management of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have decided that when the prison service becomes an executive agency on 1 April it should assume full responsibility for taking forward Government policy on the involvement of the private sector in the management of prisons. The framework document and corporate and business plans for the agency will reflect this position.

  The objective of the agency will be to raise standards and secure better value for money throughout the prison system. I envisage an increased role for the private sector in the management of prisons in order to provide an effective source of competition, new ideas and comparison for the management of the public sector prison service. The agency will make recommendations to me later this year on the extent, form and timetable for private sector involvement. In the interim, further existing establishments will be identified for market testing.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Doncaster (Development Area Status)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it remains his policy that the Doncaster travel-to-work area will be upgraded to development area status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning coal exports arising from his recently launched initiative encouraging more British companies to export to Europe.

  Mr. Eggar
  The reports of the independent consultants John T Boyd and Caminus Energy, published on 22 January, comment on the potential for coal exports. The Government will be considering that issue as part of the coal review. The Business in Europe programme recently announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade offers a range of help to businesses which have the capability of exporting to Europe.
  54
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the future of the coal industry social welfare organisation indoor and outdoor schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have received a number of representations concerning the future of coal industry social welfare arrangements, including such schemes.

  We are giving careful consideration to the important and sensitive issues involved.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account was taken of(a) the Her Majesty's inspector of pollution licensing procedure laid down in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and (b) the EC directive on the public availability of environmental information by his Department when deciding to maintain the confidentiality of licensing applications for oil and gas exploration in (a) the Bristol channel and (b) Cardigan bay.

  Mr. Eggar
  (a) The licensing procedure laid down in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not relate to the award of oil and gas licences.

  (b) Applications for exploration and production licences are made under The Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 1988 and contain commercially confidential information, a ground for refusing disclosure under Article 3 of the directive.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require environmental impact assessments for all offshore licensing block applications in the 14th round which are within 25 miles of offshore islands within United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultation procedure which preceded the announcement of blocks available for licensing in the 14th Round enabled environmental bodies to identify all blocks which require environmental assessment at the exploration stage, including any within 25 miles of offshore islands within United Kingdom waters. Companies proposing to operate in such blocks would need to provide an environmental impact statement for assessment before approval could be given to develop any oil or gas discovery.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the conduct of environmental impact assessments for allocated blocks for offshore licensing within the 14th round; and what opportunity experts on coastal and offshore environmental matters and the general public will have to scrutinise such assessments prior to the granting of licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  Companies are subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure before approval can be given to develop any offshore oil or gas discovery, where this is required in the special conditions attached to their licence.

  Companies awarded licences in the 14th round will be required to liaise with the environmental and fisheries bodies consulted prior to the block's release for licensing, and with certain other local and national organisations where appropriate, as well as with the Department of

  55
  Trade and Industry, with regard to the nature and conduct of any environmental assessment required under the special conditions attached to individual blocks. Such assessments may be required before seismic surveying or before exploration drilling, depending on the sensitivities of the block identified during the consultation process.

  Such conditions are, however, attached to licences when they are granted. The completed assessment will be circulated to the liaison bodies and may be revised in the light of their comments. It would then be used to inform the licensee's activities in the block on matters such as seasonal restrictions on exploration, choice of drilling location, mud formulation to be used, etc.

  At present there is no requirement for wider publication of this information, although some existing licensees have made such material more widely available. under the Access to Environmental Information Act 1992, the general public will be able to seek access to such information where is has been required under legislation.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations underlay the decision to limit the requirement for environmental impact assessment under the 14th round of offshore licensing block allocations to blocks within 25 miles of the coast and blocks within designated environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  During the consultation procedure carried out before any blocks were released for licensing in the 14th offshore round, the views of a number of relevant bodies were sought with regard to environmental conditions to be attached to all the areas nominated by the industry as being of interest. Those consulted included the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and their regional equivalents, together with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and a number of other non-statutory bodies representing, for example, fisheries interests.

  The views of these organisations were the basis of the list of indicative conditions for the 14th round blocks circulated to the industry, a copy of which has recently been placed in the Library of the House. In sensitive areas, these require the licensee to liaise with the advisory bodies; in the most sensitive areas, those bodies may require the licensee to carry out an environmental assessment before exploration commences.

  Since the llth round, areas within 25 miles of the coast have been recognised as those where fisheries, wildlife and tourism interests are likely to be most intensive and hence in greatest need of protection through such special conditions. The consultation procedure which precedes the announcement of any licensing round enables the bodies listed to draw attention to any areas outside this zone which may require similar conditions to be attached, as well as to any areas within the zone which are particularly vulnerable.

  Post Office
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the results of the review of the Post Office initiated in June 1992.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Post Office review was announced on 29 July 1992. The review is not yet completed. A statement will be made to the House in due course.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is currently undertaken by his Department to promote the use and production of biofuels.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: The Department of Trade and Industry stimulates the development and use of renewable sources of energy, including biofuels, wherever they have the prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. Our programme includes work on dry agricultural wastes such as straw—a precursor for energy crops such as short rotation arable coppice and miscanthus. Recent reports on this work include "The Development of Compacted Straw Fuel, ETSU B 1189"; "Short Rotation Arable Energy Forestry, Technology Summary 048"; and "The Potential of Miscanthus as a Fuel Crop, ETSU B 1354". These reports have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available from the renewable energy inquiries bureau at the energy technology support unit, telephone (0235) 432450.

  Electricity
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the distribution of subsidies to the electricity supply industry within the United Kingdom under the 20 per cent. EC guidelines.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: It is for the European Commission to interpret its guidelines, which are not part of Community law, as it sees fit from time to time. All state aid to the energy sector has been notified to the Commission.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what was the planned expenditure in each financial year from 1992–93 onwards by English Heritage regarding listed buildings in Greater London to the present date;

  (2) what was (a) the amount allocated to English Heritage or its predecessor bodies regarding listed buildings in Greater London and (b) the amount spent, for each financial year from 1986–87.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage's London region has been responsible for a varying range of duties, including archaeology and conservation areas, in addition to listed building work, since April 1986. The figures for each year are not directly comparable as the region's activities and responsibilities have developed and altered over recent years. The following total amounts were allocated by English Heritage to the work of London region, in the financial years 1986–87 to 1992–93:

  Amount allocated (£ million)

  Amount spent (£ million)

  1986–87

  5.9

  4.3

  1987–88

  5.9

  6.2

  1988–89

  6.5

  6.4

  1989–90

  6.9

  6.4

  1990–91

  6.7

  6.8

  57

  Amount allocated (£ million)

  Amount spent (£ million)

  1991–92

  5.8

  5.7

  1992–93

  5.5

  1

  1 Not yet available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Genetically Modified Material
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises were licensed for the use and processing of genetically modified material in 1990, 1991 and 1992; how many on-site inspections were carried out in each of those years; how many premises were discovered using such material without a licence in each of those years; and what action was taken.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no legal requirements for a licence to use premises for genetic modification work but under the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989, persons are required to notify the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of an intention to do so.

  The information required is as follows:

  Year

  Active centres

  HSE inspections

  Centres failing to notify

  Notices issued

  1990

  351

  100

  2

  15

  1991

  400

  70

  1

  22

  1992

  445

  121

  2

  21

  1 Improvement.

  2 Prohibition.

  All the notices were served on the centres which had failed to notify. In 1992, work was stopped at both sites which had not notified. A prohibition notice was issued at one; the second complied with the requirements before enforcement action was completed.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received regarding the level of funding for TECs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received representations from a number of sources about the levels of funding for TECs. I am satisfied that TECs will have sufficient resources to carry out the objectives agreed in their business plan.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the bonus points awarded to each TEC.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table lists the TECs successful in gaining awards in performance-related funding during 1991–92 and gives the number of bonus points earned by each TEC.

  TEC name

  Bonus points

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2.5

  Bolton/Bury

  2.0

  Bradford

  1.0

  58

  TEC name

  Bonus points

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  4.0

  CAMBSTEC

  1.0

  Central London

  0.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.0

  Dorset

  3.0

  ELTEC

  2.0

  Gloucestershire

  1.0

  HAWTEC

  2.0

  Isle of Wight

  0.5

  Leeds

  1.0

  Lincolnshire

  3.0

  Milton Keynes

  1.0

  Northumberland

  4.0

  North Yorkshire

  2.0

  North West London

  0.5

  Rochdale

  2.0

  Rotherham

  1.0

  Sheffield

  1.0

  Shropshire

  1.0

  South and East Cheshire

  2.0

  Stockport/High Peak

  4.0

  Sussex

  0.5

  Teesside

  2.0

  Thames Valley

  1.5

  Tyneside

  1.0

  Wakefield

  1.0

  West London

  1.0

  Wolverhampton

  0.5

  Job Creation, Birmingham
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created in the Birmingham area in the last five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates for local areas are available only from the biennial census of employment. The latest results relate to 1989; estimates for 1991 will be published in April. Over the two years to September 1989 there was a net increase of 30,400 employees in employment in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

  Business Education Partnership
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the national increase or decrease in the budget for the education business partnership for 1993–94 compared with 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The national budget for education business partnerships for 1993–94 is £2 million, compared with £2.4 million in 1992–93.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the increase or decrease in real terms of the average unit price for youth training in 1993–94 relative to 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am not able to provide a comparison of the average unit prices for YT in 1993–94 and in 1992–93 as the 1993–94 price subject of negotiation between the Department and training and enterprise councils. It is estimated that the average unit price for YT in 1992–93 will turn out to be £2,630.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the extra work required by employers as a result of clause 11 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Clause 11 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill gives individuals a greater right to belong to the union of their choice. There is no reason why this measure should entail any extra work for employers.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the increase or decrease in the national budget for training for work between 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is unable to provide a direct comparison of planned expenditure on training for work in 1993–94 and 1992–93 as training for work does not begin until 1 April 1993. Details of planned expenditure in 1993–94 will be published in the 1993 departmental report.

  In 1992–93 the equivalent training and work experience programmes for adults are employment training and employment action. In 1992–93 planned expenditure for Great Britain on employment training is £807 million and on employment action is £178 million.

  Construction Sites (Injuries)
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases of fatal injury on construction sites in the north-west the victim's identity was unknown for (i) employees, (ii) self-employed and (iii) members of the public in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive has no knowledge of any cases of fatal injuries on construction sites in the north-west during the last five years where the victim's identity was unknown.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful criminal prosecutions took place in each of the last five years as a result of investigations into deaths and major injuries on construction sites in the north-west; and what information he has on how many police investigations were undertaken into deaths and major injuries on such sites in the north-west in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the number of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions taken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following investigations into fatal and major injuries on construction sites is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HSE does not formally record information on the number of investigations carried out by the police.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average(a) fine and/or (b) prison sentence for successful prosecutions following (i) deaths and (ii) major injuries on construction sites in the north west in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  60
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of (i) hypothermia, (ii) frostbite and (iii) immersion foot were reported on construction sites in the north-west in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.

  Hazardous Substances
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many investigations have been undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive in the north-west under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 in each year since their introduction.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available. Health and Safety Executive field staff monitor compliance with COSHH at premises for which HSE has enforcement responsibility during the course of visits made for a variety of purposes including, for example, preventive inspections and the investigation of complaints, accidents and dangerous occurrences.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people in the London East TEC area seeking a youth training place have received a firm offer.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the total number of young people seeking a YT place who have not had a firm offer is not available.

  London East TEC, in common with all TECs, has been asked to use its best endeavours to ensure that it is bringing all its available resources to bear on providing places for young people who are covered by the YT guarantee.

  Wages Inspectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff of the wages inspectorate operate in Wales; and how many are office-based in Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are four wages inspectors operating in Wales. Since 1987 wages inspection in Wales has been administered from offices based in Manchester and Bristol.

  Wages
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms in Wales have been found to be paying below minimum rates set by wages councils in each of the last 10 years; what is the amount of money calculated to be owed to employees in each of these years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information is provided in the following table.

  Wales—Wages Inspection

  Year

  Number of establishments underpaying

  Amount of arrears assessed £

  1982

  821

  225,486

  1983

  722

  209,493

  1984

  534

  164,156

  61

  Year

  Number of establishments underpaying

  Amount of arrears assessed £

  1985

  609

  198,466

  1986

  500

  210,118

  1987

  309

  101,247

  1988

  446

  100,294

  1989

  374

  112,467

  1990

  506

  150,424

  1991

  619

  271,135

  European Agency for Health and Safety at Work
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration has been given to Merseyside as a suitable location for the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's view is that the case for such an agency has yet to be clearly demonstrated. A number of possible United Kingdom locations were considered in 1990 in connection with a possible United Kingdom bid to host an agency; Liverpool was amongst these.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will provide the latest figures for numbers of full-time employees on adult rates in(a) Greater Manchester, (b) Merseyside, (c) Cheshire, (d) Lancashire and (e) the north-west region whose weekly earnings excluding overtime were less than £200 and less than £190 under the headings: manual males, non-manual males and all full-time males; manual females, non-manual females, and all full-time females, giving total numbers of employees in the sample in each case; and what is the number of part-time employees on adult rates in (i) Greater Manchester, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) Cheshire, (iv) Lancashire and (v) the north-west region whose hourly earnings excluding overtime were less than £5.40 and less than £4.80 under the following headings: manual females, non-manual females and all part-time females; manual males, non-manual males and all part-time males, giving total number of employees in the sample in each case.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information available from the "New Earnings Survey" is provided in the following tables. No relevant information is available on part-time men.

  Full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period

  Percentage with average gross weekly earnings (excluding overtime) below the following amounts: April 1992

  £190

  £200

  Sample number

  Per cent.

  Sample number

  Per cent.

  Manual men

  Greater Manchester

  592

  35.2

  713

  42.4

  Merseyside

  246

  32.8

  291

  38.7

  Cheshire

  229

  32.4

  268

  37.9

  Lancashire

  377

  40.5

  449

  48.2

  North West

  1,444

  35.5

  1,721

  42.3

  Non-manual men

  Greater Manchester

  274

  14.9

  317

  17.2

  62

  £190

  £200

  Sample number

  Per cent.

  Sample number

  Per cent.

  Merseyside

  122

  15.2

  156

  19.4

  Cheshire

  73

  9.8

  87

  11.7

  Lancashire

  147

  16.3

  177

  19.6

  North West

  616

  14.4

  737

  17.2

  All men

  Greater Manchester

  866

  24.6

  1,030

  29.3

  Merseyside

  368

  23.7

  447

  28.7

  Cheshire

  302

  20.8

  355

  24.5

  Lancashire

  524

  28.6

  626

  34.2

  North West

  2,060

  24.7

  2,458

  29.4

  Manual Women

  Greater Manchester

  315

  81.0

  333

  85.6

  Merseyside

  107

  72.8

  119

  81.0

  Cheshire

  108

  78.3

  114

  82.6

  Lancashire

  172

  80.8

  184

  86.4

  North West

  702

  79.1

  750

  84.6

  Non-manual women

  Greater Manchester

  677

  41.1

  789

  47.8

  Merseyside

  344

  42.8

  396

  49.3

  Cheshire

  247

  40.6

  282

  46.4

  Lancashire

  306

  41.4

  363

  49.1

  North West

  1,574

  41.4

  1,830

  48.2

  All women

  Greater Manchester

  992

  48.7

  1,122

  55.1

  Merseyside

  451

  47.5

  515

  54.2

  Cheshire

  355

  47.6

  396

  53.1

  Lancashire

  478

  50.2

  547

  57.4

  North West

  2,276

  48.6

  2,580

  55.0

  Part time women on adult rates of pay whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period

  Percentage with average gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) below the following amounts: April 1992

  £4.80

  £5.40

  Sample number

  Per cent.

  Sample number

  Per cent.

  Manual

  Greater Manchester

  323

  91.0

  341

  96.1

  Merseyside

  197

  78.5

  220

  87.6

  Cheshire

  126

  91.3

  130

  94.2

  Lancashire

  207

  87.7

  220

  93.2

  North West

  853

  87.0

  911

  93.0

  Non-manual

  Greater Manchester

  379

  63.7

  423

  71.1

  Merseyside

  202

  59.2

  227

  66.6

  Cheshire

  154

  63.6

  179

  74.0

  Lancashire

  227

  64.1

  264

  74.6

  North West

  962

  62.8

  1,093

  71.3

  All

  Greater Manchester

  702

  73.9

  764

  80.4

  Merseyside

  399

  67.4

  447

  75.5

  Cheshire

  280

  73.7

  309

  81.3

  Lancashire

  434

  73.6

  484

  82.0

  North West

  1,815

  72.3

  2,004

  79.8

  Source: 1992 New Earnings Survey

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  No-smoking Policy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will introduce a non-smoking policy for all office accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Martin
  The Administration Committee's responsibility in respect of no-smoking areas covers only offices occupied by Members and their staff and certain communal areas. I shall nevertheless arrange for the Committee to consider this matter.

HEALTH

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce capitation funding for general practitioner fund holders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A capitation element has been included in the guidance for setting fund holders' budgets for 1993–94. Work is continuing on refining the methodology used.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the deregistration of adults on NHS dental practice lists from the beginning of the current financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Between 1 April and 30 November 1992, 4,066,101 adult patients were removed from national health service dental lists. In the same period 5,987,906 adult patients were added. This represents a net-overall increase of 1,921,805.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department has given to NHS trusts concerning the practice of contracting out medicinal and laboratory services to private companies in which trust employees have a direct pecuniary interest.

  Mr. Sackville
  Revised guidance on standards of business conduct for national health service management and staff was issued on 20 January in circular HSG(93)5, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has had concerning the Royal Marsden hospital; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) how many petition signatures she has received to date concerning the future of the Royal Marsden hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As at 27 January we had received 390 letters from hon. Members and members of the public and a petition containing approximately 420,000 signatures.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of waiting time for patients seeking orthodontic treatment in Newham.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by specialty for district health authorities and national health service trusts is published in "Hospital Waiting Lists, In-Patients and Day Cases", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list in order for the United Kingdom, and for each country that has banned tobacco advertising which has been studied by the Department's chief economist, the estimated influence of a ban, restrictions on advertising short of a ban, health warnings, price, and parental example to children; and what estimates were made of the effect of each factor in each country.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to provide estimates for the influence of all the factors. Available information is as follows:—in England, children whose parents both smoke are two and a half times more likely to smoke than children whose parents do not smoke;
  —estimates for the reduction in tobacco consumption associated with a 10 per cent. increase in price range between 2 per cent. and 6 per cent. for the United Kingdom and the countries studied;
  —estimates for the proportional reduction in tobacco consumption associated with an advertising ban range between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. in the countries studied. It is unclear whether these figures would be replicated in the United Kingdom, given the fall in smoking in the United Kingdom from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 30 per cent. in 1990 and the existing controls on tobacco advertising through the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion.

  European Year of Older People
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to the European Year of Older People in 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department of Health is funding the operation of a secretariat for the year (based at the headquarters of Age Concern England). The total costs for the period to 31 March 1994 are estimated at £291,000, to which the Department of Social Security is contributing £40,000. The Department of Health is also providing an officer on secondment to the secretariat at an annual cost of £18,000. The Department has set up an advisory group for the year, the costs of which currently stand at approximately £3,000, with a further £5,000 anticipated during the next financial year.

  It is estimated that the costs of publicity for the year provided through the Department of Health information division will be approximately £135,000.

  Grants for specific initiatives forming part of the programme for the year are being considered by a number of Government Departments. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the level of expenditure. The Department of Health has two part-time officers working exclusively in connection with the year at an aggregate annual cost of

  65
  £18,500. A substantial further, unquantifiable, level of staff input is being provided by other Government Departments.

  The Secretary of State for Health launched the United Kingdom programme for the year on 17 December 1992 in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The Department of Health contributed approximately £14,000 to this event. Individual launch events were also held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where additional programmes specific to these parts of the United Kingdom have been developed. The costs of these are being met principally by the Scottish and Welsh Offices and by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland. Together with publicity materials for the year and other core support, this additional expenditure is expected to be in the region of £150,000 in total, with further unquantifiable costs.

  The budget of the European Commission for the year is 7.5 mecu (approximately £5.9 million) to which the United Kingdom's contribution is approximately 17 per cent. before abatement.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department carries out of the requirement for health authorities and trusts to conduct their business in as open a manner as possible; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service management executive monitors regional health authorities and NHS trusts on all aspects of their performance. Regional health authorities monitor the performance of district health authorities, including the way they conduct their business.

  Mr. Peter Sutcliffe
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement as to how Peter Sutcliffe, a prisoner held in Broadmoor security hospital, was able to smuggle a letter out of that establishment and make unsupervised telephone calls; and what arrangements will be made at the hospital to prevent such occurrences.

  Mr. Yeo
  Arrangements for patients' mail and telephone calls in the special hospitals are the responsibility for the special hospitals service authority.

  The circumstances in which mail may be opened and inspected, or withheld from patients, are defined in section 134 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Broadmoor hospital policy is that patients may make telephone calls if they have the consent of their clinical team and the intended recipient of the call. All calls are subject to monitoring by the hospital staff.

  The authority informs me that they are not aware of any departure from these policies in Mr. Sutcliffe's case.

  Nurses, Merseyside
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the North Mersey community national health service trust on the effect of the reduction in numbers of grades C and H nurses in the current reorganisation of district nursing on Merseyside.
  66
  Mr. Sackville
  None. The management of nursing services at the North Mersey Community national health service trust is a matter for the trust board. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. R. James, for details.

  Smoking
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff, as full time equivalents, and at what grade were employed in each district health authority within the Mersey region dedicated to smoking cessation work with the general public in each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many clinic sessions were offered and in which discipline in each district health authority within the Mersey region dedicated to smoking cessation work with the general public in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Professor A. M. Breckenridge, chairman of Mersey regional health authority, for details.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the preliminary results of the breast screening programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We intend to publish a report on the English and Welsh breast screening programme in March 1993 giving data for 1991–92. This report will be published in conjunction with the Scottish report and will cover the three key areas of the programme: acceptability of screening invitation; quality assurance and monitoring and evaluation.

  Home Helps and Home Carers (Hampshire)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the total number of home helps' and home carers' hours provided in Hampshire in each year since 1987; and, in each year, what was the average number of hours(a) per user and (b) per pensioner in the county;

  (2) what was the charge per hour for home helps/home carers in Hampshire in each year since 1987, expressed in (a) actual prices and (b) 1987 prices.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department does not collect data in the form requested. Information on hours of service received by clients, numbers of clients, and maximum, minimum and flat rate hourly charges made by individual local authorities for home help/home care services is available in "Personal Social Services Statistics—Actuals" published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). Copies of this publication covering the years up to 1990–91 are available in the Library.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds are available and in which financial years to allow local authorities to build more secure places to ensure that persons aged 15 or 16 years are not remanded to prison.
  67
  Mr. Yeo
  The capital allocation for 1992–93 and 1993–94 to fund additional secure places for juvenile remands is £680,000 and £3,248,000 respectively. Funding for succeeding years has not yet been confirmed.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated need for more places in secure units for juveniles in each county in the east midands.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is estimated that an additional five to eight secure places will be required by authorities in the East Midlands as a whole for the purposes of implementing the Criminal Justice Act. Because of the small numbers involved it is not practicable to break this estimate down between counties.

  The ability of the existing secure facilities in the East Midlands to cater for existing demands, and the implications of plans to develop secure units in adjoining regions, are also being taken into account in developing a capital programme for the region.

  General Practitioner Surgeries
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's or health authorities' roles and responsibilities in respect of each stage followed in building a new general practitioner surgery, including how the financing is arranged throughout.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under their terms of service general practitioners are required to provide proper and sufficient accommodation at their practice premises for the provision of general medical services. Under the cost rent and improvement grant schemes they can apply for financial assistance in purchasing premises or improving existing premises. The details of these schemes, and the procedures to be followed, are set out in the statement of fees and allowances payable to general practitioners.

  Family health service authorities have delegated responsibility for managing these schemes within the resources allocated to them in line with local service priorities. Over £126 million were spent on such schemes in 1991–92, an increase, in real terms of some 72 per cent. over 1989–90.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has so far been made in extending the membership of the relevant advisory committees in the context of the recent announcement of the extension of the limited list prescribing system to include 10 new categories of pharmaceutical products.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received suggestions from relevant organisations and will announce the names of new members shortly.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement giving details of the different options for reducing the medicines bill to the national health service which she considered prior to the announcement of the extension of the limited list prescribing system and, in the case of each of those options, why it was rejected.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The selected list scheme has been in operation since 1986 and has limited the rate of growth in 68
  the drugs bill without jeopardising patient care. Extending its scope to additional therapeutic categories was therefore an obvious step to take, so that this effect could continue. We are also re-negotiating the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. We are in discussion with the pharmaceutical industry about other possible ways of controlling the drugs bill, and any proposals which emerge from those discussions will be carefully considered.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will undertake a review of the working of the various national health service trusts to gauge how far(a) money if following patients about the country, (b) trusts are being monitored by regional health authorities, (c) what influence such authorities are exerting on trusts and (d) what further regulations she expects to bring in on trusts' responsibilities; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The increased number of patients treated in 1991–92 (7.2 per cent. in all hospital/units, 8.2 per cent. in national health service trusts) and the successful elimination of two-year waits in all regions is clear evidence that the NHS reforms are working and that NHS trusts are leading the way in improving efficiency and patient care. Regional health authorities are responsible for overseeing health care in their regions, and can exert influence over trusts through district health authorities and their purchasing contracts. There is no reason to expand the existing regulatory framework for trusts.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to revamp the regional health authority tier in order to bring in new people and new thinking into regional strategic health care; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As our reforms continue to be implemented, we will consider whether any changes should be made in relation to the functions of regional health authorities. We will announce any proposed changes when our considerations are complete.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospitals for which current plans for closure have been referred to her Department, including the proposed dates for closure.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following contested proposals to close facilities have been referred to, and are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

  Clapham hospital

  Leavesden and Harperbury hospital

  Dates for closure or other changes can be announced only once final decisions have been taken.

