Sitting of 14 January 1993

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 January 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Fines (Ability to Pay)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the success of the points system linking magistrates court fines with the individual's ability to pay.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The principles of the scheme were successfully trialled before its full-scale introduction in all magistrates courts from 1 October 1992. It is too early to judge the full effectiveness of the scheme, but I am ensuring that it is closely monitored.
    Mr. Steen: I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that the way in which our courts conduct their business should appear to be fair. Does the Minister consider it fair that a man on income support who drives along the A38 at 100 mph should be fined £24—less than a parking fine—while a man driving immediately behind him at the same speed whose disposable income is £100 a week, which is not very much, is fined £1,600 for the same offence? Does that not discriminate against the ordinary man in the street and clobber him although he is not a millionaire?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. On the principle,
    1040
    however, he will be aware that offenders' means have long been taken into account by the courts. My hon. Friend will know that magistrates still have total discretion regarding the seriousness of an offence and all relevant factors. I hope that he will also bear in mind that a fine is supposed to be punishment which hits the offender's pocket with the same punitive effect whether he is rich or poor. The scheme provides a framework to make that possible for magistrates courts. The scheme will continue to be monitored.
    Mr. Llwyd: In my constituency there were two recent cases of driving without due care and attention, both of similar gravity, but one defendant was fined £800 and the other £25. Does that not strike the Minister as absurd?
    Mr. Wardle: The units reflecting the seriousness of the offence may well have been the same, but the assessment of the fines would have depended on the offenders' disposable income. That is the purpose of the scheme. As I said, courts have long taken financial resources into account in deciding fines.

    Business Crime
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to reduce the level of business crime.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): The latest safer cities progress report highlights a wide range of successful crime prevention initiatives that have benefited business, whose own crime prevention efforts have also gained from Home Office research covering issues such as retail crime analysis, shop theft and cheque and credit fraud. We have also supported the business and crime initiative launched by Crime Concern and the Confederation of British Industry.
    Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 300 business watch schemes represent a real commitment by the police and the business community to fight crime in partnership? How does my hon. Friend intend to encourage the extension of such schemes, and what practical help can he give to the participants?
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentioned the word "partnership". That is the key to the way forward. Partnership has certainly been encouraged by the 20 safer city projects, and we have announced our intention to create 20 new safer cities. In addition, I have also had discussions with leading retailers, who are now showing considerable interest in working on crime prevention in partnership with us.
    Mr. Redmond: When businesses such as B and Q open on a Sunday they commit a business crime. When will the Minister stop hiding behind local authorities? When will he stop condoning that activity and take positive action to stop those businesses breaking the law?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has given a clear idea of the Government's intentions on Sunday trading. Later this month a Bill dealing with the subject will be discussed. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity then to express his views more forcefully.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend has referred to retail crime. He will be aware of the great concern among retailers about large-scale, heavy-duty burglary, including ram raiding. What steps are being taken to reduce the incidence of ram raiding in terms of discussions with retailers and with the Department of the Environment, which controls the planning aspects of the prevention of ram raiding?
    Mr. Jack: I recognise the severity of the effects of ram raiding. It is worth pointing out, as this may not be widely known, that ram raiding offences can attract a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment if burglary or aggravated burglary is involved.
    My hon. Friend should be aware that we are pursuing Car Crime Prevention Year vigorously to ensure that the source of the tools of trade for ram raiders, if one can put it that way, are prevented from being stolen. I shall certainly pass on to the Department of the Environment my hon. Friend's comments relating to protective street furniture.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister realise that the House is aware that he is being incredibly cheeky in suggesting that he will double the number of safer cities projects when in fact he will produce no extra cash?
    On the real question before us, is the Minister aware that crime against business costs more than £10 billion per year, which is equivalent to a third of all NHS spending or 6 per cent. on income tax? Is he aware that fraud in the City of London costs more than £500 million per year? Given the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for putting business men in charge of hospitals, schools and prisons, or perhaps even the police, will the Minister now put some real enthusiasm into taking dramatic steps to sort out business crime?
    Mr. JackThat restatement of a problem that we take only too seriously is merely a thinly veiled apology from the Opposition for their total lack of positive thought on how to deal with the problem. Last week we announced in full detail our plans for the safer cities projects. We always made it clear that there would be a limit on funding for existing projects until the end of 1994.
    I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) gives no weight to the announcement that we made about the National Board for Crime Prevention, which includes a dialogue between business and the Government to address the very problems that he detailed.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the outburst from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the House has just witnessed is an outrage on the great majority of businesses in the United Kingdom which wish to co-operate with the police and the Home Office to prevent crime? Can my hon. Friend tell the House what arrangements he has in mind to ensure that business men are encouraged to sponsor crime prevention schemes?
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted that my hon. Friend referred to the police in the context of crime prevention. The police are central and play an excellent role. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members disagree with that, they will have a chance to say so later.
    As for contributing to crime prevention, we have certainly made it clear that there will be a real opportunity
    1042
    for local businesses to bring not only their expertise but their resources to help perhaps even to run some of the new 20 safer cities schemes.

    Data Protection
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the EC data protection directive.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Government are seeking to achieve a directive as close as possible to the 1981 Council of Europe convention on data processing, on which our law is based. We consider that the convention preserves a proper balance between the rights and interests of data users, data subjects and others.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Government not be adopting double standards if later today they say that they support privacy protection from the press for individuals, from royals to plebians, but then spend their time watering it down for computer records? Why are the Government against the inclusion of manual data and data subject consent before records can be passed to others? Why do they expect France and Germany to have lower standards for their privacy protection than they already have?
    Mr. Lloyd: We expect the Germans and the French to have the arrangements that they think best. Data users are well protected under the European convention. The fear is that their real interests will not be better looked after under the directive but rather that the data subjects will have extra expense and inconvenience as their banks, building societies and insurance companies will have to write to them more often to get written permission for routine transfers of information which most people want their banks to do automatically.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), the United Kingdom is in the forefront of data protection? Does he further agree that United Kingdom law is based on the 1981 convention, which has not even been ratified by five of our EC partners?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is right. Five of our EC friends have a long way to go. We signed the convention because, after long discussion, we believed that it provided the best protection for the data subjects as well as allowing business to be transacted by electronic means, which is in the interests of everyone, not merely businesses.

    Local Police Forces
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to announce the future shape and organisation of local police forces; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am still considering a range of issues connected with the police service, including the future shape and organisation of local police forces. I shall announce my conclusions when we have proposals to make.
    Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary comes to consider the nature of reforms as presented to him, will he ensure that two things take place: first, that local accountability is maintained; secondly, that nothing is done to damage the integrity, work and competence of the police force of the county of Kent?
    Mr. Clarke: Proposals are not being put to me. I am preparing proposals, which, in due course, I shall put to my hon. Friend and to the House. Of course I am determined to make the police service in Britain yet more effective and efficient to tackle the serious problems of lawlessness which we all know that we face. I already have in hand work on quality of service, more effective local policing, the pay and command structure of police forces, and what can be done about policemen who lack the capacity for the job. Now I have announced that I am having a look at the disciplinary procedures for those who face serious charges.
    Obviously, I am also looking at structure and financing. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's legitimate points when I do so. The relationship between the local police force and the local community is crucial to a good police force in Britain.
    Mr. Mandelson: Has the Home Secretary reconsidered the 2 per cent. budget cut forced on my police force in Cleveland as a result of the Government's financial curbs on local authorities, about which I have had a complacent and unsatisfactory letter from his colleague the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers? Does the Home Secretary not realise that unless Government resources match his rhetoric, any reorganisation or tinkering with the management of the local police forces will be regarded by the public with the utmost suspicion?
    Mr. Clarke: There has been a further substantial increase in the resources available to the police service nationally and to local government to spend on the police service as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement. I shall look up the financial arrangements of the hon. Gentleman's police force to see whether any particular local circumstances explain the difficulties that he describes, but overall we had a good settlement this autumn in the light of the economic recession which we know the country faces. The police service had a bigger increase than any other part of local authority expenditure.
    Mr. Sykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the tragic murder between Christmas and the new year of an 80-year-old pensioner, Mr. Percy Noble, in Whitby in my constituency? That followed a similar event in September in which PC Moss was tragically blinded in the course of his duties in a so-called joy-riding accident. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the tremendous anger felt by people in Scarborough and Whitby at those incidents? Is he aware that we want more bobbies on the beat, less paperwork for them to do and, most importantly, the punishment to fit the crime and not the criminal?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the tragic events that my hon. Friend describes. I also appreciate that they are only the worst feature of the problems that his constituents and many others face in today's society. That is why I am so determined to ensure that the police are made more
    1044
    effective and efficient. Although obviously the police cannot reduce the level of crime of their own volition, we have to have the best police force possible to tackle it. For that reason, I am looking at every aspect of police forces, including the relationship between the large numbers of headquarters staff in police forces throughout Britain and the policemen deployed on the ground, where I agree with my hon. Friend that the public most wish to see them and gain the greatest sense of security from them.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that the most important thing that people want is a say in the policing of their local communities? They would resent it very much if policing were to be controlled by Government boards, stuffed with Government appointees. Would it not therefore be better if he had the broadest possible consultation on the changes, so that the outcome could be based on the interests of the public and not on his obsessive dislike of local government?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I should make it clear that any proposals that I make will go out for consultation. I doubt whether that will interest the hon. Gentleman very much because he has already denounced my proposals—just in case—before he even knows what any of them are. The public are concerned about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes)—about how far the police can be enabled to protect members of the public against the rising level of crime—rather than about the hon. Gentleman's prime concern, which is who sits on what committee, which seems to be a comparatively subordinate question.

    Woolf Report
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in the implementation of the Woolf report.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government's proposals in response to the Woolf report were set out in the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice", published in September 1991. The White Paper identified 12 key areas of priority for change. I will write to my hon. Friend with a more detailed account of progress in each of the 12 areas and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. The White Paper paved the way for agency status for the prison service and work is well in hand to establish the executive agency on 1 April. I have appointed a chief executive designate, Mr. Derek Lewis, who I am sure will give dynamic leadership to the service.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituents in Basildon, where crime is falling, agree with the Woolf report? Does he also agree that the rapid progress in providing humane and modern conditions in our prison, is in stark contrast with the record of the Opposition, who cut capital spending on prisons by one fifth in spite of the fact that the prison population grew by 14.5 per cent?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I believe that the encouraging crime statistics in Basildon are a result of the efforts of the local police force and the crime prevention initiatives canvassed a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Government have certainly set a target of a more enlightened prison regime. We have adopted Lord Justice Woolf's proposals, appointed Judge Tumim to point out

    1045
    the deficiencies and are moving towards a more modern and effective management system which will deliver that target as soon as possible. It often surprises me that Opposition Members, who are most critical of the present failings of the prison service, appear most resistant to any idea of changing the way in which we run that service. The steps that we are taking will speed up the achievement of the targets that my hon. Friend wants us to set.
    Mr. Maclennan: What does the Home Secretary intend to do about young offenders institutions, especially the one at Feltham?
    Mr. Clarke: I visited Feltham, where a series of difficult and tragic incidents have taken place in recent years. I was glad to see the progress being made there to get out of those difficulties. The present governor and staff are to be congratulated on raising the morale of the team, introducing innovative ways to deal with offenders and providing more productive regimes. Bullying at Feltham is being tackled and we hope that efforts being put into improvements there will put an end to the problems that have occurred.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that when I visited Wandsworth prison recently the most impressive aspect had nothing to do with the laundering of Canadian diplomatic mail bags, but was the building works which will make possible single prisoner cells without slopping out? I hope that that work will continue quickly. The education work being done by the prison education service was the second most impressive thing. Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep a close eye on the current changes to the service to ensure that when prisoners have served their sentences they are able to leave prison best equipped to return to the community and the job market?
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend's autumn statement preserved the Government's capital programmes and I am glad to say that, as a result, the prison capital programme was kept well in place. We are making great advances in extending and improving the amount of prison accommodation. I am glad to say that we are on target for ending slopping out and having integral sanitation everywhere by the end of 1994. More than 70 per cent. of prisoners already have such arrangements. I hope that my hon. Friend is assured that the improvements that he saw when he visited Wandsworth prison will be continued in the near future.
    Ms. Ruddock: In the light of those replies, does the Home Secretary recall that his chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, reported only three months ago that prisoners were still in overcrowded and disgraceful living conditions with inadequate medical attention? Do I need to remind him that, since then, there have been allegations of drugs and alcohol dealing and the rape of a female staff member of Long Lartin prison, a riot at Reading remand centre, and reports of a gangland culture at Wymott? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that the central recommendations of the Woolf report on reducing overcrowding and providing better education and work facilities for prisoners have not been carried out by the Government and that in that respect the Home Secretary has failed in his duties.
    Mr. Clarke: It was this Government who appointed Judge Tumim to be Her Majesty's inspector of prisons and I recently reappointed him precisely so that he could carry on pointing out to the Government and to the public the failings and shortcomings in the prison service. We know that they exist on a wide scale. The conditions that the hon. Lady described still exist in too many of our local prisons and I have been describing how we propose to tackle them. Substantial improvements have been made towards getting Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations in place and we shall continue to make progress. When we have made the necessary changes to speed up progress, I hope that the Opposition will not merely resist them all, defend the status quo, and become frightfully obsessed with the fact that we bring in business men from outside to raise the management culture and improve the running of prisons.

    Electoral Law
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had regarding changes in electoral law; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have set up five working groups of Home Office officials and representatives of returning officers and local authorities to look at different aspects of the electoral process.
    Mr. Skinner: It is about time, because in the 1992 election the Tories helped themselves by rigging the elections and piling up in marginal seats votes which they got from Johannesburg and the Costa del Sol. They made sure that those votes were put in the right place. Does the Minister agree that Tory supporters were also voting for the infirm and the disabled in residential homes in order to win the election? Why has there been no public inquiry into those malpractices? Will he guarantee that he will support the Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on Friday—appropriately, in a few days' time?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is not much truth in any of that rant, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The whole House, including most of the hon. Gentleman's party—not the hon. Gentleman, but the Labour Front Bench and most Labour Members—supported the enfranchisement of British citizens living overseas. Some 30,000 voted, but they could not possibly have affected the outcome of the general election. What made a difference was the piling up of Labour votes in the Labour heartlands and inner cities—when the population had moved out—because the boundary review had been so long delayed.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people in the country welcomed those reforms to allow more people with interests in this country to vote in elections here? However, another aspect of electoral review which requires immediate attention is election to the European Parliament. Can my hon. Friend throw some light on the review to take place on that front?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are urgently considering how to take forward the question of adding six additional seats for the next European elections in 1994. We intend to keep the existing voting system but to have the existing Euro-constituency boundaries independently redrawn.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that the biggest problem in electoral law is the people missing from the electoral register? Some 2 million have disappeared from the register since 1987 and many redundant names appear on electoral registers, hiding from view the fact that there are many missing people. What are the Government doing about getting a proper—rolling—electoral register? If they are not doing anything, will they support the principle of the Bill that I shall be introducing in the House on 12 February?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman asks a rhetorical question—he knows perfectly well what we are doing, as he and I have had discussions on the matter. As I said earlier, five working groups of local authority and Home Office officials are looking at the various issues, including that of the register. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the register has always been a problem. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is comparing the register with the outcome of the 1991 census.
    If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the 1981 census and review he will recall that 6.5 per cent. of people who were eligible to vote were not on the register then and 7 per cent. of names on the register were redundant—the people had died or moved. There is much work to be done by the group, which is why we set it up and intend to consider its recommendations carefully.
    Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that we won the general election in 1979? Is he aware that we won it in 1983? Is he aware that we won it in 1987? Is he aware that we won it in 1992? Is he aware that when we won those elections it had nothing to do with electoral reform, but was to do with our policies? Until that lot opposite understand those policies, they will never get re-elected.
    Mr. Lloyd: Not for the first time my hon. Friend puts his finger right on it. He is quite right and Opposition Members know that he is right. That is why they come forward with fiddling excuses such as those produced by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister join me in saying that one of the most important functions of his Department is to ensure that all British citizens who are entitled to a vote receive a vote? Does he accept my criticism when I say that it is unacceptable that millions of our fellow citizens are not on the electoral register? Will he make a statement to the House in the near future about proper and adequate funding for electoral registration officers? In particular, will he make a statement about the disabled people who are currently unable to exercise their right to vote even when they have registered? Will he bring forward proposals to put an end to that disgrace?
    Mr. Lloyd: All disabled people are entitled to vote. The important factor is that the law requiring local authorities to provide polling stations to which disabled people can gain access is not always applied. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that some local authorities face difficulties with that—he rubs his fingers to indicate that the problem is money. That is why we contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of providing special ramps and help for those people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if an individual cannot get to a polling station becuase he is disabled, he has a postal vote.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government, through his Department, make available a great deal of money for advertising voter registration and making it easier for people to register to vote? Does he further accept that far too many people cannot be bothered to make use of those facilities to register their vote? In the past three years, some people have deliberately sought not to register to vote, in the hope that they will avoid having to pay community charge. For that reason, one should not get too upset at the crocodile tears shed by Opposition Members. If people cannot be bothered to register to vote, they get what is coming to them.
    Mr. Lloyd: In the last analysis, it must be the individual's responsibility to get his name on the register. The Government have a responsibility to give good advice, assistance and support to electoral registration officers to ensure that those who want to get on to the register, do. We fulfil our responsibility and the study groups aim to ensure that we shall achieve even greater success in future. Electoral registration officers are more effective in the job, which rightly and primarily belongs to them.

    Crime (Hampshire)
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in recorded crime in Hampshire since 1979.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Since 1979, recorded crime in Hampshire has increased at a rate of 6.6 per cent. a year, which is broadly in line with the rates of increase for England and Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Denham: Is not the Minister aware that that means that crime in Hampshire has more than doubled since 1979, but police numbers have been increased by only 10 per cent? Is he aware that crime increased by 14 per cent. in the last year alone, that there were a dozen crimes involving firearms in Southampton over the Christmas period and that crack is now available in Southampton? In the light of that increase in crime, will the Minister explain to the House precisely how he came to decide, against the advice of the police and the police authority and against the demands of local people, that there should be no increase in police numbers in Hampshire next year? Why has the so-called party of law and order become the Government of criminal Britain?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman sounds a long alarm. He failed to mention that Opposition Members have voted against every major piece of law and order legislation since 1979. In the year to last June, recorded crime in Southampton increased by 4 per cent., whereas in the previous year it increased by 22 per cent. In the current year, Hampshire police have received 67 more posts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be asking the Hampshire force to get on with civilianisation so that more uniformed policemen can get out on the beat and combat crime in his constituency.
    Mr. David Martin: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has just said. I wish to raise with him the concern of residents, particularly in Southsea, about disturbances outside licensed premises. Will he co-operate with local authorities, the police force and all others concerned to make sure that, particularly with regard to

    1049
    licensed premises that open into the small hours of the morning, all possible back-up is given to efforts to do something about the problem?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to express concern about those matters. His concern is shared by the Hampshire force. As he may know, Hampshire police have introduced a clubwatch scheme to deal with violence in clubs and pubs for that very purpose.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Minister will be aware that in Leeds yesterday magistrates imposed a—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to crime in Hampshire. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he says to crime in Hampshire and not to Leeds, which I know is dear to his heart.
    Mr. Gunnell: I will make the question applicable to all local authorities, Madam Speaker, and therefore to Hampshire.
    Is the Minister aware that for the first time in this country a court has imposed a fine on a local authority social services department because of a crime committed by a young person in its care? Will the Minister explain whether—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I fear that, although I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to get his question in order, it does not appear that it is directly relevant. We shall have to move on.

    Car Crime Prevention Year
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have developed special initiatives as part of Car Crime Prevention Year.
    Mr. Jack: All 43 police forces in England and Wales have engaged in some form of activity in connection with Car Crime Prevention Year and I take this opportunity of congratulating them on their contribution to a campaign which in its first quarter has seen a 2.5 per cent. reduction in car crime.
    Mrs. Currie: Is the Minister aware that last year Derbyshire showed the highest increase in car crime in the country and that certain industrial estates in my constituency have been used by car rings to process cars stolen from a wide area of the midlands? Will he nevertheless join me in praising the considerable efforts of the Derbyshire police force to tackle this problem, after years of delay and pressure from the local Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council intended to impede their operations, and encourage them to take whatever initiatives they can to counter the current crime wave in Derbyshire?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the efforts of the Derbyshire police to counter car crime. It is only fair to add that the figures show tremendous potential for further reductions and I hope that the Derbyshire police will contact, for example, those involved in Northumbria Partnership Against Car Theft, which has brought about a substantial reduction in the number of cars stolen and thefts from cars.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that in Leicestershire, as in most counties, the increase in car crime over the past
    1050
    few years has turned into a plague? In the light of that, the Government's refusal to allow the police any additional forces in any of the provinces is a shameful way in which to treat ordinary people in all our constituencies.
    Mr. Jack: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is single-minded enough to think that police numbers provide the solution to car crime. The police would be the first to admit that it was through their partnership with motor manufacturers, motor traders, car owners and ordinary members of the public that a 2.5 per cent. reduction in car crime was delivered in the second quarter of last year. Let me correct the hon. and learned Gentleman: in this financial year alone, we are putting another 1,000 police officers into service.

    Second-hand Cars (Security Devices)
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to persuade dealers to fit security devices to second-hand cars.
    Mr. Jack: Through the medium of my advisory committee on car crime, I am working closely with the Retail Motor Industry Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers to encourage the wider adoption of schemes such as Essex Sold Secure and Northumbria Partnership Against Car Theft, which are specifically targeted at improving the security of second-hand cars.
    Sir Anthony Grant: That is all very well, but the current level of car crime is a national scandal. Whoever is responsible—ram-raiders, or young idiots misery-riding—something must be done. The answer is to fit cars with immobilisers. A number of inexpensive models are available; I recommended one to the former Home Secretary, but nothing happened. I have one here—it is a very simple model.
    Car dealers and manufacturers will do nothing until they are compelled to. It is up to the Home Office to put a stick behind them.
    Mr. Jack: There is certainly nothing immobile about my hon. Friend's solution to the problem. When I visited the motor show this year, I was heartened to see that many more cars made by our leading manufacturers were already fitted with immobilisers and alarms as a standard precaution. After all, those cars will ultimately become second-hand cars. I hope that the methods of Northumbria Partnership Against Car Theft—which instructs the public about precautions such as that described by my hon. Friend—will be widely adopted. Such precautions have already contributed to the reduction in car crime.
    Ms. Lynne: In the light of the Minister's reply to me on 4 December, will he inform us of the progress of the discussions with our European partners about fitting inbuilt security systems to new motor cars? Will he also include second-hand cars in the European directive, if that is possible?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that aspect. Work is in progress, led by the Department of Transport, to try to encourage our European colleagues to adopt higher standards in connection with locks, alarms

    1051
    and immobilisers. Obviously, the progress that we make today in regard to new cars will affect the second-hand cars of tomorrow.

    Voluntary Groups and Charities
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase public participation in voluntary groups and charities.
    Mr. Jack: The Home Office promotes voluntary activity by supporting bodies whose role is to encourage and extend the work of the voluntary sector to promote volunteering and to provide information, advice and support for other voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great many people want to make a contribution to society through voluntary work? Has he any thoughts about the way in which the Government could play a part in establishing networks, neighbourhood by neighbourhood —probably on a fairly informal basis—to help people to find the most worthwhile and practical ways in which to make their personal contributions?
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing interest in, and dedication to, the voluntary sector. He asked about local networks and volunteering; we are working with BBC Radio on a £250,000 programme to encourage more individuals to volunteer. We have given a pledge to develop the volunteer centres database more widely, to ensure that people can volunteer and can obtain the necessary information about volunteering. I assure my hon. Friend that that pledge will be high on my list of priorities.
    Miss Lestor: While I support what the Minister and his hon. Friend said about involving more people in voluntary work, bearing in mind the disclosure today that a voluntary organisation registered as a charity was employing people who had been accused of offences against children, does not the Minister think that if he is to encourage this he should also vet people before they are allowed to take children away at weekends?
    Mr. Jack: I have taken careful note of what the hon. Member says; her experience is considerable. She will know that the Charities Act 1992 does a great deal to strengthen the voluntary sector and the operation of charities and may make its own contribution to the point that she has raised. I will look into the specific case that she mentioned.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review he has made of the operation and enforcement of the Shops Act 1950 over the Sundays preceding Christmas 1992.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: None, Madam.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that what some large companies are doing by flagrantly breaking the law is attempting to increase their market share at the expense of those companies and small businesses which keep the law? Since the lawbreakers may carry on with the same cavalier attitude, whatever modifications of the law are
    1052
    agreed by the House, will the Minister and his colleagues start to put their weight behind enforcement of the law, now and in the future?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, the law is extremely clear on one point, that the responsibility for its enforcement lies with local authorities. He has, however, been rather misleading in his introductory remarks. He knows, as does the whole House, that for many years many small shops have broken the law. It is in the recent past that the large shops have started to do so, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in his statement a few weeks ago, made it clear that the Government intend to find a solution to this problem—something which eluded us some years ago when we sought to do so—by introducing a Bill that would enable the House to compare and choose between the major options for reform that are available. That should put behind a new law the authority that the current law so clearly lacks.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister agree that although the action against Saddam Hussein was thoroughly justified, similar military action in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be so justified? Will he give a categorical assurance that no British service man's life will be put at risk by fighting on one side or the other of that conflict, because such a conflict would lead to a general conflagration in the area? Should not the message from the House now be: remember Sarajevo, 1914?
    The Prime Minister: The situation in Bosnia presents special difficulties and is quite different, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will know the action that we have taken: we have imposed an arms embargo, sanctions and a no-fly zone which has been made effective. Progress has been made in the peace talks in Geneva—not enough, but progress has been made—and we will take further measures if we have to. As the hon. Gentleman may know, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed yesterday to work on measures leading to Serbia's total diplomatic isolation. The European Community also agreed on the need for an international criminal court and will support that at the United Nations.
    Mr. Pickles: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pickles: In his busy schedule today, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to commemorate the centenary of the foundation of the Independent Labour party? If so, what advice does he offer as the most appropriate way to mark this event?
    The Prime Minister: I did not have it in mind to do so, but perhaps we might hold a wake.
    Mr. John Smith: To return to the Prime Minister's actual responsibilities, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that taxpayers' money should be used to pay the legal fees incurred by a Minister in connection with his own private affairs?
    The Prime Minister: It is uncharacteristic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal in innuendo. The matter to which he refers has been dealt with by Sir John Bourn, an independent report has been commissioned and the answer is quite clear: no impropriety occurred.
    Mr. Smith: Does not the Prime Minister even understand the distinction between a public duty and a private concern? In this case, is not it clear that the Chancellor instructed solicitors because of his decision to rent his own property to a tenant for his own profit? Is not it clear from the report to which the Prime Minister refers that the Chancellor instructed solicitors without referring the matter to a Government legal adviser? If property was involved, should not the Chancellor be asked to repay the money now?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to reflect on and withdraw those remarks. It is uncharacteristically cheap of him to have raised the matter in this fashion. The report fully exonerates the Treasury on the central questions: was it right to make the payment and were any rules breached? Sir John Bourn, who carried out the inquiry, has no criticism on either point. He also confirms that the Chancellor did not ask for assistance and makes no criticism of my right hon. Friend's actions.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister understand that it is a matter not of innuendo but of public policy on whether taxpayers' money should be used to finance the private legal affairs of a Minister? If the Prime Minister is resting on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has not yet been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, will he explain why, as is clear from the report, the whole matter was concealed under a heading called
    "Expenditure … on economic, financial and related administration",
    which included the expenses of pay review bodies and the cost of the BCCI inquiry? Was not there an attempt to hide this matter from the public and from scrutiny here?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is pointless the House shouting "answer"; the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box doing just that.
    The Prime Minister: It says a great deal about the Leader of the Opposition that, the day after our service men have been in action in Iraq and when we have troops in Bosnia, he has raised this matter in the House. I repeat, as he sits smiling smugly, that the Chancellor did not receive assistance. The Treasury broke no accounting rules and in the absence of the rules it was appropriate that judgment should be exercised by two accounting officers. That has been independently examined. There is no
    1054
    criticism of that judgment and if he had a shred of self-respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw those remarks.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Aim Aviation of Bournemouth, which has been so successful in winning export orders in the United States, the far east and Europe that it has had to acquire a new factory at Wallisdown in my constituency? Will he join me in wishing it every success in seeking new orders, which it undoubtedly will be able to do under the policies of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that and I am delighted to hear of this export success. There is no doubt that our exports have been on a rising trend. Equally, there is no doubt that we have the right economic fundamentals to encourage exporting in the future.
    Mr. Boyce: What a load of nonsense.
    The Prime Minister: It is vital that we do so for our jobs and prosperity. We understand that, even if the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) understands nothing.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister accept that the vigour with which the Government have ensured that Iraq complies with the United Nations resolutions is not repeated when ensuring that other nations such as India comply with United Nations resolutions on Kashmir or China with United Nations resolutions on Tibet? Is he aware that, to many people in the world, it seems that we pursue United Nations resolutions wth vigour only when they refer to endangered western oil interests?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that. This country has a better record of supporting United Nations resolutions than almost any country that he can name.
    In the case of the difficulties with Iraq, there was a clear violation and invasion of a neighbouring country and an attempt to capture both that neighbouring country and probably to move on further down the Gulf. Recently there have been deliberate attempts of genocide both in the north and south of Iraq. The whole of the hon. Gentleman's background suggests that he should be supporting the Government in preventing that genocide.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Cabinet will shortly be looking at proposals for the future of the naval dockyards. He will be aware of the political sensitivity that applies to both naval dockyards. Will he assure me and the House that the decision, when made, will be based upon equal opportunities for both dockyards and that we will be comparing apples with apples so that there is no question of saying afterwards that the decision was arrived at other than properly and honourably?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that every relevant factor will be taken into account.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time today to pass on the condolences of everyone in the House to the family and friends of my constituent, Lance Corporal Edwards, who was killed yesterday bravely delivering aid to Bosnia? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what measures he will be taking to ensure that the troops performing this dangerous role have the firepower and intelligence back-up to prevent further casualties?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about his constituent. He was a very brave man and there is no doubt that he gave his life to save the lives of many other people who would have died, but for actions of Lance Corporal Edwards and those of his colleagues.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement after questions which will be directly germane to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since he visited St. Mary's hospital in Portsmouth, it, with Queen Alexandra's, has been approved for trust status? Remembering all the virulent criticisms levelled at trust hospitals by the Opposition parties, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the reports in today's papers that even the official Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party now sees the sense in our reforms? Is there joy in Downing street over one sinner that repenteth?
    The Prime Minister: There is hardly likely to be joy over that particular sinner. But I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I have seen the report. The fact is that the Labour party has no agenda of its own. Conservatism has won the arguments on health and will continue to win them. I well remember what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said:
    "I give this historic pledge that the hospital that serves my constituents will opt out over my dead body."
    I hope that the hon. Member does not live to regret that pledge. No doubt if he is ill his local trust hospital will treat him.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the representations that have been made over a number of months by disablement organisations about the need for anti-discrimination legislation? As he once had ministerial responsibility for disabled people and bearing in mind the fact that a Bill has passed through the House of Lords, will the Prime Minister find time for such legislation to go on the statute book in this parliamentary year?
    The Prime Minister: This is a technical and difficult matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House, but I will look at the points he raised and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

    Worcester
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Worcester.
    The Prime Minister: I am at present making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I hope to include Worcester among them.
    Mr. Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit Worcester, he would encounter very great admiration for the skills and bravery of our armed forces, both in Bosnia and the Gulf? Is he also aware that he would encounter great local anger at the inability of the Labour-controlled local council to live within its means and at its failed gamble that it would be bailed out by an incoming Labour Government, as a result of which it is resorting to desperate measures to balance the books, including the sale of much-loved public open spaces?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that a number of people may well have gambled on a Labour victory at the last election. I am bound to say that it was always likely to be a poor bet. I quite understand the way my hon. Friend feels about the Labour council in Worcester—many people around the country feel the same about other Labour councils. It is the charge payers of Worcester who will have to pick up the bill for the Labour council's actions and I hope that they will remember that when the local council elections come along.

    Engagements
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Vaz: The Prime Minister may recall that on 14 March 1991 I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who was dying of leukaemia, an illness which he contracted while serving on Christmas island. He also knows that John Hall subsequently died on 3 June last year in the royal infirmary in Leicester. The House rightly honours those who serve this country. Will the Prime Minister join me and others in honouring the memory and selfless devotion of the British nuclear test veterans and pay them and their families the compensation which they so richly deserve?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in honouring all our veterans, whether those veterans or others. He will know that the question of compensation and whether it is due for the reasons he set out is being examined at this moment.