  Public Subscriptions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidelines(a) for health trusts and health authorities when working with appeals raising money for new equipment and building works and (b) on openness between trusts and appeals in raising a public subscription.
  69
  Mr. Sackville
  The Government greatly appreciate local fund-raising activities which supplement national health service funding, and continue to welcome a closer working relationship between the health service and local voluntary and community groups. We believe that the details on fund raising events are best decided at local level, and have no plans to introduce guidelines for NHS trusts and health authorities.

  Smoking
  Ms. Walley
  ; To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will send a copy of her statement on smoking in the workplace and public places to each hon. Member; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My reply to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is freely available in the Official Report at column 697 on 26 January 1993.

  Hospitals (Brighton)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between officials from her Department and Brighton health authority with regard to the future of the Royal Alexandra children's hospital, Brighton; and if she will list the dates of and participants at each meeting.

  Mr. Sackville
  Representatives from South East Thames regional health authority gave me the South East Thames capital investment strategy on 2 July 1992, officials from the Department were present. Discussions are continuing between Brighton Health Care national health service trust and the national health service management executive southern outpost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the date of the meeting when her Department and Brighton health authority first advised the Rockinghorse Appeal Trust that they no longer intended to proceed with further buildings and development at the Dyke road Brighton site.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Brighton Health Care national health service trust, Brighton health authority and the Rockinghorse Appeal Trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. J. Simmonds, the acting chairman of Brighton health authority, for details.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department agreed with Brighton health authority to bring forward the date of the move of the Royal Alexandra hospital, Brighton from its present site.

  Mr. Sackville
  The relocation of the Royal Alexandra hospital is part of the Brighton Health Care national health service trust development programme and will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval in principle later this year.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the funds raised by the Rockinghorse Appeal Trust for the Royal Alexandra hospital will be used to develop children's hospital services in Brighton.

  Mr. Sackville
  Discussions are on-going between Brighton Health Care national health service trust and the Rockinghorse Appeal Trust.
  70
  (P) Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will identify how much capital and revenue funding her Department has earmarked for the transfer of the Royal Alexandra children's hospital to the Royal Sussex site;

  (2) what capital and revenue funding commitments have been made to Brighton Health Care trust concerning the redevelopment of the Royal Sussex county hospital for each year from 1993 to 2003.

  Mr. Sackville
  Revenue funding for Brighton Health Care trust is a matter for Brighton health authority and other purchasers. Total capital spending for Brighton Health Care for the year commencing 1 April 1993 is £4.649 million. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Spiers, the chairman, for details.

  Chelmsford Hospice
  (P) Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money the Chelmsford hospice can expect to receive as a result of the Minister of State's announcement on 26 January increasing funding for the hospice movement in the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The funding of individual projects is a matter for discussion and agreement with the health authorities concerned.

  Abortion
  (P) Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the rate of physical complications arising following an abortion after the specified period for the notification of the abortion to her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. For information about the short and long-term sequelae of abortion I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 January at column 536. Other information is given in two published studies; the joint study of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled "Induced abortion operations and their early sequelae." Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1979; 135: 175–180; and Saha A, Savage W and George J. "The Tower Hamlets Daycare Abortion Service Study", October 1992: 49–56. Copies of both papers are available in the Library.

  (P) Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has regarding the percentage of cases in which a blood transfusion is required following an abortion.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 536, what specific procedures are required to be undertaken prior to an abortion to bring to the attention of the woman (a) the nature and risks of the operation and alternative treatments and (b) the way in which the operation affects the foetus.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is normal clinical practice to inform a patient about the risks of any operation and possible
  71
  alternative courses of action. If a woman wishes to have information concerning the foetus we would expect whatever information is appropriate to be provided. The abortion counselling guidance in the Department's circular HC(77)26 is extant.

  Birmingham General Hospital
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is proposing to take following the submission to her by South Birmingham community health council of the Audit Commission report into the closure of medical beds at Birmingham general hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Audit Commission report, along with other evidence, will be taken into account in reaching a decision on the proposed changes to health services in South Birmingham.

  NHS (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of capital expenditure in the NHS in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what was the split between hospital building and equipment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Gross national health service capital expenditure for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was £1,603 million, £1,668 million and £2,303 million respectively.

  In 1990–91 capital spending within the hospital and community health services was divided as follows:

  Per cent.

  Building and engineering works

  61.3

  Equipment and furniture

  12.8

  Vehicles

  1.6

  Other

  24.4

  Figures for later years are not yet available.

  Azapropazone
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on Azapropazone in cash terms, and as expenditure per 1,000 population in each NHS region and health district in 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [Holding answer 19 January 1993]: Azapropazone is currently manufactured by one company. The release of the data requested would indicate the company's trading position and could affect the company's business. It is therefore considered commercially confidential.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pâté de Foie Gras
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 November to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies),Official Report, column 610, if he will provide the figures for imports of pâté de foie gras for 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not yet available. Provisional data for the whole of 1992 is likely to become available from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in mid-February. Upon receipt of the information I shall write to the hon. Member again.
  72
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the controls on the production of pâté de foie gras in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Pâté de foie gras is not produced in the United Kingdom and there are therefore no specific controls on production methods. Were anyone to propose starting foie gras production, the Government would wish to introduce welfare rules to ensure that force feeding was not permitted.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest number of cattle born after July 1988 that have now been certified as having contracted BSE.

  Mr. Soames
  At 22 January 1993, 1,197 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy had been confirmed in Great Britain in cattle born after 18 July 1988. Investigations into many of these cases are continuing but it is clear that most had access to feed containing ruminant protein. All the evidence continues to show the ban on feeding such material to ruminants will ultimately eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 October 1992,Official Report, column 687, whether salmonella testing on eggs and poultry that takes place in the country of origin is to a similar standard as that required in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no harmonised rules for the salmonella testing of poultry within the European Community. A number of member states, including the United Kingdom, have introduced testing programmes of differing standards. With effect from 1 January 1994, all member states will have to comply with the requirements of directive 92/117/EEC which includes rules for the control of salmonella in poultry breeding flocks.

  Milk
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the milk quota regulations and administration that will follow the winding-up of the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Curry
  New EC regulations on milk quotas will come into effect on 1 April 1993. The Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1991 will be amended as soon as the detailed EC rules have been agreed. These regulations will be further amended once a decision has been taken on the future arrangements for carrying out the administrative tasks which are currently performed on behalf of the Agriculture departments by the Milk Marketing Boards.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Italian Government introduced a quota scheme for milk; what was the original allocation for Italy; what it is at the present time; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the delay in implementation of milk quotas in Italy; and if he will make a statement.
  73
  Mr. Curry
  Domestic legislation to implement in full the milk quota system in Italy by allocating quota to individual producers was passed by the Italian Parliament in November 1992. When milk quotas were introduced in the EC in 1984, Italy was allocated in total 8.8 million tonnes of wholesale quota and 1.1 million tonnes of direct sales quota. In the current quota year (1992–93) Italy has at its disposal 8.3 million tonnes and 0.7 million tonnes respectively. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the Italian Government for the delay in fully implementing the quota system in Italy. The enforcement of the EC quota regulations is a matter for the EC Commission.

  Beef
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for his Department to use the service provided at commercial rates by the data centre for beef.

  Mr. Soames
  The recently adopted Community requirements for identification and subsidy controls do not require any great increase in the need for centralised computerised systems. The animal data centre would have to demonstrate that it was more efficient and cost effective than other interested organisations to obtain any work that was put out to tender.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the nations exempted from the Fishery Limits Act 1976 to fish in British national waters, together with the dates of exemption.

  Mr. Curry
  The countries designated under section 2(1) of the Fishery Limits Act 1976 as counties whose fishing boats may fish within British fishery limits, and the dates of their designation, are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands (1983) and Spain and Portugal (1986) although under the EC common fisheries policy Greece, Italy and Luxembourg have no quotas to fish in United Kingdom waters. Under their Act of Accession to the EC Spain and Portugal are currently limited to western waters. Under annual EC regulations fishing boats from the Faroes, Norway and Sweden may also fish in United Kingdom waters within the terms of bilateral fisheries agreements.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 October 1992,Official Report, columns 686–87, what further information is now available for farmers on CAP reform.

  Mr. Curry
  On 11 January a booklet on the allocation of quotas under the sheep annual premium scheme was sent to the majority (some 44,000) of sheep producers in England with the first round of allocations; we aim to deal with the second round of allocations to producers during February. An explanatory booklet, "CAP Reform in the Beef Sector" was sent to all registered beef producers on 26 January. In addition, a consultation document was sent to organisations representing the farming industry on 74
  25 January covering aspects of implementation of the quota system in the livestock sector. Copies of all these documents have been placed in the Library of the House. Information on the implications of the integrated administration and control system will be made available as soon as possible.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the impact of GATT on CAP; and if he will make it his policy to get the relevant and appropriate information to the British farmer.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 30 November 1992 at column 59. My colleagues and I have regularly addressed the relationship of a GATT deal to the CAP in our contacts with farmers.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy, when further reforms to the agricultural industry are being considered, to increase the lead time to represent one seasonal cycle of the particular commodity involved.

  Mr. Curry
  When reforms are being considered, my right hon. Friend and I make every effort to ensure that the timing of their eventual implementation is as helpful as possible to farmers.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the income levels and prospects of hill farmers, in the light of changes in hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Income levels of hill farmers were fully considered during the recently completed autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. I have nothing further to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Lloyd) on 10 December at column 757.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the effectiveness of veterinary surgeons in identifying ante-mortem diseases including salmonellosis, listerosis and leptospirosis in the course of examining animals at slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Soames
  Veterinary surgeons are specifically trained to identify clinical signs of all animal disease. In the course of examining animals at slaughterhouses, veterinary surgeons make use of that training, and their experience in hygiene, pathology, bacteriology, parasitology, physiology and animal husbandry to detect diseases and conditions which may present a risk to the handlers of meat and the ultimate consumer, and which may not be detectable by routine post-mortem inspection.

  Wool
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the withdrawal of the guaranteed price for wool; if he will consider the phasing out of the guaranteed price over two or three years; and if he will make a statement.
  75
  Mr. Curry
  I have received a number of representations on this subject. The Government have no plans to reconsider abolishing the wool guarantee on 30 April, which will implement a decision announced more than four years ago.

  Shamrock (GB) Ltd.
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has of breach of quarantine regulations at Shamrock (GB) Ltd., and what action will be taken.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry became aware of an alleged breach of quarantine regulations at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. through a "World in Action" documentary, screened on 22 June 1992. A full investigation of the alleged incident has now been completed and it has been concluded that no criminal proceedings can be commenced. The alleged incident took place on 5 November 1991, so by the time the Ministry became aware of it, summary proceedings, which must be started within six months of the incident, were time barred. There was insufficient evidence to commence a prosecution for an indictable offence.

  Fishing Industry (EC Funding)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent progress in defining how EC objective 6 funding may be harnessed by fishing communities.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 11 January at column 623.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Recreation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what plans they have to increase recreational opportunities on Church Commission land.

  Mr. Alison
  While the Commissioners are not planning any special initiatives, they are always prepared to discuss and consider any worthwhile proposal.

  Bishops
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners for how many bishops the Church Commissioners are currently making financial provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  To total of 44 Diocesan bishops (including the two archbishops) and 68 suffragan or assistant bishops.

  Church Buildings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what consideration is given to the use of church buildings for the use of other denominations, cultural or social housing before disposal is decided upon in the open market.
  76
  Mr. Alison
  When a Church of England church is closed for regular public worship, it first becomes the duty of a committee of the diocese to seek a suitable alternative use for the redundant building. These committees are prepared to consider uses along the lines advocated by the hon. Member and there are, indeed, many examples where redundant churches have been put to such uses.

  Redundant Churches (Muslim Communities)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners how many redundant churches in the last five years have been made over to Muslim communities.

  Mr. Alison
  None.

  Clergy (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement of the current provision made for clergy taking early retirement.

  Mr. Alison
  There are two forms of provision which provide an immediate pension. Voluntary retirement may take place up to five years before the minimum normal pension age of 65; pension benefits are based on actual service but reduced for early commencement. Ill health retirement may occur at any age, subject to medical evidence; pension benefits are based on actual plus prospective service.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on his proposed changes to legal aid entitlement; and what were the proportions in favour and against these proposals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I have received a number of such representations, the majority of which are opposed to the proposals.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his current estimate of expenditure on legal aid in the Greater London area for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is estimated that net legal aid expenditure in the Greater London area in 1992–93 will amount to £245 million.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what expenditure will be incurred in legal aid during the current year; what were the figures five, 10 and 15 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Net expenditure on legal aid for the current year is expected to be £1,107.0 million. Net expenditure incurred five, 10 and 15 years ago, at current prices, is as follows.
  77

  Net expenditure

  £ million

  1977–78

  230.6

  1982–83

  374.4

  1987–88

  596.8

  1992–93

  1,107

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many poll tax cases are currently awaiting court hearing.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of summonses issued for the non-payment of the community charge is included in the information supplied to the Library of the House. Not all summonses will result in a court hearing; some subsequently will be withdrawn before reaching court, but in the last recorded quarter 7,700 people attended court in connection with liability orders.

  Commercial Court
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to restore the commercial court to full strength; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Three nominations have been made recently to the pool of judges who may sit in the commercial court, bringing the number of nominees up to 11. Additional judges are therefore available for the Lord Chief Justice to deploy there, subject to other demands for judges of the Queen's Bench Division. For a more detailed and wideranging statement of the correct position, the hon. Member is referred to the Official Report, 19 January 1993 at column 353–58.

  Crown and Commonwealth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions he has had with other Commonwealth Governments about the common constitutional link of the Crown.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when a High Court judge will be made available in Birmingham to try a civil action arising from wrongful behaviour in the West Midlands serious crimes squad; what waiting period currently applies to civil cases requiring a High Court judge not involving the West Midlands serious crimes squad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It has not been possible to identify the case in question from the details provided by the hon. Member. Most of the unlisted Queen's Bench Division cases being received by Birmingham crown court are being warned for trial during the period 21 April to 30 June 1993. However, if the length of the case referred to is likely to exceed two weeks it is possible that it will be heard after the long vacation.

  Inquests (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department by what method inquest juries are selected in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The method used to select jurors to serve on coroners' juries in Northern Ireland is the same as that which applies to the summoning of jurors to serve in criminal cases. That is, the selection is based on a system of random computer selection.

  In practice, this means that when a coroner requires a jury to be summoned, he arranges to obtain a list of names taken sequentially from the jury list maintained for the county court division within which the inquest is to be held. That list is compiled by random computer selection of electors resident within that division who are eligible to serve as jurors. A sufficient number of jurors will be summoned to allow a jury to be convened; a coroner's jury is required by statute to consist of between not less than seven and not more than 11 persons.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will re-examine the way in which inquests are conducted in Northern Ireland in the light of the inquest into the death of Seamus McElwaine.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no reason to believe that the inquest into the death of Seamus McElwaine was conducted other than regularly and in accordance with the established practice at inquests. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proceedings at this inquest necessitate a re-examination of the conduct of inquests in Northern Ireland.

  Independent Tribunals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to ensure more people from ethnic minorities in Bradford are appointed to all tribunals under the independent tribunal service; if he will give the present composition of all tribunals serving Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To encourage more ethnic minority practitioners to come forward for consideration, the Lord Chancellor has made widely available to ethnic minority practitioners and representative groups the booklet which sets out the requirements for each appointment and describes the judicial appointments system generally.

  The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office those best qualified, regardless of sex, ethnic origin, political affiliation or religion and appointments must be justified on merit. The Lord Chancellor appoints only the legal chairmen of the tribunals under the independent tribunal service.

  Information held on the ethnic origin of 36 members of the social security appeal tribunal in Bradford shows that three out of the 36 are from ethnic minorities. Of the 69 members of the panel for the disability appeal tribunal covering Bradford six are of ethnic origin.

  Legal Advice
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to introduce a legal advice scheme in county courts.
  79
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to extend the legal aid scheme to provide a court-based advice service.

  Judges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges have been convicted of a criminal offence in each year since 1972; and what was the nature of the offence.
  80
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not readily available. The Lord Chancellor expects that judges will draw information about convictions to his notice. Information is then kept on the individual records of the judge concerned.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Manufacturing Industry: Government Strategy
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the interests of manufacturing industry, it would be desirable to publish a White Paper defining the Government's industrial strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government attach great importance to the interests of the manufacturing industry. However, we do not believe publication of a White Paper in itself would make a real contribution to industrial growth.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I stifle a gasp of astonishment. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that we have been waiting for months for a comprehensive statement of the Government's policy on industrial strategy. Would not one of the major effects be to lift back into manufacturing industry a large part of the unemployment that at present exists?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry to cause the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to gasp with surprise. I believe that no government have taken greater care to express their determination to support manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister himself loses no opportunity to reinforce the activities of the DTI.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not the reason that the noble Baroness was unable to answer the Question put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that the Government do not have an industrial strategy and therefore it would be redundant for them to issue a White Paper?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the Government's industrial strategy, which is very clear, consists of doing things about it. In practice, it means creating a climate within which industry can thrive and ensuring that the policies of both the DTI and the rest of government take the needs of business into account. I believe that the reduction in interest rates, the control of inflation and the currency benefits all show that determination.
Lord Prior: My Lords, contrary to what one might have expected, is the noble Baroness aware that I agree with what she said and do not agree with the other two supplementary questions? Is she also aware that the sort of visits the Prime Minister made to India and the Middle East last week do an enormous amount to help British industry, and that he should be warmly congratulated and encouraged with other senior Ministers to do more of the same and often? Is she further aware that we welcome the renewed interest of the Government in manufacturing industry and hope that before long that may percolate through to the Treasury as well?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Prior for saying so well something which very much needs saying. I hope that the whole House will celebrate the news that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister brought back with him from his visits this past week. I believe that the support of the Treasury in the reduction of interest rates and the nature of the Autumn Statement prove the support for manufacturing that runs throughout Government.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, ought not the Minister to take her tongue out of her cheek,

3
especially bearing in mind those original replies? Does she realise that, following the announcement of 31 pit closures, 30,000 engineering jobs in the engineering support industries were to go? Where is the Government's faith in and support for manufacturing there?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it always seems to escape noble Lords on the opposite side that one of the elements of global competition and future success for the United Kingdom is productivity. There are increases in productivity that are much to be admired at their highest levels. I would also point out that manufacturing output is over a fifth higher than it was in 1981. I would point out too that for industry to grow and be successful it is important that we have a balanced energy policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Prior as to the real value of the Prime Minister's visits. Will she agree to persuade her colleagues that there would be some value in producing a clear White Paper on government industrial strategy in order, first, to prove that they have one, and, secondly, to clear away from the minds of those rather superior persons in the Treasury the idea that manufacturing does not count? It might even persuade some of her colleagues in the Treasury not to be too convinced that industrial manufacturing recovery is already an established fact. It is not.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend Lord Peyton that the basis for manufacturing success and the success of many industries which we sometimes neglect to praise in your Lordships' House is well established. We have in this country in the pharmaceutical industry and in the automotive industries manufacturing capacity second to none. A White Paper certainly has its place in many instances. But I believe that industry itself would want to see us being practical, not talking about it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that even though the Government may be hesitant, a number of other organisations—notably the CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation —have produced their views on the subject? Would it not be to the advantage of government for their views on this important issue to be clearly set out so that we can stimulate a national debate and all of us can try to help industry to get moving again in Britain?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I believe that we all are focused on helping industry to move in this country. Often one of the purposes of a White Paper is to stimulate public debate. There seems to be no need for that. Also, I am relying on my noble friend Lord Peyton to explain to the Engineering Employers' Federation why putting the DTI into Treasury would not work.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which I was about to ask in another form, I ask the following
4
question. What is the objection to publishing a White Paper so that it can at least be discussed and debated in Parliament?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, from experience in this House, your Lordships know well the resources required to produce a White Paper and its impact upon activity while it is under discussion. At this stage in the economic situation we believe that the best we can do is to pursue our policies in support of manufacturing industry.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prior, that the Prime Minister should spend more time in India and less time in Glasgow? Is she aware also that the last time the Prime Minister visited Glasgow he promised faithfully that Great Britain would not leave the exchange rate mechanism, and that there would be no devaluation? The following Wednesday is now well known as "black Wednesday". On Friday, when the Prime Minister visited Glasgow, he promised faithfully that the green shoots of growth in the economy were already showing. Today the pound has collapsed. Can the noble Baroness persuade the Prime Minister to stay away from Glasgow?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we can all remember a time when people from north of the Border complained that the Prime Minister never visited Scotland. I hope that the majority of people are now delighted that he does.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I felt your Lordships would like to hear me ask a question. We have only three Questions on the Order Paper today and I am sure that your Lordships would like to hear mine. I understand that a White Paper takes some work. However, one wonders what the noble Baroness's right honourable friend is doing before breakfast, lunch and dinner; given that he does not seem to be doing anything for industry at the moment, perhaps he could write a White Paper.
On a more serious note, does not the noble Baroness realise that her remarks sound complacent? Is she not aware that the two central facts regarding manufacturing industry are, first, that the balance of payments on manufacturing account continues to deteriorate and that there is a serious restraint on growth? Secondly, her remarks on productivity are quite misleading. Productivity ceased significantly to rise around 1989, and there is a genuine question as to when it will resume. That is one of the many reasons a White Paper would be helpful. However, does not the noble Baroness agree that nothing would be a substitute for improvement in the economic policy?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry if I appeared to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Perhaps I can restate my comments on productivity. Productivity has risen nearly two-thirds since 1981. In the latest three months, productivity and exports are at record levels. We must acknowledge the achievements made in industries which are able to bring global contracts to this country. I apologise also if I sounded complacent. No

5
one in the Department of Trade and Industry has any doubts with regard to the amount of work to be done. I can assure the noble Lord that we believe that manufacturing industry provides the block upon which our economy will be built and service industries the cement.

Tibet
2.49 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken in pursuit of their policy to promote unconditional dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the People's Republic of China concerning the future of Tibet.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have consistently urged the Chinese authorities to enter into a proper dialogue with the Tibetans, including with the Dalai Lama, as the only realistic means of resolving their differences. Such talks should he held without preconditions. In January we reminded the Chinese Embassy of our position and we will continue to urge dialogue. Both sides must demonstrate imagination and readiness to compromise.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may first say how much I appreciate this step forward in terms of government policy. It is very welcome. But is it not now time to recognise that in 1950 Tibet was invaded by massive Chinese forces; that since then it has been occupied by massive Chinese forces; that this invasion was condemned on three occasions by the United Nations; and that the people of Tibet under the leadership of the Dalai Lama have been struggling non-violently ever since for their right to self-determination and independence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. The Government's view is that all peoples have a right to self-determination but that this right can be expressed in several different ways. There are difficult issues involved in deciding who are a people with a right to self-determination as there is no authoritative UN text in this respect. I know that the noble Lord has recently written to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who will be replying as soon as possible about this detailed matter. We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal. Some of those who are arguing for self-determination are in fact asking for independence. But it would be no service to the Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence at this time.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that when the Dalai Lama came to Strasbourg in 1989 he offered an olive branch to the Chinese. He was willing to discuss with them any aspect of the future of Tibet and accepted that it might not be possible for the Tibetans to have independence.
6
He said that some time ago. I would therefore encourage my noble friend to follow the line that she and the Government are pursuing.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what she has just said. We understand that the Chinese have offered to talk to the Dalai Lama about Tibet but they have set certain preconditions. We do not believe that one can go into such talks with preconditions. That is how the Dalai Lama has in the past responded—positively to the principle of talks but not to having preconditions. We are aware that there have been subsequent talks but we believe that the impasse still has to be resolved. That is why I finished my primary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as I did.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to point out to the Chinese that so long as they treacherously murder the once free Tibetans the people of Hong Kong will not be very happy about the prospect facing them in 1997?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties but I do not think that there is a read-across or a comparison to Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration on Hong Kong is an international treaty registered at the UN. It lays down a series of guarantees for human rights in Hong Kong after 1997. There is no such similar UN registered treaty for Tibet. They are two separate and different matters. But we will of course watch very carefully and I know that my right honourable friend takes careful note of what is said in your Lordships' House.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, if the Dalai Lama comes here later in the year, do the Government intend to have further discussions with him?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Dalai Lama has indeed visited this country—in fact twice I believe in 1991. On the second occasion there was a private meeting with the Prime Minister and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. All these contacts are in the Dalai Lama's private and religious capacity. That does not alter our view of the political status. I understand that should the Dalai Lama visit the UK this May a programme will be arranged for him. We have no objection in principle to British Government Ministers meeting privately with the Dalai Lama as before.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, would it not be a good plan to get together with the United States simply to press the Chinese to end their illegal occupation of Tibet?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. At the moment it is not particularly clear what line the new President of the United States will take on this matter. The occupation by China as described by my noble friend is obviously not described as an occupation by many others in the world. But as relationships develop still further with the new administration in

7
Washington we will see what may be done to bring about the very talks that my noble friend Lady Elles was referring to in her supplementary question.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ennals, I welcome the Government's decision to reject preconditions for these talks but I remind the Minister that it is now more than 30 years since the UN resolution on the right to self-determination for Tibet was passed. In the light of that, and in the light of the deplorable record of the Chinese Government on human rights in Tibet, does the Minister not agree that we must continue to exert international pressure on the Chinese Government to change their policies in this respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would not want it to be thought from my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that we are not concerned about the items that the noble Baroness has just mentioned. Of course we are concerned about the reports of widespread human rights abuses in Tibet, and indeed throughout China, because they do not stop at the internal Tibet-China border. We have raised this issue with senior Chinese leaders on a number of occasions in recent months. Unfortunately the stories of detention of prisoners without trial and of physical abuse are very common in the whole area. To the extent that the allegations of torture are true we condemn them. But we will take whatever opportunities we can to bring about a better situation for all the peoples of China, including the Tibetans.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the conference of distinguished international lawyers from 18 different countries which was held in London early in January reached the conclusion that on every basis of deciding by international law whether a group of peoples or nations have a right to selfdetermination—language, history, culture and others —the Tibetans would be considered to be a nation for that purpose? If they had the opportunity and they wished by self-determination to move towards independence, would it not be for them to decide and not for Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, neither we nor our partners believe that this would be a realistic proposal. I cannot see what service it would be to the Tibetans to encourage them in this way. We know that China has long held a special position in Tibet and that Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent state. Nor does any member of the UN regard Tibet as independent. I simply think that we would be going down a route which would not be satisfied. Successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. I do not believe that that view will change in this country or in the world at large.