Bosnia (Further Deployment)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Bosnia.
On 15 September I announced that we would be participating in the United Nations operation to deliver humanitarian aid in Bosnia. To do this we sent to Bosnia a battalion group consisting of some 2,500 troops. Since November, they have been involved in escorting relief convoys bringing food, shelter and other essentials to Bosnian communities. I am pleased to say that this operation has succeeded in its aims. Our forces have been directly responsible for escorting some 147 convoys which have delivered 11,775 tonnes of aid. It is no exaggeration to say that there are many people in Bosnia today who owe their very survival to the presence of British and other United Nations forces.
At the time of the announcement of this deployment, I made it clear that our paramount concern was for the safety of British troops. This, of course, is still the case. The last few days have seen an increase in the number and seriousness of attacks on our forces. In particular, there has been the shelling of our base at Tomislavgrad, and then the killing of Lance Corporal Edwards in Gornji Vakuf yesterday. A few moments ago the whole House expressed its sorrow at this tragic loss of life, and we wish to pass on our condolences to his family. He was a brave man on a humanitarian mission who gave his life trying to help others.
In order to enhance the safety of our troops, I am authorising the deployment of additional forces to the region. These additional forces will be available, should the need arise, to reinforce our contingent in Bosnia at very short notice. They will be available to provide additional protection to British forces while they are involved in humanitarian operations. They will also be available to cover a withdrawal of British forces if that should become necessary. We are determined not to be in a position where we are unable to respond immediately to a significant deterioration in the situation.
My proposals are as follows. We shall immediately be sending a small number of extra specialist troops to join our contingent in Bosnia. They will include logistics experts and others who will make arrangements for the arrival of a larger force, if that should prove necessary.
At the same time, as a contingency, we shall be deploying to the Adriatic HMS Ark Royal, with a carrier air group consisting of Sea Harriers and Sea King helicopters, accompanied by two frigates and three support ships. A number of other units will be deployed on the carrier group: a light gun battery, a locating battery and a mortar-locating troop, with support. HMS Ark Royal and accompanying ships will be ready to deploy on Sunday and will take up station in the Adriatic. I should emphasise that there are at present no plans to deploy any of the units embarked to Bosnia itself, but we wish to be in a position to do so immediately should the need arise. We shall also be making arrangements for the possible move to the area of other units at short notice.
None of this marks any change in our policy in the area. The forces that I have described will be used to increase the protection we provide for our existing battle group as it carries out its humanitarian role. We believe that the
1058
provision of artillery in particular will enable us to respond to attacks of the kind that we faced at Tomislavgrad. We remain committed to sustaining our participation in the United Nations humanitarian effort if at all possible. These forces will not be used to intervene in the fighting between rival factions in the former Yugoslavia. Our position remains that it is not appropriate to intervene in what is essentially a civil war. Our overriding concern, as always, is to ensure the safety of our forces.
Dr. David Clark: The appalling pictures that we see nightly on our television screens have served to shake many of our fellow citizens. Many of us find it difficult to appreciate how neighbours who have lived amicably side by side for 45 years can now behave like animals towards one another. The Secretary of State is absolutely correct in reminding us that we are indeed witnessing a civil war.
For this reason we were gratified when in September the Government announced in the House their proposal, which the Opposition had advocated, to detach a group of British soldiers to protect the United Nations convoys carrying humanitarian aid to the stricken people in Bosnia. I am glad to have the assurance of the Secretary of State today that the sole purpose of our troops deployed in Bosnia is to provide that humanitarian aid. In that sense, we welcome the statement.
We have argued consistently that our soldiers should have all the necessary armour and the correct rules of engagement to protect themselves. Am I right in assuming that that is precisely what the Secretary of State has announced today? If so, we welcome what he has said.
Yesterday's tragic death of Lance Corporal Edwards brought home to us all the extreme and ultimate dangers involved. I can say unreservedly that we in the Opposition express our deep sympathy to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Edwards. We associate ourselves completely with what the Secretary of State has just said about that young man's valour and effort in bringing succour to those in need in Bosnia.
That tragic incident serves to remind us that our soldiers face dangers from all sides. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the area in which the incident took place is one in which there was fighting between Croats and Muslims? With a view to pointing up the dangers that our soldiers face, can he further confirm the preliminary assessment that the point at which the incident took place was outside the range of Serbian soldiers? Will the Secretary of State confirm also that in Bosnia there are approximately 70,000 Serbian fighters, a similar number of Muslim fighters and 50,000 Croats and that, tragically, all these are potential enemies of United Nations soldiers, who are there trying to assist the civilian population?
Given the reinforcements announced today, can we now be satisfied that there is sufficient helicopter support for our troops on the ground? Why are there no amphibious landing vessels? Is it true that neither HMS Fearless nor HMS Intrepid is seaworthy and, if so, why?
In the middle of his statement the Secretary of State indicated thaat an advance group of specialist troops is to be sent to "make arrangements … for a larger force". That suggests a change in the role of British troops. Is that contingency or strategy?
If we are to deploy extra troops, will other countries do likewise? Has the United States said that it will supply troops? Will any of the conscript armies of our neighbours

1059
be sent to Bosnia? There is a strong feeling that the British cannot themselves provide sufficient soldiers to do the job. It would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give more information on those points.
There is a feeling that we may be drifting inevitably towards a war which could last many years, and there does not seem to be a clear political objective. It all serves to remind us, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did today—the message was clear from his statement—that a great deal hangs on the efforts of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance and their peace proposals. We hope and pray that those proposals can be accepted and endorsed and that Karadic will be able to persuade his Parliament to endorse them so that, slowly, some normality can return to the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the welcome that he has given to our proposals. He is correct to assume that the purpose of the extra forces is to protect existing British forces in Bosnia-Herzogovina.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the tragic circumstances surrounding the killing yesterday of Lance Corporal Edwards. It took place in Gornji Vakuf, and he is right to say that it arose out of conflict between Croatians and Muslims in that town. There had been tension of that kind for some days. There is no significant Serbian presence in the vicinity. It is believed that the Serbians brought a mortar close to Gornji Vakuf a few days ago, but that was not involved in the incident yesterday which led to Lance Corporal Edwards' death.
The numbers that the hon. Gentleman gave of Serbian, Croatian and Muslim forces in Bosnia-Herzogovina are broadly correct, although obviously they are estimates, and comparable with the figures on which we work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of helicopters. At present, Sea King helicopters are available for casualty evacuation, should that be required. They are based at Split, but could be used if necessary. The proposals that I have announced today would involve a significant number of additional Sea King helicopters on Ark Royal, when that is available in the Adriatic.
The hon. Gentleman asked about amphibious forces. We do not believe that such forces are necessary because, as he will be well aware, Bosnia does not have a coastline and Croatia is co-operating with any deployment that we require to Bosnia. So the need for amphibious forces is not relevant.
I can confirm that no change of role is proposed for the use of British forces in Bosnia. I said that explicitly in my original remarks, and I am happy to repeat it.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for repeating the assurance that our troops in Bosnia will be used only for the purpose of distributing humanitarian aid. Will he accept that that cannot safely be done if it needs to be supported by air strikes and field artillery? I must tell him, though it grieves me to do so, that if the Cabinet commits further troops for use in Bosnia it will not have the support of many hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Rifkind: There is no suggestion on the part of the Government that it would be appropriate or sensible to contemplate a humanitarian operation which could take
1060
place only through the use of air strikes. That is not part of our thinking; nor is it part of the thinking of the United Nations.
We must envisage the possibility either that at some stage it will be necessary to withdraw our forces, in which case air cover and its early availability would be of considerable benefit, or that an individual incident might arise during the course of the activities of a convoy which could benefit from the early availability of artillery or air support. But I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's view that if it became clear that convoys could proceed only with the constant use of such forces, that would be totally incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations exercise. I am sure that the whole United Nations operation, and not just the British operation, would come to an end in such circumstances.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I join the Secretary of State in expressing sympathy to the family of Lance Corporal Edwards.
Is it not an inescapable conclusion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement today about reinforcements that, if they are necessary for the protection of our troops now, they were necessary for their protection from the very beginning? Does he agree that, although the primary purpose of the deployments that he has announced is defensive, Bosnian Serbs considering whether to accept the current proposals for a peace settlement would do well to appreciate that those additional military resources can easily be put to other purposes including—if necessary, and at the request of the United Nations—the protection of the Muslim community in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, clearly he did not listen as carefully as usual to what I said. I made it clear that we are not deploying the forces into Bosnia at present. They will be available for use if required. We hope that they will not be required and will remain as assets on Ark Royal.
On the second part of the question, it is important to ensure that the purpose of the continuing presence of British forces in Bosnia is to play a humanitarian role. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suggest that he might have sympathy with a substantial extension of the role of British forces, but I believe that any significant extension in the use of ground forces would be fraught with danger. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw a fine line limiting the kind of involvement that we might then wish to contemplate. Ground forces are there for humanitarian purposes. That is clearly understood and easy to define. To go beyond that category would be to go into difficult waters indeed.
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend that when I first visited Vietnam there were 600 American advisers in that country, but that when I visited Vietnam for the second time there were 500,000 American troops there? It has seemed certain to me from the moment that the Cheshire Regiment was sent to Bosnia that it would have to be either reinforced or withdrawn. I would strongly oppose any significant increase in the number of British troops on the ground, as would many of my hon. Friends, so I hope that if the present battalion is not safe with its present support my

1061
right hon. and learned Friend will give serious consideration to withdrawing it altogether at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I think that I can reassure him by saying that today's announcement will mean that about 89 additional personnel will go into Bosnia. Those are the only people who will enter the former Yugoslavia. An additional 300 or so Army personnel will be based on Ark Royal but, as I have said, they will not be deployed in the former Yugoslavia unless they are required either to help supervise a withdrawal of our force or to enhance the safety of our existing force carrying out its existing responsibilities.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that many of us feel that his statement is most alarming and shows clearly what we had predicted—that the Government are slowly being sucked into the middle of a civil war? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that many of us are totally opposed to further involvement of British troops on the ground in Bosnia, and that we decry the fact that he is holding two options open—one to support humanitarian efforts and the other to become further involved on the ground? Does he understand that we fully support the humanitarian effort, but that those on the ground involved in what he has described as a civil war perceive the British troops as representatives of a nation which is taking sides in the political argument in Bosnia? That puts our troops at a disadvantage.
Mr. Rifkind: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he should follow the consequences of his own reasoning. He informed the House that he fully supports the humanitarian efforts of our forces. If that is so, he will agree that it is crucial to protect the soldiers carrying out those responsibilities. My statement today was intended solely to enhance the safety of those personnel, so I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should support the proposals that I have announced.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although many of my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome his explanation that the measures are designed to afford further protection to our troops on the ground involved in the difficult humanitarian work, we might take alarm at his remark that those efforts should continue "if at all possible". We hope to have an assurance from him that "if at all possible" will not become "at all costs".
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has just made. We believe that the humanitarian operation that the United Nations are carrying out is a worthwhile exercise. It is not simply the British forces but also the French, the Canadian and the Spanish as well as a number of other countries.
It is worth remembering that, so far, the humanitarian operation has succeeded in its objective of getting large amounts of aid to many tens of thousands of men, women and children who have been literally starving over the winter months. Clearly, it is desirable that the project should continue, but not "at all costs".
1062
The criterion that we must apply is the level of risk to those who have been entrusted with responsibility for assisting the convoys. If we or, indeed, the United Nations came to the judgment, it is clear that the operation would cease. That would be right and proper.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I welcome the additional equipment being provided to the British forces in Bosnia, especially the mortar-locating equipment. Is the Secretary of State aware that when I asked a question on the subject in December 1992 the Minister of State replied that mortar-locating equipment would be of negligible utility in Bosnia because of the terrain? What has changed since December? Does that not indicate a lack of Government planning?
Mr. Rifkind: Mortars have been available to our forces in Bosnia since they were first deployed in November. At present we are examining the number of ways in which we can provide increased security on a contingent basis. It may turn out that that particular facility, like some of the others to which I have referred, may not be necessary. However, we think that it is wiser to have mortars available to be used if required rather than to accept a substantial lapse of time before they can be brought from, for example, the United Kingdom or Germany to Bosnia if they suddenly became useful. It is a useful precaution in the circumstances.
Sir John Wheeler: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in today's circumstances it is essential for our forces to be supported by the additional back-up if they are to continue to succeed in their humanitarian effort? In the event of the necessity to withdraw our forces, can he confirm that that can be achieved only if there are adequate supporting services to cover their withdrawal in difficult circumstances, with all the armoured vehicles?
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. We must envisage that that may become a requirement and that we shall have a duty to ensure within the shortest possible time the successful evacuation not only of all our personnel but of the substantial amounts of equipment available to them in Bosnia. That would be a complicated operation on any basis. It is therefore useful to have available in the Adriatic facilities of the sort which would make the task considerably easier. The fact that such facilities are available at such short notice is a continued boost of confidence for those carrying out the tasks on our behalf.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement leaves some sense of confusion in the House because we have had many assurances of caution and the repetition of humanitarian objectives? However, the commitment to further forces with an uncertain objective of either protecting or withdrawing leaves the House in some doubt as to the Government's objectives.
As the civil war in the former Yugoslavia has a history going back hundreds of years to the Turkish, Austro-Hungarian and Nazi occupations, and the murder of the Serbs by the Ustashi during the war, the fear being expressed is a proper fear not only for the safety of British troops, which is a prime concern of the House, but that what could follow from the further commitment to forces is an extension of the fighting and the reverse of

1063
humanitarian objectives—namely, that more people will be killed. In the circumstances, would it not be right for the Government to make a clearer statement of their objectives and let us debate and decide whether the House would wish to follow them?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that there is benefit in having as wide as possible a debate about the overall objectives of not only British but international and United Nations policy on former Yugoslavia. The Government's objectives for the use of our ground forces are clear and could hardly be clearer: they are to assist in the provision of humanitarian aid and to do so for as long as that aid is required, unless there is an unacceptable level of risk to the safety of the forces in question. That is a clear objective. We have made it abundantly clear—indeed, as clear as possible—that if that level of risk became unacceptably high, or if the humanitarian operation was discontinued, we would have to withdraw our forces in an orderly and safe fashion. We hope that that will not prove necessary for as long as the humanitarian exercise can bring much-needed relief to many hundreds of thousands of people.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Bosnia is an internationally recognised independent state and that to call the conflict a civil war is a gross and distorting over-simplification? Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, who have condemned the Serbian aggression, which amounts to genocide—200,000 people have been killed to date—have fairly and firmly pointed out where the blame lies? Will he confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did in the House yesterday, that if—as we all hope and pray—the Geneva settlement leads to peace, it will be, as my right hon. Friend promised us, an internationally guaranteed peace? Will he confirm that our troops will be able to play a part in, for example, ensuring that all heavy weaponry is taken away from all sides so that Bosnia can become a peaceful, demilitarised country, as its Foreign Minister made plain to Members of Parliament that he wanted when he came here yesterday?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government are clear that the Government in Belgrade bear a significant and heavy responsibility. That is why we fully support the actions of the United Nations in imposing economic sanctions and other measures with respect to that Government. However, we are also conscious that the fighting within Bosnia is, sadly, being carried out by Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. It is in that sense that I refer to the conflict as having many of the characteristics of a civil war.
We naturally hope that the present diplomatic efforts will lead to a successful resolution of some of the problems. If they do, and if there is a proper and effective ceasefire in Bosnia, clearly the United Nations will wish to give thought to what contribution it can make towards helping with that ceasefire. But clearly that is something for the future. At this stage we must hope that a ceasefire comes into existence. Until now that objective has not been realised.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do Ministers recollect the dire warnings of Julian Amery and others that the deterrent to Stalin's armies devised by Tito was the
1064
training of whole generations in guerrilla warfare? These are extremely tough, determined and skilled people. In those circumstances, what is meant exactly by "risk unacceptably high"? It seems to some of us that we withdraw only in circumstances where it becomes too rough for us. May I ask the rather nasty question whether it will be as easy to get out as it has been from the north of Ireland?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's last point was an invalid comparison. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility to give protection and assistance to a part of our own territory and to our own citizens for as long as that is required. There is no comparable obligation with regard to our presence in Bosnia or, indeed, any other country around the world.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the ability of the inhabitants of Bosnia of all backgrounds to indulge in guerrilla war. We are conscious that these are tough people who have a strong tradition of fighting skills. That is clearly a factor that we must all take into account. It is the view of the United Nations, and a view with which we agree, that countries such as ours have an obligation to give humanitarian aid so long as that can be done without unacceptable risk to our forces. I accept that it is difficult to define that term with the precision that we might all like. We have seen since our forces first entered Bosnia that, fortunately—until the tragic events of yesterday—our troops were able to carry out their responsibilities without undue consequences. That was to be welcomed, but it is possible that it may be changing. We hope that it will not, but it is precisely because it could be changing that it is helpful and sensible to have additional forces available in the Adriatic if they should be required for the purposes that I have described.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In accepting my right hon. and learned Friend's assurances today, and on many occasions in the House, that it is not the Government's intention to alter the role of British forces in Bosnia, and while I understand that it is only prudent that they should have back-up facilities to enable them to make an orderly and safe withdrawal should the situation deteriorate, may I ask him to say a little more about the 90 or so troops with special qualifications who are to be landed in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: The 89 personnel that we are proposing to deploy in Bosnia during the next few days consist of liaison officers, logisticians, tactical forward air controllers and some personnel who will be involved with observation responsibilities. There are a number of troops with responsibilities of that kind. Although they add up to a relatively small number, they will be able to supplement the existing personnel if future action of the type that I have described should be required.
Mr. Harry Barnes: To what extent will the extension of our activities in Bosnia be under the United Nations command structure and in conformity with United Nations resolutions? To the extent that that is so, will those activities not be different from the activities in Iraq which were described last night?
Mr. Rifkind: The bulk of the people that we are sending to the area will be deployed on Ark Royal in international waters and, for the time being, will remain under purely

1065
British command and control. Naturally, it will be desirable for the situation regarding any troops within Bosnia to be regularised in the normal way, but, as I said earlier, we hope that it will not be necessary to deploy additional personnel in significant numbers to Bosnia. So long as they are on Ark Royal, it is appropriate for them to remain entirely under British command.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the majority of people will agree with his view that, however horrific the circumstances on the ground, we should not be drawn into someone else's civil war? Is he aware, however, that since the end of last summer the Western European Union has strongly advocated an effective embargo and blockade of the participants in this ghastly affair? Does he not think that that is one of the avenues that we might explore further in an endeavour to achieve peace?
Mr. Rifkind: We are prepared to consider all constructive suggestions and I am aware of the important contribution that my hon. Friend has made, through WEU, to discussions on the issues. This is an ongoing situation and any constructive proposals are well worth examining.
Mr. Ieun Wyn Jones: On behalf of my party, I express our sympathy for the family of the young Welsh soldier who was killed delivering humanitarian aid to Bosnia. We welcome any steps taken to protect troops who deliver that aid. May I challenge the Secretary of State, as he was challenged from his own side, about his definition of the conflict as a "civil war"? Does he not recognise that the conflict is clearly part of a campaign for the creation of a greater Serbia, part of a plan which started with the annexation of land in Croatia, and that unless it is stopped in Bosnia it may well escalate to Kosovo? When will the United Kingdom accept that there is international concern about this? Is it not time that the
1066
United Nations recognised that concern by taking steps to prevent escalation of the conflict, should the peace process falter?
Mr. Rifkind: The conflict has some of the characteristics to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I do not dispute that fact for one moment—but I think that he would be equally willing to accept that the Croatians have been seeking to control as much territory as possible in Bosnia—including territory which would not normally come under their control—and I have no doubt that the Bosnian Muslims, given the opportiunity, would also be seeking to do so. I have therefore said—it is a reasonable comment to make—that the conflict in Bosnia has many of the characteristics of a civil war, although I accept that that is not the end of the story. There is substantial external involvement and the Government have made it clear that they believe that the primary external responsibility must lie with the Government in Belgrade.
Mr. David Faber: I, too, welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reiteration that there will be no change in the role of our troops in Bosnia and, furthermore, that we shall continue to do all that we can to be perceived as utterly neutral to all sides of the conflict in what is undoubtedly a civil war. Can my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the efficiency of the British troops on the ground at present, especially those in and around Vitez? Is he happy that they face none of the internal logistic and administrative problems that so plague the UNPROFOR troops in and around Sarajevo?
Mr. Rifkind: The efficiency of our forces is of a high order. At a much earlier stage in consideration of those matters we were concerned about the command and control arrangements envisaged by the United Nations for the operation in Bosnia. Subsequently, however, the present headquarters were set up with General Morillon as their commander and Brigadier Cordy-Simpson from the United Kingdom as the second in command. That has led to a much more efficient operation and I believe that the British forces and the command and control structures under which they operate are now working effectively.

Press Self-Regulation (Review)
4.5 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about press regulation and privacy.
On 9 July last year, my predecessor as Secretary of State for National Heritage, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), announced that he had invited Sir David Calcutt QC, the master of Magdalene college, Cambridge, to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission and to give his views on whether the present arrangments for self-regulation should be modified or put on a statutory basis. Sir David was also asked to consider whether further measures might be needed to deal with intrusions into personal privacy by the press.
I have received Sir David's review and am publishing it today. A final response must await the debate that the House will have on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), and the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage. But the House will wish to have a clear statement of the Government's initial response.
Sir David's overall conclusion is that press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission has not been effective and that the press would not now be willing to make the changes that would be needed to make the commission the truly independent body, commanding the confidence of the public as well as the press, that it should be. He therefore recommends that the Government should now introduce a statutory complaints tribunal on the model of that described in the 1990 report of the committee on privacy and related matters—the so-called privacy committee, which Sir David chaired. The tribunal would have wide-ranging powers, including the power to restrain publication of material in breach of its code of practice and the ability to require the printing of apologies, corrections and replies, to award compensation, impose fines and award costs.
As regards intrusions into personal privacy by the press, Sir David makes five further recommendations. The first and most significant recommendation is that the three criminal offences proposed by the privacy committee to deal with specific forms of physical intrusion should, with modifications, now be enacted, together with a civil remedy designed among other things to enable action to be taken to restrain publication. Hon. Members will recall that the offences were designed to cover the obtaining of personal information, with a view to publication, through intrusion on private property, the use of surveillance devices, photographs and recordings. A range of defences would be available, including a new one that the act was done for the purpose of informing the public about matters directly affecting the discharge of any public function of the individual concerned.
Sir David does not recommend the immediate introduction of a tort of infringement of privacy, but he does recommend that the Government should give further consideration to its introduction.
Sir David's other recommendations in relation to privacy are that further consideration should be given by the Government to the extent to which the Data Protection Act 1984 may contain provisions which are
1068
relevant for the purpose of misrepresentation or intrusion into personal privacy by the press; the Government should give effect to the remainder of the reporting restrictions proposed by the privacy committee; the Government should give further consideration to the law relating to the interception of telecommunications with a view to identifying all significant gaps—relating to the protection of private telephone conversations—and to determining whether any further legislation is needed.
The Government are most grateful to Sir David for the careful and thorough review that he has produced of what is an exceptionally difficult and controversial subject. We welcome the review as significantly moving forward the public debate on the future of press self-regulation and on the wider question of safeguarding personal privacy.
I shall deal first with Sir David's recommendations concerning privacy. The Government accept the case for new criminal offences to deal with specified types of physical intrusion and covert surveillance. Measures on those lines are now necessary to signal society's strong condemnation of such behaviour and to deter similar instances in future. Subject to further examination of the details of the proposed offences, and to consultations with practitioners in criminal justice and civil law, the Government will bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to the proposals in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider whether corresponding changes need to be made to Scots law, given the wider scope of the common law of Scotland.
The Government also accept Sir David's recommendation that further consideration should be given to the introduction of a new tort of infringement of privacy. We recognise, as Sir David does, that that cannot sensibly be confined to the press, and will have to take full account of a wide range of human and technological activity. We also accept the need to examine the extent to which the Data Protection Act may contain provisions that are relevant for purposes of misrepresentation or intrusion into personal privacy by the press. We will, in addition, give further consideration to the legislation on the non-identification of minors and others and to the legislation covering interception of telecommunications, as recommended by Sir David.
I turn now to Sir David's recommendation that the Government should introduce a statutory regime for dealing with complaints against the press. That raises separate, and more difficult, issues which need to be carefully weighed. The Government agree with Sir David that the Press Complaints Commission, as at present constituted, is not an effective regulator of the press. It is not truly independent and its procedures are deficient. Sir David's detailed analysis of those shortcomings is compelling. We also recognise the strength of the case that he makes in his report for a statutory tribunal with wide-ranging powers. At the same time, we are conscious that action to make such a body statutory would be a step of some constitutional significance, departing from the traditional approach to press regulation in this country. In the light of those considerations, the Government would be extremely reluctant to pursue that route. A most persuasive case for statutory regulation would need to be made out.
In coming to a final view, we shall want to take account of the debate surrounding the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith on

1069
freedom and responsibility of the press, which is down for Second Reading on 29 January. On the basis of my statement today, the Government will advise the House that, although we have not announced our final conclusions regarding a statutory regime, we cannot support the Bill.
The Government will also take account of the inquiry into privacy and media intrusion which the Select Committee on National Heritage has set in train, the report of which is, I believe, expected in February. We shall look forward to receiving the report as a further significant contribution to the public debate on those issues. We shall also wish to take into account any response that the press might make to Sir David's detailed criticisms of the Press Complaints Commission. We shall thereafter announce our conclusions.
In the Government's view, for the reasons cogently set out by Sir David Calcutt, self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, as at present constituted, is not satisfactory. The Government accept the case for reform. I have announced a number of major steps to tackle the issue of privacy, and, in the light of what I have said about statutory regulation, we invite further public debate on the nature of the reform that needs to be undertaken.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: We are pleased that the Government have decided to bring forward the report's publication, although we have grave reservations about a number of its recommendations. The extent of rumour and speculation about its contents during the past few days have served to confuse, not clarify, the debate. Indeed, the report has to be considered against a background of establishment intrigue involving the royal family and their advisers, Ministers, press barons and Lord McGregor, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, who have all made fools of themselves and each other. As some of the Ministers' colleagues are involved, will he give us his views on this, since he appears to be somewhat reluctant to refer to it?
The Opposition agree with a number of things that were said in both the report and the Minister's statement about the way in which some sections of the press have conducted themselves in the past few years. The excesses of journalism, especially the callous exploitation of private grief, bring the whole journalistic profession into disrepute. I am sure that no one on either side of the House would wish to condone such excesses, which have little to do with legitimate investigative journalism.
The report in many respects misses the central issues involved in questions of press freedom. It says nothing about access to public information through the introduction of a freedom of information Act. Nor does it say anything about a right of reply for citizens whose lives are wrecked through the publication of gross inaccuracies about their private lives or their business affairs.
The report also has nothing to say about the concentration of press ownership in so few hands. Can the Minister assure the House today that any Government legislation in regard to Calcutt will include proposals for a freedom of information Act and for a right of reply for ordinary citizens to correct factual errors about themselves in the press? What does the Minister intend to do about the
1070
concentration of press ownership? Is he prepared to tell us today that he will refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
I note that the Minister said that he will not support the Bill that is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Does he recognise that his announcement throws grave doubts on the concerns that he has expressed today about the rights of the individual and the need for reform?
Calcutt's recommendation of a statutory tribunal with legal powers to fine offending newspapers and to dictate official versions of the truth for them to publish is clearly not the answer. The press will not be improved by censors appointed by the Government. In no circumstances will the Labour party support legislation that prevents proper scrutiny of the lives of the rich and powerful, including public figures such as politicians, business tycoons and members of the royal family.
The second main area covered in the Calcutt report concerns the enactment of three new criminal offences in England and Wales to prevent invasions of privacy. We are sympathetic to the view that the ordinary citizen should be protected against the more grotesque invasions of privacy. The report has come down hard on the practices of electronic bugging and using long-lens cameras. We will want, however, to study in greater detail the specific privacy measures recommended in the report.
Finally, the central failing of the Calcutt report, in our view, is its attempt to deal with matters of press regulation in isolation from broader questions of press freedom. The Labour party believes that not only the Government but the press, which responds to any attempt to change the law with hysteria, have a lot more thinking to do on this complex issue.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave the report's publication. She made a passing and oblique reference to colleagues of mine in the Government. Her language was somewhat delphic. Let me simply say that the events to which I think she referred—as I have said, her language was opaque—occurred before Sir David was invited to conduct the report. He was invited to conduct it in a manner that had been strongly foreshadowed at the beginning of the 18 months of self-regulation.
The hon. Lady was good enough to give us her agenda, as against the agenda that Sir David was set in his terms of reference. Some of the omissions that she mentioned can scarcely be laid at his door, as they did not fall within those terms of reference. Although her question about concentration of ownership, for example, is an entirely proper subject for discussion in the House, I do not think that it falls within the purview of the report, in the particular circumstances. I cannot forecast whether specific legisation will be introduced; nor can I make any commitments in relation to a freedom of information Act.
The hon. Lady asked about the hon. Member for Hammersmith's Bill. That Bill would establish an independent press authority and an absolute right to corrections of factual errors appearing in the press. It certainly covers some of the ground that would be covered by the press complaints tribunal proposed by Sir David, but Sir David's review raised a number of wider issues. The Government believe that it would be better to address

1071
those issues in the round, which was my reason for saying that I could not ask the House to support the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
In regard to the statutory tribunal, the hon. Lady adopted the asseverative technique that she has used on other occasions. She asserted that it was important that the powerful should not be protected. Throughout the report, Sir David made it clear that he did not envisage the protection of the powerful, given the existence of reasons connected with the public interest—which he carefully defined—that would justify alternative action.
The hon. Lady concluded by saying that Sir David had sought to deal with press regulation in isolation from questions concerned with press freedom. She will recall that Sir David said specifically in the report that he thought that it would be a mistake for the Press Complaints Commission to deal with both subjects at the same time: in his view, the issue of self-regulation is separate from that of press freedom. I am sure, however, that the hon. Lady's support for press freedom will be echoed on both sides of the House.
Sir Peter Hordern: The measures proposed by my right hon. Friend to combat the invasion of privacy are very welcome—and, perhaps, long overdue. Does he agree, however—in regard to the establishment of the press—that, however detestable the conduct of some editors may be, the right to freedom of speech is a precious right which we have upheld for centuries? Surely, however much we may resent what members of the press have to say, we should all defend to the last their right to say it.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given the Government's action. Of course I recognise—as I did in the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)—the overriding issue on the right to freedom of speech, but my right hon. Friend himself welcomed the fact that our proposals dealt with questions relating to intrusion into privacy.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that in most countries the privacy of the citizen and the freedom of the press are protected by fundamental constitutional law? The absence of such arrangements in this country has given rise to the need for a piecemeal approach to the law's amendment that has been adopted by Calcutt.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that, whereas certain measures to tighten up the law on physical intrusion and covert surveillance may be acceptable, many people will regard the freedom of the press to act as at least a point of criticism of an over-mighty, over-centralised and over-secretive Government that we have under our constitutional arrangements in this country should not be checked by a statutory body appointed by the Government?
Will the Secretary of State recognise that if the Government will give the citizens of this country the right to invoke the provisions of the European convention on human rights in our own courts, most of the problems that he and his predecessors have had to deal with will go away?
Mr. Brooke: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Sir David himself makes the point in his report, when referring to legislation that applies in other countries, that the history, culture, tastes and
1072
constitutional arrangements in other lands do not necessarily travel readily and easily across borders and that this must be taken into account when examining particular legislation that one would like to introduce here.
The hon. Gentleman paid an eloquent tribute to the freedom of the press which I am sure many other hon. Members on both sides of the House would echo, but there is a responsibility on the part of the press also to make sure that that freedom can be upheld.
Mr. Roger Gale: I welcome the measured response of my right hon. Friend to the report and, in particular, to proposals for a press tribunal which I believe would be probably unworkable and certainly undesirable in a free society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that journalists should be neither flattered nor persecuted by being treated differently from any other United Kingdom citizen and that what is needed is a criminal justice Bill that would control electronic eavesdropping, intrusion into private property and intrusion by long-lens cameras in a way that would apply to every citizen in the land?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. The essence of the proposals that Sir David brings forward is that they are not specifically and uniquely addressed to journalists; they are addressed to anyone who would be engaged in those activities with a view to publication.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reference to the Select Committee and for his readiness to await the outcome of the inquiry that we are conducting before he arrives at final conclusions?
A free society requires a proper balance between the essential freedom of the press and the freedom of private individuals from harassing intrusion from media whom, in the normal course of events, they would never encounter except as readers, listeners and viewers. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms ought to be directed principally to the protection not of public figures, whether in the palaces of Westminster or Buckingham, but of innocent people such as the victims of crime and their families and the bereaved families of service men killed in action?
Mr. Brooke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the kind remarks with which he began his question.
In the context of the proper balance that he described, I would not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman, but if that is a trailer for the report that the Select Committee will bring forward, I think that many in the House will welcome the balance that he describes. In the context of the concentration and emphasis to which he made reference, he is right about the concern to make sure that everyone's home is his castle in which they can be secure and where they should not be interfered with. Sir David makes clear in his report that, where he makes reference to the potential for a defence relating to the public interest, it would need specifically to be related to the particular job that the individual was doing and, therefore, the relevance of the information to the discharge of that job.
Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about measures to prevent intrusion into privacy, especially that most

1073
odious practice of pestering those who are suffering from personal and family grief. On the broader issue, does he recall Sir Winston Churchill's saying that parliamentary democracy was a most incompetent system but every other system was infinitely worse? Will he say, therefore, that no matter how odious or detestable a free press seems, every other system is infinitely worse?
Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend not only for his concentration on those who are in a grief-stricken state but for the tribute that he paid to the freedom of the press and its importance to our constitutional arrangements.
Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the report as a part of the continuing, long-overdue debate on press freedom and responsibility and I thank the Minister for his interest in the committee that I set up to inform the progress of my Bill. The argument about the freedom of the press would be stronger if we had an Act protecting freedom of information or freedom of the press. If he introduced a privacy Bill, which, frankly, in the present climate I would not support, he would be introducing a Bill in a country which is almost alone among the western democracies in not having the counterbalance of press freedom legislation. That is why I would not support it in the present climate.
Perhaps we should start from fundamental principles. I hold the view that a citizen in a democracy has a right to expect news to be reported accurately in papers that claim to be newspapers. The Minister will know that the bulk of complaints that have been made to the Press Complaints Commission, to me and to others have been about accuracy. Inaccurate news reporting tends to lead to the further abuses that were brought to my committee's attention. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have had his mind made up for him, but if he listens carefully on 29 January I may be able to persuade him that the balance between press freedom and press responsibility requires a finely drawn Bill that addresses the need for explicit legislation protecting the freedom of the press or freedom of information before we go down the privacy road.
Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he put his question. He has indicated his reservations about supporting legislation that we might introduce, and I have already made my position clear. The right of reply is dealt with in Sir David's recommendations for a statutory tribunal. I have said that the Government welcome continuing debate on reform, and perhaps the right of reply should be considered in that debate, despite my reaction to his Bill.
Mr. John Gorst: As a member of the Select Committee, I urge my right hon. Friend, in reaching a final conclusion, to be guided by one principle—that the balance between the rights of the individual to privacy and the freedom of the press should be neither prejudiced nor subjugated out of balance? The decisive factor should be the public interest, but neither should be favoured or prejudiced.
Mr. Brooke: The terms in which my hon. Friend framed his question suggests that the trailer that I suggested the Chairman of the Select Committee gave us earlier will be reflected in the views of Conservative members of the Committee. I emphasised earlier that Sir David has
1074
identified and added the public interest defence in his report. I should not be surprised, therefore, if it is identified by the Select Committee.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the problems with the present system is that the Press Complaints Commission gives only an apology? There is nothing between that and going to court for libel and risking incurring costs of £100,000. There must be something in between. Why cannot he introduce a set-up like an unfair dismissal tribunal or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, whereby a rape victim or a bereaved person who had been grievously abused by the press could make a complaint and be awarded, say, £5,000 or £10,000?
Why is it that we can have a Police Complaints Authority, which is totally independent, local government ombudsmen and health service ombudsmen—and the legal services ombudsmen, because the Solicitors Complaints Bureau was not doing its job? There are plenty of independent semi-statutory bodies which do a very good informal job and that is what is needed, instead of, on the one hand, a vested interest complaints commission and, on the other, lawyers making fat fees and taking great risks on other people's money in the libel courts.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I am grateful to him for having done so. The criminal offences that Sir David identifies also carry with them the opportunity for civil action. I indicated that the Government would be taking away for examination the proposals for criminal offences, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right in identifying the fact that a central consideration for the Government must be how the private individual can receive efficient and economical redress if it should be available to him.
Mr. Tim Renton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to marry a wish to protect the private citizen's right to privacy with the rights of a free but responsible press. My questions follow on very much from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Does my right hon. Friend envisage legal aid being available for this new civil action for intrusion of privacy? If not, is there not a real danger that, as with libel, this new tort will be of interest only to the rich and not to the ordinary citizen?
Following from that, before my right hon. Friend reaches his final decision, will he consider going back to the Press Complaints Commission and suggesting that it should reinforce itself, not only with more independent members, but with the power agreed by the industry to fine heavily those proprietors and editors who break their own code of conduct? The aim would still be to make self-regulation work.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reinforcement of the question of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I was saying that we would need to look at a variety of ways in which that objective could be secured. I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was envisaging some form of summary proceedings. It would be wrong for me, when we have not got into the examination of the preparation of any legislation, to be definitive at this stage, but I can reassert the principle and spirit of what we will be seeking to achieve.