Falkland Islands
2.58 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the result of the visit by the Foreign Secretary to Argentina, in view of statements by President Menem and Foreign Minister Guido di Tella concerning the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, our policy on sovereignty remains unchanged. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear both before and during his visit that there is no change in our position about sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. But in view of the statement made by Foreign Minister di Tella on 11 th January after the meeting that there had been "spectacular changes" in relations between Argentina and Britain, and bearing in mind the statement by President Menem on 12th January in which he dismissed the suggestion of shared sovereignty and went on to say,
"It will be full sovereignty, or we will continue to struggle to get it",
and that this would be achieved by the year 2000,
"without a single drop of blood",
does not my noble friend believe that the islanders have a considerable amount to be concerned about, bearing in mind also the fisheries regime which they believe very strongly will seriously jeopardise their main source of income?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. Certainly the Argentines have been made fully aware yet again that we have no doubt about British sovereignty over the islands. The Argentine Foreign Minister agreed that the umbrella formula was working satisfactorily. We know that a lot of comment is made by Argentines in order, if one likes, to keep a mental hold on some of the Falkland Islanders. The islanders should not doubt us and neither should they doubt us in our action to seek to bring about the right kind of fishing protection which protects fishing stocks and will continue to give the Falkland Islanders their due income from the fisheries in the region.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we have to do something very early in order to reassure the people in the Falklands? Perhaps we might invite President Menem to come here with his Foreign Secretary on a return visit and for him to state here that in seven years' time, by some means or other, he intends that the Falkland Islands be restored to Argentina. That is an extremely serious statement. It may not cause much perturbation to the Government, but it certainly concerns the people of the Falkland Islands very much indeed.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties. Throughout the time that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spent in Argentina there were no such exchanges as he intimates. In fact, as regards a visit, no

9
representations were made about that either during the Foreign Secretary's visit. Certainly, we have nothing definite in mind. Any visit would need most careful preparation and the timing of it would be all important. Returning to the real anxiety which the noble Lord has—namely, the attitude and anxiety among the Falkland Islanders—Britain is not going to go back on what it has done for those islands. I believe the fact that we have a garrison there is a very good thing. It is one further way —including an improvement in trade which we hope to see—which will help the Falkland Islanders further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, was it made abundantly clear—
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we should all welcome the renewed political, cultural and trade contacts which have been established with the Argentine and we hope that they will continue and grow?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right. The resumption of relations, which are improving, has proved possible only because the Argentines agreed to talk about practical matters without prejudice to either side's position on sovereignty. Sovereignty is not for negotiation. I cannot underline that too strongly to your Lordships. Both sides confirm that the sovereignty formula remains in force, but any better relations in the world are always welcome.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, was it made abundantly clear to the Argentines that any further attempt to grab the Falkland Islands would be fully resisted, as on the previous occasion, and that the operations to resist it would not necessarily be confined to the vicinity of the islands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's great interest in this matter. The position has not changed. I hope that we shall never have to do again what we had to do in 1982, but should the need arise I am sure that Britain and many other nations will join together and repeat the exercise. But I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary. From what we have heard and from the exchanges which took place, I do not believe that anything of that kind is contemplated by the Argentine Government.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, this is a subject which causes great anxiety in the Falkland Islands. It would be very desirable for the Minister's fairly sturdy reply to be given much more publicity. The islanders are very conscious of the fact that the British Government did not take heed of the warnings on the last occasion. I hope that the Government will reiterate, as the noble Baroness has said, that sovereignty is not for negotiation. At the same time will the noble Baroness urge better co-operation on the fishing side? If she reads the reports I believe that she will agree that the Argentines have not been very co-operative.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said earlier. I understand the noble
10
Lord's desire that our firm position is well represented in the Falkland Islands. Perhaps the BBC will carry what we have said in your Lordships' House this afternoon which will also help. I understand the noble Lord's anxiety about the fishery regime in the Falkland Islands. I know that in particular he has expressed anxiety about over-fishing in South Georgia. We really are trying, through the fourth fisheries survey which took place just over a year ago, with more accurate estimates of fish stocks and proper discussion, to make sure that the fish stocks are maintained while permitting adequate fishing for income for the islanders and others in the region.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this was the first visit ever by a Foreign Secretary to Argentina and that as such it has been very widely welcomed? Furthermore, is she aware that since the restoration of diplomatic relations trade has increased rapidly between our two countries and it is now running at an annualised level of over £250 billion bilaterally? Is she further aware that the opportunities for further investment are very great indeed and that that will be of great benefit to both countries in the pursuit of continuing better relations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, an investment promotion and protection agreement is now in force. We hope shortly to negotiate a double taxation agreement with the Argentine. The Argentine's ambitious privatisation programme offers real opportunities to UK industry. We very much welcome the growth in trade which can only help to bring a growth in understanding.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the plundering of fish stocks by the Argentines around the Falkland waters is not only destroying the livelihood of the Falklanders but is also damaging very greatly the world food supply of squid? Why do not the Government send some armed forces to remove them; that is, if we have any left?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, recent agreement offers the best way of achieving sensible co-operation in protecting the economic interests of the Falkland Islanders. I believe that we should continue with that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the Minister said in reply to the noble Lord opposite about an improvement in trade. Can she tell the House precisely what the current balance of trade is with Argentina today?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that I do not have the figure to hand but I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Ashley of Stoke to advance the Second Reading of the Penalty

11
for Murder Bill [H.L.] from Wednesday 10th February to Monday 8th February next.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th December be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to give effect to the recommendations contained in the report by the District Electoral Areas Commissioner, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State laid before Parliament on 10th December last year. The commissioner, Dr. Maurice Hayes, was appointed on 7th July 1992 to make recommendations for the grouping together of local government wards in Northern Ireland into district electoral areas. As noble Lords are aware, since 1973 local government elections in the Province have been held under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation in multi-member constituencies. The constituencies used for local government purposes are called district electoral areas.
It may assist the House if I describe very briefly the background to this draft order. At present, the composition of district electoral areas in Northern Ireland is as set down in the District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The review which has led to this draft order followed on from an earlier review. That considered the number, boundaries and names of local government districts in Northern Ireland and the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which each district is divided.
The District Electoral Areas Commissioner was subsequently appointed to recommend the grouping of wards into electoral areas, in accordance with rules in Schedule 3 to the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1984. The revised structure of district electoral areas embodied in the draft order is the final outcome of this process. The process included the publication of provisional recommendations for public comment. Where necessary, public inquiries were held. In a number of cases, the commissioner amended his recommendations as a result of this consultation.
It is important that this draft order should come into force at the earliest opportunity so that all those engaged in the forthcoming district council elections in Northern Ireland have sufficient time to make their necessary preparations. I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th December be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the background to this order and the inquiries which preceded it. I thank him also for his explanation of its main provisions. The provisions group together new wards—580, I believe—which were constituted under an earlier order into electoral districts for the purpose of local government elections in those districts.
I should like to pay a generous and warranted tribute to the commissioner, Dr. Maurice Hayes. We all know of Dr. Hayes' outstanding contribution to public life in Northern Ireland. He brought integrity, sensitivity and immense experience to his task as commissioner.
Obviously, we do not have any detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland that would enable us to make any detailed or worthwhile comments on the proposals contained in the order. However, I can see that it rightly takes account of some significant population shifts. I have read elsewhere that occasionally a ward has disappeared. That may lead to a sense of loss or even resentment in some quarters. On the other hand, I am also told that occasionally a ward has been reinstated as a basic local government unit. I am sure that that will hearten local people with civic pride. Reading the report, I had the feeling that there had been some trade-offs between neat and exact arithmetical equity and valid considerations of other kinds. That is what one would expect in an enlightened report.
Perhaps I may be allowed to express pleasure that, notwithstanding political campaigns in support of changes in Derry, there has been no radical change in the boundaries of or within that historic city. Like others who are reasonably familiar with Northern Ireland, I believe that Derry Council has established an enlightened, fair and honourable pattern for its governance which could be a model for other local authorities. Thus, in Derry the principle of proportionality applies to committee membership and to the distribution of committee chairs. That principle is also reflected in the council's nominations for membership of external bodies. It seems to me that the principles and practice that are applied in the governance of Derry point to the way ahead.
Finally, in discharging his duties the commissioner was applying ground rules and having regard to general principles which were determined by Parliament. In the result, the proposals contained in the order should be consistent with at least two main principles which are important in the context of Northern Ireland. First, they should reflect the reality of existing community identities in the various parts of Northern Ireland. Secondly, they should ensure that different sections of the community are assured of fair representation in the governance of their own community. It is of immense importance that those two principles are reflected in the proposals contained in the order and I feel sure that the Minister will confirm that they are.
Accordingly, it gives me great pleasure to approve the order and, at the same time, to express the hope that it will be a vitalising force in local government in Northern Ireland.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we, too, are broadly in agreement with this order. The single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland has proved valuable in ensuring that all shades of opinion are adequately represented given the situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is almost certain that if we had had similar arrangements in the rest of the United Kingdom some of the problems that we have encountered in local government in England and Wales would not have arisen.
However, there are a few problems associated with the order which I should like to mention. As I understand it, the law on this matter was one of the final acts of the former Northern Ireland department which initially assumed that local authorities would be divided into single-member wards based on the first-past-the-post system. Only after intervention by Westminster was proportional representation introduced. Looking back over the past 20 years or so, I do not think that many of us have any doubt that the Westminster Parliament was absolutely right to make that decision.
As I understand it, every 10 years the Boundary Commissioner first redraws the boundaries of the 560-odd wards before joining them in groups of five to seven to form 100-odd district electoral areas for the single transferable vote system. That procedure was, I think, the only way possible in 1972 but it should be looked at again now for a number of reasons.
First, the present arrangements are undoubtedly time-consuming since the single-member wards have to be as nearly equal as possible, despite the fact that they will he stuck together to form district electoral areas, or DEAs. As a result, many minor changes have to be made to balance the number of electors between adjacent wards even though the two wards will be in the same DEA. That requires full consultation, including public hearings, to consider all the issues. Because of minor boundary changes, electors may have to change polling place every two or three elections. The shape of both the DEAs and the wards can be extremely peculiar and they do not always represent a natural community. As I understand it, to give just one illustration, in Ballymena, South, the rural ward of Kells has been placed rather awkwardly with a number of urban wards.
A number of changes could be made to make the arrangements rather more satisfactory. First, there should be a boundary commission to determine the lowest tier—that is, the equivalent of the present ward system. That could be a one-off activity, changing only when a locality changes significantly as a result of, for example, a significant housing development. These areas would be the equivalent of parishes in Great Britain, but would not have any representational functions—at least, not at this stage.
Next, the regular task of the boundary review, which would take place every 10 years or so, would consist simply of confirming the great majority of parishes and their grouping into electoral areas. If an area had lost population, it would normally have reduced representation rather than a boundary change. On the other hand, an increase in population would lead to more councillors.
14
There should be greater toleration on the question of the number of councillors allowed per electoral area. Although five to seven is probably ideal, in my view four to nine should be accepted if the circumstances are appropriate. I understand that the Government are aware of some of these shortcomings. I hope that they will look at this question between now and the next occasion when this issue comes before Parliament to see whether such changes should be made.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the careful consideration they have given to this draft order. I should like also to take the opportunity once more to place on record the Government's appreciation of the thorough and expert way in which Dr. Maurice Hayes has discharged his task. He has brought to bear his deep knowledge of the subject gained during his service as the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner in Northern Ireland, independence of mind, impartiality and soundness of judgment. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in recording our gratitude for a job well done and in extending thanks to the four assistant commissioners who helped Dr. Hayes, and to his staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned 580 wards. With respect, I advise him that it is 582 wards. I am sure that he realises that the grouping of wards into electoral areas can be far from straightforward. I accept that it can give rise to strong local feelings. In some cases it may be difficult, if not impossible, to reach a solution that satisfies the genuine concerns of interested parties. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that any proposed pattern of electoral boundaries offers scope for arguing that some alternative scheme is possible.
I do not have to persuade your Lordships' House of the importance to Northern Ireland of fair elections, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, producing elected local institutions which are truly representative of the communities that they administer and serve. We are confident that the framework of district electoral areas which the commissioner has devised provides the best possible basis for such elections.
I listened with care and interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said about the possible consolidation of the procedure. I am sure that he will agree that careful consideration and consultation will be needed before the present two-stage process for drawing up district ward and electoral area boundaries could be changed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to review the procedures at an early opportunity. With those comments, I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993
3.22 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations will replace three existing sets of regulations made in 1982, 1989 and 1991 concerning the wearing of seat belts in motor vehicles. They differ from the earlier sets in that they incorporate provisions of Council Directive 91/671/EEC, and they also make other minor changes agreed following consultation last year. They have already been approved in another place.
As it happens, yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the first seat belt wearing regulations in 1983. They made it compulsory to wear seat belts in the front of those vehicles which were required to have them fitted. At that time that meant, essentially, cars and light vans.
The 1981 Act, and its successor, applied the affirmative resolution procedure to the regulations relating to persons over 14, and the negative procedure to those relating to children in front seats. It made no provision for children in rear seats, but the gap was filled in 1988 thanks to a Private Member's Bill. So rear seat belt regulations appeared in 1989 for children and in 1991 for adults, both sets being subject to affirmative resolution.
So what we are debating is a new set of regulations replacing those three of the existing four which require affirmative resolution. Another set of regulations concerning children in front seats was laid before Parliament on 12th January and is subject to negative resolution. I shall include them in a general description of the new rules because they are all part of the same package. Also before Parliament are regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, making minor technical changes to the enabling legislation, which is now Sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The existing regulations have done excellent service. Those applying to front seats have saved an estimated 200 lives and 7,000 serious injuries in each of the past 10 years. The rear seat belt wearing requirements are estimated to save a further 100 lives a year, making more than 2,000 lives saved in the course of a decade.
So, perhaps not surprisingly, the vast majority of the public now accept the road safety value of seat belts and child restraints, particularly in front seats of cars. There can no longer be any doubt that we have a popular mandate for those measures. Of 105 responses received to the consultation document, only one objected to compulsory seat belt wearing in principle.
Almost 95 per cent. of front seat drivers and passengers now comply with the wearing requirement. That is one of the highest wearing rates in the world. Unfortunately, the rear seat wearing rates are nothing like so good. In post-1987 cars which are required to
16
have rear seat belts fitted, nearly 85 per cent. of children wear them but rather less than 60 per cent. of adults. Improving the wearing rate for rear seat belts will be the major objective of the campaign which the Department of Transport is launching tomorrow.
A person who travels unrestrained in the rear is not simply putting his own safety at risk but also poses a considerable risk to the front seat occupants. In a collision they can be thrown forward with alarming force, and the campaign will highlight that very graphically.
These new regulations will comply with the Community legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts which was adopted at the end of 1991. As often happens with Community legislation, we were already complying with the vast majority of its requirements but there were small differences which required us to amend our own legislation. At the same time the Government consulted on other minor but worthwhile changes, most of which have been adopted. I confess that the resulting statutory instruments look anything but simple, but we are confident that the requirements themselves, as they apply to the vast majority of drivers and passengers, are straightforward enough.
The requirements may be summarised as follows: when travelling in the front seat of any vehicle an adult must wear a seat belt if one is available; when travelling in the rear seat of a car an adult must wear a seat belt if one is available; no child may be carried unrestrained in the front seat of any vehicle; no child may be carried unrestrained in the rear seat of a car if there is an appropriate restraint available anywhere in the vehicle; for that purpose an appropriate restraint is, first, for a child under three years old, a purpose built infant carrier or child seat, and, secondly, for a child of three years or over, a purpose built child seat if one is available, otherwise an adult seat belt.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that these are simple, common sense rules which have the significant merit of saying what a lot of people already believed to be the case.
There are, of course, a number of exemptions. These are almost unchanged from the existing regulations. The most significant change is in the exemption covering fire brigades and police. The limited nature of the previous exemption had caused operational difficulties for the police. However, I can assure your Lordships that chief officers of police have undertaken to direct their personnel to use seat belts at all times except when it would cause them operational difficulties.
The regulations make only relatively minor adjustments to seat belt law, but by simplifying the law and making it more easily understood, we are confident that they can further increase the wearing of seat belts and so make a further step towards meeting the Government's target of reducing casualties by one-third by the year 2000. If your Lordships approve these regulations, they will come into force tomorrow. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we support the regulations, the purpose behind them, and their relative simplicity. Above all, we support any measures that will enhance safety on the roads, safety for passengers, drivers and children in vehicles. Casualties on our roads are still far too high. I believe that it is right to say that in recent years we have managed to achieve advances in this field which compare more than favourably with those of other European Community member states. That is to be thoroughly welcomed.
I know that even today, some 10 years (a decade) after seat belts were originally introduced, in conversation a friend or an individual may say, "I was saved by the fact that I was not wearing a seat belt". I suppose that it is all too easy for such examples to be cited from time to time. However, I submit to the House that the overwhelming evidence goes the other way. Individual examples can never really provide a strong case for changing the law.
I also believe that the arguments about breaches of civil liberties, which were echoed no doubt in this House and certainly in anther place when seat belt legislation was first introduced, have been extinguished by experience. The fact remains that substantial numbers of people, and families, have been saved the trauma arising from the tragic and early death of people within those families.
The fact also remains that charges on our National Health Service have been limited by reason of the action taken, with the overwhelming support of our population.
I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I do not know whether he will be able to answer them because I have given him rather short notice of the fact that I should be raising some of these issues. That is largely because I have not looked at my parliamentary agenda and had not realised that this matter was to be discussed.
My first question is about taxis. I cannot believe that I am alone in my experience of being almost totally unable to use a seat belt in the rear of a taxi. They are either extremely difficult to apply or extremely difficult to undo once one has spent a great deal of time putting them on. It may be that on a short journey, it is almost hardly worth putting them on at all. That is a great misfortune. I do not believe that people take the matter very seriously. I shall come back to that in a moment.
One might just about manage to put on one's seat belt on a 40 minute journey—for example, to Heathrow—about five minutes before arriving at one's destination. However, one is then at grave risk of not being able to catch the aeroplane because one cannot undo the seat belt. That is an important matter because I am not merely relating my own experience. I am sure that many of your Lordships have experienced difficulty in putting on rear seat belts in taxis. Something needs to be done about that.
Were those seat belts capable of being put on easily, the taxi companies should be applauded for advising us to wear them. It would be better if we were given the opportunity to do so.
18
The Minister referred to a campaign that the Government are undertaking. Would he tell us a little more about that? Is it a campaign to be taken to the schools? It is extremely important that that should be done. Who is likely to be recruited to assist the Government in putting over the educational campaign? Indeed, is it to be an educational campaign or is it simply to be a publicity drive? I believe that RoSPA and many other organisations are capable of giving the Government enormous help by taking those kinds of campaigns to the schools.
Roughly how many prosecutions for failure to wear front seat belts have been undertaken in each of the past two or three years? As I said before, there are too many instances in which people do not take the law sufficiently seriously. It is not merely a question of imposing penalties. The police have a duty to enforce the law as best they can, but when these issues have been raised I have asked on several occasions why adequate publicity is not afforded to the potential reduction in damages which may be available to an innocent passenger in a vehicle simply for not wearing a seat belt and thereby constituting an act of contributory negligence. The damages may be reduced by up to 50 per cent. To my mind that is a much more salutary lesson. Giving publicity to that fact would be far more salutary than advertising the criminal penalties which may be applied, which are not terribly consequential.
I should like to ask the Minister a question about rear lap belts. An issue was raised by my honourable friend Joan Walley in another place. She raised the point that the previous Minister responsible for roads and traffic, Mr Chope, had been asked what research the department was carrying out into the potential dangers of wearing single strap seat belts and what statistical information he had on injuries associated with the wearing of single strap seat belts. The reply was:
"Statistics on injuries caused by the wearing of lap belts in the United Kingdom are not available, but research in the United States indicates that lap belts reduced death and serious injury by 25 to 40 per cent. and three point belts by 40 to 50 per cent. Although there is no current research specifically into this topic, the Department is monitoring the effectiveness of all seat belts, in its accident crash investigations".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/92; col. 168.]
On 26th January 1993 my honourable friend asked:
"Is it still the case that no research has been undertaken into the wearing of rear lap belts. If not, why not?".—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 26/1/93; col. 6.]
I do not believe that the Minister's reply on that very important issue was at all convincing.
The last point that I wish to raise relates to European Community harmonising legislation because all the legislation must be harmonised so that no artificial barriers to trade are erected. I remember, back in the days when I was Transport Commissioner, discussing the issues of seat belts in coaches and mini buses. I gather that the Government have been quite active in trying to assist the Commission to bring that forward, but I wonder what is the current state of play. After all, it is now three or four years since that was initially floated in the European Commission. It may be that the Commission has found that there are

19
great technical difficulties in introducing the matter; I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to the House the situation in that regard.
As I said at the beginning, we believe that this legislation is a considerable advance and we welcome it. I thank the Minister for the concise and uncomplicated way in which he introduced the matter to us in the House this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regarding the difficulty of dealing with seat belts in taxis. Being different from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in many ways—political affiliation, shape and age—I support him wholeheartedly in his views on this subject. I am entirely in favour of seat belts in taxis but I find it almost impossible, as the noble Lord does, to deal with them. The noble Lord's statement about putting a seat belt on in the back of a taxi and nearly missing the plane has also been my experience. Therefore, though someone with differing political views and of a different shape from the noble Lord, I have similar views on this matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend about the all but impossible task of putting on a seat belt in the rear seat of taxis. It is quite useless to make this the law and to enact it in this regulation if the physical difficulty of putting on the seat belt prevents most law abiding citizens from actually doing so. It is up to the Government to ensure that taxi firms take another look at this matter.
However, I rise to speak on another more technical point; that is to say, it is not apparent to me, looking at these massive regulations, who is making them. They state at the beginning:
"Now, the Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred",
by various provisions,
"hereby makes the following Regulations".
That seems clear enough but at the end of the substantive regulations, in front of the schedule, it is stated merely that the measure is,
"Signed by authority for the Secretary of State … Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department of Transport".
It is therefore not clear to me—I do not think it will be clear to your Lordships who is making these regulations. Is it the Secretary of State, as stated at the beginning of the regulations? Or is it the case that in some mysterious way in the course of his making the regulations he becomes so bored with them that he devolves responsibility and gives authority—it is not spelt out exactly how this is done—to an Under-Secretary to make the regulations? It is important that when regulations are made Ministers should accept full responsibility for them. Although I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Transport wishes so to do, there is certainly a rather blurred effect here as shown by the examples I have given.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I must ask him whether he is arguing
20
that the ambiguity to which he has properly drawn attention—he is always so perspicacious about these things—is fatal to our willingness otherwise to adopt the draft regulations today.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not wish to argue that. I merely wish my noble friend the Minister to tell us exactly who is making these regulations.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his support for these regulations today. As regards the point the noble Lord and my noble friends made about the difficulty they have experienced in putting on seat belts in the rear of taxis, I must confess I have never personally had that problem. However, I shall investigate the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: You have an official car!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I also travel in taxis. As regards the publicity campaign mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on 2nd February the department will launch a £1 million television campaign on the need to wear rear seat belts. A leaflet will be produced to explain in plain English the changes brought in by the regulations. I take note of his suggestions with regard to schools and his comments about recent prosecution levels as well as the legal question of liability. I will write to the noble Lord on those matters, if that is acceptable to him. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made an interesting technical drafting point on which I have no option but to reply in writing. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he give the House an assurance—he has already said that he will write to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the important point he raised—that he will publicise the fact that contributory negligence allegations can lead to serious deprivation of damages for innocent people? I believe that is a matter that deserves support. On previous occasions when I have referred to this matter I have simply been told that the point has been noted. I believe the House wants something more than that. I hope the Minister will not only refer the matter to the Secretary of State but that he will also ensure that in some way I receive an answer and that the matter will be more widely publicised.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall refer the points just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I will highlight the point about the reduction of damages.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nursing Management: Computer System
3.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the recent report of the Audit Commission, Caring Systems: A Handbook for Managers of Nursing and Project Managers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House will know that over the past few months I have on more than one occasion raised the matter of the use of computers within the National Health Service. As a result of the replies I have received and reports that are now being issued, I believe it is time that some kind of discussion takes place on this matter. I do not believe that the Unstarred Question I have tabled today will be adequate to deal with this matter across the board as it constitutes a massive subject. However, as sure as I am standing here today, this will not be the last time the growing use of computers in the health service is debated.
This Unstarred Question concerns the Audit Commission's report, Caring Systems. However, I must cast my net a little wider than that report as this matter has reared its head on other occasions. A report was commissioned of the National Audit Office by another place. That report was published on 14th November 1990. It is impossible to discuss that entire report in the time available to us today but it was in effect an examination of the use of computers in various health authority regions.
Noble Lords will recall that some weeks ago I tabled a Question about the Wessex Regional Health Authority. My Question was based on the assumption that the loss to that health authority was £43 million. However, I understand that some £20 million has been recovered. The Minister who replied to my Question told me that investigations were taking place. I believe that they had already reached the stage of being dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service. I shall not refer to those matters as in my opinion they are sub judice.
When I read the report of the National Audit Office I was alarmed to discover that even as far back as November 1990 such a report could be written. The Wessex Regional Health Authority affair has been referred to as a scandal. I emphasise that that is not my term. I wish to quote briefly from the report of the National Audit Office which refers to the Wessex Regional Health Authority. It states under the heading "Costs and benefits" with regard to Wessex:
"Original estimate of £26 million (£2 million interim systems). But it soon became clear that £45 million would be needed to fully meet requirements. By 1989 the original estimate had been spent, half on interim systems and total programme costs had risen to £69 million (interim £16 million). Delegation of responsibility for investment to districts makes future expenditure on RISP uncertain. Recent studies have identified quantifiable benefits."
RISP is the regional information systems plan. After the Audit Commission's report was published in August last year, Wessex Regional Health Authority abandoned that system. It would appear the authority had to bear the loss of more than £20 million of the £43 million I have referred to. The other £20 million or so of the £69 million I have already referred to is money which I think was spent by the area health authority in preparing for the system.
Nothing in the document gets to the heart of the problem of what should be done about computers in the health service. It makes some helpful suggestions, as does the Audit Commission's report on caring systems. A week after the Audit Commission's report
22
was published the Department of Health issued a press release which was launched by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place, Mr. Tom Sackville, who said:
"I have been encouraged in my visits around the country to see the enthusiasm of doctors and nurses for the use of computers in patient care. Though there have been some well publicised failures of information technology to meet the needs of users, my overall impression is that computers are being used more and more effectively to improve patient care."
I put down a Question for Written Answer asking what the National Health Service had spent on computers and back-up systems so far. The noble Baroness, as usual, replied very quickly. The aggregate figure given by the noble Baroness was approximately £250 million. However, responsible medical journals, going back to last August, indicate that medical staff are of the opinion that over £1 billion worth of computer and back-up systems are in use in the health service. I do not pretend that I know a great deal about computers. I do not. However, I know that the best computer is useless unless it is used correctly. At the end of the day you will not elicit the right answer unless the computer is operated by somebody who fully understands it and the correct information is put in.
Having studied in depth the auditor's report on the Wessex Regional Health Authority and the behaviour of some of the people involved in the computer business—not the regional health authority—I have no confidence that the health authority is getting a fair deal from the computer managers. I am worried in case the £1,000 billion of computer equipment may be seriously overvalued. The Government's policy is to increase the use of computers in the health service, and I do not disagree with that if that will improve the service. However, I do not want to see the health service become a milch cow for the computer manufacturers.
I have received a brief from the Royal College of Nursing, which has a vital interest because its members are affected. I should have thought that, if one expects medically trained staff also to become technicians, it may be necessary to consider a considerable restructuring of salary grades within the National Health Service. However, I shall say no more on that issue since I believe my noble friend Lord Cocks will deal with that aspect.
I was surprised by the sum of money involved in relation to one health authority because that is not the only case. Further instances are now coming to light of the misuse of computers resulting in financial loss to the National Health Service.
It may seem strange that somebody who comes from the North West should ask a Question about events 200 miles away, but I picked up my information from a small report in the Manchester Evening News. I have been in local government myself and I know what would have happened to me if, when I was leading it, my local authority had lost £46 million. I would not have been transferred anywhere else. I would have been dealt with summarily by the district auditor and might well have ended up in court and bankrupt.
I asked my Question on Monday, 26th October. I then found that a debate had taken place in another place on the previous Thursday in which the new Labour Member of Parliament for Southampton, Itchen—Mr. John Denham—had spoken for 10 minutes on the question of the Wessex computer scandal. The Minister who replied, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, was so concerned by the fact that the National Health Service in Wessex had lost £43 million that he said not a word about it. I find it strange that large sums of money have been spent unwisely yet the Minister replying to a debate in which the subject has been dealt with in some detail makes no comment at all.
I have mentioned the figure of £69 million. This morning it is reported that the BMA is deeply concerned that most of the trust hospitals are running out of funds and the health service may well grind to a standstill. No wonder, if that is the level of efficiency and the ministerial response. A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put his finger on the matter. He said that Ministers have responsibility. However, over the past few years the other place and this House have been transferring one responsibility after another from elected representatives to appointed bodies. We were told that the Secretary of State had the power to do this or to do that. A report published only last week showed that between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the total sum of money spent in the public sector was now spent by appointed bodies. Without wanting to make a political point, perhaps I may point out that we all know where the appointees come from. Ninety per cent. of them come from Central Office. That is undeniable. One has only to see the posts held by former MPs who lost their seats in another place and Members of your Lordships' House; the majority are from the Government Benches.
I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she cares to correct the answer which she gave to my Question on 26th October. I do not suggest for one moment that the Minister tried to mislead me or the House, but the way in which the information was supplied to her and the Answer was written can only be described as misleading. In answer to my Question the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said:
"The department was concerned. Although the scheme was very much a regional one and the region has taken responsibility for the mistakes that were made, the department on a number of occasions, through its regular review system, raised the issue with the region. The Secretary of State quickly appointed a new chairman, who in turn appointed a new regional general manager, whose first act was to call for an inquiry into the scheme and to abandon the project".—[Official Report, 26/10/92; col. 902.]
That answer is not as accurate as it ought to be in the light of information that I have since obtained. I obtained a copy of the auditor's report on the Wessex situation. It was made clear in that report that the new chairman was appointed in 1988 and no action was taken to deal with the situation until 1990. He was in office for nearly 18 months before any action was taken. I understand—the issue is now in the public domain and I cite what is in the report; it was in one
24
of the weekly magazines last week—that the chairman further exacerbated the situation by authorising an order for a computer worth £3.3 million without informing the remainder of the board of the regional authority. By the time the computer was commissioned, it had reduced in value to £1.3 million, a loss of a further £2 million.
Friends of mine asked a lawyer—he has spent a lifetime in local government at senior level and now works in the health service—to provide a brief from the auditor's report. Out of courtesy I made a copy of the brief available to the Minister last week. A number of matters in the report need further examination. I shall not go into them today. However, I wish to put the facts right. According to the auditor's report and the brief that I have, the person who initiated the inquiry and called in the district auditor was the new general manager. Until he arrived, nothing had happened. I suggest that that situation could be dangerous.
I have spoken for some time because the subject is complex. Where is the equal society that the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, tells us he is aiming for? I understand that last week in another place there were robust exchanges between the Labour and Government Benches after the reference by the Secretary of State, Mr. Michael Howard, to the situation in Lambeth.
As a former leader of a local government in one of the largest cities in the country, let me make my position clear. I hold no brief for officers or elected members in local government who do not behave themselves. Even if they behave badly through lack of knowledge, they are liable to surcharge if the ratepayers lose money. However, what happens to people appointed to such positions who (to say the least) prove inadequate and lack ability to carry out the functions with which they have been charged? In the final analysis, it is not the chairman of a regional health authority who is to blame. It is the Secretary of State. He or she has the power to deal with the situation and should start dealing with it in the same way that he or she would deal with local government.
Although such people to whom I have referred are appointed, in terms of public responsibility and the dispersal of public money they are bound by the same laws as local authorities. When people are found to be incompetent, with such sums of money to which I have referred being badly spent, surely it is time that the matter was considered. What is happening now? A Written Question was tabled in another place. The Answer stated that such information was not held centrally. Information referring to £69 million was not held centrally. The information had gone before it was known. No answer is given. The advice is, "Write to the regional chairman". If such advice is used by the government as a defence they ought to bring the regional chairmen to the Dispatch Box. Sometimes the answers from regional chairmen are couched in terms such as, "I am responsible only to the Secretary of State". That is not the most courteous way of dealing with the situation.
I have spoken for some time and have widened the debate from the Motion on the Order Paper.

25
However, I believe that I have given Members on both sides of the Chamber enough information to make them anxious that matters are not as they ought to be. Mr. John Denham, the Member for Itchen, Southampton, is on record as asking that the Public Accounts Committee in another place should review the position. Nothing less than that will suffice. No oath of silence by a Minister of State in another place will close the subject because it is out in the open. What occurred in the South of England is out in the open only because of the pressure by local newspapers asking what is going on.
I express my appreciation to noble Lords who have awaited the debate. Computers are a technical subject. However, I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that the situation requires a thorough examination in the interest of everyone, including that of the health service, so that money does not sweel away as it has in the past.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend for the tenacious way in which he has pursued the issue and has brought it yet again before your Lordships' House.
By coincidence, two days ago I talked to Mr. Ian Pope, a local estate agent for GA Property Services. He told me that he had installed a computer to try to match vendors to purchasers but had had to scrap it because it did not take into account the human element which is particularly important at that stage in the property market. We know that there are problems facing the National Health Service. Indeed, I noticed recently for the first time an advertisement in the local evening paper by a firm of solicitors inviting people who thought that they had cases of alleged malpractice to contact them to see whether a case could be worked out. Only last weekend a firm of solicitors advertised locally inviting people who thought that they had been victims of passive smoking to contact them with the same objective.
We hear complaints about lack of specialists in the service. Yet with the creeping plethora of potential litigation copying the United States, is it any wonder that people are reluctant to go into the specialisms of obstetrics and gynaecology?
The question of the National Health Service is overlain by the exponential growth in the cost and sophistication of new treatments. Only yesterday in the Observer I read an article entitled,
"GPs face writs if hospitals refuse patients".
That trend needs to be considered seriously. That is why I welcome my noble friend's debate, because the sums involved in computerisation are enormous. Very often we tend to forget the pace of technological change. The first time that I saw a television set was at my dentist uncle's place when I was 18. It was a broadcast of the Fifth Test at the Oval in 1948. I remind noble Lords that England was all out for 52. Perhaps the events in Calcutta may be regarded in the same perspective.
26
We do not like to admit that new techniques are very hard for adults to grasp. Nobody likes to say: "I do not understand it. I know you have explained it to me, but I still don't quite see it".
I should like to give an example which was sufficiently long ago not to offend colleagues in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was chairman of the Metrication Board, which was set up to prepare the British people for the change from the old coinage to the decimal currency. On the first day when the new decimal currency was operative, I sat in the Tea Room in another place and watched a queue of my colleagues lining up to order their coffee, tea, bun, etc., holding out a handful of change to the lady behind the counter, allowing her to sort out what they had to pay. I am quite willing to take a submission that people in another place are below average intelligence. Nevertheless, the point is that they were totally bereft of any understanding of the new coinage.
The same goes for computer literacy. I believe we have all had the humiliation of having our video recorders set to record a piece in the future, at another time, possibly on another date, and having it done by a child of nine or 10 who is totally at home in this new medium. Certainly, for myself, I am almost bereft.
We have to remember that the people serving on the boards and holding the positions are quite frankly too old to master the new techniques. It is very difficult, if one is sitting on a board listening to people making a computer presentation to say to them after perhaps an hour or a couple of hours: "Would you mind going through it all again. I did not really follow you after the first five or 10 minutes". Today's opinion-formers and decision-makers are from a previous generation. They are being asked to make decisions. They are in the hands of experts who present the knowledge. Very often the experts themselves have substantial vested interests in the decisions made and there are vast sums involved, as my noble friend has pointed out. That is one of the roots of the problem which has been described.
My noble friend mentioned the question of the Wessex authority and the difficulties there. I was surprised when I read the debate in another place about the National Health. Service on 26th January that this problem had been largely ignored. Nevertheless, there was a mention of it and it was brought up by the honourable Member for Birmingham, Northfield. He said:
"Qa Business Services, the computer division of the regional health authority, was sold off and went bust within 18 months. Millions of pounds have been spent on a value-for-money exercise that saves no money. We see HealthTrac, a new all-singing, all-dancing supply system that has to be investigated by the Audit Commission. That is what is happening under the new-look national health service". [Official Report, Commons, 26/1/93; col. 953.]
Opening the debate, the Shadow Secretary of State said:
"Right through the summer and autumn, the West Midlands regional health authority was nothing less than a fiasco—millions of pounds wasted on privatisation and consultancies, audit reports, National Audit Office reports, but no action, a refusal to take any steps [etc.]" [col. 892.]
So it was mentioned, but not to the extent that I would have expected, given the sums which were involved and the difficulties exposed by the audit report.

27
The Minister may recall that at Question Time on 16th November, I asked whether we were absolutely sure that all these advances were in the best interests of patient care. I was conceited enough to draw to the attention of the House the fact that I serviced the entire captain's office on HMS "Siskin" with an old Imperial, a Gestetner and a few filing cabinets. I know that we have to progress, but the "Caring Systems" handbook which is the subject of my noble friend's Question today says:
"in the rush to meet Resource Management timetables, systems are sometimes being installed without proper consideration of objectives ... some hospitals have a computerised care planning system which restricts the extent to which plans can be individualized".
The Minister will be well aware that the report of the National Audit Office which my noble friend mentioned has a number of appendices at the back which are almost embarrassing to read. The North-East Thames project summary mentions: no feasibility study or investment appraisal; inadequate user consultation; inadequate planning; weak project management; and poor financial monitoring. The North-Western all-districts summary mentions: no feasibility study or investment appraisal; no review of pilots before roll-out.
It would weary your Lordships to go through the report. There is a common theme running through it. It is that the matter has not been properly thought out and has not been properly handled.
Why is that so serious? My noble friend Lord Desai pointed out from the Front Bench on 16th November that all the mismanagement of computer systems means that money is lost which could be spent on other things within the health service. My noble friend Lord Ennals drew attention to the fact that loss in Wessex led to the closure of 20 beds in St. Martin's Hospital. That could be repeated. In the Dorset Echo the chief executive of the Dorset Health Authority said that the loss on the computers meant that up to 600 people in the county had not received treatment. That was when the loss was estimated at £20 million. But my noble friend has shown that it is in fact over three times as much as that.
I mentioned at the time that the sums involved would have provided in my former constituency of Bristol, South the hospital for which my friends have been waiting for so long. But I have often thought that we should look at the matter in terms of what could be done with the money. The Bournemouth Echo of 24th July pointed out how many hip replacement operations could have been done at a cost of £4,000 each; that 900 heart transplants could have been done at £23,000 each (that is on the £20 million figure); and that 1,000 kidney transplants could have been provided at up to £20,000 each. It would have paid for 30,000 full days of treatment in intensive care. So the issue is one of great seriousness.
My last quotation is from yesterday's Sunday Times. An article by Peter Kellner is headed,
"Terminal case of truth haunts NHS".
He says that with all the reforms that have gone on, with the introduction of all the extremely expensive computer equipment, nobody knows what is
28
happening in the National Health Service. I do not make a party point about that. I want to be as even-handed as he was. He concludes:
"I have a simple proposal. Mrs. Bottomley and Mr. Blunkett should declare a moratorium on statements that the recent NHS reforms have been either a stunning success or a ghastly failure and jointly admit that, in all honesty, they haven't a clue."
I would not expect the Minister to embrace that concept, but I believe that, for a service which is so important to so many of our citizens, we should sit down and have a good look at just what is going on. The health service journal quotes the director of European Marketing Associates as saying that the National Health Service spending on computers is actually three times what its leaders believe. That figure is quoted in a Royal College of Nursing brief which fortuitously arrived this morning. It would perhaps be fair to use a summary from the brief which structures the remarks in a much better way than I could. It states that with any computerised system,
"patient confidentiality must be protected".
I am sure that we would all embrace that. It goes on to point out that computer strategy has significant resource implications because of the enormous sums involved, and states that,
"without the full support and involvement of nurses, no patient care system could work effectively".
It is therefore necessary to introduce the training schemes to which my noble friend Lord Dean referred.
I am sure that people would have a much better grasp much sooner than the Members of the other place had on decimalisation. However, it is difficult for people to admit that they do not grasp the concept. Thorough training is required and such is the cost of the new systems that it is essential that the best value for money is obtained. I shall not digress to other government departments but I believe, for example, that the Foreign Office has had computer problems which have caused losses of some millions of pounds. It is not a party point. If we are pouring resources into information services it is in everybody's interests that they work effectively.
Finally, once again I thank my noble friend Lord Dean for drawing the matter to the attention of the House.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has done us all a service by drawing our attention, in the widest possible sense, to the matters discussed in the handbook. On first reading it is an innocent enough document and in fact will be helpful to nurse managers. It gives guidance based on a wide inquiry of how they should set up and operate good management systems to maximise their effectiveness while minimising their interference with "hands-on" patient care—what most of us believe to be their real job.
It is becoming the tradition of the Audit Commission to put forward realistic suggestions about overcoming problems and not merely to uncover bad or wasteful practices. Reading between the lines of the handbook it is possible to discern a sad

29
state of affairs brought about by the excessive zeal of managers to use computer technology to solve almost every problem.
Paragraph 18, on page 8 of the handbook under the heading "Letting the tail wag the dog", states,
"A number of the hospitals studied had started from the presumption that a computerised nursing system was needed. Only then was consideration given to possible uses. The resulting systems constrain rather than facilitate changes that nurses subsequently wish to make to the organisation and quality of care … Once implemented, it is harder to change a computerised system than to amend manual procedures".
The rationale behind the enthusiasm of managers for computers is not always easy to ascertain. Paragraph 21 states:
"Computerised products are constantly evolving. Many have only a very short track record by which purchasers can be guided. The number of additional facilities offered or promised, apparent ease of use and quality of report presentation can therefore assume inordinate importance when a system is chosen".
Often there has been disappointment in the quality of support and advice from some system suppliers. One wonders whether some managers have been hood-winked—my noble friend suggested perhaps even less honourable reasons. The Wessex overspend, referred to by both my noble friends, has been made public and discussed. The handbook implies that many other smaller computer systems throughout the country have also been unwisely chosen. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to calculate how many and which systems are performing well and saving money, and how many have failed in their object and may be wasting the time of the clinical and nursing staff who are trying to operate them.
In the brief mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cocks the Royal College of Nursing states that,
"thousands of nurses across the country … have been forced to struggle with computer technology with inadequate training".
There are areas of nursing which are not at all suited to computerisation—individual care plans for patients being the most obvious. At page 20 of the handbook a case study is given of computer-assisted care planning. It states,
"On one medical ward studied, the complete care plan of a patient staying for five or six weeks could amount to a pile of computer printout six inches thick … Any written individualisation [care] was thus effectively lost the following day. A separate written continuation record of care was therefore necessary and all important information on the patient was held in this. The weight of the care plans precluded their use for handover between nurses. One side-room was completely filled with back care-plans … Clinicians' views of the usefulness of nursing care plans were understandably scathing".
The team which compiled the handbook also visited the United States and France. In the best "Magnet Care" hospitals in the United States—the creme de la creme hospitals—individual patient care was handled manually. They had given up trying to do it by computer; it was not appropriate. That is not to say that modern information systems should play no part in organising and managing hospital nursing activities. But the aims and needs of each segment of work—care planning in the case of nursing; workload assessment or rostering; who is on duty over the weeks and months—must be carefully thought through before a decision is taken to buy an expensive
30
computerised system. Our anxiety is that the zeal of managers has taken over and that too much money may be being spent.
The computer industry may be aware that the new National Health Service is a seller's market and may be taking advantage of managers' wishes to desperately find quick solutions to new and formidable problems. That is of crucial importance when, as my noble friend pointed out, throughout the country hospitals are being forced to curtail admissions for routine surgery due to lack of money. A two-tier service between the patients of fundholders and non-fundholding GPs has clearly emerged. As an aside, I may add that a contributory factor for the two-tier service is that the money for fundholders has been subtracted from that available to district health authorities to pay for the routine operations that they are now being forced to curtail.
I wish now to turn to questions notice of which, I understand, was given to the noble Baroness by telephone. They follow some of those put by my noble friends. Can the Minister give us an up-to-date figure on expenditure on computers by the Department of Health and by the regions of the National Health Service over recent years?
My noble friend Lord Cocks has mentioned the brief from the Royal College of Nursing. That quotes two figures similar to those given by my noble friend Lord Dean. The most recent figure given by the Department of Health is £300 million. But the figure amounts to £990 million according to a survey by the European Marketing Association. When the noble Baroness comes to answer the question I wonder whether she will tell us how the figures she gives have been derived.
Is there much variation between the regions? For example, can she tell us which region is spending the most and which the least on computers? Can she give us the latest figures for the numbers of managers and clerical or administrative staff in the National Health Service as a whole over recent years? What proportion of the total cost of the National Health Service is formed by expenditure on administration? The NHS has up to now been rather proud of the fact that its administrative percentage has been very low—something like 6 per cent.—whereas on the other side of the Atlantic administration costs amount to 20 to 22 per cent. of a much higher total health bill. What has been the trend in the United Kingdom over recent years?
The report of the Audit Commission published in April 1992 states:
"Whilst spending on IT is increasing auditors have found little evidence that it is well managed and well controlled. Auditors have drawn attention to these matters but it seems evident that improvements may take some time to implement and computing expenditure will continue to rise during this period".
My noble friends have made some cogent points to emphasise this. I believe that it is the function of an opposition to keep a government on their toes. I hope that the noble Baroness can satisfy us that effective action is being taken to address our concerns and those of the Audit Commission.
4.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. Little did I think that it would be quite so wide ranging. It included not only computers but cricket, litigation, decimal coinage and the speed of change. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, presumed, I will not confess to not having a clue about the National Health Service; rather, I shall address my remarks to the subject on the Order Paper today which concerns the Government's response to the recent report of the Audit Commission, Caring Systems: A Handbook for Managers of Nursing and Project Managers. Towards the end of my speech I shall address the points that have been raised in particular about the Wessex computer system and some of the relevant figures.
I welcome the handbook which the Audit Commission has produced. As ever, it has been conscientious in exercising its role as the public's watchdog. Your Lordships will, I know, join with me in acknowledging the valuable part the commission plays in ensuring that we get not only good health services but value for money. These are aims which we all share.
The handbook, published in December of last year, outlined a number of concerns about the way the health service was managing information systems for nurses. It focused particularly on some cases where there was a lack of planning prior to the installation of systems. The report also pointed to a need to improve nurse education and training in order to maximise the benefit of these systems to patients. In doing so it confirms that the action which the Department of Health is taking is the right action. I shall come later to how the Government's strategy, launched in the week before the handbook, is addressing the points which the Audit Commission raises.
Computers are becoming an important tool in the effective management of the hospital ward. I know that some of your Lordships have a healthy scepticism about the information technology revolution. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, is right to point out that it is the human element which is most important, especially in health care, and that nurses must not become slaves to data-hungry machines. It is fair to say that in the past many NHS computers have been used solely to produce statistics and their clinical application has been of limited value. But the Government have set out to transform the old centralised and monolithic NHS.
Nursing, midwifery and health visiting are professions which are changing rapidly in the 1990s. An ageing population, increased patient expectations and the rising costs of applying technological innovations have all stretched finite resources. Purchasers and providers of health care are faced with ever-increasing demands for improved quality and greater volumes of service. The incentive to use resources more efficiently has never been greater.
It is interesting that in its handbook for ward sisters the Audit Commission found no evidence of a
32
systematic relationship between the quantity of resources available in wards and the quality of patient care. It went on to say:
"What distinguishes the wards that are succeeding is that they manage to use all their resources to release nursing time for patients".
Information systems can help the NHS to face the challenges and seize the opportunities that all these changes have brought. They can harness the skills of the workforce to greater effect; they can help improve care, increase efficiency and raise effectiveness. By allowing different people to pool information these systems can transform the ways in which the NHS delivers compassionate services.
The new technology can also improve the working day (and indeed working night) of the great army of nurses, midwives and health visitors who commit themselves to the care of the most vulnerable members of our society. Information technology can be a highly effective tool to add to their exceptional skills and commitment. For example, it can give staff the information they need about a patient at the press of a button instead of waiting for hours for a file to be unearthed and delivered. A computerised system put in to handle nurse rostering can both develop and simultaneously accurately cost a roster, allowing the ward sister to manage her budget more efficiently.
The Audit Commission's handbook recognises the benefits that computers can bring to the work of health professionals. The Government welcome this. It also adds a note of caution about some of the problems which new technology can bring, many of which were highlighted this afternoon in your Lordships' debate. Unfortunately the report is based on a survey that started in 1991. Much of the evidence gathered relates to the resource management pilot sites set up by the management executive in 1988. These were established to ensure that the management executive dealt with any teething troubles before it began wider investment across the NHS, so it is perhaps not surprising that the commission came across some of these problems. The Audit Commission's survey will have missed much of the good work that is now going on as a result of that learning process.
For example, in Bishop Auckland nurses are reporting benefits from their nursing system in the recording of activity and therefore the planning of patient care. Their system has been implemented very recently, but they are already using workload information to match nursing resources with patient needs. Contrary to the views of some of the nurses mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, these nurses see the new system as a very useful tool and will not now want to be without it.
Last December, the NHS Management Executive launched its information management and technology strategy. In a press release the Royal College of Nursing welcomed it and was particularly pleased to see that nurses had been consulted throughout the planning period and had had special advice booklets published for them. Without the full support and involvement of nurses no patient care system can work effectively.