1075
As to what my right hon. Friend says about the Press Complaints Commission, Sir David Calcutt enumerates on page 42 of his report what he regards as 12 deficiencies in the working of the commission. I express a personal view, but I should be surprised if, during the debate in advance of the Select Committee's report, the press did not address themselves to those 12 deficiencies which Sir David mentions.
Ms. Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State tell us a little more about his thinking? He says that he accepts Sir David Calcutt's conclusion that the Press Complaints Commission is not working properly. My experience is that it makes rulings but creates no precedents and the press just go on misbehaving in exactly the same way. The press do not comply with their own code. That code is constantly breached and nothing is done. In that sense it does not work. The alternative seems to be some kind of tribunal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has said, with some capacity to fine or punish so that it can enforce regulations set up by the press themselves, or giving power for the press to complain to the commission themselves.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what he is thinking? He ruled out a statutory tribunal but said that the Press Complaints Commission is not working. What is the position in between that he has in his mind?
Mr. Brooke: The precise words I used were that the Government would be extremely reluctant and that one would need to have a very persuasive case made out in order to introduce a statutory tribunal. Lord Waddington, who was Home Secretary when the privacy committee originally reported, used the phrase "statutory underpinning" so there is a potential for an instrument that might respond to the concerns of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It is too early to be decisive with regard to a report which we received only four or five days ago. It would be sensible for the debate to take place as a whole.
Sir Giles Shaw: We warmly welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend is treating Sir David Calcutt's report, and I fully endorse some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). However, does he accept that there are two speeds? Surely, the public expect fairly rapid action to deal with the intrusiveness of bugging devices, telephonic communication and long-lens cameras but, in the longer term, they expect a final solution to what sort of press complaints commission can be established. Will he ensure that the former problem is dealt with urgently?
Mr. Brooke: The issue of criminal offences clearly involves Departments other than mine, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will proceed with all speed. It would be wrong to disguise the fact that these are complicated matters and we must ensure that they are properly studied before we introduce legislation which may not command respect if it is inadequate for the complexity involved.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no such thing as a free press, as most of it is owned by a clique of millionaires? Does he accept that the Calcutt committee was set up when we had had a Tory Government for 10 years or more and when the press, ironically, were prying into some aspects of the
1076
establishment? As for the royal family, it is now apparent that the press were not doing the prying but that factions at the palace had been giving reports to the press to print. As for bugging and telephoto lenses, it is fairly certain that MI5 and GCHQ have been involved. What protection will there be from MI5 and other institutions? As the statement protects the high and mighty, the privileged and the establishment but not the under-privileged, it wants chucking in the political dustbin.
Mr. Brooke: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's three questions. He said that there was no such thing as a free press. I say only that the vehemence with which the issue has been examined in every editorial in the land—in every national, regional and local newspaper—in the past five days suggests that the press believes that there is something worth protecting in its present arrangements.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that when Sir David was invited to make his one-man report, which the Government have published today, he did so as a follow-on to the earlier privacy report. The timing of any other event is, in a sense, irrelevant because he was merely reporting at the end of the 18-month period.
On the hon. Gentleman's technicolour observations about MI5 and GCHQ, I give the House a categorical assurance that the heads of the agencies involved have said that there is no truth in the rumours whose only—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: You are not supposed to say that—you have set a precedent.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brooke: If I have set a precedent, I have done so inadvertently, but, in the eyes of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I appear to have acquired individual excellence. To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the only evidence as to why those rumours began was that the technical difficulties were beyond any other organisation—but, unfortunately, the technical difficulties are not beyond any other organisation.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the very high-minded opinion that the press has of itself as the fourth estate of the realm and as almost untouchable, newspapers are, at root, businesses and interested in making a profit? Although they purvey useful stuff—facts, good comment and even entertainment—they are not above the equivalent of mixing chalk with the flour, which is what they often purvey. In doing so, they are deceiving the public and selling their customers short. It is not true that every other business must run according to rules that protect people from such practices and that the press should not be above such regulation? Therefore, will he not allow himself or the House to be intimidated by the barrage of self-justification and bullying which we have seen in the press in the past five days?
Mr. Brooke: In response to an earlier question, I said that there were responsibilities on the press and everyone else to ensure that the tradition of the freedom of the press, which we revere in this country, could be maintained.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State not understand that, in any system of accountability, the idea of new torts does not exist for the vast majority of people and that the courts are too

1077
expensive for people to obtain redress? Libel action involves costs of thousands of pounds, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds, which automatically place it out of the ambit of ordinary people. Legal aid is not available for libel or slander, in any case. Does the Secretary of State accept that there should be a much better way to provide people with cheap, easy and informal access? Does he also accept that the press will never be properly accountable as long as the present ownership structure is retained? The Calcutt report does not deal with that problem, but the Secretary of State must do so because the press is owned by a tiny group of people, mostly Tory sympathisers, who erode the general standards of conduct in political life by supporting the Tory party with propaganda and money.
Mr. Brooke: I have already tried to respond to the issue of redress for the ordinary citizen when answering the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I tried to convey the fact that the Government will be considering the issue very seriously. I have already said that, although I agree that ownership is a wholly appropriate matter for debate in the House, it does not arise specifically from the Calcutt report.
Mr. David Harris: As someone with a journalistic background who has been absolutely disgusted by some of the antics of the tabloid press in recent years, I welcome my right hon. Friend's sensible approach. However, will he make it absolutely clear that, in adopting that approach and not accepting—at least straight away—some of the recommendations of the Calcutt report, he has in no way been pressurised by the, at times, crude and hysterical campaign mounted in the past few days by certain sections of the press? Does he agree that the press would be very unwise if it did not set about putting its own house in order on some aspects which are manifestly wrong?
Mr. Brooke: We are all aware of debates in the House to which people come with a particular attitude but find that that attitude changes as a result of the nature of the debate. I am sure that some hon. Members will have felt that the manner in which the press has argued its case in the past five days has not necessarily served its best interests.
Mr. David Trimble: We agree with Calcutt and the Secretary of State that self-regulation of the press has failed. Does the Secretary of State agree that any form of self-regulation cannot be improved and will not work in the future, in view of the highly competitive nature of the press? Does he also agree that the answer is not state regulation? We endorse the Government's general approach of trying to make effective civil and criminal rights and responsibilities. It is important that civil remedies are effective and, in that respect, I endorse what the Secretary of State said about legal aid and other matters.
On the question of privacy, I appreciate what the Secretary of State said about different legal cultures on the continent, but I hope that that does not blind him to the fact that things are done better there and that we might learn from that example.
With regard to obligations—
Madam Speaker: Order. In the past 20 minutes hon. Members appear to have felt that we are engaging in a debate rather than in a series of questions arising from a statement. I am very anxious to call all Members who want to be called, but I shall not be able to do so if each Member puts many or long questions. I hope that during the few remaining minutes that I intend to allow for this subject Members will be very brief.
Mr. Trimble: I have just one more question to put to the Secretary of State. Does he agree that we should be concerned with regulation not only of the press but of other media and other persons? May I remind him of my Adjournment debate in December, in which I raised matters pertaining to television? Is he in a position to comment on that matter?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the way in which he has supported the general thrust of Government action. We have spent much time talking about freedom of the press and about the length of that tradition in this land. Given the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, I remind the House of what Sir Edward Coke said at the beginning of the 17th century: that the house of everybody is, to him, as his castle and fortress. That should be borne in mind in the protection of people's rights.
Sir John Wheeler: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his cautious and essentially pragmatic statement will be broadly welcomed but also ask him not to hasten to bring forward legislation in respect of what, after all, is a most complicated issue? Instead, he should listen to the debate with great care and consider how a more independent press complaints commission might be established, perhaps with the right to impose penalties, as has been suggested. If there is to be any kind of control, will my right hon. Friend look to the civil courts for the remedy, rather than to the criminal courts, as the lesser burden of proof is acceptable to the former?
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his general support for what we are doing. I shall certainly look carefully at the propositions in his final sentence.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As it is of paramount importance that any changes should ensure that all citizens are equal before the law, will the Secretary of State undertake to explore with the Home Office and the Scottish Office the issue of access to legal aid for civil actions? This, I believe, has been denied since time immemorial. Does the Secretary of State have any idea when the public debate will be concluded? Are we to anticipate a White Paper or immediate legislation thereafter?
Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would be doing wrong to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland if I were to say that I think that he will be guided by the same considerations as influenced my answers to certain other questions about legal access. With regard to the timetable, I have indicated that the Government certainly will not respond or reach conclusions until the Select Committee has reported. The normal practice is that,

1079
following publication of a Select Committee report, the Government publish a White Paper and provide the opportunity for a parliamentary debate on it.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under our unwritten constitution, a healthy democracy depends on a press that is not only free but investigative, challenging and, indeed, disrespectful? While accepting and welcoming the specific proposals to control physical intrusion of privacy, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the Government will not pursue measures that might throw out the democratic baby of press freedom with the scurrilous bath water?
Mr. Brooke: I think that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the list of defences that would be available in respect of the offences that he is recommending, whose general concept the Government have accepted.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: By accepting the overwhelming arguments in favour of the creation of new criminal offences and, indeed, a new tort to protect privacy—though not the tool of a statutory tribunal—the Government are presumably saying that these matters should be dealt with by the regular courts, both civil and criminal. Once those new offences and new tort become part of our law, it will be alleged either that a journalist has committed the criminal offence or that a newspaper had breached the civil tort. Does it not follow that the Government are really saying that it is better to have such matters dealt with in the regular courts, given the sensitive and delicate issues that will arise, rather than by a statutory tribunal? All issues about state regulation arise equally well in relation to the courts as they would in relation to a statutory tribunal, but we would lose the expertise that a statutory tribunal would develop.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point. It will be well worth making it in the debates that we shall be having, and to which I look forward, in the next few months.
Mr. Alan Howard: As he seeks balanced remedies for the problems that undoubtedly exist, may I ask my right hon. Friend to think deeply before concluding that the resources of self-regulation are exhausted, because I believe that there is scope for strengthening them? Will he also indeed consider extending the protection that the law affords private citizens, possibly by way of a tort of harassment? That might more precisely address the problems with which we should be most concerned, in a manner preferable to a more generalised law of privacy. Will he also think open-mindedly about the possibility of some countervailing strengthening of press freedoms, including freedom of information legislation?
Mr. Brooke: In relation to the strengthening of self-regulation, I should perhaps have added when answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that I imagine that the press will have noted the opinion poll by one of its members which showed that there was a significant majority in the country in favour of a statutory tribunal, which suggests that the manner in which the Press Complaints Commission has so far operated does not enjoy public confidence.
1080
The answer to my hon. Friend's question about harassment is that I infer that there is a possibility that the Select Committee will include a reference to that issue when it reports, and I look forward to reading what it says about that.
My hon. Friend will be aware, on the issue of countervailing freedoms, of the commitments that the Conservative party entered into in its election manifesto on the subject of openness of government.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this is the slippery slope to state meddling with the press, may I consign the report, if not to the Bolsover dustbin, at least to the recycling plant to make up for all the trees that it took to print it?
It is not true, in the constituency experience of some of us, that people resent intrusion into grief. Often, grief-stricken families like some interest to be taken in them.
I rise particularly to ask if the common law of Scotland can be left alone. As the right hon. Gentleman said at the outset, the common law of Scotland is a bit different. For heaven's sake, leave us out of it.
Mr. Brooke: It would not be right for me to answer on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose attention I shall draw to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I stress—it is in Sir David's report—that large numbers of private individuals—one need only examine the index to the report—have written to complain to Sir David about the manner in which they have been treated. If one confronts a person in one's kitchen and that person says that he is there to represent the public interest, it is a little hard on the individual whose kitchen has been invaded.
Mr. David Sumberg: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about bugging devices, but I urge him to move with great caution down the statutory route. The job of the free press is the same as our job here, which is to expose what should be exposed. Although we may not like what is sometimes revealed, and although the press may not behave in a proper manner, we do not always behave in a proper manner. To inhibit the freedom of the press would do great damage to the democracy which we all value.
Mr. Brooke: Just as I stressed the aspect of Sir David's concern about the private individual, so I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that Sir David specifically ruled out any kind of exclusion zone being built around those in public life.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the simple observation that the criticisms of the media in recent times have almost exclusively been criticisms of the print rather than of the broadcast media? Is he aware that every test of public opinion shows that the public believe the news and current affairs reporting of the broadcasting media far more than they believe what they read in the newspapers?
While newspapers are subject to a self-regulatory system, broadcasters are subject to a democratically controlled regulatory system. Despite that, the broadcasters have proved time and again to have been outstanding in the pursuit of investigative journalism.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect again on his attitude to the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the

1081
Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley)? That measure would do no more than any broadcaster or investigative reporter would acknowledge: it would allow people a statutory right to have errors of fact corrected. I see a complete contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman's position.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman raises the subject of broadcasters, as does Sir David in his report, in terms of whether all the media should be subjected to the same law and controls. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, at present there is a distinction in the manner in which they are controlled. He makes a valuable point when he says that television news journalists are widely respected and, as he points out, are subject to two statutory controls. That issue should be weighed and measured in the debates that we shall be having.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend please steer clear of legislation affecting the press? Does he agree that there is a danger that, in trying to protect the privacy of individuals—in sometimes justifiable circumstances—we could be in danger of restricting the press invading privacy when it should sometimes be invaded, such as in the Maxwell and Barlow Clowes cases? At a time when the establishment is hardly held in high esteem, it would not be easy politically for any Government to sell any control on the press, however justified and well intentioned, to the British public.
Mr. Brooke: The problem—it has been identified by several hon. Members—is that, as Sir David says, self-regulation is not satisfactory as at present constituted, so we have an unsatisfactory position. But I assure my
1082
hon. Friend that the issue of the late Robert Maxwell and investigation of him would be a perfectly proper defence in terms of the criminal offences which I described.
Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the public interest being the determining factor in conflicts between the rights of individuals' privacy and the freedom of the press. Will he confirm, as I think he just has, that there is no legislation that he would recommend—I think none would pass through the House—that would inhibit the press in inquiring into matters of legitimate public concern such as thalidomide or 'Spycatcher" or arms to Iraq-type matters, and that allegations to that effect by certain editors rather betray the weakness of their case?
Mr. Brooke: In his report, Sir David has added two further defences to the three already available in the recommendations of the privacy committee.
Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, when breaking the law, a journalist should be entitled to plead the defence of national interest? Surely the tradition of Sir Edward Coke, to which my right hon. Friend referred, means that if one besets Headington hall, trespasses on its lawns or electronically surveys what its occupants do, one should suffer the consequences. We should reject the alien concept of privacy. It is all very well to talk about foreign examples, but the French republic is a classic example of where the law of privacy inhibits the prosecution of corrupt politicians.
Mr. Brooke: I assure my hon. Friend, as I have sought to assure the House, that the defences that will exist under the criminal offences cover a wide variety of crime if the information was being sought with a view to publication.

Business of the House
5.4 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the business for next week. The business will be as follows:

MONDAY 18 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, fifth day.

TUESDAY 19 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, sixth day.

WEDNESDAY 18 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, seventh day.

THURSDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 22 JANUARY—Private Member' Bills

MONDAY 25 JANUARY—Second Reading of the National Lottery etc Bill.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 20 January at 10.30 am to consider European Community document 5248/92 relating to footwear labelling.

[Wednesday 20 January

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community document

5248/92 Footwear Labelling

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-i (1992–93)]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement.
May we have an assurance that there will be a further statement on Monday about the position in Iraq, when I presume a proper assessment will be available of the position there? Is he aware that it would not be acceptable to Opposition Members to see the debate on the RAF which is scheduled for Thursday as a vehicle for discussing that or other foreign affairs matters such as Bosnia? Thursday's debate stands on its own merits and we expect other Government time to be made available for other matters.
I press the right hon. Gentleman to schedule an early debate in Government time on the issue of care in the community. Recent events such as the Silcock case have fuelled existing concern about that important area of policy. There is much interest on both sides of the House as we approach the shift of responsibility from Government to local authorities for that policy area.
Can the Leader of the House give an indication of the likely date of the Budget, since, apart from that being of interest to hon. Members, we shall want a debate on the most important recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. As that will in part contribute to the atmosphere and framework of the debate on the Budget, it would be helpful to have that before the Budget itself.
Mr. Newton: On the hon. Lady's question about a further statement on Iraq, she will know that, as my right hon. and learned Friend said last night, we shall keep the House informed of the likely effects of the operation. He said that it would be some time before we could describe with certainty the detailed consequences, so I shall not
1084
make a commitment about a statement at a particular time, but I shall make sure that he is aware of the hon. Lady's request.
I recognise that the debate next week will be concerned with defence matters, specifically in relation to the RAF in terms of what I announced. But that will, I think, permit a quite wide-ranging debate—subject always to the decisions of the Chair—and it may be for the interest of the House that on this occasion the Secretary of State for Defence will speak in the debate, in view of recent developments.
The hon. Lady's next question was about a debate on care in the community. I acknowledge the importance of that subject and the widespread interest in it, in view of the impending changes, as well as the recent case to which she referred and a number of other issues. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate next week, or possibly for some little time, but I note the hon. Lady's request.
Finally, I was rather hoping that the hon. Lady would ask me about the Budget, because I have a little information to communicate. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady and the whole House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to open his Budget statement on Tuesday 16 March.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the amount of business now before the House often prevents us from leaving the confines of the Palace of Westminster. Many new Members, and, I am sure, some who are not new, are blood donors. Will my right hon. Friend consider providing an opportunity for a blood donation wagon to come to the Palace?
I have a further brief question, too, if I may.
Madam Speaker: No, no. I said earlier this afternoon that I wanted to hear one question from one Member. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman's question was hardly a matter for the Leader of the House. For all that, the right hon. Gentleman may like to say something about it, and we shall then move on.
Mr. Newton: I am tempted to make a remark about the amount of blood on the Floor, Madam Speaker, but I note my hon. Friend's interesting request. Blood donation is certainly an important service, but, as you kindly said, it is not a matter for me. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the point is drawn to the attention of the appropriate people.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that a statutory instrument will be required to give effect to the recent cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances? As the cuts are causing great concern throughout the upland areas of the United Kingdom, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that there is a debate on the Floor of the House on that important issue?
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I would wish to look into the exact parliamentary procedures required—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge that hill farm incomes have been rising.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the serious and deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland. I have

1085
been told that that matter cannot be debated in the Northern Ireland Committee, but only on the Floor of the House. In view of the gruesome murders taking place on both sides of the political divide, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give us time next week to discuss something that affects the lives and well-being of the people in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give precisely the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I draw his attention to the fact—of which he is no doubt already aware—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be here to answer oral questions next Thursday.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House be able to find time for the President of the Board of Trade to discuss the rules governing receivership that were used in the termination of Lilley Group plc in Scotland—and especially the procedures whereby viable subsidiaries of that company which were trading profitably were also put into receivership? It will be noticed that, in early-day motion 1141, many hon. Members express concern about the procedures.
[That this House is deeply concerned at the cynical decision of the Clydesdale Bank, owned by the Bank of Australia, to call in the receivers on the Lilley Group plc and the subsequent actions of the receivers Price Waterhouse in ending the trading of financially healthy subsidiaries of the Lilley Group; notes that the receivers are now stating to companies who are owed money for works carried out for MDW, a Glasgow-based construction subsidiary, that debts outstanding of almost £16 million have been transferred to Lilley Group plc, who will be unlikely to make these payments because the majority of assets will be used to pay the banks; further notes that the subsidiaries, if sold, will not be liable to pay the debts owed to contractors for work done, which in turn will lead to substantial job losses and financial hardship for sub-contracting firms such as Fir-Side Joinery of Falkirk who are owed £200,000 by MDW for work already completed; and calls on the Department of Trade and Industry to introduce regulations to safeguard the rights of viable companies in such circumstances.]
I am sure that many hon. Members will have had similar experiences in their constituencies. Viable subcontractors find that outstanding debts are not paid, as happened in the case of Fir-Side Joinery, in Falkirk. Honest hardworking subcontractors see the money coming in for the work that they have done going to the receiver, and they never get a penny of it. Today and tomorrow, the Lilley subsidiaries will be relaunched and sold, and the people who take over will not be liable for debts owed for work done.
Is it not time for a discussion on the rules, to find out whether we can protect hard-working companies which have done the work and should receive the money?
Mr. Newton: As on the previous question, I cannot give exactly the promise that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I draw his attention to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade will be here next Wednesday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to work a question in then.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to make a statement next week in connection with the tragic death of
1086
Donna Cooper, a much loved 13-year-old schoolgirl who was killed by a stolen car driven, I understand, by someone out on bail? Such matters, involving the mindless taking of a car, affect lives, families and communities in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The subject deserves a statement, so that we can find out what else can be done to help in such circumstances.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: It is clear from the reaction of the House that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to join in the expression of sympathy that my hon. Friend offered to the family involved. I shall certainly bring his request to the attention of the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have already taken steps to increase the penalties for joyriding, and are now examining some of the problems connected with offences committed by people on bail.
Ms. Ann Coffey: Will the Leader of the House set time aside next week for an attempt to clarify the procedures for relatives of Bosnian refugees who wish to obtain visas? I ask that question because of a particular difficulty that has arisen for the Bosnian families in Stockport. At present, the onus of responsibility to go to the nearest embassy lies with the applicant. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, Bosnia is not an easy country to cross. A 17-year-old boy, the son of one of the families—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Lady a little guidance? She should at this stage not go into detail, but simply give a broad outline of what is required and why she seeks a debate next week. If she wishes to pursue an individual case, I am sure that the appropriate Minister would be prepared to consider it.
Ms. Coffey: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I was giving the reasons why I wanted a debate next week. The problem arose from a particular difficulty in my constituency involving a 17-year-old boy who was required to cross the country to reach an embassy. I wondered whether the United Nations and the Red Cross could take more of an enabling role in helping applicants to get visas.
Mr. Newton: You and I both understand, Madam Speaker, why the hon. Lady raised that matter, and we respect her reasons. The right thing for me to do is to draw her concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Leader of the House is allowing three full days of discussion on the treaty of European union next week, and as the issues are so deeply felt that it may be necessary for the debate to go further into the following week, will he have a word with the Chairman of Ways and Means to establish whether there is any possibility of discussing at an earlier stage the two amendments concerning a referendum? There is a widespread feeling in the House that, if a referendum were approved, the business of the House concerning the Bill on European union would be dealt with very quickly instead of very slowly.
Mr. Newton: First, I confirm my hon. Friend's prediction that it is possible that further time will need to

1087
be made available for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As for the rest, my hon. Friend will realise that that is not a matter for me. I hesitate to suggest that that is not a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, when he is here, because that sounds like a point of order. Nevertheless, I must steer him in that direction.
Ms. Tessa Jowell: Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is provided next week for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the indictment of the Government's commercialisation of health care provided today by the British Medical Association, which describes
"a breakdown of many hospital services, leading to a two-tier provision of service as between those patients of fundholding and non-fundholding GPs, which is totally unacceptable."?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement on that matter next week. I have not had a chance to study what the hon. Lady says the BMA says, but the words she used do not bear much relationship to my experience or understanding of what is happening. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will find other ways of commenting on the subject.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week we shall be dealing with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Is it the custom of the House that, in Committee, either hon. Members provide their names to the Chairman of Ways and Means or they are not called?
Madam Speaker: Order. May I give a little more guidance? Hon. Members are inclined—as in this case—to ask procedural questions, which are a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, not for the Leader of the House. We should not ask the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box and answer questions on matters which are not his responsibility. I call Mr. Jones.
Mr. Barry Jones: When will the President of the Board of Trade come to the House to make his statement regarding the assisted area map of Britain? There is apprehension in my constituency with 3,000 people out of work and the possible loss of a valuable status. Bearing in mind Wales's contribution in coal and steel, and with its massive unemployment at present, it would be wrong for any Welsh area to lose such a status. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Cabinet about those matters.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend is examining a number of issues at present. I cannot give him a definite date on which the assisted areas review will come forward, although I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the question has been asked, if only because it might well be asked again next Wednesday.
Mr. Warren Hawksley: During the Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced that he had asked the Home Secretary to examine the question of juvenile offenders, and said that he was hoping to come forward quickly with proposals. Is it possible for the House to have a debate in the near future on this important issue, so that we can feed in the views of the House?
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise an early debate. However, I can certainly confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is examining urgently and critically the existing arrangements to deal with juvenile offenders in order to decide what measures, if any, it would be sensible to introduce.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Given the number of calls for a public inquiry into the death of my constituent, Thomas Adleigh, who died in the early hours of Christmas morning while waiting a prolonged period for an ambulance, will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the reduction of overnight ambulance cover in the Argyll and Clyde health board area?
Mr. Newton: As with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), the appropriate course is for me to bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to debate early-day motion 1154 on emergency services in Tayside?
[That this House notes that during the recent spell of adverse weather throughout Tayside, the police and other emergency services have carried out their humanitarian tasks with great skill and courage; further notes that Tayside Regional Council, Perth and Kinross District Council and Angus District Council have opened up council buildings as emergency shelters for stranded lorry drivers and motorists; congratulates the officers and men of 45 Royal Marine Commando, who, using their skis and Arctic experience, rescued many stranded civilians; and further congratulates the crews of the RAF search and rescue helicopter flight of RAF Leuchars for the vast number of emergency sorties completed in conditions of gales and below freezing temperatures.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, even today, many major roads in Tayside are still blocked and communities are isolated. He will be aware of the problems that the people in Tayside will face when the search and rescue flight is no longer available at Leuchars and when 45 Royal Marine Commando is not at its base at Condor. The skiing and Arctic ability of the commandos have saved many people's lives.
Mr. Newton: It is becoming clear that the follow-up period to these business questions will keep my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fairly busy. I will bring that question to his attention.
Ms. Jean Corston: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1162 on today's Order Paper on the subject of legal aid.
[That this House agrees that justice for all can only be a reality when there is provision for access to justice for all irrespective of wealth; notes that the intention of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 was to ensure that no one was to be denied legal advice and representation because of inadequate finance; is appalled that the Lord Chancellor, as part of a Government purporting to espouse citizen's rights, proposes to restrict free legal aid only to those on income support or the equivalent, thereby excluding 12 million people from the legal aid provisions; and calls on the Government to abandon these proposals.]
It calls attention to the Lord Chancellor's proposals to change the eligibility rules for legal aid, the effect of which will be to deny free legal aid to 12 million people. That

1089
could prevent women from taking out domestic violence injunctions, or parents from making applications under the Children Act. Will the Leader of the House make time for the House to debate that important matter?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Lord Chancellor has announced proposals and will shortly be tabling regulations to bring changes into effect. Those regulations will undoubtedly give rise to debate. I simply make the point that nearly half of all households will remain financially eligible for legal aid.
Mr. John Greenway: I support the calls today from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and others for an early debate on crime and law and order, and especially the police service. The Leader of the House will know that, throughout the Christmas/New Year recess, barely a day went by without news of some catastrophe involving youngsters and crime. It is time that the House had a proper debate on the matter.
Mr. Newton: I note the point made by my hon. Friend, which follows the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary is examining a number of matters that arise from the concerns expressed by hon. Members. I cannot add to what I said a moment ago.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House change his mind about having a debate on the national health service and the crisis that has arisen in almost every part of the service as a result of the introduction of the internal market? May I be helpful to the Leader of the House and pre-empt any remarks that he might make about Labour making a U-turn? I was at the press conference yesterday, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not say that we supported the trusts. But we desperately need a debate.
Mr. Newton: I did not have it in mind to make any aggressive remarks in response to the hon. Lady's question. However, it remains the case that, in addition to what I said to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) a while ago, I am not in a position to promise a debate next week.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many customs clearance agents and freight forwarders in Dover have recently been made redundant as a result of the introduction of the single European market. Can he confirm that there will be an early opportunity to debate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Trade and Industry in dispersing the British share of the 24 million ecu that the European Community has announced is available to assist customs agents and freight forwarders? There is anxiety in my constituency that, unless the procedures for dispersing that money are speeded up and made more efficient, it will not filter down to them.
Mr. Newton: I appreciate the reasons why my hon. Friend has raised that point. Indeed, I appreciate the assiduity with which he has pursued the matter on behalf of his constituents over a long period. He too might like to
1090
be reminded that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he referred, will be here to answer oral questions on Wednesday.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot add this week to what I have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. Having had some discussions with the Chairman of the Committee, I am examining ways to proceed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Leader of the House been approached by the Prime Minister about making a statement next week in the light of press reports on the future governance of Scotland? If he has not, may I suggest that he encourages the Prime Minister to speak to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and other hon. Members who have had experience of devolved government and are interested in Scotland and the Union, bearing in mind that we are known as the Ulster Scots or, as our American cousins call us, the Scotch-Irish?
Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's kind and undoubtedly well-meant offer to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Ray Powell: When the Leader of the House was compiling the business for next week and came to Thursday, did he observe that it was passing strange that Thursdays in the past few months have been heavy days on which all Members were expected to turn up? On Thursday of next week, the business is a debate on the Air Force, which does not normally arouse a great deal of interest among Members, although I realise its importance. Therefore, will he try to disprove the sinister suggestions that have been put to me, that the reason why such a debate was chosen was to distract Members from coming in on Friday for the debate on my Shops (Amendment) Bill? I thank him if those sinister remarks are wrong. I have known him and the work that he does for some time, and I suggest that he allowed a light Thursday so that Members will have time to study the booklet that they received from me this morning explaining the difficulties of introducing a shops Bill.
Mr. Newton: I had not expected the hon. Gentleman to join the conspiracy theorists who are normally to be found on the other side of the Gangway. I assure him that nothing more was in my mind than the ambitions presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about Fridays. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, since the House resumed in the autumn, the pattern has been of light days, in the sense in which he uses the word. There have been few heavy Thursdays.
Mr. Terry Lewis: The Lord President will recall that a few weeks ago I raised the issue of pornography on the telephone, following the rape of a young girl in Hillingdon. He referred me to the Department of National Heritage—which surprised me—and I was referred back to the Department of Trade and Industry. Since then, I have had a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in which the response from the

1091
hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was unhelpful. Next Tuesday, I have a ten-minute Bill which has all-party support.
Will the Lord President now or very soon add some weight to the need to regulate pornography on the telephone? I understand that he has two daughters, as do other right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. I ask them please to consider what I have been saying for a long time, which is attracting all-party support. For that reason alone, will he do something about what is happening on the telephone, which I believe is corrupting and not very wholesome for a civilised country to accept?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have two daughters. I also have two stepdaughters. I have no direct or indirect experience of the problem that he describes through them, but I am conscious of the importance that he attaches to the matter and of the sympathy that many people have for his views. I cannot make an absolute commitment, but I will do my best to be here next week to listen to his speech on the subject.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Grand Committee has not met since last February? Since February, thousands of jobs have been lost in my constituency and those of other Opposition Members. It appears that all representations to the Secretary of State for Wales are failing. Therefore, will the Leader of the House place on the Order Paper next week the appropriate motion to establish the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the growing unemployment problems of Wales?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I shall certainly bring his suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's proposal to reduce expenditure under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 is likely adversely to affect the educational opportunities and life chances of many children of ethnic minority background in my constituency and those of many other hon. Members? If he is aware of that, will he please urge the Home Secretary to make a statement as soon as possible? If he cannot do that, will he arrange a debate on that important subject as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I shall bring his concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it possible to have an early debate on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the most important of which is that the security services should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny? Any such scrutiny committee should not be composed of Privy Councillors alone, hence my early-day motion 1089.
[That this House is strongly of the opinion that the security services should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny; and moreover is opposed to a committee composed only of privy counsellors being established, which would be outside the normal Select Committee structure.]
1092
Bearing in mind the allegations that have been made about the security services in the latest controversy involving the royal couple, is it not essential that, as in other democracies, the security service be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as early as possible? When can we have an early debate?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise the early debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks; nor can I add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage half an hour ago on the question to which the hon. Gentleman adverted. Obviously the report of the Select Committee, like all Select Committee reports, will be carefully studied.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House accept that we need a statement next week on the national health service, even if, after repeated pressing from my hon. Friends, he cannot manage a debate? A two-tier system is developing. I have in my hand a letter from the chief executive of the Bradford hospital trust which says:
"I hope and would expect that preference will be given"—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have had to call several hon. Members to order today for developing their points rather than stating the principle of why they want a debate. The hon. Gentleman is a good parliamentarian and he knows what I am getting at.
Mr. Cryer: One sentence, Madam Speaker. The chief executive of the national health service trust in Bradford is urging consultants to give preference to GP fund holders. That is a serious departure from all the pledges which the Government have given, and that is why we need a statement.
Mr. Newton: I have commented twice on similar questions about the national health service, and I shall not add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1150?
[That this House congratulates the I.L.P. on its 100th anniversary, recognising that the Independent Labour Party held its inaugural conference in Bradford on 13th and 14th January 1893 and that its tradition is continued today by its direct successor organisation, Independent Labour Publications, which has maintained the I.L.P. historic initials and continues to work for the advance and development of democratic socialism.]
That motion contains the simple but powerful initials "ILP". It is about the formation of the Independent Labour party 100 years ago today in Bradford—an organisation which still exists as Independent Labour Publications. A debate on that topic would allow a general discussion on political issues, including democratic socialism, which is still very much alive. For example, Keir Hardie, who was a founder member of the ILP, was known as the Member for the unemployed in the House. We need many Members for the unemployed. We could discuss unemployment during a discussion on the early-day motion.
Hon. Members: Yes—grant it.
Mr. Newton: I am being urged by my right hon. and hon. Friends to grant the hon. Gentleman's request.

1093
However, I cannot add to the generous offer of my right hon. Friend to provide time for a wake. Nor, indeed, can I identify the undertaker.
Ms. Liz Lynne: Following the answer which the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), although he said that he could not make available any time next week for a debate on community care, will he make time in the foreseeable future before April for such a debate? He should do so especially in the light of the report by the Association of Directors of Social Services that social services throughout Britain are having to cut their budgets.
Mr. Newton: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett): I am not in a position to promise a debate, but I shall bear in mind the request given the longer time scale given by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne). The ADSS provides a survey of social services expenditure every year at this time, and it is not unknown for it to make gloomy predictions. It must be recognised that funding to local authorities for social services is to be increased by 15 per cent. next year. That comes on top of a real increase of almost two thirds in local authority social services spending since 1979.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I remind the Leader of the House of the implied and repeated promise to Members of the House of Commons that we would have an opportunity to debate the six documents on rail privatisation which the Secretary of State for Transport promised would be available before the publication of the privatisation Bill? Those six documents have not yet been received. As Members anticipate that, before the Leader of the House makes his next business statement, the Bill will have been published, will he use his good offices, first, to ensure that the six outstanding documents are made available to the House of Commons, especially the one on the pricing regime for Railtrack, which is crucial and central to the legislation, before the Bill is published; and, secondly, that we have an opportunity to debate the documents before Second Reading?
Finally, with regard to the Second Reading—
Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr. Newton: We have just had—I accept that it was thanks to Her Majesty's Opposition—a full day's debate on rail privatisation. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that he is
1094
making so much information so openly available in advance of Second Reading. It seems to me that the right way to respond to that is to treat that information as relevant to the debate which we shall undoubtedly have on the Bill.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Following the reply by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about hill livestock compensatory allowances, may I invite him to be a little more forthcoming? If, as seems likely, the Select Committee on Agriculture will consider that issue as a matter of urgency, can he give us an undertaking that the House will be given the opportunity to study and debate its report fully?
On the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the incomes of sheep farmers are said to have risen in recent years, I wonder whether he has noted the report of the west country sheep farmer who said that 50 per cent. of bugger all is still bugger all.
Mr. Newton: I do not know that I would want to validate that language from the Dispatch Box, quite apart from the implication of the remark. Nor shall I add to what I told his hon. Friend, beyond saying that any report produced by a Select Committee will be studied carefully by my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, about providing time for a debate on the implications of the second strategic arms reduction treaty and on the question of nuclear proliferation for this country? That debate is necessary in view of the present debate in the Ukraine, which is likely to continue.
The Ukrainian Government might sabotage the whole process, because Members of its Parliament are opposed to the fact that this country, among others, is not giving the Ukraine any guarantees that, if it gets rids of its nuclear weapons, we will not fire such weapons against them. Could the Government find time to debate that issue, so that the Ukraine could be given a negative security guarantee of that type?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I have already announced in the business for next week a debate on defence-related matters, under the heading of the Royal Air Force. Despite the obvious importance of the matter to which he has referred, I cannot promise another debate at this stage.