33
The information management and technology strategy tackles all of the main problems that the Audit Commission has highlighted. First, it addresses the problem of making sure that nurses understand the benefits of the systems and are happy with using the new equipment. One of the keys to successful implementation is positive involvement, consulting staff about the system and discussing it with them. I read in Nursing Standard last month about one site which held a party involving the patients and relatives on every ward as the system went live. The site involved all the staff in explaining to patients why computerisation was useful and specifically how it would improve their care. The system went in smoothly and in much less time than at some other sites. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, that even with imaginative approaches such as this, if the system is not user friendly enthusiasm rapidly wanes. A common complaint is that the language which computers use is not the language which is used on wards. It is not surprising that people are daunted by the jargon: a glance at the glossary at the back of the commission's handbook reveals a mystery world of "PENFROs" and "TDS7000s".
An important part of the management executive's strategy is to develop a language for computers which is based on the words which nurses and their professional colleagues actually use. This project is in no way intended to constrain the language of the nursing profession. Rather, it is intended to capture and codify it as a foundation for the development of new systems. Its development is being guided by the Strategic Advisory Group for Nursing Information Systems which was established in December 1991. Its remit is to advise the management executive on the pace and direction of information systems and the overall development for information technology. Its members include representatives from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors' Association.
The noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Rea, raised the issue of training. I am very pleased to tell your Lordships that the strategy is also supported by work to improve training and education for nurses who are working with computers on the ward. It recognises the need for people to be fully trained to apply these systems imaginatively and effectively. The advisory group is examining how training in the use of information systems can be brought into the mainstream of education for the nursing professions.
A nursing workforce capable of using information technology to manage both clinical care and nursing resources is a must for the NHS as we move towards the next century. This has considerable implications for nurse training. Manchester University has now accredited a course in this area and Oxford Regional Health Authority has developed an excellent resource management course with the Royal College of Nursing. The Strategic Advisory Group has set up a working party to take forward this important area of work with purchasers and providers of education.
As the handbook makes clear, it is important to make sure that the right equipment is installed.
34
Maximising value for money is a central feature of our strategy and it provides a framework to ensure that the NHS gets the best possible value from expenditure on computer systems. Most hospitals which have bought nursing systems through the Resource Management Programme are reaching the period for evaluation which is a requirement of this programme and we look forward to those results with interest.
In setting policies and standards for information management and technology, the NHS Management Executive is providing a national lead. Purchasing and implementation, however, remain local issues, but those wishing to invest in IT will have to produce a convincing business case, meeting the points highlighted by the National Audit Office's 1990 report which your Lordships have drawn to my attention this afternoon. The management executive is also working with suppliers to set quality standards for new systems. It intends to introduce a procurement questionnaire by April 1994. Suppliers will then have to clarify that they will comply with national standards at the time of procurement. In this way we will ensure that suppliers develop quality products which are appropriate to the NHS and its needs and overcome some of the weaknesses of the past.
To support the Government's overall strategy, the management executive, working with colleagues in the regions and in individual hospitals, consultancies and academic institutions, has produced a wealth of guidance. Much of this has been referenced in the Audit Commission's handbook, but Tom Keighly, the regional nursing officer for Yorkshire RHA, has said that the handbook does not recognise the success of the management executive's guidance. For example, in Yorkshire over 1,000 copies of the learning programme Using information to manage the Nursing Resource are in use. Nurses are benefiting considerably from this programme run in several districts in conjunction with colleagues of higher education.
The Government have made no secret of their concerns about the weaknesses of the Wessex RISP scheme. As your Lordships have indicated this afternoon, this was a very large project which was mismanaged. The auditors have diagnosed several underlying problems: insufficient financial controls; unrealistic cost estimates; insufficient information to members of the regional health authority; and lack of proper control systems. Wessex has now put the basics right. It has revised its financial procedures and instructions and trained all staff in them; it has renegotiated two major computer contracts so that it now gets a better service at a much lower cost; it has taken independent legal advice on the scope for redress on all aspects of the project and reached a satisfactory settlement with one of the companies involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to a decision to purchase a computer at a cost of £3.3 million. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot say much in detail about this now as it is still the subject of legal action which is now being vigorously pursued by the authority. The district auditor concluded that the decision to purchase the computer was premature and based on an unrealistic

35
development plan. The underlying problem was lack of independent advice to those making the decision, including the regional chairman. That has now been put right. The computer has been installed and is operating successfully.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The point I was making is that the district auditor's report makes a specific observation that the computer was purchased solely on the initiative of the chairman and that the other members of the board were not aware of this and were not informed. That point was made by the district auditor, not me.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that clarification.
I shall now address the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I thank him for giving me notice of them. The noble Lord asked whether the department has any figures on expenditure on computers centrally and for each region and what changes there have been in expenditure on computers over recent years. Total expenditure on computers for hospital and community health services including their maintenance and contract services was £253.8 million for 1990–91. On a regional basis for the same year revenue expenditure ranged from £5.2 million for Oxford to £11.9 million for South-East Thames. Capital expenditure ranged from £3.6 million in the Northern region to £17 million for the North-West Thames region. Changes in expenditure over the preceding two years show a rise in revenue expenditure from £67.2 million to £134.6 million and in capital expenditure from £62.5 million to £119.2 million.
The noble Lord also asked what was the number of NHS staff involved in administration. The number for administrative and clerical staff employed in September 1991 was 127,370. He also asked how this compared with clinical staff for previous years. I have not been able to get those figures this afternoon but I should like to point out to your Lordships that the NHS is the largest employer in Europe. It is essential that we have strong and effective management in place. That is a view shared by the BMA, which in past times has made it plain that it believes that the NHS needs not only better management but more management.
The management has been deliberately strengthened in order to ensure that it has both the quality and quantity of managers to run a £27 billion organisation. More than 75 per cent. of all NHS staff are involved in direct patient care. The NHS has a larger turnover than British Airways, ICI, Shell, Glaxo and IBM combined. I believe that we manage the NHS on a shoestring.
In conclusion, your Lordships will be pleased to know that the department and the Audit Commission see eye to eye on information systems which nurses need, and our strategy reflects this. It would have been marvellous if its survey some 18 months ago could have picked up on more of the good practice that is now becoming commonplace. But what is clear is that we have common aims. We are both working to ensure
36
computer systems for a modern and efficient NHS; systems that are centred on the patient, easy to use, cost-effective and, above all, of benefit to both staff and patients alike. I am confident that with careful management and sustained investment we can build those systems to take us forward into the next century.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may point out that my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick said that if these surprisingly vast amounts of money occurred in local government there would be a very good chance that local government officers and management would be surcharged and would lose their right to sit on a local government body. Does the same law apply to these appointed bodies? If not, why not? If that law does not apply, do the Government intend to make these bodies subject to the same rules and regulations?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the chairmen of health authorities at regional and district level, or chairmen of trusts, cannot be surcharged. But they are accountable to the Secretary of State. Your Lordships will be aware of many recent changes of the chairmanship of regional health authorities in the past year or so.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the second part of my question was: do the Government intend to do anything about that and make sure that the bodies are responsible?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was trying to point out that the Government do take action. That is why we have had resignations in the past year.

Rosyth Dockyard
4.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans and proposals for the future of Rosyth Dockyard.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, when Chatham was closed the management of the Royal dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport was handed over to commercial operators. I hold no brief, and I have no interest whatever to declare, in either of those undertakings. My interest lies in the proper provision for the defence of the realm, which will always include Scotland, and in the support and protection by the Royal Navy of all those serving in our Armed Forces in an unpredictable situation; the traditional defence commitments being now supplemented by new roles and tasks undertaken under the aegis of the United Nations.
My interest also lies in the severe economic consequences of the closure of either of those dockyards when unemployment is set to rise above the 3 million mark and we are at a time of fragile recovery in the heavy industries. My interest also lies in the closure of either dockyard and in particular Rosyth, as affecting Scotland and Scottish affairs.
Your Lordships may well think that neither of those Royal dockyards under commercial management rank to be rated, as the modern saying seems to

37
go, as dead duck industries and that if needs must be, although such is much to be doubted, that they warrant a bridging package. Your Lordships may also think that no decision should ever be made in this context on political grounds or solely on purely financial considerations as may appear in an accountant's report, welcome as that report will be and however eminent such an accountant may be.
As yet there has been no debate in Parliament on this question as to whether to keep both dockyards or one or other of them. It is understood that a decision will soon be made and hence this debate. In introducing it I wish to thank all noble Lords whose names appear on the list of speakers and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, who is to make his maiden speech. I crave leave to do this now as there will be no subsequent opportunity.
As no decision has yet been made, your Lordships' speeches shall surely serve as a constructive aid to government in the decision-making process. The object of tabling this Unstarred Question is to seek an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that before any proposals are implemented—indeed, before any decisions of such importance are made—debate on such proposals shall first ensue in both Houses of Parliament.
In the course of this short introduction it is proposed to consider the causes of concern and anxiety; namely, the case for the dual site option which, on objective analysis and in the opinion of many noble Lords, is the only appropriate and acceptable resolution; and then the consequences of the closure of Rosyth and aspects of financial viability. As to the causes of concern, there is no doubt whatever that prior to the general election the decision was taken by government to reject any form of the dual site option. By whom it was taken, on what material and when it was taken, we simply do not know.
But the briefing notes to candidates entitled "Royal Dockyards" under the sub-title "Defensive Lines to Take" make that totally plain. It is also evident that that decision, taken before the last election, has now been rescinded as a Cabinet Committee has been set up, chaired by my noble friend the Leader of the House, to re-examine the whole question.
The day after this Unstarred Question was tabled, on 19th January, the Herald reported that my noble friend Lord Younger was said to be,
"unhappy about the manner in which the Government was handling this matter".
The pit closures fiasco, and the manner in which that decision was taken without debate in Parliament, still casts its shifting shadow of anxiety and concern. The good offices of the Select Committee of another place are acknowledged with gratitude; also those of my noble friend the Leader of this House and those of the Government Chief Whip who strove to secure a moratorium and an immediate reappraisal. There were also the good offices of Mr. Norman Willis who at that time gave restrained and responsible advice.
But are we again, when closure of the Royal dockyards is at stake, to be asked to accept a ministerial decision taken on the grounds that there
38
was no alternative, without the approval of Parliament and a decision which, as regards pit closures, was in the event unnecessary, unwise, unlawful and unacceptable to the electorate and the Select Committee of another place? There is no state funeral laid on as yet for great aunt Tina. The cause for concern and anxiety over the resolution of this question on the Order Paper remains.
Now as to the case for the dual site option, I have spoken at length on this subject with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, who unfortunately is unable to attend today although he would have wished to do so. Subject to your Lordships' leave, may I say that he firmly supports the dual site option as wholly requisite to safeguard and sustain the defence of the realm and using, not wasting, the substantial investment made at Rosyth—£120 million so far spent on the new Trident dockyard; £15 million on the new emergency docking facility. He also supports the dual site option as a way of avoiding massive unemployment and hardship at this time.
As your Lordships know, the dual site option, put shortly, is that Rosyth Dockyard, as the only fitter of ballistic nuclear submarines, with its years of experience—it also refits the older and more difficult types of submarine and has completed more major refits than Chatham and Devonport put together—should retain all submarine fitting and that Devonport should retain all surface ship fitting. That is putting it very simply, but that is the essence of the proposal.
That would, first of all, safeguard the defence of the realm. It would provide some 2,000 extra jobs; it would provide spare capacity for commercial work, which could generate profit; it would avoid the substantial write-off of investment to which I have referred, and it would avoid redundancy, unemployment and closure costs estimated to be of the order of £250 million. And it would avoid the closure of Rosyth.
As to the closure of Rosyth, whether that be done by sentence of execution having immediate effect or suspended effect by some phased process of strangulation matters not. The effect would be to remove the benefits of the dual site option to which I have referred. It would put the defence of the realm to unwarranted risk. It would cause serious environmental problems at Devonport and it would devastate the regional economy of West Fife and desolate the West Fife economy. A skilled workforce of some 240 men, the seedcorn of our hope for recovery, would be scattered to the wind, just to become a set of ciphers in the unemployment statistics. Once disbanded, the workforce may never be gathered together again. And there is the knock-on effect: some people put the number of jobs at stake at 14,000 while others put it at 18,000. Furthermore, it would nurture intense and indelible resentment. It would have calamitous consequences for Scotland, which could not be concealed, in an ill-assorted ragbag of Whitehall jetsam, and then be relegated to oblivion.
As to financial viability, your Lordships will of course wish to examine whether, as suggested, the dual site option (compared with the single site option) would save about £500 million and avoid an estimated

39
£250 million closure costs, including redundancy and unemployment benefit. Your Lordships may also wish to consider whether, if needs must be, a bridging package should be arranged until the dual option runs into commercial profitability on the spare capacity, and indeed whether derogation should be granted from short-term Treasury policies of strict financial constraint to avoid a closure which could only fuel and aggravate recession, there being already an over-capacity of ports in Scotland.
To conclude—and I apologise for the length of this speech —the resolution of this Question on the Order Paper lies within the remit of at least six departments of state: the Scottish Office, Employment, Trade, Environment, Treasury and Defence. Of course, my noble friend the Minister may not pre-empt inter-departmental consultations or the deliberations of a Cabinet committee, or the findings of an accountant's report. It is, however, most respectfully suggested to him that the assurance which I seek may be given without any hint of pre-emption.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships on all sides of the House are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for facilitating this very important debate. I am certain that I speak for the whole House when I say that he had no need to apologise for the length of his speech. In my view, it demonstrated the importance of the subject. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, keen anticipation of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. I look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord's contribution.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I have to declare an interest: it is a personal interest rather than a pecuniary one. It is said to be a sign of old age when one begins to reminisce but if the House will forgive me I should like to say that I remember well in my native Cowdenbeath, where I was born and brought up, at the outbreak of the Second World War the great rush to build the mass of timber housing —some of it is still there—in order to bring workers from the south of England to man the Rosyth Dockyard. During all my time residing in West Fife, as I did then, local authorities were by and large Labour controlled. The only reason I make the point to your Lordships is that I have noticed a tendency in recent weeks to argue that the Labour Party and Labour politicians have no right to argue for the retention of the Rosyth Dockyard because of the political position of the Labour Party on defence in former years.
The point that I am making is that all those Labour-controlled local authorities down through the years have been firm and enthusiastic supporters of Rosyth Dockyard. My late father was the Provost of Cowdenbeath, a council which gave 110 per cent. support to Rosyth Dockyard. That was true of all local authorities in the area. And it explains why the present offer from Fife Regional Council—that, in conjunction with the retention of the Rosyth Naval
40
Dockyard to refit the nuclear submarine fleet and Trident, Fife Regional Council and the people of Fife are also prepared to accept the decommissioning of nuclear submarines—is so important. Indeed, there are presently three hulls from decommissioned nuclear submarines at Rosyth Dockyard. There has been no outcry in Fife (or in the Lothian region or in Stirlingshire, which are also affected) about the fact that nuclear submarines are being decommissioned at Rosyth and their hulls stored at the naval dockyard. That is an important point which I hope that your Lordships will note.
I perfectly understand and support those who say to the Ministry of Defence on the one hand or to the Royal Navy on the other, "If you don't want our skills, we don't want your scrap." The matter will have to be considered seriously in the run-up to the crucial final weeks before the decision is made.
I have referred to my personal interest. I have sought to stand aside from my family interest in Rosyth. My son has worked there since leaving school; my twin brother, who has just retired, spent all his working life either in Rosyth Dockyard or at Admiralty headquarters at Bath; my younger brother spent his entire working life at Rosyth Naval Dockyard, and I have three nephews there at present. So, I must declare a family interest in Rosyth, rather than a pecuniary interest.
In the few minutes that are available to me, I want to point out that we do not come here today on behalf of Rosyth Naval Dockyard holding out a begging bowl and asking for the retention of Rosyth. We come here, as we have done since the onset of the campaign, arguing both a reasonable—that is not unimportant —and a justifiable case not only for the retention of Rosyth but also for the retention of the naval dockyard at Devonport, and favouring the dual site option.
Perhaps I may enter one unpleasant note although I regret having to do so. One of the things that has disturbed and distressed me in recent weeks is the way in which Devonport appears to have argued—my perception of its argument may be wrong—that Rosyth should be closed and all the work transferred to Devonport. I regret that the political leaders of all parties—and I single out no one in particular—also seem to be guilty of that offence. It is much to be regretted.
I much prefer the constructive approach that is taken by your Lordships' House to the dual site option, which can be justified on three specific points. It is certainly justified on defence grounds. When he replies to the debate perhaps the Minister will advise the House on the point that I am about to raise, which I have never yet heard addressed. There is only one European nuclear power in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—I stress the word "European". Although France is a European nuclear power, as is well known, France is not a member of NATO. So, there is only one European nuclear power in NATO—the United Kingdom. I wish to ascertain whether any consultation has taken place on this important issue between the Ministry of Defence and NATO. I would have assumed that there would be some kind of

41
opinion in NATO about the possibility—and for a time it seemed more than a possibility—that Britain would be left with only one naval dockyard. Therefore, in defence terms, there is a strong (almost unanswerable) case for the retention of Rosyth and Devonport, with Rosyth doing what it is best equipped to do, the refitting of the Trident and nuclear submarine fleet, while Devonport refits vessels of the surface fleet.
I believe that the case for Rosyth is unanswerable on economic grounds also. It seems strange to me that when Devonport was informed that its bid could relate to the strengthening and refurbishment of existing dock facilities, that information was not passed to Rosyth Dockyard. The result was that Rosyth's bid was submitted on a different basis from that entered by Devonport. The position has now been corrected. I am pleased to note that Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, the financial consultants, have now been retained to examine both bids on, to use that old euphemism, the level playing field approach. I caution your Lordships on the subject of consultants. It is a very good definition of consultants that their first job is usually to look for their next job. Therefore, I should not like the workers at either Devonport or Rosyth to put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that this matter has now been referred to consultants. In economic terms, it has, in my view, been proved beyond doubt and without question that the dual site option would create savings on the one hand and retain both naval dockyards on the other.
My next point is employment. I wish things were different. I say to your Lordships that I do not now —nor have I ever in my political life—taken any pleasure from seeing any Conservative Government in trouble over unemployment. I have always taken the view that where political argument has to take place against a background of high unemployment, it is often a negative and unproductive argument. So, I say honestly that I wish things were different. Having said that, however, I must advise your Lordships that one of the ways of ensuring that the unemployment situation does not deteriorate further is to ensure that the dual site option is accepted, that both naval dockyards are retained, and that employment in the respective areas is not damaged by a decision to close one or the other. I hope and trust that the Government are looking especially at the unemployment consequences—in this case, for Rosyth—if it is decided to close Rosyth Dockyard.
The decision about whether Rosyth has a future will depend upon whether the bid is considered on a basis equal to that of the bid from Devonport on the one hand, and the future of the Trident nuclear refit facility, upon which £150 million has already been spent, on the other.
I hope also that the Minister will say something about the lack of a nuclear safety certificate in relation to Devonport. What would happen if, between a decision, tragically, to close Rosyth—although I hope that that is not the outcome—and Devonport being ready to accept Trident, Trident required to be re-docked? Where on earth —perhaps it should be where on sea—would Trident be re-docked? It cannot
42
be docked at Vickers at Barrow: it does not have a nuclear site safety certificate. It cannot be docked there carrying active warheads. It could not be docked at Devonport. The problem at Devonport is that the port is largely in the middle of a densely populated community. Where would it be docked?
We face the humiliating situation of Britain's nuclear fleet having to be serviced in foreign ports. That is not acceptable. I do not believe that it is acceptable to the Ministry of Defence. It seems to me, and to a great many other people, that from all that has been said over the past months, we should now have convinced Her Majesty's Government, the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy that the sensible way forward is to go for the dual site option and retain both Rosyth and Devonport.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for putting down this Question on a subject in which I am deeply interested. Like most new Peers, I wish to get my maiden speech behind me as soon as possible, but in the short time since my introduction in November, I have been disconcerted to find that much of the work of the House relates to matters of which I know little and certainly on which I could make no contribution.
Shipyards, dockyards and ship repair have been part of my life. I was first taken to see a launch at about the age of six, and as soon as I could handle a rowing boat I was allowed to row out from our home on the shores of Belfast Lough to pick up the timber that was always floating about after a launch at Belfast. Before and during my time at university, I served as a fitter's apprentice at Harland and Wolff in Belfast and later at Fairfields in Glasgow. As an engineer officer in the Royal Navy, I had experience of dockyards from Rosyth in the north to Auckland, New Zealand in the south, and many in between. After the war I returned to Northern Ireland and my engineering and other work has kept me closely in touch to this day with shipyards, dockyards and ship repair. My excuse for telling your Lordships that is to explain why I wish to contribute to a debate in which I might not appear to have much interest.
The case for or against Rosyth, and the single or two-yard option, falls into two parts. The first relates to the correct place to put the new service facility for Trident. Initially, obviously the decision taken was that Rosyth was the proper place, because £150 million has been spent on a hole in the ground. Rosyth's estimate of the cost of completion of new facilities purpose-made for Trident is, as I understand it, £260 million.
Devonport and its contractors, DML, have estimated that it would cost only £160 million to refurbish existing facilities. Therefore £100 million would be saved. No doubt that is attractive to the Treasury and has held up the completion of the purpose-made facility at Rosyth. I understand that Rosyth has now made a counter offer to upgrade its existing facilities for £147 million. First, to proceed with either of those options would be foolish. The cost of refurbishing existing facilities almost always

43
overruns the estimate, because it is not until the work has started that its true cost is discovered. Secondly, on safety, any nuclear facility must be inspected and approved by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. It will not answer hypothetical questions. It looks at jobs only as they proceed and treats them on their merits. There is no way that either refurbishment option could obtain clearance before it starts.
A recent requirement of the inspectorate is a seismic study of new facilities. It insists that the structure of a building and equipment should be able to withstand a certain acceleration so as to contend with any possible earth tremors. The new dock at Rosyth has taken that into account. The new plan for the facilities includes that requirement. Even supposing the saving of £100 million were correct—I do not for a moment believe that it is—Trident submarines should have a service life of about 20 years. The whole-life cost of servicing the submarines should be considered. Account should be taken of the effectiveness of the new facilities and the cost of working them. I am sure that new, purpose-built facilities for Trident would be more effective than any refurbishment.
I can understand that the Government have been slow to continue with Rosyth because of the possible £100 million saving, but I am confident that a further look at the true costs, plus the safety requirement, will make it clear that the only solution is a new purpose-built facility for Trident which will last 20 years. That element is important because, if it were decided that the correct place to site the new facilities was to be Devonport, Rosyth would inevitably have to close. There can be no doubt about that. On the other hand, if Rosyth is the proper place for the new facilities, as I believe it is, we then have the two-dockyard option, because it makes good sense to retain the work on surface vessels at Devonport.
If for some strange reason it were thought that Devonport was the proper place for the new facility, all the servicing facilities for the entire fleet—submarines and surface vessels—would be concentrated in the South of England. Surely it would be unwise to have all the facilities in one place.
Another point occurs to me that has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing; namely, that no nuclear work is without some element of risk. That is inevitable and inherent in the nature of it. The Royal Navy has a splendid safety record and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate also has a good record. However, if the risk remains, no matter how small, what would be the sense of using a dock adjacent to a large city rather than a dock in the almost rural area surrounding Rosyth?
Another interesting element is that a new pier has been built adjacent to Rosyth at Crumbae to work the new generation of fleet support vessels, the first of which will soon be in service. That pier has been financed largely by NATO funds. If the whole dockyard system moves south, that pier will be unused. What would NATO think about that?
I shall not mention the question of employment because I do not believe that is necessary. When
44
looked at sensibly, the case is made for purpose built facilities to be built at Rosyth, and the Devonport yard should continue to service all the service vessels.
5.31 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it is my special privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, on a penetrating speech which was spoken from deep knowledge. It went right to the heart of what we are discussing today. We are grateful to the noble Lord for speaking as he has. May he come and see us again. We shall not be discussing the same subject, but I am sure that his range of experience gives him much knowledge of a wide range of subjects.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for raising this matter. Let us be quite frank about it. It is one of the most difficult matters which has been put squarely before this House at present. There are great difficulties attached to it. I was involved in it from the very beginning in some ways because one day the American, Admiral Rickover, said that he had produced plans of a nuclear submarine and asked me if I would like to have them. Of course, we said that we would like them. We took away those plans and they went straight to Rosyth. The nuclear submarines have been a great success and a second version of those submarines will be coming along in six years or so.
I am sure that that was the right decision. The navy was having problems with its yards at that time and had closed a number of them. It did not quite know where to build its submarines and Rosyth was chosen. It must be kept. It is a safe place with a high degree of engineering expertise, perhaps the highest in the country. I must say, however, that the yard at Devonport is not a second-rate organisation. By any standards it is a first-class organisation. I shall not make comparisons between the two yards but they are both extremely fine.
Today, there are two problems: unemployment and a shortage of high grade engineers. Those problems must be solved. To try merely to ignore the problem is no answer at all.
I hope that what has been said this evening will be reported to the Government. It is not an easy decision to make. This is a very difficult problem. However, we —I say that in the broadest sense—have the responsibility of defending the welfare of some 60 million people living on this island. That is our duty. If we do not do it right, we may encounter a great deal of grief. I believe that the correct decision can be made but a great deal of thought and consideration must be given to it. No quick decisions should be made.
What has been said this evening has given us cause for thought. I hope that we can persuade the Government that this matter cannot be passed over quickly. I believe that the main site should be at Rosyth. We must remember the floating navy because its ships must be repaired and looked after. Devonport is just the place for that and it need not compete with Rosyth at all. I believe that both yards should be kept open. However, Rosyth should be the place where

45
nuclear maintenance is carried out. If we do not keep Rosyth, we shall lose a great advantage which we now hold.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, on an incisive maiden speech. We look forward very much to hearing more contributions from him in your Lordships' House during the years ahead.
Last week the noble Earl, Lord Perth, initiated a very useful debate on the problems of an act of God —the flooding on Tayside. That was a reaction to a situation. This evening we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for initiating what I would call a "proactive" debate to make sure that the Government are in no doubt at all about the extreme importance of this matter, particularly in Scotland.
I make it clear that I speak on my own behalf, but I have a great deal of interest in the state of the health of Her Majesty's Government, particularly north of the Border.I make the point immediately that I support the dual-site option, but I wish to ensure that Rosyth retains the nuclear refitting work.
In the past decade our Government gave the go-ahead for a new purpose-built refitting facility for Trident nuclear submarines at Rosyth Dockyard. There was no doubt as to the purpose. At that time the Secretary of State—now my noble friend Lord Younger of Prestwick—on 27th January 1987 said that the only threat to jobs there would be if the Trident programme were destroyed by the Opposition. That has not happened. So what has occurred since to change the Government's mind? After all, at that time the Ministry of Defence agreed that Rosyth had operational safety factors in its favour and "long-term advantages".
If that be so, surely one must assume that the capital cost of completing the project, on which many millions of pounds have been spent in the intervening period, must be the cause of the current discussion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that in the mid-1980s it was right to opt for a purpose-built facility for Trident. However, if the Government need to look again at the matter, I maintain that a serious — and I mean serious—and thorough appraisal of the upgrading of Rosyth Docks Nos. 1 and 2 is only fair and reasonable. It is essential not just for the workforce in Rosyth or, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing said, for the people of Fife; but it is to ensure fair play so that a like-for-like comparison is made. I believe that at present that has not been made clear.
I understand that the Ministry of Defence considered and rejected the upgrading proposal in the 1980s in favour of the new facility. That was its privilege and its decision. I am led to believe that that decision was made partly because of anxieties about insufficient time being made available within the refitting programme to carry out the construction programme. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me whether that is the case.
I suggest now that a smaller fleet, longer intervals between refits, the ability to double dock at Rosyth and the ability always to maintain two Rosyth docks
46
in commission for refitting, make the upgrading option viable. I expect the Minister to confirm that Ministers and the department will make those decisions in due course, and that consultants' reports are not relied upon.
I wish to point out some factors which in my view make the Rosyth option well worth looking at. After all, the Rosyth upgrade proposals incorporate design features and draw on the experience gained from the new docks proposal. That could save a tremendous amount of time in the preparation of the design and safety case.
Further, the new docks proposal experience has identified difficulties which lie within the process of securing the safety case. The safety case now needs scrupulous approval under the latest procedures. The scheme gives a compact layout with a minimum of major construction. The fuel routes are short and the proposed new buildings are founded on bedrock.
The Government must realise and understand the extreme importance of the environmental and safety factors which persuaded them to go ahead there in the first place. I shall not dwell on the employment situation but I would expect the Secretary of State for Employment to be involved in the long-term planning and to look at the decisions made in the light of what could happen should one or other of the dockyard facilities be closed.
If at this juncture the Government seek to change their mind —that is what they would be doing—and award refitting of the Trident submarines elsewhere (that was not their original intention), it will not be good enough for them to reverse their previous decision by stating a purely economic case. Rosyth was promised refitting of the Tridents by the Government and by my noble friend Lord Younger of Prestwick when he was Secretary of State for Defence. That has not changed. The Labour Party sought to scrap the plans for nuclear submarines. If the upgrading of Docks Nos. 1 and 2 is economically viable, I see no reason at all why the workforce should lose out. Now that efficient management is in place in both dockyards, public companies that are concerned in this matter will not look for short-term palliatives but rather for long-term, sustainable business.
I hope and trust that this tenet of free and fair competition, where like is compared with like, will result in the Government's decision to carry out the work at Rosyth. We owe it to the workforce at Rosyth to be absolutely clear about that. The workers have said they will perform this work and they deserve that work for the future.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for giving us this opportunity to discuss the future of the two naval dockyards, and in particular the threat which hangs over Rosyth. I intend to devote my speech largely to the wider political issues in the past, present and indeed future, which I think the Government ought to bear in mind when they consider this matter.

47
I shall make three quick preliminary points. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that it is important that any decisions made here are made clearly and openly in public so that the Government have an unanswerable case to the public for the decision they make. That will be particularly important if the decision is to close, either quickly or slowly, the dockyard at Rosyth.
Secondly, it is no part of my argument that Devonport should lose out. Indeed I can see no argument against Devonport continuing its major role regarding servicing. My third point directly follows that. I think the twin-option approach is the right one. I certainly could not put that any better than the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, did in his outstanding maiden speech in which, from his experience as an engineer, he showed your Lordships the clear case for both dockyards playing their respective important roles as regards our submarine fleet, our nuclear fleet and our surface fleet.
I wish to consider the wider political issues here and I have some qualification for doing that. During the early and mid-1980s there was considerable debate about whether we should have nuclear defence in this country or whether we should have the nuclear defence of NATO. There was considerable debate about whether we should base Polaris submarines in the Clyde and whether we should base Trident in the Clyde. I played a not inconsiderable part in that debate. I was forced into doing so, even if I had not wanted to, because my then constituency had within its bounds the American nuclear base at Holy Loch. Part of my constituency faced Coulport, where the nuclear weapons for our own nuclear fleet are stored. Just around the corner was Faslane. The noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, ironically left the Scottish Office to become Secretary of State for Defence. I was a junior Minister under the noble Lord and then subsequently I served under Malcolm Rifkind, who is now the Secretary of State for Defence. Up and down Scotland we had to argue the case for nuclear defence, the case for siting Trident on the Clyde and the case for Rosyth.
I argued that case in front of many microphones, television cameras and in some cold and windy halls. However, we won the argument. Interestingly enough, some of the people who today are in the forefront of defending Rosyth and proclaiming its virtues were in the mid-1980s doing their best to undermine it and our nuclear defences. As a Minister responsible for health at the time I had to spend a great deal of my time reassuring people that scare stories about leukaemia clusters round Rosyth and about nuclear hotspots were not true and were being put forward only to advance the anti-nuclear case of those people who at that time wished us to disarm unilaterally as regards nuclear defence.
We won that argument. By the end of the 1980s the same people who had fought against us were with us. They said we must have a nuclear defence both within NATO and in the United Kingdom. The party opposite is now with us on the need for the Trident submarine and on the case for Rosyth. They are with
48
us as regards Faslane and Coulport being the base of the Trident fleet. I thought the case had been won politically and that I could relax. However, then the Lords of the Admiralty threatened at one fell swoop to torpedo the whole argument. We must be in no doubt that when we argued in the mid-1980s the case for nuclear bases in Scotland we argued for them as a package. We argued for building the storage and facilities for the missiles at Coulport. We argued for building at Faslane the facilities for the active base of the fleet and at Rosyth we argued for building—indeed we were building, although I do not know whether that is continuing—the hole in the ground which would become the dock in which the submarines would be refitted.
I do not want to exaggerate the arguments. However, one of the minor arguments was that in exchange for having the nuclear deterrent based on the Clyde jobs would be based not only on the Clyde but also on the Forth at Rosyth. That was the package that I, my noble friend Lord Younger and the current Secretary of State for Defence argued up and down Scotland in the 1980s. Our colleagues in other parts of the Government helped us in that argument. We made the case for Rosyth clearly and it was stated again and again. Thanks to the facilities of the Library I reminded myself of some of the commitments that were given in the 1980s and in the mid-1980s when the debate was being waged not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom on nuclear defence and the coming of the Trident missiles.
In his Statement on the Royal Dockyards on 17th April 1985 Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for Defence, said:
"These two dockyards have served the Royal Navy and the nation loyally for many generations. I wish to stress that under this Government their long-term future is assured.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/85; col. 262.]"
He continued (at col. 266), in response to an intervention from the Labour Party, whose position at that time was not to have Trident:
"the people of Rosyth must clearly understand that I am offering to them a long-term, secure future".
He concluded (at col. 269):
"the central issue is not whether the dockyards have a future, because I have assured them that they have one under this Government. Rosyth cannot stay the same under a Labour Government because a significant part of its capability would then be cancelled and destroyed".
I would hate the said gentleman to have to eat his words of 1985.
Later in the year, on 2nd December 1985, during the Second Reading of the Dockyard Services Bill, which introduced the private sector to those two dockyards, and which I believe has done so much to make them both efficient and effective, Mr. Norman Lamont, then the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, said:
"The Government's commitment to Rosyth is clear from the massive investment that they are making in the dockyard to carry out Trident refits … Devonport and Rosyth have served the Royal Navy and the country loyally for many generations and their long-term future is assured under the Government's proposals". [Official Report, Commons, 2/12/85; cols. 37 and 38.]
I am sure your Lordships can see that, against the background of such assurances and against the background of the years during which we spent

49
arguing the nuclear case, I for one would be extremely disappointed if today the Government were to change their mind and pull the plug on Rosyth, even if that were to save a few million pounds, and I am not in the least convinced that it would. That would cause extreme embarrassment, to put it mildly, to those of us who fought the case for the nuclear defences to be based on the Clyde and at Rosyth.
I believe that if that were to happen to Rosyth, many people in Scotland who perhaps had only a skin deep conversion to nuclear defence would suddenly find themselves placed in a difficult position, especially if the issue was driven by the Scottish National Party, which has never had any commitment to nuclear defence. They would be tempted to go back into the anti-nuclear argument and to say that if they cannot have the jobs, skilled jobs at Rosyth—as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, rightly pointed out—they do not want the risk associated with having the submarines at Rosyth.
Another point which the Ministry of Defence has to bear in mind and which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, also mentioned, is the fact that there are three decommissioned nuclear submarines lying at Rosyth. I tell your Lordships and the Government that one does not have to get up early in the morning to realise that the anti-nuclear campaigners will quickly have a slogan: "If we cannot have your living submarines we do not wish your dead ones".
On all those grounds—the Government's commitment through the 1980s, the importance of the defence industry to employment in Scotland, and winning and continuing to win the argument in favour of our nuclear defence—I hope and trust that the Government will see the sense that they saw each and every year during the 1980s and will retain and develop Rosyth as the refit base for our Trident submarines.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising the matter. Having heard all the preceding speakers I ask myself what the argument is about. There cannot be an argument because the facts are so overwhelmingly in favour of keeping both Rosyth and Devonport. I shall find it difficult not to repeat some arguments.
It is clear to me that the economic arguments are fairly equal. Therefore, we have to consider the other factors. First, there is the past, in terms of the undertakings given and the value of the skills developed at Rosyth. What has taken place there over the years is very important and special and cannot be duplicated easily, if at all. The only possibility would be that unfortunate Scots, who believed in the undertakings that they would have jobs for life, would have to go south. That is not a happy solution.
There has been mention of what has already been done and the £120 million which has been spent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that one cannot make do and mend. Work has been carried out for some time, and when one has built something for a special purpose it is unlikely that the same object can
50
be achieved by patching up here and there. What happens if there is a disaster? Devonport and Plymouth would suffer far more than the Rosyth area. People have a right to say what they feel on the subject.
One argument seems to me unanswerable. We have been, and are still, a considerable maritime nation. We are the only nation in NATO which has a nuclear facility. What are we proposing to do? To put all our fragile eggs in one basket. That seems crazy. There ought to be no grounds for argument. It is not an economic matter; it concerns the livelihood of the nation. One cannot centralise all the facilities in one place. I wonder what the argument is about. It is said that there is an economic argument and that it might save money to place the matter in one administrative centre. That is a poor argument. The great companies in this country have works in different parts of the country. In the age of computers and communications I do not believe that that argument bears examination.
It is all very well to offer other scraps of comfort and say that there will be other ships to repair. That would be for only a short time. I am no expert on these matters, but I believe that to centralise facilities is absurd.
One must also consider the geographical aspect. Devonport is narrow and access is difficult. We ought to remember the lesson of the last war and of Scapa. One single event could hinder us and damage the fleet. We cannot afford to allow that to happen. We cannot afford a disaster. It must be remembered that there could be a disaster. There might be a nuclear disaster, although I hope not, and one has to consider the effect that that would have on the Plymouth area. Alternatively our enemy—because presumably we have an enemy, which is the reason for all this defence work—might succeed in blocking Devonport. In that case there would be nowhere else to go. To me the matter is so obvious that I cannot understand what the argument is all about.
I have spoken for two reasons. First, I am a Scot, although I am also a keen believer in Great Britain. The second reason is purely personal. During the last war my uncle, Vice-Admiral Rupert Drummond, was Chief of Staff at Rosyth. I do not know what he would say if he were alive.
We have had too many hard blows in Scotland; I do not know why. The last one was the closure of Ravenscraig. Perhaps there was good reason for that, but it was a great blow. When one considers the position with Rosyth, I do not know what one would consider about the wisdom or value of continuing with an Act of Union in Scotland. Do not let us get into such a situation. For heaven's sake do not let us put all our eggs in one basket.
6 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I must declare a strong personal interest in the subject of Rosyth because I am a Scot and chairman of a large Scottish engineering company which is a partner in Devonport Dockyard. I shall not therefore trouble your Lordships with presenting any case for Devonport, because my interest is too direct and your Lordships would rightly

51
discount what I said; and I would not like to see good arguments discounted—even arguments which might cast some clearer and informed light on the detailed costs of the many and varied versions of the dual option. However, I wish to comment strongly on the manner in which the issue has been debated in public.
If, as I do, one lives in Scotland one hears endlessly that it is not simply 4,500 jobs at Rosyth that are at risk but a total of 18,000 jobs in Scotland generally. The equivalent figures for Devonport are respectively about 5,000 dockyard jobs and 23,000 jobs in total. In Scotland we are correctly told that those losses would be superimposed on an already high level of unemployment. It is not often mentioned in Scotland that the rate of unemployment in the South West of England is just as high.
In the same vein, supporters of Devonport will correctly tell you that it is the largest single employer in the South West of England. The Rosyth faction will tell you that it is the largest employer on a single site in Scotland. With regard to job losses since privatisation, over 1,000 jobs have been lost at Rosyth and over 5,000 at Devonport. However, I simply ask this. When an issue which has major implications for defence and involves large costs at a time of great crisis in public finance is being decided, is any useful purpose served by exercises which compare relative levels of potential misery? I do not believe so. Doubtless, however, that part of the competition which involves two sides chucking numbers at one another will continue.
I am worried a great deal more by two other aspects of the way in which the public debate is being conducted. The first is the whole issue of the fairness of the decision-making process. There is much noise in Scotland from the media, politicians and others to the effect that the evaluation of the bids has been unfair. The background to that assertion is as follows. Rosyth originally chose to put forward in December 1991 a modified version of the original RD57 proposals. It was estimated to cost £267 million. At the same time, Devonport put forward a quite different solution based on modifying existing docks. That approach was £100 million cheaper and involved a fixed price. Both rival sets of submissions, it should be firmly emphasised, were in response to a request by the MoD in the summer of 1991 for proposals from both dockyards to cover the refit of the whole fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. I have no doubt that that request was driven by pressure on the MoD's budget.
Thereafter, for several months, the Rosyth management and Scottish pressure groups rubbished the concept behind the Devonport proposals on every ground. I could give much documentary evidence. More recently, and, given its criticisms of the Devonport concept, most surprisingly, Rosyth came back with a proposal on a similar basis to Devonport, using existing docks at Rosyth. Devonport then clarified its proposals so that direct comparisons could be made on the same scope and basis as those for Rosyth; and there I understand the matter rests at present.
52
The complaint of unfairness levied against the Ministry of Defence is that fair and adequate consideration has not been given to the Rosyth proposals. Although I believe that I have described the background to the proposals accurately and dispassionately, obviously I have no knowledge of any evaluation of the final Rosyth proposal carried out by the Ministry of Defence, although it would be astonishing if it had not been carefully examined.
I object to the continuous assertion that the process has somehow been unfair. Naturally, much of that assertion comes from the Scottish media which by now have become expert at egging on the Scottish public to believe that when an important national issue is being decided—and it is an important national issue—then, if it does not automatically go Scotland's way, that is plain evidence that Scotland is being cheated or that Whitehall is biased against Scotland, and all the rest of such stuff. When the public are encouraged, either by the media or politicians, to approach complex issues from a strategic, technical and cost point of view as though they were a version of the Calcutta Cup, played with a biased and unfair referee, I do not believe that anything creditable or sensible is being achieved. Some people might find criticism from the SNP and some parts of the Labour Party, both of which were opposed to nuclear weapons in the first place, a little hypocritical.
Other issues have recently been introduced into the public debate. Last week, in an item in one of the more serious Scottish papers, the Scottish Council Development and Industry referred to the Devonport proposals as a "patch and mend" solution and raised questions about whether they would ultimately meet nuclear safety standards. I am sure that noble Lords will be happier if I can assure you that the starting point for the whole design of the Devonport project was to establish whether a concept could be developed which would meet just such standards, and moreover that the three partners in Devonport are all companies with deep professional involvement in the nuclear field. The effect of such comments in the press is simply to exploit the public's natural concern about nuclear safety matters. It is perfectly deplorable to deploy such argument.
Finally, in another serious Scottish paper, there was an attack by innuendo this week on the integrity of a senior civil servant involved in the issue. So much public debate seems to me to have been carried out in a way which ranges from the unhelpful to the downright nasty. But perhaps I am too thin skinned and over sensitive.
For my part I do not believe that further studies on the alternative choices are needed. I am perfectly content to leave the decision to the Ministry of Defence which will doubtless decide on the basis of strategic, operational and cost considerations, tempered with the implications for employment which are serious, and of which it is well aware.
There are many stories that, with the latter considerations in mind the ministry may put the nuclear fleet at Devonport and soften the decision by putting additional surface ship work in Rosyth. Provided, in doing so, it can live with the considerable

53
extra costs involved and perhaps some additional operational difficulties for the navy, that is its prerogative. But if it decides that nuclear submarines will go to Rosyth in the future—and that is the only issue we are discussing today—I believe that that decision would be wrong, but I shall not waste time complaining about it. If, however, the decision goes in the other direction, it is my hope, although I have some doubt about it, that the supporters of Rosyth would accept it in the same way.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Weir has brought balance to the debate. He brought to our discussion another angle upon the scene. He is concerned at the way the discussion has been taking place. I understand that and I am sure that noble Lords understand it very well. The concern is expressed from the point of view of a great Scottish industrialist who has great interest in the work that goes on at Devonport.
My noble friend said that he would he quite happy to leave the decision to the Ministry of Defence. My understanding is that the decision does not lie just with the Ministry of Defence. It is a matter, as has already been said, for a number of departments and ultimately for the Cabinet. If, as press reports suggest, the Cabinet is at the moment split upon the issue and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is as yet undecided, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that there are two particular issues which the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have to confront. Both have already been mentioned.
First, it is absolutely essential that the decision on this issue, when it comes, is based upon a proper assessment of correct facts and figures—the full facts and figures—if possible independently assessed outside government so that the Cabinet has an independent view in front of it.
From what I have been told by those closely involved, I have no reason to question the story and the comparative facts and figures that are so far available in the various briefs that we have received and as outlined by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. There will be many more salient points of which the Cabinet may or may not have been made aware so far. As I understand it, the figures are not yet complete. The original ceiling figure tendered by Babcock for work comparative to the projected Devonport port work is yet to be succeeded by the definitive and detailed price due at the end of this month. That will have to be examined and compared, like for like, with the Devonport definitive price already in the Government's hands.
With so much at stake at both ends of the decision, and with the navy doubtless taking its own view on what it perceives to be its own interest, emotion is naturally running high. Politics with a large "P" and politics with a small "p" are rife. Correctly or incorrectly, it is reported that there may be some conflict of interest here and there. Yet the Government have the responsibility and the need to make a decision which they can justify afterwards point by point when they are cross-examined, as they
54
certainly will be, in Parliament and elsewhere. The first question that the Government have to address is: how can they make sure that they have before them all the facts and figures correctly set out in an unbiased way?
The second question was very ably expressed by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is about the Government's integrity. If the Government are as good as their word, can they go back on the bargain, implicit in the early 1980s, when planning permission was given in Scotland for the unpopular nuclear submarine base on the west coast on the understanding that the repair and refitting work, and all the jobs that that represented, would be done on the east coast at Rosyth?
For the sake of those jobs, people in Scotland through the years—the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, illustrated that very graphically from the experience of his own family—have accepted the nuclear risks involved and committed themselves to continue to accept those risks; including, as the noble Lord said, the difficult work of decommissioning nuclear submarines and the skilled handling of the radioactive material involved.
We all recognise that the people of Devonport are skilled people too. They are also willing to accept the same nuclear risk, even in their urban environment. The Government are rightly anxious to help them with jobs. We are all anxious to help them with jobs. But can the Government with integrity bring jobs to Devonport by going back on their understanding with Scotland?
The independent miners feel that they have been let down. We do not know whether, in the end, they will have been let down, but they have that feeling. Surely the Government do not want to have another problem like that.
We read in the press that the problem may be addressed by the offer by the Government of 10 years' subsidised surface ship work at Rosyth—work, it is said, that might save two-thirds of the Rosyth jobs which would otherwise disappear for Devonport. At the present time, that would be better than nothing. But eventually, like most subsidised enterprises, it would probably be the death knell of Rosyth. In the meantime, it seems to me, the people of Scotland would have the agony of another Ravenscraig.
Likewise, there is talk that Rosyth might incorporate civilian port facilities. Some noble Lords may, like me, have heard from the chairman of Clydeport commenting on that idea. He points out that existing Scottish ports are only now coming to terms with the recent Ports Act and beginning to compete successfully with ports in the south of the United Kingdom for extra European Community work coming their way. Existing Scottish ports still have more than enough spare capacity. Clydeport tells us that the last thing it needs is another port imposed by the Government and not required by the market. In addition, Clydeport suggests, the alterations required at Rosyth would cost a very great deal in public expenditure and produce comparatively few jobs in return. I am in no position to assess those