Points of Order
5.43 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, in your hearing, the Leader of the Opposition launched a strong personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not one of the oldest conventions in the House that, if a right hon. or hon. Member is going to name another right hon. or hon. Member, he first gives him or her notice to that effect privately?
I have established with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Leader of the Opposition gave him no such notice. In view of that fact, will you rule on this matter and confirm that that is a convention of the House and that the Leader of the Opposition ought to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to my right hon. Friend?
Madam Speaker: It is a convention of the House, and it is a matter of common courtesy, that, if one Member intends to name another during a debate, or questions, he or she should arrange for that Member to be informed. Perhaps we can now get on—
Several hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. There is no further point of order, I have dealt with the matter.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 13 January]
  [DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Amendment proposed [13 January]: No. 40, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'II,'.—[Mr. Cash.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      5.43 pm
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following amendments:
      No. 323, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'II'.
      No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 2 on page 9 of Cm 1934)'.
      No. 17, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 138a on pager 41 of Cm 1934)'.
      No. 116, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(other than the following provisions set out under Article G—

      Paragraph A (1)

      Paragraph B (2)

      Paragraph B (3)

      Paragraph B (4)

      Paragraph B (5)

      Paragraph B (7)

      Paragraph C

      Paragraph D (10), (11), (12), (14), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), (22), (23), (25), (26), (27), (28), (29), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (37), (38)—except Articles 130, 130r, 130s and Title XVII) (39), (40), (41—except Article 138e) (45), (47), (48), (49), (50), (56), (57), (60), (61), (62), (63), (67), (69), (70), (71), (79), (80), (81), (83), and (84).'.
      No. 124, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(excluding Article G B on page 9 to 11 of Cm 1934.)'.
      No. 234, in page 1, line 9, after 'II' insert 'except' Article 138a'.
      No. 91, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'III'.
      No. 20, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 73g (2) on page 14 of Cm.1934'.
      No. 92, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'IV'.
      No. 146, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 1 in Title IV thereof'.
      No. 183, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article Q in Title VII thereof'.
      No. 122, in page 1, line 10, leave out from '1992' to 'and' in line 11.
      No. 117, in page 1, line 12, after 'Protocols', insert 'other than—

      '(a) The Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank

      (b) The Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure

      (c) The Protocol on the Convergence Criteria referred to in Article 109 of the Treaty establishing the European Community

      (d) The Protocol amending the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunity of the European Community

      (e) The Protocol on the Transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union

      (f) The Protocol on Certain Provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      (g) The Protocol on Social Policy

      [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]
      (h) The Protocol on Economic and Social Cohesion.'.
      New Clause 10—Report of European Council—
      '.—After the European Council has submitted its report after each of its meetings, Her Majesty's Government shall publish and lay such reports, and those annual reports in writing, as required by Title 1, Article D of the Treaty on European Union before Parliament, together with a statement as to their policy and performance in respect of the activities of the Union and their policies for its future.'.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you say for certain whether this is the Committee stage of the Bill, because it seems that my colleagues are not being called to speak unless they have given their names to the Chairman of the Committee beforehand? Is there any precedent for that during the Committee stage of any Bill?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is entirely a matter for the Chairman. There is no such arrangement, although the hon. Gentlemen seems to think that there is. If Members wish to be called, they are not obliged to write in beforehand.
      Mr. Knapman: You will be aware, Dame Janet, that many hon. Gentlemen and Ladies wish to speak to this group of amendments who have not given their names. I take it from your answer that their efforts will not be prejudiced in any way.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The main prejudice will come from those hon. Members who speak for such a long time that it makes it more difficult for others to speak, and not from any action by the Chair.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am acting on the assumption that the procedures of this Committee are not dissimilar in principle to those in a Committee upstairs and that they only vary slightly in practice. You will know, as all hon. Members do, that it is not infrequent for more than one Minister to be a member of a Committee upstairs. You may also know, from conversations with colleagues, that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who I am glad to see present, has given notice that his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is likely to reply to the debate on financial matters. You will also recall that the Minister spoke third in the debate and that many hon. Members—all but the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—have asked questions relating to foreign affairs and international law. We hope that no decision will be made that would prejudice the Minister of State having the opportunity to contribute again so that he may reply to those questions before the debate is concluded. He might have to indicate a willingness to do so, but without his reply the debate would be incomplete.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot prejudge who may wish to catch my eye.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The Leader of the House suggested a few minutes ago that I should raise this matter on a point of order. As you will know, he announced that three days will be allocated to discussion of the Bill next week, and it seems that, because of the strength of feeling expressed,
      1098
      even longer might have to be allocated during the following week. I was grateful, as I am sure were all hon. Members, that you and your colleagues decided to allow us to debate a clause dealing with a referendum, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Could you consider our debating that new clause earlier, rather than at the end of the proceedings? There seems to be a widespread feeling that if that new clause were considered and agreed to, the proceedings on this important Bill might be completed quickly instead of taking a considerable time.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I have tabled several amendments to the Bill concerning a referendum and I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that discussion of this lengthy Bill, which we must examine in great detail if a proper examination is to be undertaken, could well be curtailed. If it were decided, through an amendment, to provide the public with the opportunity to have a referendum, one would hope that the debate would shift to a much wider auditorium than this place—to the nation at large. Most decent, sensible democrats would welcome that. I endorse the view that the democratic procedures would benefit if an amendment or new clause were to be debated and passed, to allow the public the opportunity to join in the debate—a debate whose structure will inevitably be curtailed until the decision is made. An early decision on a referendum would be very welcome, not only here, but outside by the majority of the population. They have seen the Danes have a referendum in Denmark and they are asking, "Why can't we have a referendum about this important issue?"
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I can deal with that point of order now. It is not for the Chair to vary the normal order in which amendments are taken.
      Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am not complaining about the length of speeches because so far they have been interesting and instructive and I have listened to most of them. This legislation is important and I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is important to all parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly to Scotland, which enjoys a unique relationship within this unitary Parliament, brought about by the union that really matters, the Union of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is important for the people of Scotland to understand that their views are being heard, listened to and noted in this Parliament.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that that is not a point of order for the Chair, although it might be an interesting observation.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Would it not assist the House if those hon. Members who are calling for the debate on a referendum clause to be brought forward—many of them have also tabled many amendments that are designed to keep the Bill going in the House for as long as possible—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members may not like the views being expressed, but the hon. Gentleman has the right to express them, providing that they take the form of a point of order.
      Mr. Devlin: The point of order is that if some of those hon. Members who have tabled a large number of amendments wish to bring forward an amendment for an early vote, could they not do so by withdrawing the considerable number of amendments that they have already tabled?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I know that you would always want to be helpful to the House and this is an opportunity for you to be very helpful. This is a wide-ranging and important debate, which covers the vast bulk of the treaty. There have been many debates on the Maastricht treaty, but many hon. Members would like to catch your eye today and some have been unable to catch eyes in previous debates.
      This may be the most important and wide-ranging debate on the Bill. It is unlikely that the Government would wish to curtail today's debate, but if they have told you that they will seek—God forbid—to move a closure motion at some stage today, quite inappropriately, could you tell the House now at what time the Government will seek to close the debate so that hon. Members can make their contribution within that time scale?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I remain in blissful ignorance of the Government's intentions.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Dame Janet. This is the most important constitutional Bill since I have been in the House. It seeks to take large powers from the people of this country and reduce the position of the Executive and its accountability to the nation. I seek clarification on the observation that you made, which seemed to indicate that, because of the complex and difficult matters under discussion, if a speech is lengthy and ranges across the amendments before us, it curtails other Members' ability to make representations on behalf of their constituents. It therefore curtails free speech on this major constitutional arrangement.
      Are you saying that an hon. Member who speaks in order for a long time will curtail the ability of other hon. Members to speak? Is that a new Committee ruling which we must bear in mind while trying to debate these great issues?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I have no such grandiose ideas in mind. I was merely making the common-sense observation that if hon. Members want to talk this afternoon, it is likely to be easier if they make shorter rather than longer speeches. However, that is not for the Chair to determine.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Is it not particularly perverse of hon. Members who have a stated commitment to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty—I know how sincere that commitment is on the part of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—to suggest that, if there were a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, we would somehow be able to curtail our discussion of the Bill now? If one believes in parliamentary scrutiny and if there is to be a referendum, it is particularly important that we should thoroughly examine—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is clearly not a point of order but rather an observation.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you help me? I have sat through all the debates on this treaty. How can a Member from another part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—make a contribution? I have approached the Chair, but have not been satisfied. I have been a Member of the House for 22 years and have never had to put down my name to speak in Committee. If one was present and stood up, one was likely to be called to speak. Can you assure hon. Members from Northern Ireland that, at some time during the debate, at least one of them will be called?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: May I make it clear that there is no obligation on any Member during the Committee stage, or in any debate whatever, to put down his or her name in advance. I have tried to take note of those who rise in their places when one speaker gives way to another.
      Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you confirm that, when a closure motion was moved in Committee before Christmas, although Members representing Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland constituencies were present—the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom—no hon. Member from any of those three countries was invited to speak prior to the closure. We have had three statements this afternoon and it is now 6 o'clock, so it will be a short debating day. Is that likely to occur again or will hon. Members from those other parts of the United Kingdom have a chance to speak on this occasion?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Member who would have the Floor now, but for the points of order, represents Wales.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Further to the previous point of order that I tried to make but failed so miserably, Dame Janet. In your position as guardian of the interests of Back Benchers in Parliament, you will sometimes be required to accept or reject closure motions. Will you bear in mind the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom? I do not make a frivolous point because we know of the separatist movements within the United Kingdom, which wish to break up this unitary Parliament and the United Kingdom. The strongest card that we have to play against them is to ensure that the interests of parts of the United Kingdom such as Scotland are well looked after in the Chamber. If, by chance and for whatever reason, hon. Members are not called, separatists can use that as a device to claim that their interests are not being catered for. I draw your attention to that aspect on closure motions with respect and hope that you will bear it in mind.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that I shall not be found wanting in my duties in that regard. However, we can best help by resuming the debate.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I am grateful to you, Dame Janet, for reminding the Committee that we are debating the first batch of amendments on the amendment paper.
      As the House was full last night when I commenced my speech and as every hon. Member was listening intently, I have no intention of wasting time going over the same ground. I know that the Minister of State, Foreign and

      1101
      Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), will be disappointed, but I shall merely summarise what I said, especially in relation to amendment No. 17, which is the third amendment in the batch and was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
      Before the House heard last night's statement on Iraq, I was arguing that, far from assisting those of my hon. Friends who are in favour of the treaty, I understood article 2 to do the opposite. Although they may have thought that article 2 was better than a fig leaf covering all the ghastly following articles, it is all of a part with the rest of the treaty. To borrow a phrase from the old days of nuclear defence, the treaty is a "seamless web", starting with article 2 and continuing in that vein.
      Some of my hon. Friend's speeches did not show proper respect for those who drafted the treaty. I never cease to admire the intellectual power of those who drafted it. I do not know who they are and I do not make a cynical or sarcastic point. I never cease to admire the intellectual elegance, despite the convoluted language, of the manner in which the matter has been framed. It has been thought out carefully from the beginning and the articles all fit in and work their way through to a conclusion. We should therefore not be flippant about the treaty and say that it does not mean this or that. It has been carefully and diligently thought out.
      Article 2 contains three phrases dealing with economic matters, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East and other hon. Friends referred. Indeed, they referred to them as though they would have liked them to be in the Labour party manifesto. I was a little worried about that. The first phrase—and the most difficult—is
      "a high degree of convergence".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East seemed to be saying that we were in favour of a high degree of convergence. The only convergence indicators that I can find as I look through the treaty are the reduction of inflation down to price stability—a euphemism for almost zero inflation—the reduction of budget deficits to 3 per cent. and 60 per cent., and the eventual locking of exchange rates.
      6 pm
      As I tried to argue last night, I do not agree with the treaty, but I understand that those convergence indicators are major factors. If the treaty wants to achieve a single currency in the foreseeable future—be it 1999 or 2001—and if it is to contain all the other convergence indicators that Opposition Members would want it to contain, such as gross domestic product, unemployment and income per capita, we shall never arrive at the ultimate goal of a single currency and economic and monetary union.
      Mr. David Winnick: Like my right hon. Friend, I oppose the Bill and the treaty on many grounds, not least economic and political sovereignty, which would be substantially eroded if the measure were passed, but would not those in our own ranks—if not Conservative Members—who are in favour of the measure have improved their case had they said that they were in favour of what was agreed in the Maastricht treaty but could not in any circumstances support limiting GDP, which would substantially reduce public spending? That
      1102
      result would in turn give right-wing Governments further ammunition in their fight to introduce measures which would undoubtedly increase unemployment and lead to further deflation.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall come to the issue of excessive deficits, which was discussed at some length in yesterday's debate.
      The next economic indicator referred to in article 2 is high employment. My hon. Friends made much of the phrase "high employment". My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) thumbed through the treaty and found quite a few references not merely to high employment, but to "lasting high employment"—or was it "high and lasting employment?" I am not sure how the words were positioned.
      We are all in favour of high employment. The treaty does not say anything about full employment, and I should be surprised if it did. It may mention unemployment somewhere. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles thumbing through the treaty to see if he can find such a reference. I shall be surprised if he does. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford, who knows how the treaty was drafted, is smiling.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to check by how much unemployment has increased in the European Economic Community compared with every other developed part of the world? That would give the right hon. Gentleman something to think about.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles will deal with that issue. I was making a somewhat arid and textual point and saying that those who draft such measures are clever and understand what they are about. They would never mention unemployment. The monetarists—I do not use the word in a pejorative sense as I believe that monetary controls have a vital role to play in an economic system—believe that unemployment takes care of itself, so their only concern is to control inflation.
      The phrase "high employment" is carefully chosen. Of course, everyone is in favour of high employment and the Government maintain that we now have it in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) laughs, but about 90 per cent. of what we used to call the insurable population—the employable population—are in fact employed. The Government have also maintained that there are more people in work now than at any other time. They even say that about Wales, where unemployment is high. The phrase "high employment" is carefully chosen by the clever people who draft such measures. The Minister of State smiles—I am not referring to him, although I am sure that he played a major part in drafting the treaty.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Garel-Jones): I am smiling because I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that he is not a clever person but merely a common man speaking up. We all know better than that.
      Mr. Davies: That is not what I was implying. I was merely stating that the phrase "high employment" was carefully chosen. If the unemployment level increased to 20 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the population was

      1103
      employed, many people would argue that that was high employment. I do not know the level at which it ceases to be high employment—that is a matter of debate.
      I am sorry to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Oxford, East and others that I do not think that there is much salvation or assistance in the phrase "high employment", which is part of the seamless web of the treaty.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Further to my hon. Friend's point, could not the Government defend the present disastrously high level of unemployment as "high employment" and do they not indeed do so?
      Mr. Davies: That is the very point I was trying to make. Until one starts discussing very low levels of employment—perhaps lower than 90 per cent.—the matter is subjective.
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: I believe that my right hon. Friend is trying to distinguish between full employment and high employment, and is complaining that although the treaty refers to "high employment" it makes no mention of full employment. Will he define full employment? Does it mean 100 per cent. employment? If not, surely we are talking about high employment.
      Mr. Davies: I am not distinguishing between high and full employment. I would have made the point that when we talk of full employment we all know that it is not 100 per cent. employment. I was merely arguing that the phrase "high employment" was chosen carefully because those who drafted the treaty did not wish it to make a specific commitment on unemployment. The thinking behind monetarist strategy—certainly as developed by the theorists in Europe in the 1980s, although it may be changing in the 1990s—is that employment takes care of itself.
      Mr. Macdonald: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: No; my hon. Friend can make his own speech. I have made my point.
      I shall not repeat what I said last night about non-inflationary growth, but some of my hon. Friends have gone to town on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool—who can perhaps be described as a member of the modernising tendency of the Labour party—wanted the subject to be contained in the Labour party manifesto. He said that everyone was in favour of non-inflationary growth. I noticed that as his speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East progressed, the term "non-inflationary growth" was dropped in favour of the word "growth". However, before one achieves non-inflationary growth one must have non-inflation. Those with modernist tendencies must be careful.
      I am not sure about non-inflationary growth. I do not think that the residents of Hartlepool who own houses that they are trying to sell want non-inflationary growth. Most of middle England and the middle classes—perhaps I should say, à la Clinton, the working middle classes, although I do not think that the British middle classes would like to be called that—do not want non-inflationary growth. In fact, they are desperate for inflationary growth.
      I caution my hon. Friends who are going a bundle on monetarist theory—as I have said, I do not use the term pejoratively—that they must treat that policy as part of a
      1104
      pattern. Non-inflationary growth fits in with a school of thinking which has existed for a considerable time: it existed in the 1970s and was developed, mostly as academic theories, in the 1980s. We must be careful when we try to gain assistance from specific phrases simply because they make up part of the treaty.
      Title VI of the treaty—perhaps it should be subtitle VI, although I can see why it has been made title VI—deals with economic and monetary union. There is article 104c, which deals with excessive deficits, and article 105, which deals with monetary policy and sets up the European system of central banks. I will deal first with excessive deficits, because there was some dispute on this side of the Committee and my hon. Friends—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool—dealt with it at length.
      We can agree that according to the treaty the budget deficit must not be more than 60 per cent. of gross domestic product, and Government debt—not strictly the public sector borrowing requirement, but Government debt—must not be more than 3 per cent. of GDP. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool—having told us that it is really all a matter of the broad sweep, the general interpretation, and that the politicians still have their hands on it all and therefore it is all right—proceeded to embark on a textual criticism of the article on excessive deficits. He looked at almost every comma and every word to try to show that it did not really mean 3 per cent. and that we would not be affected.
      Then, after all this hoo-ha and argument, my hon. Friend came to a conclusion with which I agree. I tried to intervene to say this, but I do not criticise him for not giving way because he had given way so often. This is what he said, and I agree entirely:
      "The main requirement in relation to the deficit is for progress to be made towards the target."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1003.]
      I cannot disagree with that statement. It is an almost ministerial type statement, well honed, well considered. We all admire the way my hon. Friend does these things and we all admired his speech. So the beautiful summing up of the article is that the main requirement is progress towards the target. The Financial Secretary may even repeat the words, taken from a Treasury brief, when he is winding up.
      It does not have to be done in one year, of course. No one could get the Italian deficit down to 3 per cent. in one year; even those who framed this treaty in their ivory towers realise that. It is not a big bang theory at all; it is death by a thousand cuts. It will happen gradually because, as my hon. Friend says quite clearly, it is progress towards the target. The target we are concerned with is the percentage of GDP that the Government borrow. We understand that at the moment it is around 7 or 8 per cent., so the Government will no doubt start now, and will certainly have to start on 1 December 1994, if the Bill goes through the House and the treaty is ratified. The Government will have to start when stage 2 starts, not by imposition but gradually over the years, reducing that 7 per cent. to the 3 per cent. in the treaty. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not argue that that is wrong; it is what is said in the treaty.
      Mr. Peter Shore: My right hon. Friend is being almost too generous with regard to these reference figures, 3 per cent. and 60 per cent., even allowing for the margin of movement, because both

      1105
      sub-clauses contain the words "close to" the reference level; they must be moving in the right direction and they must also be close to the reference level.
      Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed, they have to, because the whole purpose of the exercise is to get eventually to economic and monetary union and a common currency.
      This exercise will probably have to go on, because we shall not have arrived at 3 per cent. by the time the next Labour Government take over in 1996 or 1997. We may not have reached 3 per cent. by then; we may be around 5 per cent.—who knows? The Government of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will come in faced with this. The Government will perhaps be composed of a number of parties. We may find as deputy Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—we do not know—and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East having worked hard in his unproductive orchard, will by then have become Financial Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will be a vigorous Back Bencher, striving to get Government money for the inner cities of the north-east, particularly Hartlepool. He will be asking my right hon. Friends for more money, but they will be looking at his speeches and quoting back at him his statement that we have to reach the target. He will have to go back to Hartlepool and explain matters to his constituency party. Young people, not only in Hartlepool but in Llanelli, who drive around in cars that are not theirs and put matches into petrol tanks will probably not come to any of our meetings, but it will have to be explained to them, too, somehow or other, that we cannot do much about it; it is there in the treaty and unfortunately the Lib-Lab Government, or whoever they may be, with the modernising tendency no doubt in the vanguard, will have gradually to start making cuts.
      6.15 pm
      We may not have to cut expenditure, however; we may put up taxation. We have assumed that the way to get to the 3 per cent. is to cut public expenditure, but it is a reduction of Government debt and, as far as I am aware, there are two ways of reducing Government debt: reducing expenditure or increasing taxation, or a combination of the two. That choice will still be there.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool referred to "hands-on" politicians, and certainly the hands-on politician will have to decide whether we put up taxes or cut public expenditure.
      Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the way to balance the books is not to increase taxation but to increase revenue? Results in the past have shown that very often there has been an increased take from taxation accompanying a reduction in income tax.
      Mr. Davies: I do not know whether the Laffer curve made any sense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the Laffer curve, which I believe was something drawn on the back of an envelope in a Washington restaurant, that is fine, but it is not something that we should go into at the moment.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: On this wonderfully fair-minded valuing of an increase in taxation or a decrease in
      1106
      expenditure, the Community is charged with trying to harmonise taxes, which constrains the ability of the Government to do one side of the accounting.
      Mr. Davies: That is the point that I was seeking to make—that, even if there is this marvellous freedom of choice whether to increase taxes or cut public expenditure, there are constraints on taxation. If there is harmonisation of indirect taxes, that imposes constraints, and there may be other harmonisation measures.
      Mr. Marlow: Just supposing that the mythical modernising future Labour Government are unable to tear up their election promises and are unable to fulfil the requirements of the treaty that some of his hon. Friends seem so ready to impose upon themselves at the moment, is it not the case that Community institutions, on the basis of a two-thirds majority of countries outside the United Kingdom, would be able to make the Government's task even more difficult by imposing fines upon them?
      Mr. Davies: That is what will happen eventually, but it will not happen overnight; they will have another meeting, make a statement, bring a little pressure to bear here and there, and an application from the Hartlepool development corporation to the European Development bank for a loan will be refused. There are many ways of doing these things, and ultimately there may be a gunboat, or whatever—I do not know. Whatever happens, however, there will have to be compliance, because that is how the system works.
      I do not think that we should underestimate the effect that the "excessive deficits" article will have on both parties' policies, and the constraints that it will place on them to spend judiciously with the aim of maintaining economic growth.
      Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the issue of direct taxation? Under article 8a as it currently stands, there is to be no frontier within the union, but would not differentiation of direct taxation of income through labour ultimately constitute that? Given that there must be a level playing field in regard to skills, and in regard to firms employing people throughout the Community, might not differential income tax constitute a fiscal frontier which might be judged inconsistent with article 8a?
      Mr. Davies: I do not know. Even now, in practice, we are constrained by the tax rates of other EC countries, because we trade with them now and will trade more with them in the future. Actual constraints already exist, whether or not they constitute legal constraints.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool made a marvellous speech, which is no more than we would expect of him. He had worked hard at that speech. At some stage, he threw out an observation about Delors 2. He said that he was in favour of it—which, of course, is perfectly all right. Delors 2 says that there should be more money in the budget; if it had been accepted, I believe that the budget would have been 1.8 or 1.9 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the 12 countries. However, I did not understand the reference to Delors 2 in the context of excessive deficits. On the one hand, we are told that we must cut our expenditure to an eventual 3 per cent.; on the other, we are told that we must find money to give Mr. Delors so that he has public expenditure funds to pay back to us.

      1107
      I am sorry if I have done an injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool; that may not be what he meant. I made my comment en passant, as they say. In any event, he was right to mention Delors 2, which illustrates a real problem. Once countries embark on the exercise of converging economies without actually doing so—the exercise, in fact, of converging monetary and financial indicators—and establish a common currency, as the United States has done, massive transfers will be needed. Conservative Members may not agree with that—it may not accord with their philosophy—but many non-ideological economists will confirm that massive transfers are needed between, say, California and North Dakota.
      Mr. John Butcher: May I draw the right hon. Gentlemen's attention to a rather curious aspect of the matter? Hon. Members may belong to the Liverpool or the Cambridge school of economists, they may be Keynesians or monetarists, they may be Ministers, or they may be Opposition Front Benchers, but what unites virtually all hon. Members is the consensus that, at a time of recession, deficits should be allowed to widen. It is hoped, of course, that they will narrow at times of recovery. Why, given that this part of the treaty will deny consensus to the House, are we all expected to vote like sheep for such a ridiculous proposition?
      Mr. Davies; That is a good point. I am not sure whether the religious school in Liverpool will agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said; certainly, it does not necessarily accord with strict monetarist philosophy.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a splendid example of the single currency and the single bank currently operates in the United Kingdom, where substantial amounts of taxpayers' funds are transferred from the well-paid to the poorer areas? The right hon. Gentleman comes from Wales, and I come from Scotland; we understand that system, have seen it in operation and do not disagree with it.
      Mr. Davies: That is the point that I was trying to make. The same can be observed in the United States. In any event, massive transfers would be required.
      In the 1970s, the McDougall report said that, with a common or single currency within economic and monetary union, transfers would have to constitute about 7 per cent. of GDP—and that was before Portugal, Spain and Greece joined the Community. We must now envisage a transfer of between 10 and 12 per cent. of GDP to alleviate the problem of unemployment in South Dakota, and to lessen the difference in wealth between it and California.
      That money is not going to arrive, partly because it is not there and partly because no mechanism exists to provide it. The Germans are the paymasters, and they have problems in their own country; certainly, Britain cannot provide it. If no Government have the power to raise taxation at European level, the money will never be there. We are in the worst of all possible worlds. We have transferred democratic power, and we are moving towards a common currency, but we have none of the instruments needed to alleviate—I put it no higher than that—the concentration of economic power in a single currency.
      Mr. Barry Legg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of the economic problems suffered in 19th-century Ireland were due to a
      1108
      single currency? The Irish economy fell further and further behind. Another consequence was the mass emigration of the Irish population to the United Kingdom mainland.
      Mr. Davies: I have enough problems trying to understand the treaty without going into Irish economics. The current Irish position is very interesting, however. I am told that Ireland has achieved economic success: apparently, it has managed to get inflation down to about 3 per cent.; meanwhile, interest rates have risen 100 per cent. overnight, and unemployment stands at at least 17 per cent. of the people who are left in the country. That, evidently, is the blueprint. The French socialists have pursued the same policies. It is a modernising party, which has not existed for long and looks as though, after the next election, it will not exist at all.
      Labour Members sometimes refer fondly to the French socialist party as our sister party. I used to be Labour's defence spokesman; the youngsters in the House will not remember that. Sometimes I would go and talk to members of the French socialist party. "Sister party" may not have been the right description.
      The French socialists sold out very early. Now France has a strong economy: it has been stronger than the British economy for a long time. It has low inflation, along with rising unemployment, high interest rates and the "franc fort", which is practically a Vichy franc: it is locked into the Bundesbank and is desperate for support. Come March, we shall see a proliferation of parties, the breakdown of the present Government and all sorts of problems. I remind my hon. Friends that that does not apply only to France; the left in Europe had better start thinking, because all these developments are destroying it.
      The beneficiaries will not be the Christian Democrats. The Minister does not like the Christian Democrats. I will tell his relations in my constituency about that. He said yesterday that he did not like them. Nice Herr Kohl will not be the beneficiary of all this because lots of nasty people far to his left will benefit from it. So if the modernising tendency thinks that this is some kind of modernising blueprint for the Labour party, let them just look at the French socialist party.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: The right hon. Member modestly reminds us that he has been a defence spokesman for his party. With even greater modesty, he omitted to say that before that he was a Treasury Minister for the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. We have enjoyed his extremely amusing speech, particularly his obsession with his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and his speech last night—subject to reading the record carefully, I think that he mentioned his hon. Friend 27 times—but I remember what he said when he was a Treasury Minister. It is a long time ago and the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I bring up something of great importance: he has refused ever since to retract it, but I remember it vividly and it is on record in Hansard. He said that the proportion of the French population engaged in agriculture in those days was 25 per cent. I remember that I and other hon. Members asked him to correct the figure because it was 7 per cent., but he refused to do so. Notwithstanding his hugely amusing speech, therefore, how can we attach any credence to what he is saying now? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Davies: It is all right, I knew what the hon. Gentleman was going to say. He says it all the time. He caught me out on one occasion. When he is a Minister—if he can keep working at it, I hope that he will eventually become one—I will try and catch him out.
      I have referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool not because of anything to do with him personally but because he is a representative of the modernising tendency in the Labour party, and I am very concerned that the modernisation goes ahead properly, without leading to the destruction of the party. I was merely pointing out that the kind of modernisation carried out by the French socialist party has not worked very well.
      In any event, I will move on to article 105 and the European central bank. The bank is to be the instrument for the control of inflation and of monetary policy. It is quite interesting to look at the set-up because, as one of my hon. Friends said, it is called the European system of central banks. It is described in this way because the Germans have plonked into the middle of this treaty their own federal system of the Bundesbank which has lots of other little banks all round the Länderbanks. So when this goes through, and after the statute has been brought in to make the Bank of England more or less autonomous according to the statutes of the central bank, we, too, shall have a Länderbank which will be the Bank of England, as it were, on the outside and the European central bank in the middle.
      The object of the central bank is to control inflation by monetary means. It is a monetarist treaty. The belief is that inflation can be controlled only by monetary means. There is a lot of mythology about this, about reserves and corsets and things like that, but monetary control is basically a matter of interest rates and, in the end, whatever few extra reserves the Bundesbank puts into the economy or the Bank of England takes out, whatever straitjackets are put round, whatever dual rates of interest the French may play with—the commercial or the financial franc—control of monetary policy is about interest rates, and the object of the central bank is to control interest rates.
      The control of interest rates is the prime instrument for trying to arrive at price stability. Price stability means getting as close as possible to zero inflation, not every price being stable but there being stability across the board and prices not moving up and down. So the bank exists and it is autonomous for that very reason because, as Mr. Gavin Davies, who works for Goldman Sachs, pointed out in a perceptive article in The Independent this week, the theory used to be, and the continental theory still is, that the control of inflation is a technical matter and that, because it is technical, it should be taken out of the hands of politicians and put on auto-pilot. The matter is then dealt with purely technically, with no consideration of output, growth or unemployment.
      This, too, reminds me of my days as defence spokesman. I think it was Edward Teller or one of his ilk who devised something called the doomsday machine. They did not believe that people could actually carry out deterrence; in other words, politicians might not unleash the weapons when the time came. The only way deterrence could work was to programme this doomsday machine, and when the Russian missiles passed a certain point, half-way across the Atlantic or wherever, the machine would trigger off the American response and the Russians would know that.
      1110
      It would be a bit like that for control of inflation. The autonomous bank is the auto-pilot and merely carries out decisions. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was speaking yesterday, one or two hon. Members interrupted from a sedentary position to say that this was nonsense, that the Bundesbank was not independent, that it listened to politicians and that it was subject to pressure. Obviously, even the Bundesbank cannot live in a complete vacuum, but those of my hon. Friends who fondly believe that the Bundesbank is not autonomous should just talk to former Chancellor Schmidt. What happened to him in 1980 or 1981? He is convinced that, by refusing to go along with what he wanted, the Bundesbank brought down his Government. But we have no need to go back as far as 1981; we need only look at what is happening now. So the Bundesbank is as autonomous as it is possible to be and, on a European scale, it will be even more autonomous because it will not have a Government breathing down its neck: it will have something called ECOFIN which seems to figure broadly in some debates, but there will be no Government there even to make speeches and tell the bank what it should do. The bank is autonomous, it decides on interest rates and, as we have seen, it does so without too much consideration of the effects.
      Mr. Bowen Wells: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to article 2 of the treaty and what it says, because this is what article 105 on monetary policy is related to? Perhaps he will tell the Committee if he is in favour of the objectives in article 2, which reads,
      "It shall be the aim of the Community, by establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between its Member States."
      That is what article 2 says, and the means of achieving this is said to be the establishment of the central bank.
      Mr. Davies: I have dealt with article 2. I tried last night, but no one was listening. I tried just now, but again the hon. Gentleman was not listening. So I will not go back to it.
      I turn now to the split between economic and monetary policy inherent in setting up the bank. It seems to me very silly, to use a not particularly elegant word, to split economic policy from monetary policy. We have seen what is happening in Germany today. I am not saying that the problems in east Germany could be alleviated easily if there were no separate Bundesbank, but if ever there was an exercise to demonstrate that perhaps it does not make sense to separate economic policy from monetary policy, east Germany is it.
      The German Government want to increase public expenditure to revive the economy of east Germany, but the Bundesbank, quite properly, pays not a blind bit of interest because, by statute, it is concerned only with the internal value of the currency. In a sedentary intervention—I think that I heard him right—my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that during reunification the Germans exchanged one east mark for one west mark. That, apparently, was a good example of how politicians can overrule the Bundesbank. That is not true. The Bundesbank is concerned only with the internal value of the mark, which basically is inflation. That is why

      1111
      Mr. Kohl was able to offer—in an expensive and damaging way—one west mark for one east mark. Karl Otto Pöhl resigned because he disagreed with what the Government were doing, but that was within the province of the Government, not the Bundesbank.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is making a terribly important speech. I do not recall reading in the Labour party's manifesto—for which, I know, the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible—or in our manifesto a proposal to set up an independent British central bank. I should like to know when that became Labour policy and whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is an appropriate device for effecting a fundamental change in our economic management through the surrogacy of this Maastricht treaty. The House has not debated the principles behind an independent central bank for this country alone, yet we are legislating for it without a proper debate.
      Mr. Davies: That is right; it is article 108, I think, which will be enacted under the Bill.
      I am told that an independent, autonomous British bank is Labour policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Since when?"] It was decided by the non-modernised Labour party at last year's conference—I do not know what the modernised one will do. In a short composite resolution, it decided that the Bank of England should be independent or autonomous. I prefer "autonomous". My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool is good on words. Perhaps he appreciates that the word "autonomous" conveys the impression a bit better.
      All I am saying is that the proposed split is very silly, but the mistake is being repeated with the European central bank. The European central bank will be responsible for the internal value of the ecu. We were told yesterday, "It is all right; the exchange rate of the ecu will be determined by politicians". I do not disagree. The external value of the ecu will be floating. I do not think that perfect floating can be achieved, but party policy is managed floating. I do not know what that is, so I had better read the conference resolution. I am confused because apparently we must have fixed exchange rates at the moment, but once we have reached the promised land the ecu will float.
      Mr. Shepherd: I can bring the right hon. Gentleman hot news from the Frost interview with the Prime Minister. Maastricht is slightly out of date as the Prime Minister is working on a world exchange rate mechanism: the Japanese yen and United States dollar will be intimately linked in this more universalist approach. I know that some foolish hon. Members—even Conservative Members—have giggled at the suggestion, but the right hon. Gentleman should impress on the House the importance of these developments.
      Mr. Davies: A world ERM is basically Bretton Woods. Finally—
      Mr. Ron Leighton: More.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Davies: I have run out of things to say.
      What depresses me about my colleagues who are in favour of this European venture is that they now tend to deny it. I should have thought that the ends justify the means and that they would rejoice in the convergence
      1112
      criteria, the central bank and everything that has been set up because the object is to achieve EMU and a single currency as soon as possible.
      Previous members of my party—the Jenkinses and Levers—would have rejoiced and said, "The pain is all worth it; the end is justified by the means", which is almost a Leninist approach to economic and political life.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to add to his general list of subjects for rejoicing the fact that the promised land is not yet upon us? The Danish Government have resigned, which I understand will mean that the Danish referendum will be held later, so those who support Maastricht will have to wait a little longer for heaven on earth.
      Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can what we have just heard affect the way in which time is assigned to the Bill? The Prime Minister gave a clear assurance that the Bill will not be given a Third Reading until after the second Danish referendum. If the second referendum is to be postponed by a change of Government and a possible general election in Denmark, that gives us much more time to discuss fully every clause of the Bill, and neither the Government nor anyone else should be in any hurry.
      Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. This is momentous news. It was the intention of the previous lamented Danish Government to put the Edinburgh conclusions to the people of Denmark in a second plebiscite or referendum. There is now no Government in Denmark. The next Danish Government might decide that they do not want to proceed further with this rotten treaty. As there is much uncertainty, is not it appropriate for a Minister to inform the House of the Government's proposals in these new circumstances? It is futile and fatuous for us to continue the debate when there is no Government in Denmark, no prospect of a referendum, and probably no prospect that the treaty will proceed in Denmark. Why proceed with the debate when the whole thing is stone dead?
      Mr. George Robertson: Further to the point of order, Dame Janet. Before the Committee gets overexcited, may I point out that sometimes we imagine that we are at the centre of the world, but occasionally are reminded that we are not? So far as I know, only the Danish Prime Minister has resigned. As the Conservative party knows only too well, and as the Opposition know to our cost, that does not automatically mean a general election.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I can now answer the point, having heard the points of order. As Chairman of this Committee of the whole House, I have no responsibility for other Governments or what impact they might have. My only concern is with the Committee stage before us.
      Mr. Dykes: I have a point of order, Dame Janet, but not exactly on that point, which I am not seeking to follow, as you have given us your conclusion, for which we thank you.
      Can you guide the House? Many hon. Members on both sides are shocked and angered by the anti-Europeans saying that the sovereignty of this Chamber and this Parliament is sacrosanct and not to be negotiated away;