55
representations, but I hope that the Scottish Office is doing so. Should they be valid, I hope that it is fighting that compromise.
I ask my noble friend the Minster, when he replies, to undertake to convey two specific suggestions to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister: first, that before it makes its decision the Cabinet should make absolutely certain that it has a proper, unbiased assessment of all the facts and figures and, secondly, that it considers carefully what the understanding was in the 1980s when planning permission was finally granted to the West of Scotland nuclear submarine base so that in no circumstances can the Government be proved to have broken their word.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, with a Question like the one on the Order Paper, what could be more appropriate than it being tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Most of the defence interests in Scotland are connected with Campbell country, such as the Clyde naval base, the Clyde aircraft repair organisation at Perth, and I venture to include Rosyth in the east because it is reasonably close to Tayside. But the future of Rosyth is not only linked with such local clannish issues; it has been seen as one of the growth points in the network of fleet support for the Royal Navy of the 1990s and beyond. That point has already been made by many noble Lords.
First, I express my thanks to Admiral Sir Julian Oswald, the First Sea Lord, and the RN presentation team for their excellent presentation last week in the Grand Committee Room. The case for a balanced fleet capable of meeting the intense warfare threat was well made, and the case for protecting our maritime interests worldwide was not forgotten. But many of us came away with worries in regard to the infrastructure that will survive. If we really are strapped for money in defence, then what is it that can give? In that respect, besides the Royal Naval Dockyards, we have to think of the naval bases, armament depots, the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, stores depots and beyond that to the training schools—the colleges such as the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth and the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manadon (I gather that may also be at risk)—and more, to the MOD staff, controllerates, shipbuilders and all the elements of the defence industrial base. The Royal Navy point of view is that the fleet train must not be financed at the expense of the fleet. In other words, any sacrifices should be made at the tail and not in the teeth. That needs careful consideration as our base assets are crucial to the Royal Navy and the well-being of the nation. We cannot ignore them if we want to maintain the fighting efficiency of the fleet.
In scrutinising defence, Parliament has had to rely on Adjournment Debates in another place and Unstarred Questions here to cover what are major issues. That is not ideal, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne knows. I believe that there is a necessity for a defence debate to look at the manpower, equipment needs and support services required to sustain them.
56
Before going any further I will, as I have always done, declare my interest in many of the projects connected with equipment supply and services to the fleet and the fleet train, including the Royal Dockyards and naval bases, and particularly Trident. In addition, as the House knows, I am an officer of the All-Party Defence Study Group.
In the course of the Adjournment Debate in another place on the closure of Portland Naval Base announced in November last, the Minister concluded that it was an accident of history that the Royal Navy cuts fall heaviest on those in the South, as most activities have been located there. I would say that that is more like an accident of geography than history. It is an accident of geography that Devonport, Plymouth Hoe and Drake's Island are where they are; it is an accident of geography that Portsmouth has Spithead at its approaches. But if there is to be an accident of history it looks as though, in government eyes, they want it to be Rosyth.
The Ministry of Defence is now pushing its units down (if it is not closing them down) into the South West as far as they can go. Operational sea training at Portland is to merge with work-up training at Devonport. The second submarine squadron is to move from Gosport to Devonport. The MoD procurement executive is to be centred near Bristol. The controllerates, including sea systems, are being put at Stoke Gifford nearby; 180 of the key staff at Eaglescliffe store depot in the North are being centred at Bath.
By giving the impression that everything is being crowded into the South West, the Government seem to be signalling to the country that Rosyth is an accident waiting to happen. I believe that the reality is quite different, bearing in mind the industrial strength that exists there, to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and many other noble Lords have drawn attention.
If the support structures are being sucked into the South West—we are told that a lot of new expenditure is being incurred in the process—then we must consider carefully the wisdom of doing that. Pulling the naval resources of defence into one corner of England does not make much sense to me and it does not make much sense to my noble friend Lord Selkirk either. British Aerospace may be in Bristol, but Tornados are made in Warton and so is the EFA—the Eurofighter 2000 is being designed there, prototypes are being made there, and production will take place there. I am concerned that our naval resources should be sufficiently spread to take account of the needs of the fleet for bases and yards within a secure framework of supply, skills, manpower, stores and industrial services. The through-life support for platforms, weapons and personnel in the Royal Navy must be strategically spread.
Each warship is many times more powerful than its predecessor. The same can be said of submarines. There are to be 12 nuclear submarines in the future fleet but they need their own refit complexes. The RD 57 project at Rosyth is earmarked for Trident and always has been. If plans for refitting Trident at

57
Rosyth are abandoned it will mean that the Royal Rosyth Dockyard will be sentenced to a lingering death.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement says that the Trident decision will be influenced only by hard facts. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour takes the same point of view. But, as we all know, it can also be influenced by Parliament and public opinion. I sincerely hope that it will be influenced by what is being said here this afternoon.
The commercial management of the two Royal Dockyards has worked well and they are falling victims to their own successes. There is spare capacity at Rosyth and Devonport. But the issues that really matter and the ones about which we must think are how to provide Trident support to 2030 at least—and of course the through-life costs of doing that matter greatly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, said in his maiden speech; how to preserve the viability of the two Royal Dockyards; how to meet their operational requirements; and how to maintain the pool of technical skills and resources.
The RD 57 project at Rosyth was planned for Trident support. It was a new facility specifically designed for the purpose and to last the course. The modified proposal will fulfil the same purpose at lower cost. But the population density of Rosyth is less than that of Devonport, and I believe that a much more convincing safety case can he made. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, drew particular attention to this issue. I am sorry that the Government have taken a decision—and have made a Statement about it in another place—that they will look at the safety case of Devonport or Rosyth, or both, after the decision has been made. Surely, they should be looking at it before the decision is made.
The viability of the Royal Dockyard structure is at stake if Rosyth loses Trident. Both dockyards have to compete on single source contracts for core programme refits of surface combatants. Rosyth is unlikely to survive on its own without the skill base for nuclear submarines—hence, the proposition to run both Royal Dockyards under one management; that is, the dual-site option. I believe it makes a lot of sense to spread risks and skills, preserve the competitive element in refitting and in defence as a whole and enhance the safety factor. If Rosyth Royal Dockyard vanishes there will be no North Sea coast-based installation for the Navy while we have offshore installations to safeguard, fishing rights to protect and the threat to the Northern Approaches still remains. There is also a need to co-ordinate all offshore maritime defence efforts (as the Canadians do), and Rosyth offers excellent base facilities for achieving that with involvement of the Royal Navy, Customs and Excise, the police, air and sea rescue, fishery protection and, last but not least, amphibious warfare activities. I understand that, jointly with the Dutch, we look to that for the protection of the Northern Approaches. Obviously, that involves the North Sea. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to what has been said in the debate this afternoon and decide to keep Rosyth alive with the Trident banner flying.
6.32 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for asking this Question. The argument for the retention of Rosyth Royal Dockyard for the servicing and refitting of all nuclear submarines and of Devonport for the repair of all surface ships falls broadly into four categories: defence, safety, cost and social.
The defence aspect should transcend all others for the defence of the realm is the first duty of all governments. As a mere ignorant member of the public, I ask the Government whether they think it is sensible to concentrate the facilities for all naval repair work to both surface vessels and nuclear submarines in one place that is some 400 miles nearer to the most probable source of ballistic missile attack than Rosyth. It is not only attack from without the United Kingdom that we have to be aware of; it is terrorist attack from within, or perhaps just an accident. Surely, from that point of view alone the Ministry of Defence should do all in its power to retain both Devonport and Rosyth. My noble friend Lord Perth spoke eloquently on that aspect, which is of the greatest importance.
I have been told, although I cannot remember by whom, that the Admiralty has backed the closure of Rosyth because it believes that financial savings thus made will pay for more surface ships. I do not believe that there will be any savings, but I shall come to that later. Certainly, if we need more ships we shall need both Devonport and Rosyth to build and service them. In this uncertain world who is to say that we shall not need more ships?
I too should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cooke of Islandreagh on his maiden speech. I will fatten up the picture that he painted for us. I begin with safety, which is paramount as far as nuclear submarines are concerned. At Rosyth under 2,000 people live within two kilometres of the proposed upgraded docks, as opposed to 30,000 at Devonport. At Rosyth the nearest habitation is farther from the nuclear trials berth and in the unlikely event of an accident evacuation will be much quicker and easier than at Devonport where it will have to be through the streets of Plymouth. Rosyth already has a purpose-built to latest standards dry dock "hole" built under the fullest Nuclear Installations Inspectorate consent and known to be licensable. Rosyth has discussed its upgrade proposals with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate which has confirmed that continued refitting of submarines in No. 2 dock using existing facilities will be acceptable after phase one of the construction work has been completed. No. 3 dock will be available throughout the upgrade period.
Further, at Rosyth the Ministry of Defence has already spent £80 million over five years creating a dry basin, exposing the rock foundation over the full plan area of the docks, minutely investigating the rock, proving it to be solid and protecting the rock surface with concrete. At the same time, at Rosyth the Ministry of Defence has spent over £40 million creating a design of the new docks, analysing its nuclear safety case, issuing a preliminary safety report

59
to satisfy the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and submitting to it a pre-construction safety report. Because of that there is every reason to believe that Nuclear Installations Inspectorate approval will be forthcoming for Rosyth's rugged design, built to modern quality standards, on proven solid rock foundation, without further cost escalation and with a lifetime of at least 50 years.
The same cannot be said of Devonport where the existing docks are already 80 years old, the underlying rock is of doubtful quality, the concrete is weak—it is jointed and not reinforced—the mechanical and electrical systems require replacement and duplication and the whole site is surrounded closely by a public road, with 3,500 private houses and a school within one kilometre.
I turn to cost. With great respect, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Perth that as regards cost there is not much to choose between Devonport and Rosyth. I understand that the cost of upgrading the facilities at Devonport to enable it to undertake all nuclear submarine refitting has been estimated at £170 million. But, in view of the problems I have just mentioned, that estimate may very well increase by up to £230 million due to the costs of design, safety case analysis, investigation of the existing structures and underlying rock, structural strengthening, the possible replacement of the western promontory presently supported on timber piles of doubtful foundation, the replacement and duplication of mechanical and electrical services between the two docks and the possible replacement of existing fixed plant, such as cranes and dock gates, should it prove incapable of seismic qualification. The Ministry of Defence has already spent £120 million on Rosyth—money which will be wasted if the refitting of nuclear submarines is removed to Devonport.
On 10th December Babcock Thorn Limited quoted a ceiling price of £147.2 million for upgrading all the facilities and plant and equipment required to refit and refuel all nuclear submarines at Rosyth, with an undertaking that that price will not be exceeded by the fixed price which will be quoted by the 28th of this month at the latest.
Thus the saving to the taxpayer of retaining the nuclear submarine refitting at Rosyth would be a minimum of £22.8 million and could rise to £258.8 million, although the most likely figure would be somewhere in between the two. Like other noble Lords, I heard this morning that the Ministry of Defence has commissioned Coopers & Lybrand to do a fresh evaluation of the bids for the upgrading of Devonport and Rosyth. Perhaps when he winds up the Minister will comment on that.
These figures take no account of the cost to the taxpayer of redundancy payments and social security benefits if either Rosyth or Devonport were to close, nor of the loss to the Treasury of taxation revenue from those employed at present. It is also worth considering the beneficial effect of the rivalry and competition which would result from retaining both dockyards instead of having only one giant; and the fact that Rosyth has a history of good labour relations
60
and co-operation with the local council, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, so eloquently told us, should also be taken into consideration.
I now turn to the social argument. The majority of surface ships are based on the south coast and it is much more convenient for them to refit at Devonport. That is why, if submarine refitting were taken away from Rosyth, it could not possibly survive for long with just surface ship refitting and commercial work. Many crew members have made their permanent homes in the Devonport area. They have no wish to go to Rosyth for repairs. Much of the expertise in refitting surface ships is at Devonport, where about 85 per cent. of the surface ships are refitted at present. The people with that expertise have also made their homes in the surrounding area and have no wish to move to Scotland.
The nuclear submarine fleet is to be based at Faslane. Many crew members have made their permanent homes in that area. About half of the submarine refitting done at present is done at Rosyth, where the workforce is highly skilled and has no wish to move to the south of England. Although Faslane is on the west coast and Rosyth on the east coast, Scotland is very narrow at that point and it is not much more than an hour-and-a-halfs journey from one to the other, so that if your ship is being refitted and your home is near Faslane, you can still get home quite frequently.
We are talking about people who have put down roots, made friends have children at school who have also made friends and who do not want to move, either from the south of England to Scotland or vice versa. Rosyth employs 4,100 people directly and another 4,000 to 5,000 indirectly in Fife. It has been estimated in a study produced by the Fraser of Allander Institute and St. Andrew Economic Services that if Rosyth were to close, or die a slow death, which it would certainly do if the nuclear submarine refitting were removed to Devonport, overall job losses throughout Scotland could be between 14,000 and 18,000. Sub-contractors would collapse and also many small businesses. In addition, Rosyth still trains 65 per cent. of all Scottish engineering apprentices. If it closes there will be no future for them. I do not know how many jobs would go if Devonport were to close. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, who said that around 30,000 jobs would go.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, 23,000.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount.
Those are my arguments for supporting the retention of both dockyards under one management. I understand that all the facts I have given your Lordships are known to the Admiralty.
It has been said that the pressure to close Rosyth comes from the Treasury. The figures I have given make that seem rather improbable. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, have spoken of the package of nuclear submarines plus refitting at Rosyth which was agreed in the 1980s. I have no hesitation in saying that were Rosyth to close or die a lingering

61
death at the hands of this Government—the same Government who made promises as to its future a decade ago — there would be scarcely a Tory MP left in Scotland after the next election, with consequences for the United Kingdom which I do not care to contemplate.
I cannot believe that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence are not well aware of that. How could they not be? They are intelligent men. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that the Government, pledged in their election manifesto to uphold the unity of the United Kingdom, are under pressure to ditch Scotland in order to ensure the return of a Tory Government in England at the next election.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway very much for introducing this most important debate on the future of Rosyth Dockyard. It was my good fortune about five years ago, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, to argue for the retention of Rosyth Naval Base at a time when we still had a Soviet threat, and happily at the time that I was successful. I hope very much that this argument will also be successful.
My noble friend the Minister might like to think that, almost without exception, the speeches in the debate have put the point that we must have Rosyth Dockyard and indeed that we must have two dockyards. That is what I shall concentrate on. The argument has come very much from this side of the House as well as from the other side of the House. It is an argument which is well supported by people who know what they are talking about. My noble friend needs to give great care to that when he comes to reply. I hope that he will be able to give us an encouraging reply and that in so doing he will be able to go as far as he possibly can to give us the feeling that he fully understands the points that have been made this afternoon and this evening.
Many special points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, whom I heard for the first time and was delighted so to do, mentioned Trident retention, which I support very strongly. It was also mentioned in the splendid maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. The political arguments were put by my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I hope I have the pronunciation correct. I have to say that in order to differentiate him from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, even if he is not present. The political arguments seem to be particularly strong. The words of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would surely underpin what was said by my noble friend from these Benches.
My argument, which was also well put by my noble friend Lord Ironside, is that we must have at least two naval dockyards in this country for the long-term future. Not much has been said about the long-term future. It takes about 10 years to design and launch a ship. The ship then has a life of 20 to 25 years, depending on its type. Some have an even longer life. If a dockyard is wound up and loses the skills of the people living locally it cannot be reconstructed at the drop of a hat. It was possible in Nelson's time to do
62
that when ships were made of wood, but these days we must realise that if we wind up either of the two dockyards it is extremely unlikely that they will ever be reconstructed.
We want to look not just five or 10 years hence, which I believe is the period everyone has been looking at, but 50 or 100 years hence. In that time a pattern of what we require from our defence forces will change dramatically. Of one thing we can be quite certain: it will change in a way that nobody at the moment can possibly foresee. We must have the strength to be able to have at least two dockyards in this country because, under varied circumstances which might arise in the middle of the next century, one of the dockyards might be disposed of very quickly and the other may not be available at all.
The arguments about money are extraordinarily short term. I have an awful feeling that naval officers today are being ground into the dust by officials who advise them on how to argue against money. If you say to anyone who knows about these matters that it is necessary to have two bases, that it is also necessary to have so many ships, aircraft and submarines, and that that means that we require extra money, then extra money there must be. From my experience in past years, there have been occasions when one has had to say that kind of thing, even in running one's own house. It is not a good argument to say "If we keep only one dockyard and get rid of the other, then we shall be able to have X more frigates or Y more submarines". It is not like that.
We must have two bases, one at each end of the country. That is the root of the argument. We need that not now, but in the year 2100 as much as we shall in the year 2000. That must be a main factor. Having said that we need two bases, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, they have to compete with each other, which is a very important point. Ships in the Royal Navy are only efficient because they compete with other ships of the same type and in the same squadron. It is all a matter of competition. If there is only one soggy little dockyard, it is going to be soggy. What is more, the dockyards have to be competitive world-wide. It has to be said that if the dockyards do not have enough naval tasks to carry out, they must be developed and made semi-independent for that purpose. We have to get custom from around the world. If the dockyards have the facilities—and they have to think about getting them if they do not have them—we must not let the QE2 go to Germany to be refitted; it must be done in Britain. We must have people who want to do that, who have the energy to do it, and who can raise the money. It is very important for both dockyards, whatever happens to them, that they are properly competitive in the world market and that they have enough work to keep going all the time.
There is one other factor. I am just coming to the end of a three-year happy stint as president of the East Wessex Territorial Association. I learnt a lot about the Army, the Territorials, the Air Force and its reserves. I have learnt a little about the Navy and its reserves. I have learnt of the importance which the other services attach to being spread around the country,

63
not only through their reserves but through their regular forces as well. In that way the ordinary citizen (the voter) and the chap who answers questions in the newspapers are the kind of people who need to have a real wish to support and understand the Navy. The Navy is getting squashed into corners. It is too long ago that Nelson was the country's hero. It is too long ago when the last world war took place and there were ships which escorted convoys and which got great names for themselves. I expect that very few people in the country remember some of the great names. But those matters are of the past. The Navy needs to be spread around the country in order to have support and understanding.
Your Lordships, the Government and ordinary people do not go abroad in ships any more, although they used to 60 years ago. We go in aeroplanes. We have forgotten how important it is to have ships. We have forgotten that 90 per cent. of this country's trade is carried by sea. We do not care; we do not know; and we are not accustomed to it. Quite soon everybody will be funnelling themselves through the tunnel and not even going by air. We will have completely forgotten about the kind of things which 60 years ago made people think that the Navy was important. I plead that we keep our two bases for the foreseeable future, and well beyond the lifetime of anybody here and of our great grandchildren.
6.56 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we must thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for having given us the opportunity to debate this subject. I would also like to thank and draw comfort from the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. His experience is something we cannot discount. I have a sense of déjà vu as regards his trip to Auckland; I can imagine him visiting the Royal New Zealand naval base at Devonport. As a boy I spent, not all, but most of, my time sitting nearby fishing.
The question that we face surely is one of expertise. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, brought that to the forefront. I have spent a considerable period of my life involved in technical and safety matters overseas. One factor to emerge from our study of these matters is that 99 per cent. of all accidents or incidents are due to something which someone does or does not do. In my experience attempts to manage safety with electronics or mechanics, locks, interlocks or whatever they may be, cannot compare with the level of safety which attends that achieved by highly trained and high quality working people, managers and responsible directors of workforces.
Thus it must be at Rosyth. Apart from the proposed figures of investment quoted, which many have discounted, I wonder whether the real cost of moving that expertise from where it is today to any other place has been considered. Perhaps it would be best if it were left alone.
Another point I wish to bring before your Lordships is that of the consequences of the closure of Rosyth. I must declare an interest inasmuch as I supported the Government in the privatisation Bills
64
associated with the Scottish ports. Initially, they were taken as Private Bills and then became government Bills. Can my noble friend the Minister see a future for Rosyth trading in the guise of a privatised port? If so, where is the market to come from? We have a marked over-capacity within the main Scottish ports of Dundee, Clyde, Aberdeen and Perth. Dundee started a roll-on roll-off service not so long ago with the support of the port itself—I presume financial. However, it failed. The Government's levy on privatised ports has been considerable. Are the Government going to be placed in a position whereby they have to re-invest in their own decision making? I hope not. I hope that the case for Rosyth is made.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lord Campbell for introducing this subject in such a wide-ranging and valuable way. I am also grateful to have heard the magnificent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, whose knowledge has been of great assistance to me and, I am sure, to many others of your Lordships.
The Rosyth question is really the visible part of a much bigger question: the complete mess which defence policy has got into at the end of, and following, the cold war. That is not to say it is anybody's fault that it has got there: it is probably all very well intentioned, but it is rather unfortunate. At the end of the cold war people spoke enthusiastically about a regime of stability and peace lasting, one would almost have thought, however improbable history makes that sound, for ever more. And so the peace dividend was invented, whereupon the Treasury, I understand, asked for a defence review. That was duly produced and called Options for Change.
Since Options for Change, the world has not been stable: it has become much less stable. I read in The Times today that something like 26 wars are going on, of different sorts, with another couple of dozen festering quietly. We all know what is happening in the Balkans. The United Nations is involved but appears to be powerless to overcome the hatred of generations. After Options for Change which, as far as I can make out, was entirely Treasury led and paid very little heed to task analysis, it was decided, rather in the manner of Procrustes, that the forces would have to fit the bed which had been made for them. So they laid down: they are all professionals and big men and so they started chopping off an awful lot of bits. That has resulted, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough said in this very House about a year ago, in dramatic overstretch in the Army.
A lot of people, because of the effectiveness of the regimental lobby, tend to assume that all the cuts are concentrated on the Army. That is far from true. In fact overstretch is endemic throughout the armed forces and even now further cuts are rumoured or threatened. We have heard of the possibility that amphibious forces will be axed in the interests of some other, as yet unstated, gain. All this causes great uncertainty, which is bad for morale and bad for recruiting. For example, only something like 45 per

65
cent. of the current intake at Sandhurst has been recruited —this at a time of great unemployment facing people in all walks of life.
Rosyth is the product of enormous muddle. The only way it can be settled with any degree of certainty and good is along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The first option is to ask what is strategically correct. The answer is that we must have two main bases situated fairly far apart. Devonport and Rosyth fill that need. Rosyth also looks to valuable oil installations in the North Sea and our other interests there. It can also protect our northern flank which, in spite of the collapse of the Russian empire, can still be endangered. That is the strategic argument. I gave it previously in speaking to an Unstarred Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The strategic aspect is very important.
If Rosyth is closed or if it is run down, it is perfectly clear that the naval base alongside will wither and eventually die. It will have less and less to do and will then be declared redundant. Halving our dockyards and so halving our repair capacity is not something that can be done on the present basis of discussion. Not only has discussion been strangled but rumour and innuendo, as my noble friend Lord Weir said, are rife. The thing has had all the appearance of being badly handled. Nonetheless, it is wrong to put all our eggs into one dockyard basket. That is what would happen if Rosyth does not get the submarine refitting.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, remarked on the political effects in Scotland, as did my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. No matter what is said and done, there is no doubt that if Rosyth does not get the submarine refitting the dice will be seen to have been loaded: that is the trouble. If Rosyth does get the submarine refitting the work will be shared roughly 50–50. If it does not get it the work will be given 100 per cent. to Devonport, with virtually nothing to Rosyth. That is not a fair arrangement. I do not want anybody to think that I have not considered this carefully; I have. I probably live the nearest of your Lordships to Rosyth apart from the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, and in passing perhaps I ought to declare a sort of interest. It is perhaps a record of a great Scottish seafarer—my great great grandfather—that the naval base at Rosyth is called Cochrane.
Now the original assessment was over-optimistic and the expected peace dividend has not appeared. Our forces are volunteers, all of them. Other nations find their forces expensive too, although they have a substantial body of conscripts. However, in the interests of the economy we must not wreck our strategic dispositions. In fact it is positively to our benefit to have strong forces, because of the influence which we can be seen to exert in the world. The rundown and closing of the dockyard would be followed inevitably, as I have said, by the closure of the naval base. That would leave our defences for the northern Atlantic and the North Sea in ruins. It is Her Majesty's Government's duty to see that that does not happen.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for bringing up this matter and also for the excellent maiden speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. The reason I am saying a few words is that I have a Scottish son-in-law who lives at Helensburgh. He and his family have lived there for very many years. They have told me many things about Rosyth and the naval facilities in Scotland. It is for that reason that I am speaking tonight.
I emphasise one or two points which have already been made. First, strategically for this nation of Great Britain it is vital to have submarines based at Rosyth as they are now—not just for purely sentimental reasons (shall we say?) but because they have been there for so many years that they have become established and have a very important place, not only militarily but socially too in those areas.
It would be sensible to have one place catering for submarines and another place catering for the surface vessels because each needs its own expertise and skills. Therefore, it seems extraordinary to me that it should be thought that the skills, expertise and facilities at Rosyth and in other parts of Scotland could possibly be dispensed with or run down. When those facilities are already in place, we should build on them and increase their effectiveness and their excellence rather than saying, "We'll go somewhere else".
Babcock Thorn have, apparently, quoted a fair price in competition at Devonport. However, as has been said, it is absurd to leave Great Britain with only one yard with naval repair facilities. If we were to find ourselves at war, an enemy would naturally try to demolish that one yard. It is therefore sensible that we should have at least two such facilities, one for submarines and the other for the surface fleet.
What are we saying to those Scottish people who have given their skills, expertise, knowledge and work not only for Scotland, but also for the rest of Britain —for England, Wales and Ulster? It is no good saying to people, "We shall compensate you and find you something else". We should be leaving ourselves in a most vulnerable position if we had only one such yard whether at Devonport or Rosyth. We need at least two yards. Would we not, in a way, be committing possible suicide if having just one yard were not only to be contemplated, but actually brought about? Finance and the Treasury have already been mentioned. But should the Treasury be allowed to have such a heavy hand in these matters? The dual option seems sensible. It would be fair both to the people of Scotland as well as to those of England.
In political terms also, Her Majesty's Government would be showing how much they care for the people of Scotland if they were to save Rosyth. Yes, my Lords, we in England have had a hammering; but as has been said, and as I believe, the people of Scotland have had a very heavy hammering in recent years when compared to anywhere else in England and Wales. But what are Her Majesty's Government saying to the people of Scotland at this time? How much is their anxiety for the people of Scotland being shown? This is very relevant to a decision on this issue,