      1113
      yet they are constantly harping on the constitutional activities of another country and saying that they should be considered before we come to a decision. Can you guide the Committee?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Yes. That is not a point of order for the Chair. As the hon. Member well knows, hon. Members must be responsible for what they say.
      Mr. Davies: If the Danish Government had resigned I was proposing to go on for another hour, but as it was just the Danish Prime Minister I shall sit down. I merely say that these are fundamental issues both for my party and for the House and there is also the question of democracy to be taken into account quite apart from economic policy. No doubt we can come back to these matters when we reach further amendments. I think that we should look at them in the interests of the economy of this country and I see nothing here that will do other than cause damage.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: We have listened to an impressive speech from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He is genuinely one of those witty speakers to whom one could listen for hours. Indeed, we did. Despite the usual courtesies, the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, wish to leave the Chamber quite rapidly and I well understand that, because clearly his constituents will want to know that the speech he made in the Committee this afternoon and last evening brought down the Danish Prime Minister. That is obviously momentous news. It is quite difficult to follow that speech and I shall endeavour to be slightly briefer, but the right hon. Gentleman has made important points on this cluster of amendments.
      The fact that the Danish Prime Minister may have resigned is obviously of great interest to this Committee, but in the midst of a well-attended Committee session we should value the fact that the Committee is scrutinising the Maastricht Bill for itself. The provisions of the Bill are important to the Committee and this country and the attitudes in another country are not of immediate importance, Indeed, the timetable that the Prime Minister has set forth, to complete Third Reading by May at the latest, would still be valid and if the Danes decided to delay their referendum we would clearly maintain that timetable because the original intention was on the basis that the Prime Minister believed that the Danes would have had an earlier referendum.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am at a loss to understand quite the point, because as I understand it the Foreign Secretary has assured us that if the Danes fail to ratify the treaty, it is dead. Therefore, this Committee hangs upon the events that take place in Denmark. I should point out to my hon. Friend that I was a Member, as was he, when we passed, lamentably, the Bill called the Football Spectators Bill. The House was marched to the passing of a statute which hung upon someone else's judgment. That is self-denigratory and humbling to this Committee and inappropriate for the passing of great legislation. The truth of the matter is that if the Foreign Secretary's statement stands, the Committee's deliberations are consequential on what the Danes do.
      Mr. Taylor: With great respect to my hon. Friend, who is a learned constitutional expert, the reality is that this
      1114
      Committee's deliberations on the Bill are the responsibility of this Committee. The fact that the whole Maastricht treaty may be rendered invalid by the Danish decision is a separate matter. But there are very great differences to the interests of this country according whether or not we merely respond to what the Danes do.
      I strongly hope that this country and this Parliament will make their own decisions. If, subsequently, the Danes were not to ratify the treaty, clearly the 12 members of the Community would need to get together and the Foreign Secretary has rightly said that the Danish membership of the Community is as important as that of the other members, in the sense that there are 12 members of the Community.
      That is not the same thing as delaying decisions in this Committee because decisions may be delayed in another country. I strongly think that this Committee should take itself sufficiently seriously to make sure that we conduct our deliberations on the treaty in this country's interests.
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way because he may be surprised to know that I welcome almost everything he has just said, but has he not forgotten one important factor? Unless the Folketing recommends that the consequences of the decision taken in Edinburgh will precipitate another referendum or unless the Danes believe that those recommendations can be made—and they were made, were they not, and negotiated, perhaps for completely different reasons, by the Prime Minister who has only just resigned—is it not possible that another Prime Minister will make another recommendation? There is as yet no full guarantee that any referendum will take place. In those circumstances, at least the need for speed or indeed for any further proceedings at all may disappear.
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my old sparring partner, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for his support and I may store that up for the future as well. On the wider point, we do not know what the Danish Parliament will do, but the idea that we should suspend these discussions because we do not know—
      Mr. Giles Radice rose—
      Mr. Taylor: I am endeavouring to answer the first point, then I will give way.
      Mr. Radice: I was trying to help.
      Mr. Taylor: Let me help myself before the hon. Member helps me, if I may. The reality is that seven of the eight Danish parties are now, effectively, in favour of what the Danish Government negotiated, so I think that we should stop second-guessing the Danish situation and look at our own.
      The point about the amendments in this group is that they effectively remove the amendments to the treaty of Rome that were negotiated at Maastricht. We have heard various arguments about why that should be the case. The difficulty I find is that those who support the amendments before us would therefore be left with the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act unchanged. That is particularly interesting for my hon. Friend for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is not with us at present. The fact that he supported the Single European Act is a matter of interest and slight confusion for many of the rest of us. I raised this in the debate in Committee in December and it was raised

      1115
      again yesterday. The fact is that it was the Single European Act that made the dramatic step forward from the treaty of Rome and the arguments that were used yesterday, that the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act were all about an economic community, as if we had never left EFTA, are clearly and self-evidently bogus.
      In the treaty of Rome there are many references to matters other than economics and if one looks at the Single European Act one will find that it added many items other than those specifically connected with the single market, the 1992 programme. The chapter headings of the Single European Act themselves indicate that social policy was very much in the forefront of the minds of the people who negotiated the treaty, and economic and monetary co-operation, with "union" in brackets, were also very much in the forefront of people's minds with the consequences that flowed from that, which are, of course, not just free trade consequences.
      Indeed even in title II, article 3, there were several insertions into the activities of the Community made by the Single European Act. One of them was policy in the social sphere compromising the European social fund, for example. Another was strengthening of economic and social cohesion.
      It is impossible to say that if we were to abolish all the changes made in the Maastricht treaty we would be left with something that was about economics. That is simply not the case.
      It is interesting that, had he but realised it, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was in some difficulty with the grounds on which he chose to defend his position. In order to achieve the 1992 programme—the 285 measures required to create a free market with free movement of goods, people, services and capital—we had to have a series of strong Community institutions and a strong referee to ensure that the measures were applied evenly—I shall deal with that issue later—and we had to overcome the protectionist instincts that could arise over a variety of issues in any of the member countries. That was understood by our then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher. It was why the Single European Act embraced qualified majority voting.
      7 pm
      In order to arrive at the very thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford defends himself as having supported, we had to strengthen the institutions that he now says he cannot abide and which he regards as marking the end of Britain as we know it. That is bogus. We joined the European Community in the 1970s, after a big debate, because it was believed to be in Britain's interests that there should not be built on the continent a bloc which we failed to influence.
      Indeed, we joined the Community to prevent something which, in the 1950s, we thought would never happen—the solidifying of the Franco-German alliance. That is an important point. As a Labour Foreign Secretary, Anthony Crosland, remarked, it represented the first permanent attachment of Britain to the continent since the Reformation. It was the first time that we believed that we had to make such a commitment to prevent what has always been part of British foreign policy, which is that there should not be a continental bloc that we would be unable to influence. Influencing it was so essential to us that we joined the Community with all the infrastructure that it embraced.
      Mr. Michael Lord: My hon. Friend is taking great pains to explain that the Community was never only about economics and spoke about our joining the "European Community". In fact, we did not join the European Community—we joined the European Economic Community. If he asks his constituents, he will find that they believe that we principally joined a Common Market and were not involving ourselves in other political institutions. I believe that, until the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the title is still the EEC. If the treaty is not ratified, it will remain so.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters, but I advise him to have another look at the treaty of Rome. The fact that the Community was called "the European Economic Community" should not delude us into believing that that meant it had nothing to do with anything other than free trade. For heaven's sake, we left a free trade area to join the Community. We knew what the institutional structure was—
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Mr. Taylor: Please let me finish this point, and then I shall willingly give way.
      We knew what the institutional structure was when we joined. We knew that the Community's ambitions covered a range of issues and could not be achieved by free trade alone. The institutional structure has been apparent since we joined, and we knew what we were in for. Indeed, the words "European Community" have been used in all except legal documents in the Community since 1978. We had nearly 10 years' warning of what we were doing when we signed the Single European Act.
      Mr. Bill Walker: May I clarify a point? My hon. Friend was drawing the Reformation into his argument. What date was the Reformation in Britain?
      Mr. Taylor: The Reformation took place before I entered Parliament. I shall not bandy points about the Reformation with my respected hon. Friend from Scotland because that would lead us into other difficulties, but it was a very long time ago.
      If one considers the history of the Community since the mid-1950s, it is clear that all along we have been part of an economic and political community and that many of its objectives were to be attained by involving ourselves in institutional structures and political debate.
      This group of amendments, which would wipe out the changes made at Maastricht, would still leave us with an intensely political community. We must ask ourselves whether that is an ideal situation, and the answer is no. In many cases, what people in this country determined had gone wrong since the Single European Act was passed was on the agenda for correction at Maastricht, and the British Government were able to put much of it right for themselves.
      For example, since I came to the House in 1987 there have been many late-night debates about the misuse of Community funds. One of the problems was that no one had sufficient clout or sufficient evidence to point the finger. One of the changes made in the Maastricht treaty is that the Court of Auditors is given institutional status, which is an extremely good thing. Also, the European Parliament is given greater powers of scrutiny of monetary

      1117
      and budgetary matters and can call the Commissioners to greater account. The Committee should welcome such developments.
      Another objection that has been raised many times in the Committee is, "While we abide by the rules, chaps, the other lot don't." That is probably true, even though the rules by which we abide are often more onerous than those facing other countries because our civil servants have been particularly zealous in interpreting the rules in the first place. However, I shall leave that issue aside.
      The treaty negotiated at Maastricht involves a strengthening of the powers of the European Court of Justice. Before there is shock and horror at the fact that the European Court of Justice should be involved at all, let us be clear—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) should pay careful attention to this—that by joining the European Community on 1 January 1973 we effectively accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It is not a new concept which has suddenly emerged.
      The new set of regulations and powers given to the Community to put the single market in place after the Single European Act did not entail a consequent increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice to ensure that the rules were applied by those who agreed them. I hope that the British public will become aware that it is in our interests to apply the Maastricht treaty provisions because they answer one of the great public concerns, which is, why do we appear to be at a disadvantage compared to many other countries?
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is no question but that the European Court of Justice existed in the 1970s, but one of the issues that concern some of us is that at that time its remit was strictly limited to the European Economic Community, but the change explicit in the treaty broadens the range of its jurisdiction. By removing the word "economic" we have given it a catholicity of ranges and remits. That is the fundamental difference which causes much anxiety to many Conservatives.
      Mr. Taylor: If that were the case, I could understand such anxieties, but what my hon. Friend says is not technically correct. The European Court of Justice is given jurisdiction over everything in the treaty of Rome. Therefore, it is also given jurisdiction over everything that emerged from the Single European Act which is consolidated in the treaty of Rome. As I said, the Single European Act was not about a free trade area alone.
      I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and there are issues over which I would not wish the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction. If one reads the treaty of Maastricht, one finds that it does not have jurisdiction over the two new pillars being constructed on foreign and security policy and on matters of justice—to put it technically, those matters are not justiciable.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: There is a complete misconception here. The Commission can be given jurisdiction. Matters can be referred to the European Court of Justice. With regard to the misconceptions that are being put forward by the Government, I can give references. First, the Commission is fully associated under articles J.9 and K.4(2), and it can draft legislation under article K.3(2). Furthermore, any legislation may be
      1118
      implemented by special convention under article 100c. Therefore, my hon. Friend cannot say that these matters are beyond the jurisdiction of the court and the Commission.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, but he will be aware that, with regard to the pillar to which I am referring, the Commission is involved. But the Commission does not have the power of initiation, and that makes a very big difference. My hon. Friend will know that the European political co-operation procedure for foreign policy that was established under the Single European Act involved the Commission. But the European Court of Justice does not have power to render the elements of those two pillars justiciable in the way that it does in the case of the treaties of Rome. That is why, during this Committee stage, we are not faced with those matters of foreign security policy and justice. Those matters are outwith the Bill because they do not make amendments to the treaty of Rome.
      Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as I realise that frequent breaks in a speech disturb its pattern. I must refer him back to the provisions relating to co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs. Article K.9 is important as it says:
      "The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty".
      Article 100c is therefore brought into play. I do not wish to be pedantic; I simply want to know what my hon. Friend thinks about that.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend confirms my point. In respect of such matters, Governments make unanimous decisions in the Council.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is opting in rather than opting out.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend comes to my rescue technically. The reality, however, is that this is very different from the unquestioned nature of the power of the European Court of Justice under the treaties of Rome. The precise fact is that the Maastricht treaty has clearly separated the other two pillars. Only with unanimous support under article K.9, which has been cited, will reference to the European Court of Justice come into effect. All these things are important.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Taylor: Interventions make the debate exciting from my point of view, but they may not please other Members who wish to speak. I shall very happily give way in a moment.
      Let me put all of this in context. The treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—taken together, parts of the treaties of Rome—are, in effect, an expression of Britain's acceptance that it is a part of an economic and political community and that certain decisions are more in the interests of the British people if there is co-operation through the institutions of the Community, sometimes even with qualified majority voting.
      Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) made the point that, because of the changes that might be made under

      1119
      economic and monetary union, we would see almost the end of Britain's nationhood. That, I think, is slightly over the top.
      In economic and monetary terms, Britain is a particularly exposed nation as it is heavily dependent on trading. For a very long time, this country has been buffeted by changes in other countries. Whether or not we are in the exchange rate mechanism, monetary policies set in other countries determine monetary policies in this country. We cannot be isolated. Indeed, that is why, after we left the exchange rate mechanism in September, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite rightly, continued to make it clear that British monetary policy could not ignore the monetary policies being set in other countries and, indeed, that he could not set British monetary policy without watching the effect on the exchange rate. He was not attempting to excuse what had happened with regard to the ERM; he was simply recognising the facts.
      It is very important to make the point that the Community itself has free movement of capital. No member country has the right to reimpose exchange controls. I accept that there have been breaches of this in the past few months. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should be cautious with their hilarity. Let them take note of how quickly the controls have been removed again. The reinstatement was temporary, and the controls were removed. Ireland is a notable example.
      We were the first to abolish exchange controls, and we want the Community to have no exchange controls. However, the very important consequence is that capital finds the home that it most wants to find. If any of our domestic policies are out of line with those of other member countries, capital will find a different home. That applies to industry and to investors in Government bonds. A Government with a very high deficit cannot ignore the fact that some of the deficit may have to be funded abroad. That is the situation in which we currently find ourselves.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member is presenting a very interesting defence of what I regard as a pretty indefensible position. Does not he accept that if the principle by which the European economic policy is to be run is that capital will find the home that is most suitable to it, any social policies relating to housing, unemployment—or employment—and the environment are bound to take second place? Is not that at the very heart of this whole debate?
      Mr. Taylor: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. That is precisely the point I wish to make. The reality is that it is not a question whether we can isolate ourselves, whether we can protect British monetary policy, surrounding it with a barrier. The question is: what sorts of policies flow from the conclusion that we have to respect what other countries are doing? That leads to a series of political decisions. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I will differ as to how to protect social, housing and other benefits. Those are matters that become a series of priorities in the domestic debate.
      With regard to the point that I think is significant, the hon. Gentleman will not like what I have to say. Yesterday, his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) did a few political contortions in an effort to make the best of what might be a bad job. The significant
      1120
      point is that the debate in the Community itself is political. Philosophies bring much to bear on the outcome even of negotiations on treaties. For example, it has not always been known to be strong Labour policy that the principle of an open-market economy, with free competition, should be enshrined in the treaty. But I am glad to say it is enshrined in article 3A because even socialist Governments, such as in France, have been strongly influenced by Conservative thinking over many years. They have been prepared to see right at the centre of the treaty statements with which Conservatives here strongly agree and which strengthen our desire to see the Maastricht treaty ratified as it enshrines many of the political values that we hold dear.
      The European system of central banks and everything that flows from it have price stability as a principal tenet. Such things are acceptable to the Conservative party, but probably less acceptable to the Opposition. But that is party politics; it is not a question that arises from whether or not we are in the Community. The reality is that countries that are interdependent with regard to monetary policy do not sit down and ignore what is going on, but get stuck in.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South spoke about the problems of sovereignty. The clever action taken over economic and monetary union was not that we negotiated ourselves an opt-out—I disagree with the Minister of State about the use of that phrase—but that we negotiated ourselves an opt-in. In the process, we maintain parliamentary sovereignty. It is important to remember in that respect that we have not bound a successor Parliament. Meanwhile, we have the right to examine the matter and to influence the institutions that will be set up, including their character and objectives.
      I agree that, for those who want nothing to do with it, that is not much of a bonus. They might say, "We shall pack our bags and go home. We do not like this game." But those of us who recognise that we are totally interdependent in the Community—by the facts of the matter, many of which stem from the very action that hon. Members who are now against Maastricht support, including the 1992 programme and the single market—appreciate that we must influence the institutions. And in that process of influencing them, we must make sure that they have the right objectives, which is why I welcome many of the phrases that are used, such as "open market economy" and "free competition."
      Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Gentleman because his tie is irresistible.
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's argument is jejune. There is a huge difference between being influenced by economic and monetary policies in other countries—we are influenced by them because we are part of the same world—and being required, even compelled, to maintain our exchange rate within 6 percentage points of DM2.95. Influence is inevitable, but compulsion to maintain relativity in exchange rates is a different matter. If the hon. Gentleman believes that we have influence because we are part of an institution, perhaps he will explain what influence we had on the reshaping, restructuring and realignment of the ERM by virtue of being a member of it.
      Mr. Taylor: We are not compelled to do anything in the ERM. It was a British Government decision—I supported it; I am not fudging that—to enter and maintain that rate. We have discussed that subject at great length and I shall not today be deflected into discussing the rights and wrongs of German internal domestic policy, of which I have considerable criticisms, which I have aired to my German friends rather than simply in the House.
      When we come to the third stage, the House will make its decision. Convergence is an important issue and many factors set out in the treaty about convergence do not make me feel uncomfortable. That does not mean that I would want us tomorrow to reduce our deficit to 3 per cent. of GDP. With that I would be uncomfortable. But I am not uncomfortable with the long-term objective, and no Government who, over a period—let us leave that undefined—believe in a balanced budget would feel uncomfortable with that.
      That reinforces my argument because, given that we are interdependent in the Community—only in the Community is there the Single European Act consequence of the free movement of capital to which I referred—convergence is a desirable objective. There are various means by which to create convergence, and we could discuss that at length, but, given that convergence is a desirable objective, I have no problem with it in relation to the treaty.
      Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend will agree that we Conservatives believe in market forces. Is he saying that there is a right rate for any market? If so, what is the right rate for the pound to the deutschmark at any time? If there is no right rate for a market, there is no right time to join an exchange rate mechanism, and the country cannot afford to go through that again.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend and I have differed in many debates about the merits of managed currencies and exchange rate mechanisms. I suggest that it is inconceivable that, in a market with free flows of capital, there is no policy towards exchange rates. I fear that we must continue to differ.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Taylor: My generosity in having given way will be criticised because of the length of my speech, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way further.
      The Maastricht treaty gives Britain many opportunities, the anticipation of some of which have appeared over the years on our party political agendas. For example, an aspect of the treaty is that we try to bring the whole workings of the Community closer to its citizens. We shall later have a chance to debate the technicalities of subsidiarity or minimum intervention, and I shall not deal with that now.
      Let us not ignore the fact that there are several initiatives in the treaty for creating greater openness and accountability, for giving British citizens the ability to refer to an ombudsman cases of maladministration in the Community and the greater powers of the European Parliament. Also we should take into account the stress on national Parliaments. It is the first time that such an ability has arisen. It is up to the Committee to interpret it and I welcome its appearance in the treaty. We should be pleased at the inclusion of those matters and support them. They strengthen matters and I urge the Committee not to throw
      1122
      those gains away simply because a vociferous few here are concerned with the institutions which were set up in the 1950s and which we joined in the 1970s.
      The Community will not remain static. The treaty that we are discussing has considerable benefits for Britain, not least the fact that the move to ever-closer union, to which we have been attached since the 1970s, can now be seen to take a wider route than it took previously, for there can now be an intergovernmental route to closer union. That is what the pillars are about on foreign policy and justice matters.
      It has been shown in the treaties of Rome that the centralising instinct and inevitability that some people—I am not among them—wish to see in the Community have been arrested through the principle of subsidiarity. It is not a question whether on every issue we can define that down to the last dot and comma. The implication of what is on the face of the treaty means realistically that habits in the Community will change—they already are changing—and we have seen flesh being put on that principle at Birmingham and Edinburgh.
      The Maastricht treaty has many advantages for Britain in areas about which hon. Members rightly believe that we should take particular care. It avoids a pre-commitment at a future date to a single currency and economic and monetary union. The interest of the House is protected in the treaty. We shall have the opportunity to debate that later. As is stated in the Treasury memorandum in the appendix to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, we are not automatically bound to rejoin the ERM simply by ratifying the treaty.
      I put my cards on the table. I believe that some form of ERM is inevitable. Constitutionally, the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South on that issue do not hold water, and the Financial Secretary made that clear in the debate yesterday. I urge the House to address the treaty as part of what we are already committed to and as a measure that strengthens, rather than weakens, British interests, which does not undermine the position of the House, and which has advantages that we should do more to explain to the British people, who would then perhaps understand why we should be scrutinising the Bill rather than moving towards a referendum. The House is the right place in which to examine the Bill, and I hope that that will continue to be the case during the Committee stage.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and I disagree about almost everything in economics and politics, but there is one aspect of his speech with which I agree. Rightly and properly, frankly and openly, the hon. Gentleman described the character of the treaty, and said that it represented his monetarist political values. I too have come to that conclusion, and that is why I oppose the monetarist nature of the convergence cum monetary union in the treaty.
      The hon. Gentleman's speech was open and honest, and it showed the differences between us—the reasons why I shall not support the inclusion of title II. At the heart of the treaty, and at the heart of title II, lies monetary union—monetary union, moreover, of a particular character, which the hon. Member for Esher sensibly and openly described as taking a monetarist route.

      1123
      During the past day or so of debate, it has been said that at least the treaty provides enough flexibility, and enough of an alternative opportunity to pursue convergence and monetary union by other processes. In that connection, much has been said about the famous article 2. I do not need to dwell long on that, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) gave us a useful critical and textual analysis of it. I shall be rather more generous than he was about article 2, because I recognise that some of its wording—the references to high employment, social cohesion, and the rest—means that its tone and character are—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: An improvement.
      Mr. Rowlands: Yes, an improvement—although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, even article 2 contains more than a germ of monetarist thinking.
      I shall show that, unfortunately, from that point the quality of article 2 is somewhat demoted as the processes and nature of the draft monetary union are revealed to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and, to a certain extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said that there was a route to monetary union based on growth, investment and jobs, and that the terms of the treaty made it possible to hold those objectives as central.
      I have to tell my hon. Friends that I do not believe that that is feasible in anything like the time scale envisaged for the treaty. Such concepts of growth, and convergence based on those sentiments, would require a continuous consistent economic policy to be followed by 12 democratically elected Governments over a considerable period.
      I have spent nearly 25 years in the House arguing for some convergence between my constituency and the United Kingdom average. One could have thought that convergence of the economies of regions and communities within one country would be a simple task compared with convergence involving 12 countries, but I have to report to the House that, according to the latest figures, which relate to 1991 or 1992, the county of Mid Glamorgan, part of which I represent, has only 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom GDP per head—and the ratio is getting worse. The figure has fallen from 79 per cent. to 72 per cent.
      Even within the United Kingdom, I have seen no convergence between the community that I represent and the rest of the United Kingdom; I have seen a divergence of economic success, wealth and performance—so I find it hard to believe in convergence. I may be unduly pessimistic, but I think that. I am realistic in believing that convergence and monetary union are not likely to be achieved by the dream route, with investment and jobs at its centre, in anything like the time scale envisaged in the treaty.
      Furthermore, that is not what is on offer in the treaty. Although article 2 sets an improved tone, after that its role is demoted both in the process of moving towards monetary union and in the final nature of the union achieved.
      This is a Committee stage, and it is the Committee's task to analyse what is before it, both in the Bill and in the treaty. As the debate is about title II, I shall briefly take the Committee through what happens to the good sentiments
      1124
      of article 2 in the subsequent processes of title II—how it is valued, how it is eventually assessed, and its final role and function.
      By article 3a, paragraph 3, there is a new set of criteria, and there are new guiding principles that will come into force. The language of the definition in paragraph 3 is interesting. I have learnt to read and understand the language of such documents, and I hope that I understand article 3a, paragraph 3, all too well. Article 3, paragraph 1, contains a reference to the contents of article 2 as generally a good thing, but by paragraph 3 the guiding principles that "shall entail compliance"—they are not simply principles to be generally promoted, or desirable objectives; they have to be complied with—are a narrower band:
      "stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments."
      During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool yesterday, there were some interesting exchanges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) ever so gently suggested that the language of the treaty was monetarist—possibly the language of the 1930s. He was accused of being a senior non-modernising member of the party, and his idea was dismissed.
      Ironically, I had been sitting here wondering where I had already heard in a consistent form the language and principles of that paragraph—which are repeated throughout all the articles. I had just finished an interesting study and analysis of the way in which Whitehall handled the dreadful problems faced by my constituents in the 1930s, and when my right hon. Friend mentioned the 1930s it triggered off a connection with that research.
      The language and principles of article 3a, paragraph 3, resembled the weekly and monthly statements of Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister Chamberlain, which rejected any form of public works or deficit financing on any scale for the salvation of communities such as Merthyr Tydfil. The language is not coded; it is an openly described set of monetarist principles. By the time we reach article 3, it is those principles which have to be complied with. They are not simply promoted as desirable objectives; they are the criteria which must bite.
      By article 3, we have found out that the pleasures and joys of the sentiments behind article 2 have been put in a slightly different context, and now stand in a rather different relationship. As the hon. Member for Esher openly and honourably stated, that series of monetarist principles, which he thinks should be at the heart of the process towards monetary union, are statements of his political values.
      Those monetarist principles left my constituency in the 1980s—as they left it in the 1930s—to suffer increasing unemployment. I do not intend to vote for a treaty and a process towards monetary union that enshrines those principles. I refuse to do so. I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends feel that they can manipulate that treaty and that process. I do not believe that we shall be able to do that. For 30 years, my predecessor and I have argued the case. We still find ourselves not converged but diverged in our economic activity, even compared to the level in the United Kingdom.
      I do not believe that some of the desired objectives in article 2 will be carried through in the processes to achieve

      1125
      monetary union. Article 3a dilutes the sensible objectives of article 2. I tried to track the role of article 2 through the subsequent articles. In other words, I tried to track the general and desirable tasks in article 2 through the remainder of the articles to the point at which monetary union is achieved. I then looked at article 102a. Of course, that is where the cat is let out of the bag in terms of the function and role of article 2 in the process of monetary union.
      We have all been taught to draft in different ways. Words are what we live with; words are our trade. I had a fantastic schooling. I spent four and a half years in the real school of drafting—indeed, in one of the ultimate factories of drafting in which one does one's apprenticeship: the Foreign Office which does nothing but draft.
      By the time we reach article 102a on economic and monetary policy, the function and role of article 2, with its desirable objectives of cohesion and high employment, have been changed. Article 102a says:
      "Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2,"
      It is simply "a view to contributing". If the drafting of that article is not a product of King Charles street, it should have been. If it was not a product of King Charles street, our continental friends have learnt the British art of drafting weasel words to cover the diminution of the importance of article 2 as part of the monetary process.
      Although the desirable objective in article 2 is diminished in article 102a, the monetarist principles of article 3a3 are still there to be complied with. So the balance between the joys of article 2 and compliance with the monetary principles of article 3 are now carried through. One is "a view to contributing to", and the other is undoubtedly something which must be complied with or else.
      Mr. Clive Betts: There are two ways to read the treaty. One way is to read it, as my hon. Friend has done, from the beginning—that may be the logical way to read through a treaty—and to say that article 3a changes the definition, especially from paragraph 1 to paragraph 3, where the stable price element is introduced, and then to read further and say that it is a matter of having regard to the words used.
      If one reads the treaty backwards, looking at each of the minor elements with reference to article 2, which is the essential task of the Community, one can say that article 102a is a subsidiary of article 3a, because that is how it is written. One can also say that article 3 is a subsidiary of article 3a.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. While I have been in the Chamber and, indeed, while I have been watching the monitor during the debate, I have noticed that interventions seem to be very long. Some of them are tantamount to speeches, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
      Mr. Rowlands: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Although it may occasionally be justified and useful to read a document backwards, I have not found that so. If I understand my hon. Friend's point,
      1126
      and if one looks at the structure of the treaty and the title, at the beginning there is a series of general statements, and then a series of processes is described in detail within a time scale. The series of processes then reach the point at which a group of states will have converged sufficiently to achieve monetary union.
      I do not think that hon. Members should read the treaty backwards. It must be read in a forward-looking way because the processes towards monetary union unfold in a series of articles which precede article 102a. The principles have been laid down in articles 2 and 3a. My argument is that, by the time one reads article 102a, the balance in the sentiment, tone, direction and objectives in article 2 have changed to a rather strict monetarist process. If I am allowed to continue, I shall show how that unfolds almost exclusively so.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Marlow: In a broader context, has not the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) hit the nail on the head when he says that there are many different ways of reading the treaty? That has enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) to plead for reassurances and tell the Committee how everything will be all right on the night, how none of our powers or our sovereignty will be undermined and how we will be strengthened. At the same time we will allow the commissioner and his friends, the Euro-fanatics, to take all powers from the House as time goes by. The institutions of Europe, the court and the Commission, will take those powers from us. Hon. Members can read the treaty two ways.
      Mr. Rowlands: I do not agree that we can read the treaty two ways. It is very clear, and the hon. Member for Esher described it well. The treaty describes monetarist principles and the processes towards monetary union. Monetary union is the only principle of the treaty. I am simply saying that a number of my hon. Friends have argued about the value and importance of article 2 to defend the process.
      I am seeking to demonstate how article 2 is progressively devalued as the treaty describes the processes to reach the ultimate point at which the member states decide whether they have achieved a degree of convergence. In article 3, the Commission is given a new power—at least, I think that it is a new power.
      We have talked a lot about subsidiarity. This morning, in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State and his officials admitted that the principles of subsidiarity cannot and do not apply in any shape or form to stage three of monetary union. In other words, the principle of subsidiarity, which is the central feature of the treaty and stage three of monetary union, will not apply. It is a centralising process, not a process which is subject to subsidiarity.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: In the Select Committee this morning, the deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office made it perfectly clear that article 3b did inform the whole treaty, despite what the hon. Gentleman says.
      Mr. Rowlands: If I remember correctly—we will read the text—evidence was previously given to us by professionals. I simply asked Mr. Jay whether subsidiarity would apply to the principles of monetary union in the stage three process, and I think he said no. It was only consistent with other evidence which we have taken.
      Mr. Jenkin: In a way, it does apply to monetary union because, by reason of the scale of effects, it is something which is better done at the centre. That demonstrates how subsidiarity can be as much a centralising concept as a decentralising one.
      Mr. Rowlands: That is a perceptive point, because we speak of subsidiarity as a one-way process. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it could be a two-way process. Whereas we talk a great deal about the potential decentralising of powers under the subsidiarity provisions of the treaty, alongside it is a hugely centralising process which is necessary to achieve monetary union. I hope that I am not vulgarising the exchange that we had in the Select Committee this morning. In the Select Committee, we talked about, dare I use the term, Mr. Delors's "little list" of devolved powers. We asked the Ministers who came before us to produce a little list of the new powers and responsibilities that the Commission will obtain under the treaty. Article 103 of title II includes, if not a new, an enhanced role for the Commission.
      The Commission will almost have the power to play the role of a European International Monetary Fund. It will be in the job of multi-surveillance of every nation's economy and performance. That is the function that is provided in article 103. Rather than reducing the functions and roles of the Commission, the treaty enhances them. To borrow another phrase, the Commission will go into every nook and cranny of a nation's economic and monetary life. That is what is established in article 103.
      The other interesting feature of the process of multi-surveillance is that the treaty does not contain a single reference to the Commission looking to see whether unemployment is increasing, whether there is any form of social cohesion and whether there is any real protection. The Commission's function of multi-surveillance in the process of monetary union has no meaning in respect of matters such as unemployment. The multi-surveiliance function is already essentially monetarist.
      Dr. Roger Berry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Treasury report on the conduct of economic policy, to which reference has already been made, says in paragraph 106, referring to Maastricht:
      "A strategy for deficit reduction in the medium-term is required under the terms of the Maastricht treaty."?
      It is difficult, if not impossible, to find in the report commitments to employment policy and growth as a result of Maastricht. The emphasis is on deficit reduction.
      Mr. Rowlands: Absolutely so. That is why examination of the text does not justify the weight that some of my colleagues have put on article 2. Employment and growth are not the major aims which determine the nature of the process which will lead towards monetary union.
      In article 103, the Commission is given the role of conducting multilateral surveillance of an individual nation's economy. It is little wonder that the Commission is willing to give up extra powers. It will have a full-time job involving itself in every nook and cranny of the economic life of nations.
      Mr. George Robertson: Has my hon. Friend ever asked himself why, if the prescriptions which he says are the central feature of the treaty are so evil and unlikely to lead to growth and, according to his diagnosis, are likely to lead
      1128
      to a worse position, every socialist and social democratic party in Europe, and every trade union in Europe outside and within Britain, is in favour of the treaty?
      Mr. Rowlands: Because these are matters of judgment. My judgment on reading the text of the treaty is clear, and it is evidently shared by all those who have spoken tonight. The running thesis of the treaty and the process of monetary union are based on narrow monetarist principles. I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. My hon. Friend spends more time than me on the matter. He has not damaged my case. Others might not agree with me, but my hon. Friend has not taken me on about how I interpret the text. He has not told me that I am reading the treaty wrongly. If he thinks that I have got a point of fact wrong, he should tell me. He simply tells me that others have different views.
      Let us examine the text. The text of article 104c on excessive deficits does not say that one reason why a country might have such a deficit is because it wishes to reduce unemployment. Article 2 does not deal with excessive deficits. By the time we reach excessive deficits in article 104c, it is clear that the route to monetary union is a monetarist one.
      Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) dealt with several of the points that my hon. Friend makes, countered them, and argued strongly with some of the interventions that were made. I simply ask my hon. Friend, in a shorthand form at this stage in the debate, to remember that it may not be the case that he is right and everyone else in the 12 European Community countries is wrong. It might be the other way round. I simply ask him to reflect on that.
      Mr. Rowlands: I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that he might find himself in that position, too. I am defending my case and making my points based on the text before me. My hon. Friend has not once yet told me that I am reading the text wrongly. I cannot be responsible for the company he keeps: I can only say how I read and understand the text.
      By the time I reach paragraph 2 of article 105 on monetary policy, I find no vestige of reference to article 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said paragraph 1 contained a reference to article 2, but even he had to admit that the opening sentence of paragraph 1 of article 5 says that the primary objective of the European central bank is to maintain price stability. It is not to implement the objectives of article 2.
      Again we have the words:
      "with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of … Article 2."
      Those are the weasel words about the good things in article 2 by the time we reach the functions and role of the European central bank.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: Is one of the reasons why there is such support for the treaty among social democrats and socialists in the EC the fact that the treaty is not a policy document but a framework? It is a framework for decision-making—[HON MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. In essence it is not a policy document. The policies will come from that document. I suggest to my hon. Friend—I shall be interested to hear what he has to say—that article 2 will be the key article in determining what sort of policies we have.
      Mr. Rowlands: It is a treaty. It will have to be ratified. It places clear, specifically defined obligations on the Governments of member states. It contains language which I have just described, which implies, "Thou shalt comply in this or that respect and apply these principles." I have identified those principles of compliance and how they differ from the objectives of article 2. I have compared the language of article 2 with that of the rest of the treaty. One language is of policy; the other is of compliance.
      The treaty contains detailed obligations which will force us to adopt a particular method of achieving a particular form of monetary union. I object to that. I hope that my hon. Friend will not vote for the treaty on the basis that it is a framework within which a country can have different policies. It is a clearly defined route to monetary union, based on a series of narrowly defined principles of monetarism.
      Dr. Berry: Is my hon. Friend aware of a policy document which has just been issued by the new Government of the Republic of Ireland, which states:
      "Budgetary policy will therefore be based on the overriding requirements of the Maastricht treaty. Prospective participants are required to adhere strictly to an annual general government deficit on around 3 per cent. or less of GDP"?
      So it goes on. That is a specific policy document embracing the principles of Maastricht.
      Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend underlines the point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) wants another illustration of the point that the treaty is not simply a framework but an explicit series of obligations, I recommend that he reads article 108. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said that the treaty is merely a framework, but it is not. Article 108 states that, during stage 2 of economic and monetary union, this Parliament must pass an Act to change the statutes of our national bank. That is compulsory. It does not state that we may do so if we wish—it is not permissive.
      What is even worse is what might happen if the House does not want to pass such an Act. Why should we legislate in that way? I do not believe that the Bank of England should be made autonomous. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East has described what he thought might be constructive alterations to the statutes of our national bank, but I wonder whether his suggestions would be possible under the treaty.
      8 pm
      Article 108 states not only that we must legislate to change the statutes but that we must do so in a particular way. Such an Act would have to be compatible with the statutes on the European central bank laid down in the treaty.
      I do not know whether the provisions of the treaty should be defined as obligations or merely as a framework, but in my language, article 108 forces us to legislate to change the character of the Bank of England and its relationship with the Government. When such a Bill comes before the House, we will be in a curious position. Hon. Members on both sides might seek to move amendments to change the proposed character of the new Act, but Ministers will tell us that we cannot do so, as that would not comply with the protocol and the provisions in the Maastricht treaty regarding the European central bank.
      1130
      I cannot think of a better illustration of loss of sovereignty, in the way that this Parliament has always interpreted sovereignty. I am a bit of a parliamentary historian and have written about the evolution of Parliament in the 17th century, the original arguments for the creation of the Bank of England and the tonnage and poundage legislation of 1694.
      Whatever else we used to think that this place was all about, it was about the sovereign right to legislate. As a result of article 108, during the next 18 months the Government will have to introduce a Bill to change the relationship between the state and the Bank of England, and that Bill will have to be compatible with the protocols and provisions on the European Community bank laid down in the treaty.
      If one wills the end, one must will the means. The alteration of the character and nature of our banking statutes is one of the means for us to achieve monetary union as laid down by the protocol in the treaty.
      I want the Financial Secretary to answer two questions which fall within his patch. Presumably, if we pass the Bill, unless the Danish people throw it out in their referendum, the treaty will be ratified, and stage 2 of EMU will start next January. That is only 11 months away, not in 1996 or 1997. During stage 2, legislation along the lines that I have described will be introduced. First, will the Treasury Minister tell us whether it is the Treasury and the Government's best estimate that stage 2 will start on time?
      The opening paragraph of chapter 4—"Transitional Provisions"—states:
      "The second stage for achieving economic and monetary union shall begin on 1 January 1994."
      What if it does not? Will the treaty have to be amended, or will powers be created to override it? Does the Minister think that that deadline is feasible? If that is the deadline in agreeing the treaty, we will have to introduce legislation to amend our national banking statutes.
      In an interesting passage of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East described some of his thoughts about how he would change the statutes. I have not had a chance to consider all of them, but I should like the Minister to study my hon. Friend's interesting reference and say whether his ideas would be compatible with the provisions in the protocol on the European central bank, because that will define the limits of our legislation and the new banking Bill.
      I can think of no better illustration to show my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that the treaty is not merely a framework but that it contains a series of explicit obligations.
      Mr. Randall: They are declarations.
      Mr. Rowlands: No, they are not.
      I realise that I have spoken for a long time, and would like to give other hon. Members a chance. Finally, the cat is out of the bag when one reads the last clause describing the third stage of monetary union. Article 109j lays down the full criteria to decide whether convergence has been achieved and monetary union can go ahead. It does not contain a single reference to article 2 or to unemployment levels.
      In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said that one could achieve convergence and monetary union, under the provisions in the treaty, while there was 20 per cent. unemployment in Merthyr Tydfil or in the United Kingdom. Unemployment

      1131
      would not be a factor to decide whether the country was in a fit state to qualify for monetary union. The four criteria listed in article 109j are all based on monetarist principles and have nothing to do with the general propositions in article 2 about cohesion or high unemployment levels.
      We are being asked to buy a type of monetary union which must be achieved by a particular process. I represent a constituency that has suffered too often from such ideas and economic principles for me to support the Bill. Even if I did not have that instinct, I would say that we should object to the Bill because the treaty is hugely centralising. Monetary union will create more centralisation. Even if a sufficient cohesion fund is created, it will have to be administered and disbursed centrally.
      Secondly, the treaty is hugely restrictive. One of the major tasks for the Community is to reach out and reinforce the democratic structures of the Czechs, the Hungarians and the countries of central Europe. Much that is in the treaty will make it infinitely more difficult for a meaningful political and economic relationship between the central European countries and the Community, with its monetary union.
      The treaty does not outline the shape of the Europe that I want in the late 20th century. The treaty is the last vestige of a process that began in the mid-1950s during the cold war. The creation of the original Community was as much a product of the division of Europe and the cold war as of any great dream of a reunited Europe. Many of its principles and ideas were based on that.
      I believe that we have come to the end of that phase, as the cold-war division of Europe has come to an end. We should now look for alternative routes for economic and political union within the structure of an economic common market and an intergovernmental structure of co-operation of the kind represented in the second half of the treaty.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), said yesterday that I would try to intervene briefly today to speak on aspects of the treaty that fall within the Treasury's sphere of responsibility as they relate to economic and monetary union.
      Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Have Ministers, in their attempt to answer some of the points that have been made, told you how they hope to answer points that have not been made? Many of us who have been here for three days have not been called to speak and the matters that I wish to raise have not been touched on at all yet.
      The First Deputy Chairman: No, the Government have not told me that.
      Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps my hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that our limited memories mean that we shall deal with the issue in tranches.
      As befits somebody who lives in the Victorian splendour of the Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken about pillars and architecture. As somebody who occupies what was
      1132
      described in the papers yesterday as the "linoleum palace", I propose to speak solely about the engineering of the Community—its economic policy.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) started his remarks yesterday by referring to the Community's objectives defined in article 2 of the treaty of Maastricht. His example was followed by several of his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), from extremely different standpoints, both started their speeches by discussing the objectives defined in article 2. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has also followed their example, and I am therefore happy to follow them down that road.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli that three key factors arising from article 2 would be common ground on both sides of the Committee, among supporters and opponents of Maastricht. Article 2 commits the Community to achieving high employment. The right hon. Gentleman had fun discussing the difference between employment and unemployment.
      Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to make this point now, but I was speaking to some hon. Friends who had just entered the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Minister stood up. As he will know, I have tabled a couple of amendments, but have not had an opportunity to discuss them yet. Other hon. Members have also tabled amendments. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that a Minister will respond to the debate once all those who wish to speak have spoken, particularly those who have not yet put forward their amendments?
      Mr. Dorrell: As I said in answer to a similar intervention, we are dealing with the Bill in tranches. Having listened to the debate, I thought that there was sufficient meat for me to deal with some of the concerns expressed and to put the Government's view on the points that have already been made.
      I was going through the three key elements defined in article 2, picking out the key objectives of high employment, raising the standard of living and the quality of life of Community residents, and the achievement of sustainable, non-inflationary growth. Those objectives should be, and largely are, supported on both sides of the Committee. Although they may be shared objectives, the discussions on the methods by which they are achieved have revealed considerable differences. Several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have alleged that the treaty and the institutions envisaged within it contain a deflationary bias that would make it impossible for such a Community to deliver its objective of high employment and the other side of that coin, which is low unemployment.
      May I concentrate the attention of the House first on the evidence that has been adduced to support the assertion that the institutions envisaged by the treaty contain a deflationary bias or make impossible the objectives defined in article 2? The evidence that has been adduced in support of that argument during the debate is, to put it mildly, flimsy. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney treated us to a long speech based on the proposition that there is a clear division between a monetarist approach to monetary management. Although he did not define it, he implied that an alternative approach to monetary management could better deliver

      1133
      the objectives of article 2. The assumption that lay behind this speech took place more than 10 years ago, and most of his arguments have now become out of date.
      Mr. Leighton: Is not the proof of the pudding in the eating? The first stage of economic and monetary union was the exchange rate mechanism, which made interest rates higher than was needed for the purposes of the domestic economy. That was deflationary, and unemployment rose by 1.1 million during that period. Does not that prove that the ERM was deflationary?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: The point that I was seeking to develop was whether there could be a choice between the delivery of growth and high employment, and the controlling of Government deficits. In one or two intervention, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is not in the Chamber at present, appeared to believe that the higher the budget deficit, the faster the rate of growth. Surely the experience in the past 25 years of Governments of both political parties has tested that theory to destruction. High budget deficits undermine the delivery of employment and growth objectives. We embrace the commitment to proper control of budget deficits that is enshrined within the treaty, not because it is in the treaty but because experience over many years has shown that failure to observe the disciplines of proper control of Government deficits undermines the capacity of any economy, not just this economy, to deliver objectives of growth and high employment.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister may be right or wrong. Much of the issue is theory and fashion. Whether he is right or wrong, why entrench one view in a treaty that can never be changed except with the consent of 12 nations? Why give economic theory such codification?
      Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman may describe it as theory, but I do not believe that the experiments with the approach of the hon. Member for Walsall, North are theory. We have seen repeatedly that failure to control budget deficits has undermined the capacity of this country and other countries to deliver their objectives.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: Governments are elected to take a view about budget deficits. Labour Governments think that one can expand budget deficits, whereas Conservative Governments generally take the opposite view. It is not up to a treaty to determine that matter.
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is not quite right, because some Opposition Members have questioned whether it is possible or even desirable to deliver sustainable, non-inflationary growth. For example, yesterday we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who said:
      "article 3a(2) states that the primary objective of economic policy is 'to maintain price stability'. That has never been an objective of the Labour party". —[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 946–47.]
      There is ample evidence to support that assertion.
      In one of the last sentences that he spoke yesterday the right hon. Member for Llanelli said:
      1134
      "We cannot have non-inflationary growth in today's western capitalist economies."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1011.]
      I do not believe that that assertion is true. The experience of successfully run economies, both in Europe and further afield, flatly contradicts the assertion made by the right hon. Gentleman last night.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: There may be one or two such economies, but will the Minister give examples of countries in western Europe that have achieved non-inflationary growth since the war?
      Mr. Dorrell: I shall give an example, but I should be cautious about doing so too often as I think that most people in this country get bored of having Germany quoted at them as an example. Germany has achieved a lower average rate of inflation and a higher average rate of growth than us.
      Mr. Radice: I thought that I was on the same side of the argument as the Minister, but I fear that he is losing me. It is true that it is important to have a low inflation rate. It is sensible to have rules on budget deficits if we are to have a single currency. But if there is a recession and a high level of unemployment across Europe, there is a case for counter-recessionary measures. That was precisely what was agreed at Edinburgh. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not arguing against that case. I hope that he is not.
      Mr. Dorrell: I am not arguing against the proposition that budget deficits fluctuate according to the state of economic activity. It would be hard for me to do so.
      I can quote no better authority for that view than Lord Lawson, who is not always associated with such a view. The Committee will remember that he made a speech during the 1980s, from which he quotes extensively in his recently published book, supporting the assertion that budget deficits fluctuate according to the level of economic activity. That is the answer to the issue raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who was concerned to ensure that a budget deficit objective did not have to be cast in stone or at a fixed level every year, regardless of the state of economic activity.
      Mr. Jenkin: The important distinction in the legal enforceability of the treaty is whether one is trying to achieve a deficit of less than 3 per cent. or wilfully avoiding achieving it. Without giving away any Budget secrets, will my hon. Friend say whether the Government will be trying to achieve a 3 per cent. budget deficit in the coming financial year? Alternatively, will we be able to interpret their actions as those of a Government who are wilfully avoiding doing so because that is in Britain's economic interests?
      Mr. Dorrell: We shall be trying to avoid an excessive budget deficit, as the treaty requires us to do, not because of any treaty obligation, but because we know that that is the only sensible way of running an economy.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to intervene because he has referred to me in his argument.
      Surely the essence of democratic decision making is to try to hold a balance between the employment level and the inflation level. Governments are continually trying to make such judgments. Economic policy becomes

      1135
      deflationary when Governments become obsessed with reducing inflation and increase unemployment. That is exactly what the Government have done—their fight against inflation has become paramount. Surely the essence of article 3a is that price stability is the paramount objective of economic policy. It states that member states and the Community should pursue the general economic policies of the Community only in so far as they are
      "without prejudice to this objective."
      Mr. Dorrell: The reason for that is that we recognise, as do the signatories of the treaty, that the delivery of the wider objectives are not assisted, but jeopardised, by a failure to maintain stable prices. The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was provided, with some distinction, by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East, when he said:
      "My hon. Friend referred to price stability. It would be interesting to hear his arguments in favour of price instability"—
      I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East.
      "I have yet to see the benefits of price instability to working people and, in particular, to pensioners. There is no merit in price instability."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 947.]
      That is the answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is an insane argument. The essence of capitalist and market economies is that prices will fluctuate—that is the nature of such economies. Nobody is arguing for price stability in the sense that prices do not fluctuate. Price stability in this context, refers to the obsession with keeping inflation as low as possible—zero inflation—which has existed for a long time. When governed by such an obsession, that aim must be paramount over other Community objectives, including full employment.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the efficient functioning of the market economy depends on the ability of prices to fluctuate. It does not depend on the ability of the value of money to fluctuate. The effect of a progressive decline in the value of money—the rate of inflation—during the past 20 years has been to undermine economic performance and the delivering of social objectives in this country.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend talks about excessive budget deficits. He will be familiar with article 104c, which states that the Commission shall
      "examine compliance with budgetary discipline on the basis of the following two criteria:
      (a) whether the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product exceeds a reference value, unless
      —either the ratio has declined substantially and continuously and reached a level that comes close to the reference value"—
      3 per cent.—
      "or, alternatively, the excess over the reference value is only exceptional and temporary and the ratio remains close to the reference value".
      Which of those two criteria will the Government satisfy with regard to next year's Budget?
      Mr. Dorrell: Although we accept, for reasons that I have given—which have nothing to do with the treaty of Maastricht—the desirability of avoiding excessive budgetary deficits, we do not at this stage accept the legitimacy of the Commission or any other European institution's
      1136
      authority to require us to pursue a budgetary policy that is not of our own choosing. That marks the success of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in delivering the British protocol. None of the compulsory provisions of the treaty of Maastricht relating to monetary union apply to the United Kingdom unless and until the House passes an Act of Parliament to determine that they should apply.
      Many of the speeches made in Committee have avoided the fact that this country is not committed to moving to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) sought to argue that the defence negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister's case has moved. He did not answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but merely said that there was an opt-out provision and we did not have to take action if we did not want to do so. Do the Government and the Minister consider it a desirable objective to belong to the monetary union?
      Mr. Dorrell: We have made it perfectly clear, as we did throughout the negotiations, that we regard that as a question which is impossible to answer at this stage. That case was not accepted by any of our partners, except Denmark. That is why Britain and Denmark secured provisions within the treaty to allow them to take that decision when the necessary information was available. It is not now available. That is why we have reserved our ability to make that decision at a much later date.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Leighton: The Minister has been very generous in giving way, which makes for a good debate. On the point about price stability, is he aware that the Governor of the Bank of England, in speaking quite recently to the eastern Confederation of British Industry, said that we could have achieved price stability this year but it would have meant too much deflation? So he and the Government decided not to go for price stability this year because it would have meant too much of a recession. Should we not have four objects of economic policy? One is as low inflation as possible, but the others are balance of payments equilibrium, economic growth and high employment, not just going for one.
      Mr. Dorrell: I do not want to cover that ground again, but that is exactly what I said in defining what I saw as the key objectives set out in article 2.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why would my hon. Friends want to legislate for convergency criteria, which will create great pain, when they do not necessarily know at this stage whether they want to enter into the third stage? Take, for instance, the average on interest rates. With good fortune and if the Government take their courage in their hands, we shall bring down interest rates much faster than the European average. We shall be well outside the convergence criteria on those, and that creates a problem. The treaty says that we are meant to be within the range of 2 per cent. of the average of the European convergence criteria, so why would we legislate for the second stage?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is not quite right, because I do not think that it is possible for us to be outside the

      1137
      convergence criteria on interest rates by being below; the convergence criterion is to be within 2 per cent. of the lowest. But I will check that.
      The point about the convergence criteria is that they come into play only if we choose to go to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli, who, although he made it clear that he was opposed to a single currency, also said—I do not think that I misreport him—that if we choose to go to a single currency, the convergence criteria defined in the treaty make some sense as criteria for delivering a single currency. That is a point of view that is supported by somebody who opposes the basic argument that I am trying to advance.
      So my hon. Friend is not on to a good point when he concentrates on the legislative nature of convergence criteria. They merely describe conditions which individual member states have to satisfy to become members of a single currency, because without coming within that cone of convergence there is no realistic prospect of a single currency working.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: That is the very point: why does one then need to legislate for them? They are criteria which the Government have it in their power to pursue in any event. It does not require the enactment into United Kingdom legislation and the decision can be made on the basis of the proper management of the economy. It is not necessary, therefore, as I understand the argument of the Financial Secretary, to legislate. So surely the Financial Secretary could accept the amendments before us on this point.
      Mr. Dorrell: The amendments, as my hon. Friend knows very well, remove the relevant titles from the effect of the European Communities Act 1972, and the reason why those are unacceptable is that they would make it impossible for us to discharge our obligations under the treaty within domestic law.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Mr. Dorrell: I will give way to my hon. Friend later. I want to move on to deal reasonably briefly with the arguments advanced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South to the effect that we are committed to joining stage 3 of the economic and monetary union and that the safeguards do not work. He was particularly concerned that we are committed to rejoining the exchange rate mechanism. He sought to argue that on two counts, both of them, I think, wrong. His argument was, first, on the ground that there was a legal obligation. He said that there was a legal obligation contained within the treaty which, when interpreted, would require the British Government, against its will, to rejoin the ERM.
      I believe that there are three answers to that. The first is that nobody has yet quoted from the treaty a specific and express obligation to rejoin the ERM, for the simple reason that there is no express obligation within the treaty.
      Mr. Macdonald rose—
      Mr. Dorrell: I will give way to any hon. Member who can quote to me the article in the Maastricht treaty which expressly requires membership by any member state of the
      1138
      exchange rate mechanism. I say that with total confidence; there is no such obligation imposed under the Maastricht treaty.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: It is at 109j. It is one of the criteria that are laid down and, since it is one of the criteria, we have to go along with it.
      Mr. Dorell: It is one of the convergence criteria; my hon. Friend is right on that count. But there is no obligation on us to converge, because there is no obligation on us to reach the end result.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There are proper codes of debate. Hon. Members know full well that if the Minister wishes to give way, he will do so. If he does not, hon. Members should resume their seats, however senior they may be.
      Mr. Dorrell: Secondly,—
      Mr. Macdonald rose—
      Mr. Dorrell: Very well, I will give way just once more.
      Mr. Macdonald: I have listened to the Financial Secretary's argument, but I think that he has got it slightly wrong. He is implying that the convergence criteria apply to the United Kingdom only if it opts in to the process towards monetary union, if it decides to go ahead with the third stage. But the protocol, especially paragraph 2, which says:
      "Paragraphs 3 to 9 shall have to effect if the United Kingdom notifies the Council that it does not intend to move to the third stage.",
      implies that to exempt itself from the convergence criteria the United Kingdom has to notify the Council that it is not moving to the third stage. It is not a question of opting in to the convergence criteria; it is automatically in the convergence criteria unless it specifically notifies the Council that it wishes to opt out.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is on to a drafting point. He will see that paragraph 1 of the protocol reads as follows:
      "The United Kingdom shall notify the Council whether it intends to move to the third stage before the Council makes its assessment under article 109j(2) of this Treaty."
      The first paragraph of the protocol leaves the question entirely open. The second paragraph, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, is an introductory paragraph which leads into paragraphs 3 to 9. Of those paragraphs, paragraph 4 is the one that is the safeguard for the United Kingdom position and that states that, in the case that we have indicated that we are not going to join the economic and monetary union,
      "The United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law."
      So there is no obligation to join either the ERM or the economic and monetary union. There is no express obligation in the treaty, nor is there an implied obligation either in the protocol, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, or in article 109m, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South quoted yesterday. He used the obligation in article 109m to regard exchange rates as a matter of common interest. As I pointed out to him yesterday, that is precisely the same obligation as has been accepted by every member state of the European Economic Community, as it then was, and the European

      1139
      Community, as we now know it, since the day when the original six signed the treaty of Rome, because it is contained in virtually the same language in article 107 of the treaty of Rome, which was signed in 1958.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: My hon. Friend is saying something that has puzzled me for a considerable time. I think that everyone will agree that the single currency and monetary union are at the heart of this whole treaty. If it is not the intention of the Government eventually to join in a single currency, why are they forcing the treaty through? If we do not join in 1996, it makes the whole thing an absolute farce.
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Let me answer his question in a slightly elliptical way; it strikes me as the most cogent. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said:
      "I cannot see how we could remain within the European Community as the only country—other than Denmark, perhaps—committed to staying outside the single currency." —[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 986.]
      My hon. Friend's point was that, whatever the legal position might be, there would be a practical obligation to join a single currency, if one were established.
      I do not understand the logic of that argument. My hon. Friend says that he does not wish to become part of a single currency; he then seems to argue that, because he hopes that the United Kingdom will not become part of such a currency, it follows that the continentals will not be able to set it up. That is clearly a nonsensical proposition for any hon. Member to adopt.
      The success of the treaty lies in the fact that it allows the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the design of a system of economic and monetary union at which it is likely—I put it no more strongly than that—that some other member states will wish to arrive. It also allows us to preserve freedom to decide, at a later date, whether to join the single-currency monetary union that has been created—with our participation—by our partners on the continent. Furthermore, the treaty clearly establishes the consequences of that decision.
      Let me ask the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell)—to reflect on the possibility that, if the Bill is rejected, some member states will establish a currency union in any event. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said yesterday that, in his view, the United Kingdom would have no choice but to join that union. If the Bill is not passed, the continentals will be able to establish a single currency without our participating in its design—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South believes that we would have no choice but to join it. Surely that is not a better position than that established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which we participate in the design and are free at a later date to decide whether to join.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: Having been given a good run yesterday, I did not intend to prolong today's proceedings, but this is becoming ridiculous.
      The whole purpose of not ratifying the treaty would be to avoid setting up a single currency, with all the accompanying paraphernalia. All I meant yesterday was this: if the treaty were ratified and the single currency were established, we could not possibly stay outside it. Of course it is theoretically possible for others to set it up and for this country alone to stay outside it, while remaining in
      1140
      the Common Market. But—I am leaving aside the legal point, on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Minister—it would not work out like that. In practical terms, we could not possibly work within the framework of the new single currency and the institutions attached to it while remaining outside it.
      Mr. Dorrell: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point; I merely seek to develop the logic of the position that he has described. I do not agree with his claim that the establishment of a single currency by other European countries would leave us with no option but to join that currency. If that is his argument, however, I do not see how he can conclude that it is in this country's interests to stand apart from the development of such a currency, if the continental powers choose to establish it. I am a great fan of the House of Commons, but I know that it is not within its competence to deny other European sovereign states free choice to establish a single currency, if that is what they choose to do.
      Mr. Marlow: This is a complex issue, and I may be wrong; but I am a little fearful that my hon. Friend misled the Committee earlier. In my previous intervention, I referred to paragraph 2 of article 104c, which relates to the Commission monitoring whether we maintain sufficient proximity to various criteria regarding budget deficit. My hon. Friend said that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had negotiated a very effective opt-out on monetary union. Let me draw his attention to protocol 5, on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom. The provisions excluded do not include paragraph 2 of article 104c(2), though they include paragraph 1 of that article. It appears that paragraph 2 will apply to the United Kingdom regardless of whether we comply with stage 3.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: That is true, but my hon. Friend should also remember that the penalties contained in a later paragraph of article 104c do not apply unless and until we choose to join monetary union. The effect of article 104c is to commit us to the arrangement described in article 109e:
      "In the second stage, Member States shall endeavour to avoid excessive government deficits."
      We have accepted that treaty obligation—an obligation which, as I said earlier, we embrace, not because it is in the treaty but because we seek to impose it on ourselves.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Surely, given the existence of such an obligation in the treaty, there is a severe risk that the Commission—or any other element that is important in the structure of the EC—will wish to comment on the size of our deficit from time to time. If that happens, is it not likely to have an adverse effect on markets and to make things extremely difficult?
      Mr. Dorrell: It is true that the Commission can comment. It can already comment. A regular feature of the agendas of ECOFIN meetings is examination of the performance of individual member states in relation to published criteria. In that regard, there is nothing new in the treaty. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the key point is that the penalty provisions in article 104c do not come into

      1141
      effect unless and until we choose to move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union—and that is our free choice.
      Let me now deal briefly with an aspect of the design of EMU, which has already become clear on the face of the treaty.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Dorrell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can know what I am going to say. I hope that he will contain himself. After all, I have already given way to him twice.
      More than one hon. Member has argued that the prescription for the central bank provided in the treaty of Maastricht would design a bankers' Europe—a Europe in which the central bank would not be accountable to the people of Europe in an acceptable way. If the House is to consider that, it must ask itself what its choice will be for this country when the time comes for us to decide whether to join a single currency and become part of a monetary union. At that point we shall be considering whether we want to accept an obligation to accept membership of a single currency.
      Of course, if one is deciding whether to join a single currency, it is a proper consideration to look at the arrangements for the management of that single currency; and if there is a single currency, there must be a monetary authority responsible for managing it. Equally obviously, if it is a currency that will circulate in 12 member states, the monetary authority cannot be one that is firmly rooted in the institutions of one member state. I do not detect much support in the House for the proposition that the monetary authority responsible for all 12 member states should be ECOFIN; still less do I detect enthusiasm for the proposition that it be managed by the European Commission.
      There is, of course, plenty of scope for individual hon. Members to have a view about whether a single currency is desirable, but if there is to be a single currency the institutions defined within the treaty are a broadly sensible means of managing that currency, developed from what has been, to some degree, the successful experience both of other member states and of states outside the Community that operate a monetary authority that is distinct from the main economic policy authority within the state. Since it is the commitment that we should retain at member state level responsibility for taxation and for wider economic policy questions, it is inherent in the assumptions of the treaty that economic policy, taxation policy and so forth should be to some extent divorced from monetary policy. The institutions designed and set out in the treaty represent a fair attempt by the Community to learn from the experience of other countries that operate a monetary authority that is different from their taxation and economic authority.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: My hon. Friend puts these matters with the utmost clarity, and it is exhilarating to hear a first-class mind explaining these things so clearly, but since, throughout our history, we have never thought it right to establish an autonomous central bank, run by our own fellow countrymen, why should we now in any circumstances wish to set up an autonomous central bank run by foreigners, even if we had a single currency?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. If he takes the view that in no circumstances can he contemplate a monetary authority that is not, first, combined with economic policy and taxation and, second, responsible one hundred per cent. to the House, he clearly cannot in any circumstances support a single currency that circulates in 12 member states of the European Community. That is the consequence of taking such a position.
      The point that I seek to put to the Committee and to my hon. Friend is that there are many people who believe that a single currency has something to contribute to the development of economic management and an efficient economy within the member states of the Community. If one is interested in that concept, some institutions along the lines of those defined in the treaty seem to me not only a natural consequence of the desire to establish such a currency but the fruit of learning from the experience of those other countries—Germany, the United States and Sweden have all been quoted—which operate monetary policy independently from the main political authority.
      It seems to me rather odd to argue that the United States or Germany or Sweden are any less democratic as a result of the institutions that they have chosen to establish.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. May I define what I mean by autonomous? I mean a central bank that is not democratically accountable to democratically elected ministers answerable to a democratic assembly. So even if we had a single European currency. I would argue strongly that we need to have a single European central bank that is democratically accountable and answerable—and that is what we do not have in the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Dorrell: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I invite him to design a workable system for a European central bank that is politically accountable to a European political process. I do not believe that it would be easy to do and I certainly do not believe that it would learn the lessons that are available from other central banks that are divorced from the tax and economic management authority.
      I should like to get on, Mr. Morris, because I am conscious that I have already detained the Committee for a great deal longer than I had intended.
      Mr. Duncan-Smith: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I know that he is seeking to reach the conclusion of his arguments. I would just like him to clarify an earlier point that I may have missed. It seemed that my hon. Friend was suggesting that we had a position of opting into stage 2 as and when we chose, but article 109e says:
      "The second stage for achieving economic and monetary union shall begin on 1 January 1994."
      So from that point onwards, do we not therefore cut into stage 2?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend misheard me. The British protocol and the British position is that we are free to decide whether to join stage 3 of monetary union. We are clearly committed—and we make no bones about it—to stage 2 of the process, at which point monetary policy remains the exclusive concern of member states and national Governments.
      I should like, if I may, Mr. Morris, in conclusion, to come back to the essential point.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend seems to commend the British constitution on the basis that it is democratic. Surely the essential characteristic of the British constitution is that we have a sovereign Parliament. It is not necessarily a direct democracy at all. The thing that is different about the other constitutions to which my hon. Friend has drawn the Committee's attention is that they are federal and written structures.
      Mr. Dorrell: It would be a brave man who would describe the French political tradition as federal. There is a wide range of political traditions in Europe, some of them federal, some tending to be more centralised. To my knowledge, all operate a written constitution but that does not undermine the basic premise.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I really am confused now by my hon. Friend. We can opt in, if the House so decides, at the appropriate time to stage 3: is he indicating that we have an opt-in or opt-out choice of stage 2 with its convergence criteria, or are we obliged to follow the convergence criteria? That is the question.
      Mr. Dorrell: I am seeking to be crystal clear. We are committed to stage 2. We are not committed to stage 3. The convergence criteria are conditions precedent on joining a single currency. A single currency is not stage 2. A single currency is stage 3. If we decide not to join the single currency, we are not committed to seeking convergence on the conditions required to join it.
      I come back to the essential fact. The treaty of Maastricht provides this country with three things. It provides us with the right to participate in the preparation for the arrangements for a single currency. Secondly, it provides us with a choice about whether to join that single currency, which we shall have participated in designing. Thirdly, it sets out clearly the consequences for Britain of joining or not joining that single currency. There is no need for the House or Britain to exercise that choice now. The only decision that the House must make in accepting or rejecting the Bill is whether to participate in preparations for that single currency. I strongly believe that it is in Britain's interests to participate in that process and leave that choice open.
      Mr. Macdonald: The important point to seize upon in respect of the Bill and treaty has already been made: Maastricht cannot be seen and judged entirely according to the wording of the treaty alone but must be seen in a wider context—as part of a process, a journey of member states towards ever closer union. There are two reasonable questions to ask about Maastricht: first, whether the journey towards every closer union is desirable and, secondly, whether Maastricht is an appropriate way of continuing that journey. I believe in the goal of ever closer union, but I accept that it is a matter about which one must make a fundamental judgment—either one favours that goal or one does not. I shall not enter into that debate now.
      9 pm
      Even if one accepts the goal of ever closer union, it is still possible to ask whether Maastricht is the best way of achieving it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), I accept that Maastricht is not perfect. I do not think that any hon. Member would defend Maastricht as the perfect treaty from our own point of view. But it is not drawn up from one point of view: it is
      1144
      an agreement and, necessarily, a compromise between 12 different Governments. The question is not whether it is perfect—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. May I ask hon. Members who are having private meetings on the Back Benches to protect the interests of other Back Benchers by having their meetings elsewhere?
      Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful, Mr. Morris.
      The question is not whether Maastricht is perfect, but whether it is an appropriate way forward. I accept that Maastricht is not perfect. Expectations that it should conform in every comma and sentence to the goals of one Government or one country, far less of one party, are unrealistic. One cannot get socialism in one treaty; Maastricht is part of a process. We want to see a subsequent treaty after Maastricht; it must be an ongoing process.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke of the need for a system of fiscal transfer to make the goal of economic and monetary union operate as effectively and fairly as we would like. I entirely agree. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. If Conservative Members want to confer among themselves, why do they not go to the 1922 Committee? We listened to their speeches; they should listen to ours.
      The Chairman: I should be most grateful if hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House would hold their meetings outside the Chamber.
      Mr. Macdonald: The point that I was making is that Maastricht will have to be followed by subsequent treaties to make the process of economic and monetary union operate as we would like. I should like a subsequent treaty to allow fiscal transfer among member states, which will be necessary. I should like a further treaty to give the European Community, via the Commission or other institutions, the ability to raise taxation directly to facilitate the process of fiscal transfer and of borrowing to operate the deficits which will prove necessary from time to time according to the development of the economic cycle. Once we are in the state of economic and monetary union, there will inevitably be constraints on the fiscal and deficit-operating powers of individual member states. Therefore, these powers have to be devolved upwards into Community institutions.
      The question is not whether the treaty is perfect, but whether it represents substantial and valuable progress. I argue strongly that it does because, for the first time, it brings in a social dimension, an environmental dimension and valuable political dimensions. The social and environmental dimensions are brought in on their own merits, not as consequences of successfully operating a single market but as goals to be pursued and achieved on their own merits.
      Reference has already been made to article 2, which embodies some of the social goals that I find so attractive and valuable in the treaty. I noted that when the Minister referred to article 2 he managed to mention the goal of high employment, but he could not get the words "high social protection" out between his lips. Yet high social protection is what we shall be committed to as a goal of the Community, as a consequence of this treaty. There are a

      1145
      number of provisions in the treaty which relate to the economic and social goals which lie behind much of the treaty.
      I was earlier challenged privately by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) to find a third reference to employment in the treaty. Yesterday I managed to find him a second one, but now I have found a third as well. The second was agreement on social policy, which the Government has unfortunately opted out of but which a Labour Government can easily opt into. The third reference is in article 123—hon. Members will find it on page 31 of the blue document—which refers to the social fund to be set up to provide for social training and to combat unemployment and help people to find employment. Article 127 goes over similar ground and article 130 is perhaps one of the most important of the lot as it talks of the need for economic and social cohesion and particularly of the need for the Community to set itself the goal of bringing forward the more economically backward and disadvantaged areas of the Community and also to bring forward and take special account of the rural areas, which is something that I warmly welcome. Throughout the treaty there are numerous references to social and economic goals which I, as a socialist—and, I hope, all my colleagues on this side—would have warmly welcomed.
      Despite those social goals, which are in the Community framework for the first time on their own merits and not as by-products of achieving a single market, and although these are valuable gains, there has been controversy about the economic provisions, particularly those relating to the central bank and the convergence criteria. There has been a very odd aspect of the debate tonight and yesterday about the economic provisions in this treaty. Some Conservative Members and Baroness Thatcher regard these economic provisions as letting in socialism by the back door. Yet, on the Labour side, one or two of my colleagues have argued the reverse—that the treaty nails us to the bed of monetarism for ever. Both cannot possibly be right, and it is just possible that both are wrong. I believe that both are indeed wrong, although by implying that the treaty embodies and places in the framework of the Community certain goals which the Social Democrats would be happy to embrace, Baroness Thatcher is more correct than my hon. Friends who criticise the treaty for being too monetarist.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his views, Baroness Thatcher's views or anyone else's views are irrelevant because the article on page 91 entitled "Independence" makes it abundantly clear that, when the central bank is established, no Government of any party, no Chancellor of the Exchequer or Minister will be legally permitted even to make representations to it, to phone or to write, without committing the equivalent of a Euro-crime? Therefore, while he or Baroness Thatcher may be right, the fact is that the central bank will decide. It will be appointed for eight years, and no politician, no Prime Minister, no Chancellor of the Exchequer, Finance Minister or Back Bencher will be permitted even to make representations to it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better keep quiet and wait and see what the bank does. Whatever it does will be its own business, not that of democratic Governments or Parliaments.
      Mr. Macdonald: I shall deal later with the question of the independence of the central bank. I was trying to say that, regardless of what it says in the treaty, there are different arguments about how its provisions should be interpreted. Some of my hon. Friends argue that provisions such as that to which the hon. Member for Southend East (Sir T. Taylor) referred make the treaty inevitably monetarist, whereas Conservative hon. Members and Baroness Thatcher say that the same provisions make it an inevitably socialist document. The arguments will continue. In other words, the treaty is not the end of political argument as some have implied because those who suggest that it is the end of political argument cannot agree even about which political argument has been brought to an end by the treaty—some say it is the monetarist argument and others say it is the socialist argument.
      Mr. Shore: Irrespective of what different politicians have said about whether the treaty is monetarist, democratic socialist or anything else in character, surely there can be no dispute about the words in the treaty which describe the independence of the central bank. Part of the relevant article states that Governments will undertake
      "not to seek to influence"
      it—there can be no argument about that. Either the words mean what they say or they do not.
      Mr. Macdonald: As I said, I shall deal with the independence of the central bank in a moment. My point is that arguments have been advanced from both parties that the treaty is somehow an end to political debate. According to some, it locks us into a monetarist framework for ever, while according to others it locks us into a socialist framework for ever. That is nonsense—both arguments cannot be right. The existence of the two arguments proves that they are both wrong. The treaty will be debated after the Bill has been passed—
      Sir Peter Tapsell: There is no antithesis between the hon. Gentleman's description of a socialist and a monetarist situation. Karl Marx was a monetarist, and this country had the most extreme monetarist policy it has had this century when Mr. Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Mr. Macdonald: It is an interesting point—that socialism and monetarism are the same thing—but it was not exactly what the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends or mine were arguing.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Seriously, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is the end of all political argument if his views, those of the Government and those of the French and German Governments cannot even be communicated to the central bank? I accept that the hon. Gentleman may be a very good Member of Parliament, and he has shown so far that he is a man of integrity. Does not he accept that the political argument about economic policy will be ended if the central bank runs everything, if appointments are for eight years? Would not any Minister be committing a Euro-crime if he were even to write a letter or make a phone call—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making an intervention; he is making a second speech.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Macdonald: This treaty is not the end of political argument. It is not the end of debate about the future of economic policy. It merely transfers the debate from a purely national stage to a European stage and puts it in a wider context. After it has been passed, there will still be arguments between my hon. Friends and Conservative Members as to what it means and whether it commits us to a more monetarist framework or a more socialist framework or neither.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Macdonald: I have exhausted that point and want to move now to the question of a central bank.
      Yesterday my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said that price stability is the primary but not the exclusive purpose in having a central bank. Of course, the context in which the bank has to operate will be determined by member states individually and as a Community group, pursuing the goals that are articulated in article 2. Although that is a very cogent and very powerful point, some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members—for different reasons, presumably—object to the notion that the bank will not be able to take instructions from any particular member Government. In that sense, it will be independent. In my view, the notion of independence is rather overdone in the context of the central hank and monetary institutions. Experience of the Bank of England indicates that, frequently, the idea of political control, certainly when exercised by Labour Governments, can be quite empty. The direction of influence, rather than being from the Government to the bank, presumably via the Treasury, is often from the City to the Government via the bank. The bank acts not as the instrument of Government policy, particularly Labour Government policy, but rather as a wooden horse for the City of London within Governments of both parties.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Bank of England has often operated against the interests of Labour Governments. That is due to the mandarins who run it. If the hon. Gentleman has such doubts about the running of a bank which theoretically is state-owned and state-controlled, what influence does he think will be possible in the case of an independent central bank dedicated to a course of Euro-monetarism?
      Mr. Macdonald: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that the Bank of England cannot be regarded simply as an instrument of Governments, especially Labour Governments. Conversely, banks which are nominally independent—for example, in Germany—respond to quite a degree of political influence.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: What about recent events?
      Mr. Macdonald: Well, there has been the question of unification. There is a question about whether the German Government and the Bundesbank have very different views about interest rates.
      The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are debating amendment No. 40, not German interest rates. Perhaps he will address his remarks to the amendment.
      Mr. Macdonald: I had no intention of dealing with the details of German interest rates, Mr. Morris, but to make the general point that independent central banks are not immune to political influence. Nor does the notion of an independent central bank mean that Governments are constrained from carrying out policies that my hon. Friends would warmly support.
      For example, an independent central bank in the United States did not prevent President Roosevelt from carrying out a new deal programme to revive that economy out of recession. An independent central bank in Sweden has not prevented successive Governments from pursuing policies which many of my hon. Friends would like to see implemented in Britain.
      Mr. Llew Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that it may be wrong to make an analogy between the Bank of England and the European central bank because the result of the relationships of elected Governments with the European central bank would become part of European law, part of which would proclaim that democratically elected Governments had no right to advise the bankers of that institution? What, in that event, would be the point of holding elections? Why bother to vote if those elected could do nothing to influence the decision makers?
      Mr. Macdonald: I am simply trying to establish that the vision of an independent central bank being inimical to any kind of social development or political progress is not borne out by the experience of other countries with independent central banks. That applies to Sweden and the United States, which have been able to carry through progressive social and economic policies.
      The whole question of independence is more complex than legislation would have us believe. Indeed, if we compare the experience of Germany and Sweden with that of the United Kingdom—with Labour Governments here having to wrestle with a supposedly dependent central bank—my argument is borne out.
      Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's interesting contribution, and I do so only because word has been communicated to us that the Government may be about to move the closure. If that should happen—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is better informed than I am.
      Mr. Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris—
      The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on the point that the hon. Member raised. I—the occupant of the Chair—decide whether there should be a closure motion. No such motion has been moved and I am not interested in rumours.
      Mr. Macdonald: A European central bank, because it would be composed of people from all the different countries—not just the fast growing and big countries but all countries, including the more economically backward areas of the Community—would provide a more balanced view of Europe's overall economic needs than either the Bundesbank now provides of those needs or the Bank of England, City-dominated and London-centred, provides of Britain's overall economic needs.
      Mr. Radice: That is why the French have been such supporters of the idea of a European central bank. They want to mitigate the influence of the Bundesbank. That fact supports the point that my hon. Friend is making.
      Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend is right, and what he says relates to a larger point. We must see the treaty and the progress towards monetary union not only in their own terms but in relation to the other options.
      The convergence criteria are equally controversial to many of my hon. Friends, who argue that they are hostile to economic growth, to the achievement of high employment, and so on. My first point is—
      Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Macdonald: I have not yet made my point, so I shall do so before taking an intervention.
      My first point is that if we are to move towards a monetary union, clearly there has to be some kind of central monetary and financial control over its members. We have to make sure that one member cannot pursue a course of irresponsible unilateral solo deficit running, which would inevitably have an impact on the other members. That being so, it is reasonable and right that there be some central restraint and control over members of the union—for example, contol over the kind of deficits that they are allowed to run. That happens now within the monetary union of the United Kingdom, in which the central Government exercise control over local authorities, and it must inevitably happen within a monetary union covering Europe as a whole.
      Mr. Hain: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Macdonald: No. I must go on and make my second point.
      The key point is that the central control must be flexible. It cannot be rigid; it must allow for differences and for stresses and strains within the monetary union—and the treaty allows for exactly that flexibility.
      Mr. Cash: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the convergence conditions are precisely designed to create unemployment? Furthermore, has it occurred to him that the arrangements for capping under the excessive deficit procedure are designed to ensure that public expenditure will be capped? Does he appreciate that the system will not work, and that the cohesion funds will not make their way from one part of Europe to another, because there is neither the will not the ability to pay? Does he appreciate that the system will therefore collapse?
      The Chairman: Order. That is too long an intervention.
      Mr. Macdonald: I disagree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) about the cohesion funds. I believe that there is both a need and a desire to develop a Community in which there is more fiscal transfer than at present. That will be necessary. If it were not for the resistance of the United Kingdom Government, we should have drawn a little closer to that goal at Edinburgh.
      Of course the convergence conditions are not designed to create unemployment. They are designed to lead to monetary union. But it is valid to ask whether, in the process of meeting the convergence criteria in order to achieve that goal, we may impose conditions upon ourselves which are too severe, and which may lead to
      1150
      unemployment and so on. I question the idea of 1999 as the date by which monetary union will be achieved. I am sceptical about that.
      Mr. Hain: In giving a general blessing to the convergence criteria, to the narrowness and rigidity of the treaty, and to the idea of an independent central European bank—and with that an independent Bank of England—is my hon. Friend in line with Labour party policy as expressed by the Front-Bench spokesmen?
      Mr. Macdonald: As I said when I spoke about an independent central bank in an intervention last night, I did not expect that all my hon. Friends would agree with me on that subject. Tonight I have tried to argue that blind resistance to any notion of an independent central bank is not necessarily grounded in real fears about the economic and social consequences involved. If one compares the experience of the United Kingdom to that in Germany or Sweden, my argument is that to have a politically independent central bank does not necessarily lead to the economic and social goals that my hon. Friends want.
      The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair and not simply talk to his hon. Friends. I should also be grateful if he could now conclude talking to his friends.
      Mr. Macdonald: I apologise. I will try to work through to a conclusion.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Did I hear you correctly when you asked my hon. Friend to conclude his remarks, or were you just bringing him to order?
      The Chairman: No, the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I asked the hon. Member for Western Isles to conclude his remarks on the point raised by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) so that we can get on with the specific amendment.
      Mr. Macdonald: I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall conclude by referring to the convergence criteria. My point is that the convergence criteria are flexible within the wording of the treaty. In the first instance, the treaty provides that some countries may not meet the convergence criteria and, therefore, will not qualify for monetary union. Paragraph 3 in article 109k on page 29 of the treaty provides a specific exemption for countries which, because of their inability or lack of willingness to meet the convergence critiera, do not qualify for monetary union. The article specifies that countries which do not meet the convergence criteria or qualify for monetary union are not subject to the fines, constraints and penalties to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. The Council of Ministers can agree that certain countries are exempt from the fines because of their economic circumstances, and such countries will not qualify for, or achieve the goal of, monetary union.
      The framework laid down in the treaty is not so rigid as some would insist that it is; there is room for an opt-out, not just for the United Kingdom but for every country in the Community.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Even when countries operate under the rules, is it not the case that there may be

      1151
      circumstances in which the member states may decide that the rules do not apply? In the case of fines, the word "may" is used throughout the protocol.
      Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the point that I was coming to. It is the flexibility not only of a country joining the monetary union but also of the convergence criteria not applying to a member of the currency union after it has joined the monetary union, and the penalties not applying to a member of the monetary union if it fails to meet the convergence critiera. That is decided by the Council of Ministers. I grant that to my hon. Friends.
      Any member of the monetary union must argue its case with the other members of the monetary union on the basis of its particular economic circumstances and say that it cannot meet the inflation criteria, the budget deficit criteria or some of the other criteria. If the country successfully argues its case in the Council of Ministers, the constraints, fines and penalties no longer apply.
      Mr. Winnick: I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend is saying. Despite everything else, does he accept that that takes away the authority of the House of Commons and the Government of the day and places them in a position, at best, in which we would be virtually begging the body involved for permission to overspend in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described? Is my hon. Friend not worried about the erosion of the basic sovereignty of this House of Commons and this country—the very reasons why we are here in the first place—quite apart from the cuts which will undoubtedly occur in public spending?
      Mr. Macdonald: Of course I worry about that, but I ask my hon. Friend to face up to reality—which is that we face such constraints whether we are inside a monetary union or outside it. I ask my hon. Friends to recall the history of the 1970s when we had to beg the International Monetary Fund for permission to run a deficit. I ask my hon. Friends to recall the history of the past year and, indeed, this year, when we had to beg the Bundesbank to reduce its interest rates because of the condition of our country.
      Mr. Winnick: Until we left the exchange rate mechanism.
      Mr. Macdonald: Yes. I remind my hon. Friend that we are still begging the Bundesbank to reduce its interest rates because they place constraints on our ability to deliver our economic goals.
      The point is simply that we shall have to operate in an international environment whether we are inside the monetary union or outside it. I argue that we are better placed within the Council of Ministers to convince our colleagues—and frequently our socialist colleagues—within it of the special needs of the United Kingdom than trying to persuade the bankers of the Bundesbank or of the IMF of Britain's special case.
      The arguments about the future course of economic policy in Britain will continue after the treaty has been passed. We shall continue to need to negotiate and make agreements with international partners after the treaty has been passed. The treaty is not the watershed that some of my hon. Friends would like to insist that it is. It moves the argument away from a purely national stage on to a
      1152
      European stage. I argue that that strengthens our position and helps us to win our arguments in those spheres in the future.
      The Chairman: Rev. Ian—
      Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)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—
      Rev. Ian Paisley(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: May I point out that it must be on the procedure relating to the Division, not on any decision of the Chair.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Sir, you called my name and I stood up. The Whip was entirely out of order. I was called and I want you to rule on that. You called my name. I should like a ruling, Sir. You had called my name and, according to the Standing Orders of the House, I was entitled to speak.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but the closure may be moved at any point. I am not to know when the closure is to be moved. I merely have to judge whether it is an appropriate time for the closure to be accepted or not. I made that decision.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have listened carefully to what you said, but if I was called, I was at least entitled to utter some words before being interrupted by the Whip who moved the closure motion; that did not happen.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but my judgment was that it was appropriate to conclude the debate as the motion had been put. The closure motion can be moved at any stage of any speech. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman had only just been called.
      Mr. Bill Walker(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: Is it on procedure?
      Mr. Walker: Yes. The procedures of the House are designed, as I understand it, to give the House the opportunity, in Committee or elsewhere, to hear clearly views from all parts of the United Kingdom. When you made your judgment to accept the closure motion, were you satisfied that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom had been heard during the four-day debate that has taken place, because if not—
      The Chairman: Order. I understand the point of order, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 406 of "Erskine May", where he will read that the discretion of the Chair is absolute and is not open to dispute.
      Mr. Walker: I am not disputing your decision but asking whether, in a constitutional debate, it will enhance the reputation of this Parliament in Scotland. If it does not, this day will be remembered for a long time by Scots.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 298, Noes 240.

      Division No. 110]

      [9.36

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Elletson, Harold

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Alexander, Richard

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Alton, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Ancram, Michael

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Faber, David

      Ashby, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkins, Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forth, Eric

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bates, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Freeman, Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gale, Roger

      Booth, Hartley

      Gallie, Phil

      Boswell, Tim

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bowden, Andrew

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bowis, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gorst, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butler, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carrington, Matthew

      Harris, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayes, Jerry

      Churchill, Mr

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Horam, John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

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

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

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dover, Den

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      1154

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Robathan, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knox, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sackville, Tom

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Salmond, Alex

      Leigh, Edward

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lidington, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lightbown, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sproat, Iain

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Madel, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Malone, Gerald

      Stephen, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stewart, Allan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sykes, John

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Merchant, Piers

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Thomason, Roy

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

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

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tracey, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Needham, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tyler, Paul

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pickles, Eric

      Willetts, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wood, Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Richards, Rod

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Riddick, Graham

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcclm

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 74, Noes 304.

      Division No. 110]

      [9.36

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Elletson, Harold

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Alexander, Richard

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Alton, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Ancram, Michael

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Faber, David

      Ashby, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkins, Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forth, Eric

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bates, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Freeman, Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gale, Roger

      Booth, Hartley

      Gallie, Phil

      Boswell, Tim

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bowden, Andrew

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bowis, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gorst, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butler, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carrington, Matthew

      Harris, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayes, Jerry

      Churchill, Mr

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Horam, John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

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

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

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dover, Den

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      1154

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Robathan, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knox, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sackville, Tom

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Salmond, Alex

      Leigh, Edward

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lidington, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lightbown, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sproat, Iain

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Madel, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Malone, Gerald

      Stephen, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stewart, Allan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sykes, John

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Merchant, Piers

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Thomason, Roy

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

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

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tracey, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Needham, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tyler, Paul

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pickles, Eric

      Willetts, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wood, Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Richards, Rod

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Riddick, Graham

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcclm

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Allen, Graham

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Ainger, Nick

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      1155

      Austin-Walker, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Barnes, Harry

      Godsiff, Roger

      Battle, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Gordon, Mildred

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bell, Stuart

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Benton, Joe

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hain, Peter

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Hall, Mike

      Betts, Clive

      Hanson, David

      Boateng, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Hawksley, Warren

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Heppell, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hood, Jimmy

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Burden, Richard

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hoyle, Doug

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hutton, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Illsley, Eric

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ingram, Adam

      Cann, Jamie

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cash, William

      Jamieson, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Janner, Greville

      Clapham, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Coffey, Ann

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jowell, Tessa

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Corbett, Robin

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Knapman, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Cox, Tom

      Leighton, Ron

      Cran, James

      Lewis, Terry

      Cryer, Bob

      Litherland, Robert

      Cummings, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lord, Michael

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Darling, Alistair

      McCartney, Ian

      Davidson, Ian

      McCrea, Rev William

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McFall, John

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

      McKelvey, William

      Denham, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dewar, Donald

      McLeish, Henry

      Dixon, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Mahon, Alice

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mandelson, Peter

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marek, Dr John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Marlow, Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Enright, Derek

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Etherington, Bill

      Michael, Alun

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Milburn, Alan

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Miller, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Flynn, Paul

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fraser, John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fry, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Galloway, George

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      George, Bruce

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mudie, George

      1156

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Snape, Peter

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Spearing, Nigel

      Olner, William

      Spellar, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Pawsey, James

      Stevenson, George

      Pendry, Tom

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Straw, Jack

      Pike, Peter L.

      Sweeney, Walter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Trimble, David

      Radice, Giles

      Turner, Dennis

      Raynsford, Nick

      Vaz, Keith

      Redmond, Martin

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Reid, Dr John

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Watson, Mike

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Short, Clare

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Simpson, Alan

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Alan Meale and

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Division No. 111]

      [9.51 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Austin-Walker, John

      Leighton, Ron

      Barnes, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Litherland, Robert

      Body, Sir Richard

      Lord, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      McAllion, John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      McCrea, Rev William

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      McWilliam, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Cann, Jamie

      Mahon, Alice

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Marlow, Tony

      Cash, William

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Cohen, Harry

      Mullin, Chris

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Pawsey, James

      Cran, James

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Cryer, Bob

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cummings, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Rowlands, Ted

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

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Simpson, Alan

      Galloway, George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Gill, Christopher

      Snape, Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hall, Mike

      Sweeney, Walter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      1157

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trimble, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Wilkinson, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Mrs. Teresa Gorman and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Roger Knapman.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Duncan, Alan

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dunn, Bob

      Alexander, Richard

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Alton, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Amess, David

      Elletson, Harold

      Ancram, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Ashby, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Evennett, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Atkins, Robert

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bates, Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Batiste, Spencer

      Flynn, Paul

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowden, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gallie, Phil

      Brazier, Julian

      Gapes, Mike

      Bright, Graham

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burns, Simon

      Gorst, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Butler, Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butterfill, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hague, William

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Churchill, Mr

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clappison, James

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Harris, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Colvin, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Congdon, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Conway, Derek

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hendry, Charles

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hicks, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

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

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Horam, John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

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

      Devlin, Tim

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Dicks, Terry

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      1158

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jack, Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Radice, Giles

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Richards, Rod

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

      Sackville, Tom

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Salmond, Alex

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Luff, Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Macdonald, Calum

      Spring, Richard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sproat, Iain

      MacKay, Andrew

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maclean, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stern, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan

      Malone, Gerald

      Streeter, Gary

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thomason, Roy

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mills, Iain

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

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trend, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Needham, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Nelson, Anthony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Ward, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Norris, Steve

      Waterson, Nigel

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Watts, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wells, Bowen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Page, Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Paice, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Willetts, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wilshire, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Wolfson, Mark

      1159

      Yeo, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I will take points of order afterwards.
      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.

Alnwick (Development Area Status)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.6 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you would be good enough to give the House some guidance as to how you intend to call right hon. and hon. Members in the course of our important discussions on the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, as he will observe, I am now a reincarnation of the Deputy Speaker, and therefore discussion on proceedings in the Committee is not in order. Mr. Beith.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make the point that the right hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate is a Back Bencher and has waited a considerable time for it. I will take quick points of order, but no more.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always understood that the duty of the Speaker was to protect the interests especially. of Back Benchers. I have also understood during the 22 years that I have been here that the House represents England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that it makes no difference where an hon. Member comes from; but I have also understood that all sections of the community represented here would be called in debates to give their view.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is worth while for hon. Members from Northern Ireland to come to the House for the debate that has been concluded if, on all the days that they have asked to be called, they have not been called, and if, when they are called, the Government gag them. Is there no way whereby an hon. Member can be reasonably assured that, if he sits through all the debates—I understand that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wants to speak; I too have sat through all these debates—he will be allowed to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and the Chair tries to choose hon. Members to contribute to all debates on that basis.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate. The hon. Member has raised a point of order already.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Walker—with reluctance.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. If hon. Members wish to participate in debates, either in a normal session in the Chamber or in Committee, does the Chair, in its capacity of protecting the interests of Back Benchers and all aspects of Back Benchers' interests—in other

1161
words, whether they sit on the Opposition Benches or on the Government Benches—and in the interests of attempting to procure a balance, achieve that balance? If so, thus far no one from Scotland on the Conservative Benches has spoken.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that I cannot comment at this stage on what went on in Committee.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, the hon. Member has had one point of order. I hope that this is a totally different one. Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Budgen: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was unable to make my point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member made his point of order. I made it quite clear, and I make it clear to all hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment, that I am now sitting here as Madam Speaker's Deputy. Neither she nor I can comment on what has happened in a Committee of the House. Points raised then should be raised at the next meeting of the Committee and not in the Adjournment debate of another hon. Member.
Mr. Beith: It is a convention of the House that hon. Members respect the fact that another hon. Member has the Adjournment debate, because the time that they take is taken out of the Adjournment debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to my constituents. I am glad to have the attention of the Minister for Industry. He and I were elected to Parliament on the same day, and he will know that since then I have often raised the need for development area status in the area that we are talking about.
I am talking about the Northumberland coalfield area. I am glad to be able to make a further plea on its behalf before the Minister reaches his final decisions about which parts of the country shall have development area status now that he is reviewing the map. I appreciate that he cannot give me the answer that I want in this debate, because the map for the whole country will be announced at once at a later debate. He will then be obliged to take into account the results of the review of the disastrous pit closures plan, even though nothing in his tool kit of development measures could possibly cope with the deluge of unemployment that would result if anything like that original programme of closures went ahead.
I want to direct the Minister's attention to an area that is already suffering desperately from decades of pit closures. The Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area lost development area status in 1984, since when I have been campaigning with local authorities to get it restored. At the same time, the Morpeth and Ashington area, which includes an adjoining part of my constituency around Lynemouth and Ellington, was reduced to intermediate status, and I supported a similar campaign for the area. Sadly, the employment situation in these areas has worsened during the period and their cases therefore become stronger. Pit closures have continued, and with the area having to compete with assisted areas, almost no new inward investment has been recorded since 1984.
1162
The area that we are discussing is the main part of the Northumberland coalfield. The Alnwick and Amble travel-to work area includes the town of Alnwick, which, although it is a market town, has depended significantly on coal mining, and Amble, which was once a busy mining and coal shipping town. The area also includes Seahouses, traditionally a fishing port with significant tourism, and remote and beautiful areas such as the Rothbury area.
The fact that the travel-to work area was so wide was one of the factors that led to its loss of development status in 1984, because it diluted the high unemployment figure in Amble and Alnwick, but unemployment has now increased throughout the area. Alnwick district council has submitted a strong and well-documented case to the review on behalf of the area.
The Hadston and Broomhill part of Castle Morpeth district, consisting mainly of a large housing estate built specifically to house people from the old mining villages, is also in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to work area. Castle Morpeth borough council pointed out in its submission to the Department of Trade and Industry some months ago how absurd it is that this deprived part of its area, which at that time had 12 per cent. unemployment, did not have development area status, yet the much more prosperous Ponteland part of the area, with 3.5 per cent. unemployment, had the full benefit of development area status.
Those figures have increased significantly since, but there is still a huge difference, with the most prosperous area having development status and the most deprived not. Castle Morpeth would like to keep its development status in the Ponteland area because of the potential for development at the airport, but it throws into sharp focus how wrong it is that the most deprived part of the borough should not have development status.
A recent study of the Hadston estate for the Northumberland coalfield task force, which was set up with the help of the Minister's Department, revealed that 38 per cent. of unemployed claimants had been out of work for more than two years, and that 55 per cent. of those interviewed had worked for a total of less than a year in the previous five years. This is a desperate problem of long-term unemployment, with resulting social problems in an area that the Government have wrongly excluded from assisted area help.
Immediately south of Hadston are the coalfield communities of Ellington, Lynemouth, Linton and Widdrington, which have the inadequate intermediate status because they are in the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work areas. The whole of the area has been hit hard by a succession of pit closures in recent years. At Shilbottle and Whittle collieries in the Alnwick area—although Whittle now operates as a small private drift—at Lynemouth and at nearby Woodhorn, Ashington and Bates collieries thousands of jobs have disappeared in the past decade.
The only remaining British coal pit in Northumberland, and potentially the only one in the north-east, is in my constituency, at Ellington, and it is no secret that it was on the closure list until days before that dreadful list was published. Closely linked with the fate of that colliery at Ellington are the Alcan power station and smelter, as well as the Blyth power station. More than half the jobs at Alcan have gone as production has been cut back. If any

1163
one of this complex of related industries were to go altogether, the whole structure could go, with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs.
PA Cambridge Economic Consultants have advised Northumberland county council that, if that happens, unemployment in the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work area would approach 17 per cent. That was the advice some months ago. On the latest national figures, that would be higher. A similarly sharp rise would happen in the Amble and Alnwick area.
Even on the most optimistic scenario, without such a catastrophe, they expected unemployment to rise to 15 per cent. in the Morpeth and Ashington area, and to more than 13 per cent. in the Alnwick and Amble area. In the meantime, since they made those forecasts, the Alnwick and Amble figure has reached 14.2 per cent.
Unfortunately, other industries on which this area depends face dramatic job losses. The Alnwick and Amble area has an exceptionally high proportion of employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing. It has been estimated that 800 jobs will be lost in farming in Northumberland following the CAP reforms, and at least a third of those will be in this area. Fishing and associated trades face certain job losses because of restrictions on fishing opportunities and the Government's deplorable decision to phase out the north-east salmon fishery. The building industry has been devasted in the recession. Indeed, the main source of new employment in the Amble area has been the prison service, one of the few industries that seems to have survived the recession in reasonable numbers.
From an employment point of view, this whole area from Alnwick to Ashington needs the same level of support, and needs it very badly. The DTI recognised that under the previous Minister, when it set up the coalfield task force. Europe recognises it; the whole area is eligible for help under objective 2 and under the RECHAR scheme, which was so long delayed by the argument over additionality.
A lot of work is going on to help the area through these schemes, through local authorities and by the efforts of industry. Other things are needed, like full dualling of the A1 and investment in education and housing, currently squeezed by local government spending restrictions, but much of this work will be undermined if, when the new assisted area map is announced, all or part of the Northumberland coalfield is left without assisted area status, competing with areas which do have it and can therefore offer better incentives to inward investors or existing businesses.
Many of the businesses already established within our area belong to groups and companies which have plants elsewhere in Britain or abroad, and their head offices or main boards may very well shift new investment to plants which are enjoying development status either in Britain or in some equivalent form in other countries. The Northern Development Company has made clear that the evidence of past investment is that the north of England will not attract inward investment without assisted areas status.
The main factors which the Government have said that they will take into account in making their decision on this matter are current rates of unemployment, persistence of unemployment rates above the national average, the proportion of long-term unemployed in the local work force, the likely future demand for jobs and peripherality and distance from markets. The Alnwick and Amble area
1164
and Morpeth and Ashington area both pass all those tests. Unemployment in both areas is at present more than 14 per cent., with male unemployment at or above 20 per cent. and as high as 70 per cent. on some housing estates.
Apart from the impact of limited amounts of seasonal work, a large part of the unemployment is long-term. The job losses I have described in mining, farming and fishing, and the fragile nature of employment in the Ellington, Lynemouth and Blyth complex, mean that we must prepare for future job losses on a large scale. The area could hardly be more peripheral: it is further from London and from the channel tunnel than any other part of England.
The case is so strong that I do not see how the Minister can, in all justice, fail to accept it.
10.18 pm
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, we were elected to the House on the same day. Therefore, it is a privilege to reply to his debate on what he sees as the need for assistance for his constituency. I know that he takes a great interest in his constituency, as I do in mine, and I sometimes envy the opportunity that he has to raise issues as he has done this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman understandably focused his remarks on the importance of assisted area status. It is especially understandable when one bears in mind the fact that the area, or part of it, had the status before 1984. As he knows, the current review of the future shape of the assisted area map was announced last June, and the criteria on which the review is based were set out in the consultation document.
We invited interested parties to submit their views and, as the consultation document explains, the primary base for the review is the range of statistical information on unemployment, which includes data on the current level, the persistence of unemployment rates above the national average in recent years and the proportion of the long-term unemployed in the local work force.
Other factors considered include demographic changes and the likely future demand for jobs in the area, taking account of the growth or decline in local industries—I shall deal with that point in relation to the mining industry to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—and other measures of economic performance, including activity rates and the important issue of peripherality to which he also referred. As he said, in England one cannot get further from the channel tunnel—I do not know what his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) would say about the situation across the border.
The review is based on the existing travel-to-work areas, which are broad approximations of self-contained labour markets. It will be a year or more—I suspect more—before new travel-to-work areas are defined using the data from the 1991 census. The current map covered about 35 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain when it was designated in 1984. Of that, development areas covered 15 per cent. and intermediate areas the remaining 20 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the inadequacy of intermediate area status, but I do not think it is regarded in that way by many of those who have submitted requests for such status. It is a valuable and valued status.

1165
It is unlikely that the coverage of the new map will be greater than now, and it could be somewhat less. Coverage of the new map will, of course, have to be agreed with the European Commission, as it was in 1984.
The broad objectives of Government policy with regard to the assisted area map continue to be to reduce regional imbalances in employment opportunities and to encourage the development of indigenous potential within the assisted areas on a stable and long-term basis.
During the consultation period last year, more than 1,500 written representations were received from Great Britain, and, by the end of last year, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry had held meetings with more than 50 delegations, in addition to the delegations seen by my colleagues in Wales and Scotland during the same period.
I have received detailed representations, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, from Northumberland county council and Alnwick district council in support of development area status for the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area. Those representations cover comprehensively the effects on the TTWA of structural unemployment changes, especially in the coal industry which, as he said, had a considerable effect on the area some time ago. They also cover the difficulties faced by the area in attracting new industries because of the distances and the lower-than-average rates of small firm formation and participation in economic activity.
Before the previous review of the assisted area map in 1984, the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area enjoyed intermediate area status. At that time, Ministers decided that other areas had more pressing problems and that Alnwick and Amble should not be included in the revised map. Of course I am aware that that decision was, not surprisingly, not well received by the county council. That proves that intermediate area status is valued by local authorities and industries.
The current review, like that of 1984, is based on travel-to-work areas, which are the smallest areas for which reliable statistical information on unemployment is available. However, loss of intermediate area status has not meant that the area has been without assistance, and I shall say a few words about the situation since 1984.
First, there is the status of the area for European regional policy purposes. The various maps defining eligibility for European Community structural funds are separate from the assisted area map—which defines eligibility for aid from my Department—and are drawn up against criteria decided by the Community. I expect to receive from the European Commission at the end of this month proposals for new regulations governing, amongst other things, the selection of objective 2 areas—those suffering from industrial decline. The designation of areas under the new arrangements is unlikely to be completed until the middle of this year, and it will come into force from 1 January 1994.
As a result of its status under objective 2 of the structural funds, the Alnwick and Amble area has had access to individual project support from the European regional development fund and, subsequently, to the Tyne and Wear/south-east Northumberland integrated development operations programme—referred to as "TAWSEN". In addition, part of the travel-to-work area surrounding
1166
Amble is eligible under the TAWSEN RECHAR programme for former coal-mining areas, under which £11.5 million is available. So far, 53 applications have been received for more than £6 million of this, and £3.7 million has been approved for 27 projects.
A major beneficiary of European regional development fund support has been the marina development in Amble, which received a £700,000 grant in 1986. Other projects that have received support include the development of the employment training workshop at Amble, the second stage of the development of the Alnwick playhouse and improvements to tourism information throughout the area.
Secondly, the Rural Development Commission has operated a programme of advice for businesses and for the provision of premises in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of this, as, last month, he performed the opening ceremony for the scheme of 10 workshop units at Alnwick—units ranging from 550 sq ft to 1,850 sq ft—developed by English Estates for the Rural Development Commission. That was part of a programme that has seen the provision in the Alnwick and Amble area since 1984 of more than 54,000 sq ft of workshop units and 10,000 sq ft of factory units, at a total cost of about £2.5 million. Of the total of 108,000 sq ft of space in 61 units in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area, 70,000 sq ft in 39 units is let, providing an estimated 280 jobs.
The Rural Development Commission also provides grants to return redundant buildings to productive business use; marketing and exhibition grants to help rural firms to achieve profitable sales; and quality assurance courses to help rural businesses to prepare to accreditation. A wide variety of projects have been supported in the area, ranging from the provision of a rural coalfields development worker based in Hadston to a grant towards a centre for voluntary organisations to provide a "one stop" service. Since 1989, the area has had £165,000 of funding approved under the rural development programme.
The Rural Development Commission has just begun a review of its rural priority areas. It has published its proposals for handling the review, which it expects to complete later this year.
Enterprise support for small and medium-sized businesses in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area is provided by the training and enterprise council for Northumberland at its customer support centre in Alnwick, and includes access to business counselling services. The Northumberland TEC also provides a range of training support measures, including the business enterprise programme and business growth training.
From its total budget for this financial year of over £14.8 million the TEC has contracted to provide 126,000 weeks of youth training, or more than 2,000 places, and 42,000 weeks of employment training, or a further 1,200 places. I am glad to say that it has been distinguished as the only north-east TEC, and only one of three nationally, to achieve four bonus points in the TEC performance awards for 1991–92.
I congratulate the TEC on its achievements to date. I am sure that it will continue to make a major contribution to the development of the skills of the work force of the area. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees, the development of skills is particularly important when it comes to ensuring economic revival and the strength of the

1167
area's economy. I look forward in due course to seeing the Northumberland TEC's response to the invitation to bid for a one-stop shop.
Mr. Beith: The Minister referred to a number of bodies that are helping in the area. I hope he will note that every one of those bodies treats the coalfield area as a whole and works throughout it. Not one of them divides it into three separate categories of eligibility, as his Department has done up to now, and as I hope it will stop doing when it publishes its new map.
Mr. Sainsbury: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that they, like my Department, are seeking to target their help effectively to where it is most needed. I recognise that the area, like the rest of Britain, has been experiencing difficult trading conditions in recent times, and I note from the submission made by the district council that the position of the area in relation to the whole of Great Britain is broadly the same now as it was in 1984.
I was also pleased to note, from the same source, its estimate of a net increase of 12 per cent. in the number of VAT-registered businesses in the area over the same period, even in the face of the difficulties to which the submissions, and the right hon. Member, referred. The Government will continue their efforts to dismantle unnecessary bureaucracy and encourage the formation of new businesses.
Despite its relatively small size—approximately 1,000 businesses and a work force of about 14,000—I am pleased to note from local press reports the successes achieved by businesses in the area. I understand that Phoenix Mountaineering, which was set up in Amble 11 years ago, has grown to employ 130 people and has, for the fourth season, been the supplier of ski wear to the British Olympic team. The right hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the company on that. The enterprise of local residents has been further demonstrated by 3 Bears Playthings of Rothbury. which recently received a European Community award under the women's enterprise initiative for creating employment opportunities for women in a rural area.
Understandably, the right hon. Gentleman referred to reductions in employment in the coal industry. I am very much aware of the importance attached by the local community to the last deep mine in Northumberland; as the right hon. Member knows, Ellington is not among the collieries currently under review. My officials in the DTI north-east regional office, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, in his capacity as Minister for the north-east, have had discussions with members of the local business community about the strategic interdependence of coal mining at Ellington, the activities of the port of Blyth and aluminium manufacture at the British Alcan smelter.
The importance of those activities to employment in the immediate area and beyond is recognised. As a result, I assure the right hon. Member that I am fully aware of the local situation and its effect on the local community.
The county of Northumberland has a proud history as one of the earliest areas in which coal was mined on an
1168
industrial scale. It is perhaps inevitable that there have been extensive closures in the last 20 years as coal reserves have become worked out or too costly to access. Northumberland county council has clearly brought out in its submission to me the position since 1980, with closures of six collieries, the last being Ashington in 1988. I recognise that the closure of the Ashington complex, like Ellington outside the Alnwick and Amble travel -to-work area, undoubtedly had its effects in the right hon. Member's constituency.
In recognition of the difficulties faced in the Wansbeck district of the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work area, my Department is supporting the work of the Wansbeck initiative. That body involves local authority, central Government and enterprise agency members and is aimed at the regeneration of the area, which includes the former Ashington complex. Substantial progress has been made in dealing with the residues of coal mining, and the plans for the Ashington business park mark the next stage in the reclamation of the area. When completed, those will provide landscaped amenity land and a 50-acre business park capable of providing 500,000 sq ft of accommodation.
The right hon. Member will welcome the efforts currently being made by the reconstituted Northumberland coalfields task force, in which my Department participates, to regenerate the area from Alnwick to Cramlington. It has set up a number of subordinate task groups, each served by a particular district. It is perhaps most appropriate to the subject of the economic regeneration of the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area that Alnwick district council looks after the business development group on which DTI, English Estates, British Coal Enterprise, the Rural Development Commission and other bodies are represented, and that co-operation is valuable.
I have carefully noted what the right hon. Gentleman said. I assure him that the points he raised will be carefully considered and taken into account with all the other submissions I have received, including those from Northumberland county council and Alnwick district council specifically concerning the area.
Mr. Beith: I am sure that the Minister will remember that the relevant part of Castle Morpeth borough, and the parishes to which I referred, must also feature in his study.
Mr. Sainsbury: As I said, I have carefully noted everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that I cannot today anticipate the completion of the assisted area map review as a whole and make a specific announcement about a particular area. The review will be concluded as early as possible in 1993. Taking account of the coal inquiry, an announcement will be made as soon as possible after the necessary clearance with the European Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration is being given to bringing charges of perjury against civil servants who gave evidence in the Matrix Churchill case.

  The Attorney-General
  As a result of the submission to the Crown prosecution service by Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise, of papers touching upon evidence given at the trial of three employees of Matrix Churchill, a police investigation is currently being carried out. Any decision as to the prosecution of an individual or individuals, arising out of evidence given at that trial, will be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the conclusion of the police investigation, and after she has had the opportunity of studying the findings of that investigation.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Structure Plans
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the need for agreed local structure plans to be amended, and future structure plans to be drafted, so as to allow for the effects of the recession in the south of England on the likely growth of the working population there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  None, but I would expect such representations to be made to county councils. There is a statutory requirement for them to prepare structure plans that take account of economic and social considerations, and to keep all matters under review that may be expected to affect the development of their areas or the planning of development there.

  Derelict Land Grant, Walsall
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant expenditure there has been in the Metropolitan borough of Walsall council district in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Baldry
  Derelict land grant expenditure in the metropolitan borough of Walsall council district since 1984 is as follows:

  Expenditure (£)

  1984–85

  1,416,000

  1985–86

  1,339,000

  1986–87

  3,026,566

  1987–88

  3,117,492

  1988–89

  3,474,318

  764

  Expenditure (£)

  1989–90

  3,778,999

  1990–91

  3,738,123

  1991–92

  4,222,623

  11992–93

  3,838,000

  Total

  27,951,121

  1 Forecast.

  A further £22,655 derelict land grant has been paid towards reclamation schemes carried out by non-local authority applicants in the metropolitan borough of Walsall council district.

  Housing, Walsall
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new homes will be provided by Walsall metropolitan borough authority in 1993–94; what is the total provision from central funds which will be received by the authority in support of capital expenditure on housing; and what capital expenditure he expects the authority to incur next year.

  Mr. Baldry
  The level of local authority housing capital expenditure in Walsall in 1993–94 is a matter for the borough council to decide in the light of the available resources. The authority's proposed programme for housing capital expenditure in 1993–94, included in their housing investment programme—HIP—submission, indicates no expenditure on new housebuilding by the council. Walsall's HIP allocation for 1993–94 is £10,474,000.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the amounts spent by(a) local authorities and (b) other organisations preparing bids for urban programme funding for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is not our practice to make such estimates. The work will have informed authorities? consideration of what projects to put forward for support from the urban partnership fund; and what to support from their own usable capital receipts.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of all letters and other material sent out by his Department during 1992 dealing with bids for urban programme funding for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. This material could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will break down the extra spending power that he forecasts the urban programme authorities will have as a result of the relaxation of the rules governing the use of capital receipts, by authority;

  (2) if he will make a statement on how he calculated the figure of £500 million as the extra amount that the urban programme authorities would raise as a result of the relaxation of the rules regarding capital receipts.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We estimate that authorities will have £1·75 billion of extra usable capital receipts as a result
  765
  of the relaxation in receipts rules based on authorities forecasts of their receipts in 1992–93. Historically, the urban authorities have had about 30 per cent. of the national total of usable receipts. If this proportion applied to the extra usable receipts, it would provide the urban authorities with about £0.5 billion of extra usable receipts. We have not made any estimates of these receipts at the level of individual local authorities. Local authorities have provided their own forecasts of the receipts they expect to receive during 1992–93 and this information is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of private sector funding given to schemes supported by the urban programme in the current and last three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is available for three years only, as follows:

  Private sector funding of urban programme projects

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  35·4

  1991–92

  22·2

  1992–93

  42·4

  Source: Local authority annual urban programme submissions.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of jobs that have been created and preserved by the urban programme since its inception.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The urban programme has created and preserved 230,990 jobs between 1985–86, the first year for which information is available, and 1991–92.

  Source: Local authority annual reports and annual urban programme submissions.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received(a) in favour of an (b) against his decision not to consider bids for urban programme funding for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department will be supporting in 1993–94 substantial urban programme—UP—commitments amounting to £156 million and considering bids for support for new projects from the £20 million uncommitted UP resources which form the urban partnership fund.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the urban programme funding planned for 1992–93 related to on-going commitments; and how much was to be made available for new bids.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We expect around two-thirds of the urban programme resources allocated to local authorities in any year to relate to continuing commitments, with the balance for new projects.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment how many schemes supported by the urban programme he has visited.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Department of the Environment Ministers visit the urban priority authorities on a regular basis and have been pleased to see a wide range of schemes supported by the urban programme.
  766
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the planned urban block expenditure for 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 by his Department, together with the figures in real terms, allowing for projected inflation, and the percentage increase/decrease each year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The planned urban block expenditure figures for 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are shown in the table; these incorporate the autumn statement changes, including the increase of over £90 million in the resources planned for 1993–94.

  The planned expenditure figures, converted into real terms using latest GDP deflator figures, are in the table, along with the percentage year on year increase/decrease:

  £ million

  1 1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Urban Block planned expenditure

  1,017

  955

  820

  806

  Planned expenditure expressed in real term figures

  1,017

  929

  773

  739

  Percentage increase/decrease

  —

  -8·6

  -16·7

  -4·4

  1Provision based on winter supplementary estimates.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total EC funding received by schemes supported by the urban programme in the current and last three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  European Community funding of local authorities? urban programme schemes is as follows:

  Year

  £ million (rounded)

  1990–91

  9

  1991–92

  26

  1 1992–93

  11

  Source: UP claim forms from local authorities.

  Note: Figures for 1989–90 are not available.

  1 To date.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) jobs, (b) training places and (c) schemes are currently supported by the urban programme in each of the urban programme authorities; and what was the allocation for 1992–93 for each of the authorities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to his question on Wednesday 13 January,Official Report, column 656. It is not our policy to publish output data for each individual authority under the urban programme.

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his response has been to the representations made by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority for a review of its standard spending assessment for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I met a delegation from the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority on 12 January
  767
  to hear their representations on our proposals for the 1993–94 revenue support grant settlement. We shall carefully consider their representations before taking decisions on the settlement.

  Housing Refurbishment, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his response has been to the letter sent to him on 17 December 1992 by Liverpool city council in respect of additional funds to provide for the refurbishment of houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked his officials at the Merseyside task force to reply direct.

  EC Environment Inspectorate
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place about the establishment of an EC environment inspectorate within the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: All member states attended a meeting of national experts chaired by the Commission in March 1992 to discuss issues relating to the enforcement of EC environmental legislation, including the establishment of a network of enforcement agencies and the possible creation of an audit-type inspectorate. Subsequently, the Government have continued to press the Commission to bring forward proposals, as originally suggested by the United Kingdom, for a Community body to audit the application of EC environmental legislation, and has secured growing support from other member states for this idea. We will continue to argue its merits.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Royal Household
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the organisational structure of the press facility provided to the royal household by the Central Office of Information; and what is its remit;

  (2) what was the cost in 1991–92, and what is the provision for 1992–93, of the press facilities provided to the royal household by the Central Office of Information; how many personnel are involved and in what capacities: and how much of the expenditure relates to salaries and staff costs;

  (3) who recruits the personnel who make up the press facility supplied to the royal household by the Central Office of Information; to whom they are accountable; and what is their relationship to the head of the Government press service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the chief executive of the Central Office of Information. I have asked him to write to the?s right hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. Alan Williams, undated:
  768
  You recently tabled three Parliamentary Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concerning press services provided by COI to the Royal Household. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.
  The press facility for the Royal Household is provided by staff employed in COI's eight regional offices in England. The staff are COI employees managed by their regional director but working to the brief of the Royal Household. The remit is to make arrangements for press attendance at visits by senior members of the Royal Family while carrying out their official duties in England.
  The cost of work undertaken for the Royal Household by COI in 1991–92 for press facilities totalled £318,260 excluding VAT. The estimated spend for the same services in 1992–93 is some £350,000 excluding VAT. Normally one or two members of COI staff are involved in providing services for each Royal visit. Approximately 50 per cent. of the expenditure relates to salaries and associated staff costs.
  The personnel who make up the press facility are, as members of the staff of the Central Office of Information, fully accountable to me. Their recruitment, training and career development is arranged with the support of the Information Officer Management Unit which provides similar support to all Information Officers working for Government and for which I am also responsible as the Head of Profession for information staff.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Farms
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the average amounts of capital employed excluding land, on livestock farms within the less-favoured areas at the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1992 edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" contains estimates based on sample surveys of the level of assets employed on livestock farms in the less-favoured areas. The following table shows the average value of total assets, excluding land and buildings, on LFA livestock farms in 1990–91.

  £?000 per farm

  England

  102·2

  Wales

  92·1

  Scotland

  105·4

  Northern Ireland

  57·7

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the average farm incomes for livestock farms in the less-favoured areas for each of the last five years up to 1992, using the notional figures which his Department have used of increases of 29 per cent. for last year and 16 per cent. for this year, split between severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates, based on sample surveys, of the levels of nominal net farm incomes on the various types of livestock farm in the less-favoured areas for the past three years are contained in table 14 of the data prepared for the 1992 autumn review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Year by year comparisons can best be made by reference to results from a constant sample of farms. The following table shows indices of net farm income for each year from 1986–87 to 1992–93 and estimated income levels for the latest available constant sample.
  769

  Average Net farm income on LFA livestock farms

  Severely Disadvantaged Area

  Disadvantaged Area

  All LFA

  1Index

  £?000 per farm

  1Index

  £?000 per farm

  1Index

  £?000 per farm

  1986–87

  80

  —

  113

  —

  82

  —

  1987–88

  118

  —

  218

  —

  125

  —

  1988–89

  145

  —

  293

  —

  154

  —

  1989–90

  103

  —

  152

  —

  106

  —

  1990–91

  87

  8·3

  58

  2·8

  85

  7·1

  1991–92

  110

  10·4

  91

  4·3

  109

  9·1

  1992–932

  128

  12·2

  102

  4·9

  127

  10·6

  1 1989–90–1991–92 = 100

  2(forecast)

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the rate of the hill livestock compensatory allowance to be paid on eligible sheep in the disadvantaged areas within the less favoured areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to announce that following the green pound devaluation with effect from 1 January 1993 the headage payment rate for eligible ewes in disadvantaged areas has been increased by 41p to £2.86 per ewe. A statutory instrument will shortly be laid before Parliament giving effect to the proposed new headage rates that will apply under the 1993 scheme. Payment of claims will start as soon as possible.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of students in higher education left their courses before completion and sought employment in(a) 1982 and (b)

  Mr. Boswell
  Destinations of students who leave courses before completion are not collected. Details of leavers in the old universities are given in table 10 of "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators", 1992 edition, a copy of which is in the Library. Available data for the former polytechnics and colleges are shown in DFE statistical bulletin 9/92, which is also in the Library. The next departmental report will also contain a table of estimated wastage rates; it shows wastage at 13.1 per cent. in 1982–83 and 15·3 per cent. in 1990–91.

  GCSE Grade Changes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many candidates in 1990, 1991 and 1992, in the Southern examining group area, had their grades altered due to a year-on-year change in standards of more than 3 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  New GCSE awarding procedures were introduced by the Southern examining group in 1992. To ensure that these did not result in a change in standards, awarding officers' judgments were reconsidered in those cases where there was a significant change in the proportions of candidates achieving particular grades. The awarding officers' judgments were endorsed in all but two 770
  subjects; in these, 329 grades out of 19,374–1·7 per cent. —were revised. These procedures were not in operation in 1990 and 1991.

  GCSE
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines his Department has issued to examining groups on changes to GCSE statistical standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has given no guidelines to the examining groups on this or any other matter relating to the conduct of school examinations. My right hon. Friend will, however, shortly publish a mandatory code of practice which all groups will be required to follow as a condition of his continuing approval of GCSE qualifications.

  Examinations (Criterion Referencing)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council gave permission for examination groups to move from full criterion referencing to norm referencing; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the original timetable for GCSE grades to be fully criteria referenced; when it was revised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The national trend in the development of school examinations has been in the opposite direction to that implied by the hon. Member's questions. The introduction of the GCSE in 1988 marked a move to a more criterion-referenced examination system. The alignment of the GCSE with national curriculum requirements progressively from 1994 will mark a further move in that direction, since assessment in each of the foundation subjects will be related to clearly defined statements of attainment. The timetable for this alignment has not been altered: it will begin in summer 1994 with English, mathematics and science.

  Teacher Education Units
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the future of teacher education units and the tutors involved in them in existing higher education institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on 17 November 1992,Official Report, column 123.

WALES

  Operation Wizard
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the commissioning of Touche Ross by the Welsh Development Agency as part of the team of consultants working on the Operation Wizard exercise;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the commissioning of consultants Outram Cullinan and Co., Villiers street, London WC2, as part of the Operation Wizard exercise;

  (3) what ministerial approval was given for expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency on merchant banking consultancy advice on a wholesale or retail management buy-out of WDA operations in 1989–90; what consultations were undertaken; and what guidelines were set for the Operation Wizard exercise.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 13 January 1993]: The then Secretary of State considered possible options for the future of the WDA's functions in 1988 and 1989. This consideration included professional advice commissioned by the agency on a range of options for increasing private sector involvement. It was decided that the WDA's range of functions should remain unchanged subject to regular review from time to time under the cycle of financial management and policy reviews.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to improve the dental health of pupils in the schools of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is the responsibility of health authorities, in conjunction with family health services authorities, to procure adequate dental health services for their area based on their assessment of local need.

  The Welsh Office has circulated an "Oral Health Gain Protocol for Wales" which should assist health authorities in this process.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in order of dental health the health districts of Wales according to United Kingdom dental surveys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The decannial United Kingdom child and adult dental health surveys do not provide data in the form requested.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) Welsh medium schools and (b) English medium schools have been (i) opened and (ii) closed since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department does not collect information in the form requested. The provision of both Welsh and English medium schools is the responsibility of the local education authority.

  Health Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he will take to improve health education in Wales(a) overall and (b) in respect of dental health.
  772
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  (a) The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has published a series of strategic documents entitled "Plans for Action". The latest document in this series, published in July 1992, presents specific health targets, many seeking improved lifestyles and enabling progress to be measured against the extensive health surveys undertaken throughout Wales.

  Under the new GP contract health promotion arrangements, GPs are required by their terms of service to provide health promotion advice to their patients. New arrangements from 1 July 1993 will ensure that their advice will be delivered within a framework of national and local priorities.

  (b) The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has appointed an oral and dental adviser with responsibility for dental health education in Wales.

  The Welsh Office's recently issued oral health protocol laid down a number of major service targets relating to dental health education including the provision that dentists offer advice to patients on these issues.

  Dyslexic Children
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiatives he will take concerning the needs of dyslexic children in the schools of Wales; and what is his policy concerning dyslexic children in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to identify, assess and make appropriate provision for children with special educational needs, including those who are dyslexic. The Welsh Office supports expenditure by local education authorities for the training of designated teachers of special educational needs in ordinary schools and the initial training of educational psychologists, both of which can help children with dyslexia.

  Our proposals in the Education Bill to provide new rights and improve the assessment and statementing process will be of benefit to all children with special needs.

  English Texts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the texts by English language Welsh authors proposed for particular study by 14-year-olds in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The first statutory assessments of 14-year-olds in the subject of English, planned for June 1993, will include a test of reading against prescribed texts.

  A booklet for study by 14-year-old pupils who are at levels 3 to 4 of the national curriculum was announced in November 1992. Based on books which are widely available in secondary schools, the list includes "Illustrated Poetry Broadsheets: Poetry from Wales" which is a thematic collection of poetry by Welsh authors. The wider recommended anthology for all abilities was announced on 4 January 1993 and includes extracts from Dylan Thomas's "A Child's Christmas in Wales" and R. S. Thomas's "Cynddylan on a Tractor".

  The booklists were drawn up by the School Examinations and Assessment Council in consultation with the Curriculum Council for Wales and the National Curriculum Council. The texts are suitably demanding for pupils of this age, and reflect the requirements of the reading attainment target in English.

SCOTLAND

  Mr. Thomas Adleigh
  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will direct that a fatal accident inquiry be held into the death of Mr. Thomas Adleigh of 27 Glencairn road, Paisley.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The death of Mr. Adleigh was reported by Strathclyde police to the procurator fiscal, Paisley who has sought further information as to the circumstances. A decision on whether a fatal accident inquiry will be held into Mr. Adleigh's death will be taken at the conclusion of the procurator fiscal's inquiries.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on non-domestic rates for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  Continuing our policy of reducing Scottish business rate poundages to the level of the English national non-domestic rate, Scottish businesses will pay £68 million less in rates next year than they otherwise would have done. This is a poundage reduction of over 7 per cent. in real terms and an actual reduction in cash terms of 4 per cent.

  The total reduction, due to the Government?s policy and our earlier decision to limit increases in poundages to no more than inflation from 1989–90 onwards, is now at least £400 million.

  1992–93 Poundages P

  1993–94 Pre-NNDR Reduction P

  1993–94 Poundages P

  1993–94 Poundages at Ratepayer Level P

  Reduction to Ratepayer P

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  9·6

  9·9

  7·1

  53·8

  4·4

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  10·0

  10·4

  7·5

  54·2

  4·5

  Cunninghame

  12·2

  12·6

  9·3

  56·0

  4·9

  Dumbarton

  11·2

  11·6

  8·5

  55·2

  4·7

  East Kilbride

  8·2

  8·5

  5·9

  52·6

  4·2

  Eastwood

  5·4

  5·6

  3·6

  50·3

  3·6

  Glasgow City

  16·6

  17·2

  13·0

  59·7

  5·8

  Hamilton

  10·6

  11·0

  8·0

  54·7

  4·6

  Inverclyde

  9·3

  9·6

  6·9

  53·6

  4·3

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  9·6

  9·9

  7·1

  53·8

  4·4

  Kyle and Carrick

  10·0

  10·4

  7·5

  54·2

  4·5

  Monklands

  10·6

  11·0

  8·0

  54·7

  4·6

  Motherwell

  9·6

  9·9

  7·1

  53·8

  4·4

  Renfrew

  10·6

  11·0

  8·0

  54·7

  4·6

  Strathkelvin

  9·3

  9·6

  6·9

  53·6

  4·3

  Angus

  8·2

  8·5

  6·4

  50·0

  3·6

  Dundee City

  13·4

  13·9

  10·8

  54·4

  4·6

  Perth and Kinross

  8·6

  8·9

  6·7

  50·3

  3·7

  Orkney

  40·2

  41·6

  41·6

  41·6

  0·0

  Shetland

  40·2

  41·6

  41·6

  41·6

  0·0

  Western Isles

  55·1

  57·0

  52·8

  52·8

  4·2

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Palaces (Fire Protection)
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to set up the inquiry to assess the adequacy of fire protection measures at the royal palaces; and if he will make a statement.
  774
  The reduction of £68 million is larger than had been allowed for in drawing up the spending plans we made last year and £56 million of it will be met by increased revenue support grant to local authorities. Local authorities are being asked to contribute the remaining £12 million through efficiency savings.

  The table shows the rate poundages which I intend to prescribe for each local authority in regulations I shall lay before Parliament very shortly. Apart from Orkney and Shetland and, as a result of the reduction for next year, Kincardine and Deeside, which are at the English level, the poundage of every authority has been reduced in cash terms. As last year, I have decided to make larger reductions to those poundages furthest from the English non-domestic rate. As a result, the poundage reductions in real terms range from over 8·8 per cent. in Glasgow to 2·1 per cent. in the case of Kincardine and Deeside.

  The reduction in poundages will again be accompanied by an associated reduction in derating: from 25 to 17·5 per cent. The reduction takes into account the additional £40 million reduction in poundages for this year made following the 1992 Budget.

  Our decision to reduce business rates and to increase revenue support grant next year beyond our original plans yet again, at a time when resources are very scarce, continues to demonstrate the high priority we give to it. We remain committed to eliminating the difference between Scotland and England just as quickly as resources permit.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am pleased to announce that Sir Alan Bailey, former permanent secretary to the Department of Transport, has agreed to chair the inquiry. The other members are Mr. Donald Insall, architect and planning consultant and principal of Donald W. Insall and Associates and Mr. Philip Kilshaw, former deputy senior fire safety inspector in Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate. The terms of reference of the inquiry are:
  775
  "In the light of the Windsor Castle fire to assess the adequacy of fire protection measures for the royal palaces and residences for which I have a financial responsibility, and to report to me."

  The inquiry group has already started work and I hope that it will be able to report within three to four months. The report will be published. I shall make a further statement when I have considered the report.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or, allocated since his last announcement on 3 December 1992.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my announcement on 3 December,Official Report, column 325, I am pleased to inform the House of the acceptance of two offers in lieu of tax. The offers are of chattels from Sheringham Hall, which will satisfy £119,119 tax, and a Charles I silver gilt standing cup and cover, which will satisfy £199,401 tax. The chattels will be allocated to the National Trust; no decision has yet been made on the allocation of the cup.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning United States policy towards Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None in recent months.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes have been made to the scope of the missile technology control regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the light of concerns about the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, members of the missile technology control regime agreed, in July 1992, to extend the scope of the regime to cover delivery systems for such weapons, as well as those for nuclear weapons. Technical discussions on details of the changes have now been concluded and members formally adopted the revised guidelines on 7 January 1993. These changes will further strengthen international efforts to combat missile proliferation and to frustrate attempts to deploy weapons of mass destruction. We shall continue to urge all states who are not members of the regime to adopt similar responsible policies on missile exports. A copy of the new guidelines will be placed in the Library of the House.

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

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following meetings are planned:18 January: Economic and Finance Council 18–19 January: Agriculture Council
  776
  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  (a) Economic and Finance Council—18 January

  —Multilateral surveillance including national actions to promote economic recovery in Europe

  —Action at the level of the Community to promote economic recovery in Europe

  —Medium term Financial Assistance (possible)

  (b) Agriculture Council—18–19 January

  —GATT

  —Accelerated transitional measures for Portugal (possible)

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 18 January to conduct a multilateral surveillance of the economies of member states and the package of Community measures to promote economic recovery in Europe which was agreed at the European Council in Edinburgh in December.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 18 and 19 January. Ministers will discuss recent developments in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations. Accelerated transitional measures for Portugal may also be discussed.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and percentage of people leaving youth training in 1991 in(a) Walsall and (b) west midlands, who were without full-time employment after (i) six months, (ii) nine months and (iii) 12 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Of those young people leaving youth training providers during 1991 53 per cent. in the Walsall training and enterprise council area and 51 per cent. in west midlands were not in full-time employment six months after leaving. Twenty-three per cent. described themselves as unemployed; the rest as in part-time work, on another training programme, or on a full-time course at a college or training centre or doing something else. No information is collected about trainee activity after nine and 12 months.

  Solvent-based Paints
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of experience outwith the United Kingdom on legislation governing the conditions under which solvent-based paints can be used and the circumstances under which they can be applied; and if she will review the United Kingdom legislation in the light of the assessment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No assessment has been made of experience outside the United Kingdom on legislation governing the use of solvent-based paints. However, the dangers presented by these products are under regular review, both within the United Kingdom by the Health and Safety Executive and within the European Community through expert working groups involving representatives from all member states. In the United Kingdom, the use of solvent-based paints at work is subject to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. Specific guidance published by the HSE recommends the substitution of solvent-based paints by less harmful substances, such as water-based paints.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans her Department has to extend the range of services offered by jobcentres to the unemployed; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what are the rules by which jobcentre managers accept advertisements for services to the unemployed; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what plans her Department has to give jobcentre managers greater discretion on acceptance of advertisements for services to the unemployed; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 14 January 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions to her about the range of services offered by Jobcentres, the policy on advertising in Jobcentres and the flexibility which my local managers have on the display of advertising material. These fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Secretary of State for Employment recently announced a new package of Employment Service measures aimed at providing nearly 500,000 extra opportunities in 1993–94 for long-term unemployed and other people disadvantaged in the labour market. As part of this package, we are introducing a new Jobplan workshop for people unemployed for 12 months. Jobplan will be a five day assessment workshop, which will help identify strengths and skills, set new job goals and draw up an action plan for the client's route back to work.
  We are also expanding our Jobclub and Job Interview Guarantee programmes, which have proved to be very successful, as well as implementing a significant development of Work Trials. Work trials allow people the chance to try out a job for up to three weeks while retaining their entitlement to benefit.
  Jobclub is aimed at people who have been unemployed for six months or more, and others at a disadvantage in the labour market. Jobclub members are given help and guidance in a variety of job hunting methods including interview technique, advice on applying for jobs, completion of application forms and preparation of CVs. Members also have access to telephones, stationery, newspapers, stamps and other resources.
  The Job Interview Guarantee Scheme is also aimed at people who have been unemployed for six months or more. It offers employers a fuller recruitment and selection service in return for a guarantee that they will consider our long-term unemployed clients for their vacancies. I enclose a leaflet setting out the full range of help which unemployed people can access through Jobcentres.
  Our policy for advertising services in Jobcentres is that my local office managers have full discretion to allow companies to display material likely to help our clients find work or training opportunities, providing there is sufficient space available and that no charge is made to the jobseeker for the service offered. There are no plans to change this arrangement.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate in percentage and absolute terms of unemployment among black adults in England and Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Results from the labour force survey show that in summer—June to August—1992 there were an estimated 102,000 black people aged 16 and over, in England and Wales, who were unemployed on the international agreed International Labour Organisation definition. The International Labour Organisation unemployment rate for the group was 25 per cent.

  Construction Site Cradles
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken or is envisaged by the Health and Safety Executive to restrict or prohibit the use of modular system cradles coupled by drop pins on construction sites.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive has alerted users of any suspended access equipment on which drop nose pins link together sections of cradles, to the need for thorough examination and maintenance before such equipment is used.

  The Health and Safety Executive has also met representatives of the Suspended Access Equipment Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Scaffolding Contractors. It was agreed that such cradles should be designed so that failure of a key component should not lead to total failure of the whole suspended access platform and that the training and competence of those who install and use them is important. The Health and Safety Executive has successfully advocated that these points be incorporated into the relevant British Standard codes of practice and is updating its own guidance on precautions essential for the safe use of suspended access equipment.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the legal effect of the statement in leaflet IS 26 that a person aged 16 or 17 years has a right to the offer of a youth training place; and what remedy is available if such an offer is not made.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statement reflects the Government's guarantee of the offer of a suitable youth training place to young people aged 16 and 17 who are not in full-time education or a job and are seeking training. The Department contracts with training and enterprise councils for the delivery of the guarantee at local level and various remedies are available to my right hon. Friend if training and enterprise councils fail to deliver the guarantee. The contract requires training and enterprise councils to record and investigate any complaint made directly by or on behalf of a person in the guarantee group to the effect that the guarantee has not been discharged in respect of that person. Training and enterprise councils are required to use best endeavours to remedy any complaint which is upheld or, if a remedy is not available, to notify my right hon. Friend in writing.

DEFENCE

  Hokum Helicopter
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the capability of the Hokum helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  While we have a reasonable appreciation of the capabilities of all helicopters, including the Hokum, which might be used in the anti-armour role, a full assessment of the Hokum's capabilities will only be undertaken if it is offered in the forthcoming attack helicopter competition.

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the capability of the Apache helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  While we have a reasonable appreciation of the capabilities of all helicopters, including the Apache, which might be used in the anti-armour role, a full assessment of the Apache's capabilities will only be undertaken if it is offered in the forthcoming attack helicopter competition.

  Gulf Trust
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria have been regarded as relevant in judging eligibility and in making distributions to beneficiaries from the Gulf Trust fund or the relevant service benevolent funds.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The deed of the trust for the Gulf Trust prescribes that moneys must be used to meet the financial needs of the beneficiaries and for the relief of sickness, distress and any other physical or mental disability, arising from the involvement of the armed forces in military or other operations relating to or in connection with the Gulf conflict. Potential beneficiaries are limited to members of the armed forces involved in the Gulf conflict; civilian personnel attached to or accompanying the armed forces in the Gulf conflict; and their respective dependants. The support which the service benevolent funds provide can thus cover a wide range of areas and will vary from case to case, in accordance with individual need.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the range of needs which have been judged eligible, and have been met, by distribution from the Gulf Trust fund through the service benevolent funds.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The support that the service benevolent funds provide can cover a wide range of areas within the terms of the trust deeds and charity law. It is not the practice of the funds to release details of how they have dealt with individual cases.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest figure of distributions made by the service benevolent funds, specifying the figures for the three individual funds, from moneys passed to them from the Gulf Trust fund.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  780

  £

  King George's Fund for Sailors

  nil

  Army Benevolent Fund

  304,990

  RAF Benevolent Fund

  287,630

  The figures include moneys paid out up to 31 December 1992, but exclude adminstrative costs and miscellaneous expenses. Some of the payments that were made in the form of loans have already been repaid.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest available figure of the sums donated by members of the public to the Gulf Trust fund; what total sums, and under what apportionment, have been passed on to the three service benevolent funds from the Gulf Trust fund; and on what basis the apportionments have been calculated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1992, a total of £3,008,051 had been donated to the Gulf Trust fund. No block allocation of funds has been passed by the united services trustee to the service benevolent funds. The benevolent funds are meeting claims arising from the Gulf conflict by payments made to them as necessary by the Gulf Trust fund. The amount of money allocated to each of the service benevolent funds will be announced when the Gulf Trust is wound up.

  RAF Church Fenton
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans for the future use or disposal of the RAF Church Fenton headquarters buildings and residential accommodation have been made, following recent decisions about the RAF's future use and requirements of the landing facilities there.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The airfield at RAF Church Fenton is designated as a relief landing ground for RAF Linton on Ouse and this requirement will exist for the foreseeable future. The married quarters are to be retained for service use. The majority of the technical site