67
especially for the people of Rosyth and Fife and for those near Helensburgh where there is the other submarine base. As my son-in-law and others have said, speaking purely politically, if the Conservative Party wants to have any representation in Scotland, and if the Conservative Government want to give real support to Conservatives in Scotland, they are not going about it in the right way if they allow Rosyth to be run down.
I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to think very carefully before they make their decision, and to have regard to what has been said by people who have real and great knowledge of this matter. As someone who has naturally become even more interested in Scotland recently as a result of gaining a Scottish son-in-law, I appeal to Her Majesty's Government. They must realise and hear the deep concern not only of Labour supporters and Scottish Nationalists, but of Conservatives in Scotland on this matter. I advise them to listen and not to rush into something that they will regret. I say: please think of the people of Scotland, of Rosyth, Fife and of Helensburgh with its other submarine base.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for initiating what has turned out to be an impressive debate with a number of authoritative speeches which, I confess immediately, I cannot hope to match. I listened with particular interest to the moving speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, who combined a deep feeling on these issues—indeed, a family feeling—with characteristic fairmindedness in putting the case for Rosyth.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, who apologised to the House disarmingly, saying that he did not feel that he should be making his maiden speech on this occasion because he did not have a direct interest in the issues. However, he had something a great deal better than that—he was totally disinterested. He is a disinterested expert on these issues. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord (whom we hope to hear speak on many occasions on other subjects) that it is not given to many maiden speakers to make the kind of impact that I suspect that he made on the Government Bench, and to have the kind of influence that I hope that he will have on the Government's thinking.
One cannot say with equal certainty that the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, spoke as a disinterested witness. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was right in saying that he gave a very necessary balance to the debate. He was entitled to speak as he did. He underlined the dilemma—the real difficulty of choice—that we should recognise that the Government face between Rosyth and Devonport in terms of the pressures on the defence budget. I thought that the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, came with all the more force since the solitary
68
case for Devonport came from a Scottish industrialist who happened to know about and to be involved in the Devonport operation.
As a Scottish parliamentarian, I cannot make any claim to be free from bias in this matter. I am no expert, but I have listened extremely carefully to all the speeches that have been made and have greatly improved my education on these issues by so doing. It seems to me that a powerful case has been made for the dual option, with submarine refitting being retained at Rosyth, and a surface shipyard for naval building being kept at Devonport. We are all conscious that —for both Rosyth and Devonport—there are acute human problems in terms of the suffering caused by unemployment and redundancy, as well as in terms of the dispersal of skills. One of the strong arguments for the dual option is the human one.
On defence matters, apart from cost, strategic considerations are of overriding importance, as a number of noble Lords have said. An additional powerful argument in favour of the dual option is the danger of concentrating naval resources in one crowded corner of the south coast. As the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, said, it is important for strategic reasons to seek to spread the risks and skills as far as possible.
I shall say a word about the politics of the matter. High politics are involved. I hope that they are not regarded as petty electoral politics either in Scotland or in the South West of England. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was right to remind his Front Bench of the string of commitments made in the mid-1980s which will come home to roost if the Government make an adverse decision. The real political issue is more important than electoral considerations in the North or the South. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, said, it is the continued cohesion of the United Kingdom itself. A decision that went wholly against Rosyth would have a damaging effect on the unity of the United Kingdom. It would have grave political consequences which would go beyond purely party political considerations.
I wish to echo what was said by a number of noble Lords, and especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. There has been a report that the Government will set up an inquiry into the matter under the auspices of Coopers & Lybrand. It is vital for everyone involved, not least the Government, that if that is so it should not be a cosmetic operation. All the facts should be brought out in the most open and transparent way so that when the final difficult decision is taken the public will recognise that the Government have been frank.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this, like many debates in your Lordships' House, has been an interesting debate. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for having raised the matter. We do not have many Scots to take part in debates, but it is interesting to note the surprising number taking part on the other side of the House. We

69
all listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, with great interest. I did especially because he served his apprenticeship in Belfast and Glasgow. There is nowhere better suited to rub the rough edges off someone than those two places. He had a modesty and due to his experience he knew, perhaps more than others, what he was talking about. He promised to speak on other subjects about which he knows more, and we shall listen to him with great interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, remarked that the only person who spoke in favour of Devonport alone was the noble Viscount, Lord Weir. He made an important speech. Everyone else spoke in favour of the dual option. The noble Viscount obviously knows a great deal more than most of us because of his privileged position.
Another of our grumbles at the Government is that we have not been given all the figures. I have been through most of the figures and checked them. They have been repeated today, but we have little information of the kind that the noble Viscount had. We cannot blame the Scottish press and suggest that something is being withheld. There are always some mavericks in the press who will bring out all points of view. The Government must answer the points made by the noble Viscount.
The last debate on Rosyth in which I took part was on 13th May 1991. It was a short debate which started at 10.20 p.m. and lasted a little over an hour. Nine noble Lords took part. We were then discussing Rosyth as a naval base. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who keeps himself well informed on defence, in particular on naval matters, made clear what we were debating. He said:
"We are discussing the naval base and not the dockyard. I shall be very surprised to hear that there are plans to abandon the dockyard, with its vital, huge and expensive facilities for refitting Tridents".—(Official Report, 13/5/91; col. 1464.)
That was less than two years ago.
We are having the debate tonight because less than two years after that debate and after many more millions of pounds of public money have been spent, there is great unease that the Government are going to close the dockyard in favour of Devonport, with perhaps the offer of a few palliatives, as has been said, to keep the natives in Scotland, especially Fife, quiet. Will the Minister confirm that the Government still stand by the Chancellor when he said—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—that the Government would complete the building of the massive facilities required to support the Trident submarines which would be refitted at Rosyth. When did the Government change their mind and decide to obtain tenders for the facilities at Devonport? Did they commission Coopers & Lybrand to do the study and then decide, or did they decide with public opinion then forcing them to have the study done? Which came first? That answer will be interesting.
The Devonport bid is said to be for £130 million which would undercut the Babcock Thorn price. That is the figure that I have and I have checked it. The bid of £130 million made by Devonport is challenged by common sense and accountancy experts. The
70
Devonport bid does not include the emergency docking facilities which will be essential and will cost about £25 million. I understand that running costs at Rosyth will be about £20 million. Again I have no other figures, and no one has given us any this evening. Running costs at Rosyth will be far cheaper because it could take up its role as sole submarine base a year earlier than Devonport. That would save about £50 million. Surely running costs must form part of the long-term tender price.
Those additional costs would put the Devonport bid way beyond that of the Babcock Thorn consortium. However, there are also other costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. I understand that the inspectorate has been satisfied with the standards at Rosyth. It would be extremely costly, if it were possible at all, to bring Devonport up to the required standard which would involve—and I use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Weir—the use of a patched up system.
According to the Scotsman on 26th January of this year, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that no approach would be made to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate until the dockyard had been selected. It seems to me to be crazy that the inspectorate, with all its expertise and knowledge, is not asked to come along to say whether or not something is feasible and to give some sort of estimate of cost, when apparently it does have some understanding of the costs involved at Rosyth.
Is it any wonder that in Scotland we seem to be showing signs of paranoia as regards this matter? It cannot be paranoia because paranoia is a fear of the unknown. However, we are getting information which makes us fear that the Government have already made up their mind. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether or not that is true. The Nationalist Party in Scotland has said that it is pork barrel politics for the sake of the South West of England. The Government will win no seats in Fife, but they may hold on to a few seats in the South West of England if the base is sited there. I hope that the Government will not bear that in mind at all.
I hope that the Minister can help the many noble Lords who have spoken this evening, most of whom were from his own party. Many responsible experts believe that there is not only room for both Rosyth and Devonport to continue as originally conceived but that that is the best, most economic and sensible solution. Rosyth should be the base to deal with submarines and Devonport should deal with surface vessels. It may be possible to do that under one management or under a joint management of some kind, although, again, the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, may disagree with me about that.
Surely all the facts must now be available to enable us to make a decision. When he replies I hope that the Minister will correct some of the factual mistakes that either we or the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, have made, because that is extremely important.
I should like to make a statement that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will appreciate, and it is a matter to which he referred. I was never

71
enthusiastic about the nuclear deterrent, even when my own party supported it. Your Lordships may remember that when the Russian Kosygin came to Scotland he was met in Glasgow by banners which said, "Welcome to your No. 1 Target", which was the west of Scotland. I lost out in those arguments so we have the Faslane base. Surely it would be adding insult to injury if we were to leave central Scotland with all its nuclear bases with their inherent dangers, while, at the same time, leaving Rosyth as a dead place. The big hole which has already been made would be used for scrap from Polaris submarines. The steel would be sold off and the units would be left encased in concrete as a menace in Scotland for many years ahead. The jobs, training and opportunities which Rosyth offer are, even at the lowest level, the least price that the Government should be prepared to pay for giving Scotland such a large concentration of nuclear weapons and fuel as it has at present.
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, before I address the anxieties which have been expressed during the course of this extraordinary interesting and—from the Government's point of view —valuable debate, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. During my brief sojourn in your Lordships' House I have learnt that there are gathered under this roof an ever-increasing collection of experts on abstruse and not so abstruse subjects. Your Lordships have been treated to yet another example of that and I should like to say to the noble Lord that I listened to him with admiration for his knowledge and the conciseness with which he delivered his speech. I too hope that we shall be privileged to listen to the noble Lord many times during the course of our coming debates.
Also, I thank my noble friend, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We all know what a sensitive and difficult subject nuclear refitting is for all the reasons which your Lordships have so eloquently described this evening.
I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who accused the Government of harbouring rather low-down motives. He said that the Government were merely interested in keeping the natives quiet. I have been married extremely happily for 23 years to a Scottish wife. I have never even presumed to suppose that I could keep that particular native quiet. I would never presume to suppose, from my lengthy if foreign experience of the Scottish nation, that it is possible to keep them quiet, let alone by Her Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House. That is an unworthy slur on the capacities of his own people which I reject on their behalf.
We know of the depth of feeling which has prompted your Lordships to express yourselves so forcefully this afternoon and this evening. The anxieties expressed are well known to Her Majesty's Government in general and to the Ministry of Defence
72
in particular. I and my colleagues in the Government are deeply conscious of the great importance of the Royal Dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth to the economies of their respective areas. Many noble Lords have pointed out that they each employ several thousand people, that they sustain employment for thousands more in companies and other enterprises across their respective regions. The companies both at Devonport and Rosyth are among the largest trainers of apprentices in their areas. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, referred to that, as did other noble Lords. Therefore, we recognise fully the great significance for Fife and for Scotland of the issues raised today. We recognise them in particular when, with his usual eloquence which I well remember from another place, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirk ford, not only gave us the benefit of his knowledge of his native heath but also of the strong family interests which he has in the dockyard of Rosyth.
As an inhabitant of the west country I feel that I must try to be as fair as possible—my noble friend, Lady Carnegy of Lour adjured me to do just that—and as my noble friend Lord Weir made clear, Devonport is at least as important to the south west as Rosyth is to Scotland. We have to bear in mind that what we are talking about here is a decision, like all difficult decisions, to which there is no golden or happy solution which suits all parties. The workforces in particular at both dockyards have given long and devoted service to the Crown over many years, and latterly to the companies concerned with their management. I wish in particular to pay tribute to the way in which those workforces reacted positively and enthusiastically to the requirement to complete warship refits ahead of time and to convert the vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to war-time use in preparation for Operation GRANBY. The whole country has good reason to be grateful to all those who work at both Royal dockyards for their skill and dedication.
I shall try to deal with the detailed points that have been raised as swiftly and as concisely as I can. It might be helpful if I try to set out some of the background to the present situation. I hope that will enable your Lordships to set in context some of the more, (dare I say it?) rhetorical speculation to which the newspapers and others have treated us in recent weeks. I suggest to your Lordships that the issues we have to resolve are twofold. They are: where to invest in the expensive facilities which we shall need for refitting Trident and other nuclear-powered submarines by the turn of the century, and how to secure best value for money in the refitting programme as a whole in the long term. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish conjured me—that is possibly the best way I can put it—to have at least some regard to the political issues involved. However, I must stress to your Lordships and to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Ironside in particular that a failure to achieve best value for money in support activities such as refitting must, contrary to what a number of your Lordships have suggested—I say this with due diffidence—

73
inevitably increase the pressure on the resources that can be found for the front line. The inevitable result of that would be that further reductions in the front line would ensue and an exacerbated imbalance between the front line and the support area would also ensue.
We have to realise that the balance between support and the front line is crucial. The purpose of defence spending is, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway reminded us in his opening remarks, the defence of the realm. That is an objective which both he and I hold as top of our priorities. It is true that with a smaller navy we have to make sure that the support which is necessary to ensure that smaller navy remains effective, afloat and in fighting trim is commensurate to the size and capabilities of that navy. Merely to keep excess capacity in the support area for the sake of uneconomic but necessary social considerations would, I suggest, not be a right use for the defence budget, although clearly other government departments have other objectives on which they might wish to spend the taxpayers' money.
Your Lordships will know that at present nuclear-powered submarines are refitted, refuelled and decommissioned at both Devonport and Rosyth. I must tell my noble friend Lord Milverton that both yards have an excellent record in technical and safety terms in this work. As your Lordships will be aware, the reductions in the armed forces announced in July 1990 mean that there will in future be significantly fewer nuclear-powered submarines in the fleet than we had at one time planned. This reduction, from over 20 to 16, has opened up the possibility that all refitting work could be carried out at one site. I know a number of your Lordships have made great play of the issue of two sites. I shall mention that in a moment.
A comprehensive study by the Ministry of Defence which drew on a wide range of skill and knowledge in nuclear and construction matters, including the companies who manage the yards on the Government's behalf, has shown that it would be feasible, safe and very cost effective to concentrate nuclear work at either Devonport or Rosyth as opposed to continuing with previous plans to maintain two nuclear refitting yards. I emphasise the word "nuclear" because I noticed, perhaps wrongly, during the course of the debate that there was some confusion about how what has come to be known as the dual option is defined. I felt some of your Lordships regarded it as important that there should be two nuclear refitting yards. Other noble Lords—perhaps, if I understood him right, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was one of them—suggested that the dual option should encompass one nuclear refitting yard and one surface fleet refitting yard. I rather suspect the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would count himself among the number expressing that view. I would not discount that possibility. My noble friend Lord Selkirk was one of those who felt it was important to have two nuclear refitting yards. I am sorry to have to disagree with so many of my noble friends, but we can see no overwhelming strategic reason to keep two nuclear dockyards and we have therefore concluded that we should in future concentrate nuclear work at one site.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I speak simply to clarify the issue. I opened the debate on the clear basis that nuclear submarine refitting should take place at Rosyth and that surface ship refitting should take place at Devonport. I never argued the other type of dual option.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I hope he was not implying that he was one of those with whom I necessarily disagree. We are therefore faced with two choices, the answers to which are, I know, eagerly awaited in both parts of the country; namely, where the nuclear work should be placed, and what should happen to the other, non-nuclear yard. We recognise that the continuing uncertainty about these issues is worrying to all concerned. That uncertainty is current throughout all Ministry of Defence establishments during the course of the draw-down. Defence Ministers are anxious to reduce that uncertainty. However, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that for this decision above all others it is vital —I look at my noble friend Lord Selkirk and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour in particular when saying this —that we should get the answers right and that they should be perceived by the public, and of course by your Lordships to be right.
While we are convinced that concentrating nuclear refit work at one site is the most cost effective course, unlike my noble friend Lord Oxfuird—if I understood him right—we do not accept that bringing all nuclear work into one of the Royal dockyards need necessarily prejudice the long-term future of the other dockyard, or its ability to compete for the rest of the ship refitting programme, and indeed to compete with great vigour or even to diversify further. I am heartened in that belief by the successful efforts which both dockyard companies have already made to widen the range of customers they serve and the range of the work that they do.
I shall address myself as rapidly as I can to a few other points which ran like a thread through many of the speeches. I shall first consider the question of safety. Many noble Lords referred to this including the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, my noble friend Lord Sanderson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, in particular. They are right to say that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does not give certificates in advance. However, we are confident that, as my noble friend Lord Weir said, the NII will give us the certificate that is necessary whichever way the nuclear refitting decision goes. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence has already held some preliminary discussions to make sure that that confidence is not misplaced.
It is also important that we should understand the whole question of the handling of what has come to be known as the Babcock Thorn Limited upgrade proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Weir, and many other noble Lords mentioned that point in passing. I should make it clear that the Ministry of Defence has a very clear indication that the new docks proposal has

75
always been BTL's preferred proposal. That is a preference to which the Ministry of Defence correctly attaches weight.
BTL has previously produced studies on the possibilities of upgrading a pair of docks at Rosyth. In November 1991 the company presented an analysis of upgrading Nos. 2 and 3 docks at Rosyth making clear its doubts about the viability of that approach. In March 1992 it again presented an analysis of a proposal to upgrade Nos. 2 and 3 docks. This time it included an upgrade of No. 1 dock as an interim measure to ensure that the refit programme could be sustained during the construction period.
Not least because of Babcock Thorn Limited's own continued strong preference for RD 57 as a method of meeting the ministry's requirements, ministry officials indicated that the Ministry of Defence did not require further work to be done on upgrade proposals. The fact that BTL carried out further work at its own expense is entirely a matter for the company. BTL's offer in late November last year, of which I was personally made aware by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne at a private meeting—I am very pleased to see him in his place this evening—was entirely unsolicited. We were already aware of the broad outlines of such a proposal. I assure your Lordships that it is receiving careful scrutiny against exactly the same criteria used to assess the other proposals put to us. I also assure your Lordships that no decision has yet been taken on the way ahead.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to suggest that the Devonport bid does not include an emergency dock. I am informed, and I believe it to be true, that it does include an emergency dock. I am sure that the noble Lord will find that information useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also suggested that considerable one-off savings in the BTL proposals would flow from Rosyth's ability to take on all nuclear work earlier than could Devonport. A figure of £50 million in a year has been quoted in connection with those supposed savings. It is possible that Rosyth might, on the basis of our current refit programme, be able to take on all nuclear work sooner than could Devonport. However, the period in question is determined by the programme of nuclear work which the ministry would be placing at the non-nuclear yard and the amount of nuclear work committed to that yard at the time that any decisions were made to place all nuclear work at the other yard. Should Rosyth be able to become the sole nuclear yard earlier than Devonport, that would indeed lead to some savings. That is common ground between the noble Lord and myself. Those savings, of course, would be taken fully into account as part of any evaluation of the options for future nuclear refitting. I can assure the noble Lord that during the course of our evaluations the point that he made has certainly been well taken and will be taken into account.
I am very conscious of the time I have taken in attempting to answer your Lordships during the course of the debate. I am also conscious that time probably dictates that I shall not be able to answer as fully as I should have liked. However, if your
76
Lordships will allow me I should like to refer to the question of the cost of RD 57. Many noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Campbell, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in particular—referred to the matter and said that in their view the money spent on RD 57 is considerable (indeed, it is) and that it would be a shame to let it go to waste. It may seem curious to say so, but the sums already spent on RD 57 do not affect the decision we have to take as to where to invest in nuclear facilities. That decision has to be based on what is the most cost-effective means of meeting requirements in terms of our future expenditure.
I was extremely interested and pleased to hear noble Lords, and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, refer to the importance of through-life costs. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am that through-life costs, calculated on a discounted cash flow basis, are on the whole the most useful tool in making a purely arithmetical investment calculation of the kind that must be made in both the private and public sectors. However, we also know that there is a conflict inherent in all government plans between through-life cost and the demands of annuality. If we regard through-life cost as virtue, annuality is a very hard taskmaster, particularly when the Government are facing a substantial PSBR requirement.
If your Lordships will allow me I should also like to say to my noble friends Lord Mackay and Lady Carnegy that the original 1985 decision to build facilities at Rosyth was taken in the context of a projected number of nuclear-powered submarines of more than 20 as opposed to the present projected figure of 16. We are extremely well aware of the political knowledge which both my noble friends have on my and their party's prospects, electoral and otherwise, in the nation of Scotland. However, I would say to them that circumstances have changed radically. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will bear in mind fully the political imperatives they describe when the time comes to make what is a difficult decision. We have to conduct a fundamental examination into the most cost-effective means of refitting the nuclear fleet.
This has been a long debate, but the subject richly merits it. I conclude by saying once again that the Government are fully aware of the importance of the future of the Rosyth Dockyard to the people and economy of Fife and to the people and economy of Scotland as a whole. The impact on the local economy is certainly one factor among the many we shall consider as we seek to balance the needs of the Royal Navy and the taxpayer against the needs of South West England and Eastern Scotland and against the more general needs of the defence of the United Kingdom and the cost-effective use of public funds.
Once we have proposals to make we shall certainly announce them. We shall then be able to discuss their wider ramifications with all the interested parties. Certainly, I must say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that Parliament will provide its own opportunities, or I do not know Parliament as I think I do. It is not for me to judge what those opportunities will be, but I

77
would be astonished if, after the decision has been taken, your Lordships did not hold me to account at this Dispatch Box. I know that my other ministerial colleagues will he held to account in another place. That process will be immensely important in ensuring that we reach the right conclusions in the end, as will today's debate. It is for that reason that I am grateful to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Campbell in particular for today's opportunity to discuss some of the issues.
The discussion will certainly help Ministers make the decisions—I do not say that purely in a spirit of egregious flattery of your Lordships—after taking the advice of consultants and of your Lordships. However, I say this to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In the end it is Ministers who will take the decisions and who will have to stand up in your Lordships' House and in another place to defend them. It is the assurance that we shall be examined in Parliament for our decisions perhaps more than anything else which enables me to be certain that when I assure my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Oxfuird, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that we shall consider the issue fairly and in as unbiased a manner as we can, it will give your Lordships the greatest comfort.
Finally, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Government have still to make up their mind. If I were a betting man—which of course I am—I would say to your Lordships that it is too close to call.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down will he assist on one point? It is on the real danger that arises from having all the surface fleet work and submarine work in one place. I do not believe that he touched on that issue.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl if I did not do so. I thought that I had briefly touched on the issue although constraints of time perhaps prevented me from doing so at appropriate length. I tried to draw a distinction between nuclear refitting at two bases as opposed to nuclear refitting at one base and surface refitting at another. I tried as best I could to explain to your Lordships that in the Government's opinion the case for nuclear submarine refitting at one port only in view of the smaller number of nuclear submarines for which we now plan, is difficult to upset. I certainly accept that there may well be a case for dual "porting" (if that is the right word) with the surface fleet being refitted principally at one port as opposed to the nuclear fleet of submarines which would be refitted at another. I hope that that gives some indication to the noble Earl of what I meant to say.

Alliance & Leicester (Girobank) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS: FORMER WHITCHURCH SCHOOL
  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS: FORMER WHITCHURCH SCHOOL
  PRISON MANAGEMENT: FUTURE
  PRISON MANAGEMENT: FUTURE
  PERSONAL PENSIONS: REGULATIONS
  PERSONAL PENSIONS: REGULATIONS
  CAMDEN: LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS
  CAMDEN: LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS
  FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW: HISTORIC BUILDINGS
  FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW: HISTORIC BUILDINGS
  EX-SOVIET MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
  EX-SOVIET MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
  BRITISH COAL: PENSION FUND SURPLUS
  BRITISH COAL: PENSION FUND SURPLUS
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: R & D OPPORTUNITIES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: R & D OPPORTUNITIES
  ECO-LABELLING SCHEME: ADMINISTRATION
  ECO-LABELLING SCHEME: ADMINISTRATION

  RIVER THAMES FLOATING HELIPORT PROPOSAL
  Lord Williams of Elvel
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are aware of a proposal by Thames Heliport plc to set up a floating heliport in the river Thames operating within the area of the London conurbation, and, if so, what planning mechanism is in place to ensure that such a proposal receives a fair public hearing.

  Lord Strathclyde
  We are aware in broad terms of the proposal by Thames Heliport plc to set up a floating heliport in the river Thames and have advised them to consult widely with interested parties. We recognise the importance of public awareness of, and participation in, the development control process. Under Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (as amended), any development which requires planning permission must be given publicity.

  The elected members of the local planning authority represent the interests of the community in planning matters. In determining planning applications they must have regard to the development plan, so far as it is material to the development proposal, and to any other material considerations, including any relevant views on planning matters expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and any other third parties. Where, in making any determination, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local inquiries and hearings into planning appeals and called-in planning applications are held in public and members of the public have an opportunity to express views on the proposed development.

  PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
  PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
  KURDISH PEOPLE IN IRAQ
  KURDISH PEOPLE IN IRAQ
  ISRAEL: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH UN RESOLUTION
  ISRAEL: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH UN RESOLUTION
  ABANDONED CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  ABANDONED CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  PRIVATE AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  PRIVATE AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  "BRITISH OVERSEAS AID ANNUAL REVIEW":CHANGED FORMAT
  "BRITISH OVERSEAS AID ANNUAL REVIEW":CHANGED FORMAT
  GUYANA: DEBT BURDEN
  GUYANA: DEBT BURDEN
  OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND AID FLOWS
  OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND AID FLOWS
  CROWN AGENTS AND COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  CROWN AGENTS AND COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND TOTAL FLOWS: GNP
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND TOTAL FLOWS: GNP
  OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE FLOWS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE FLOWS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES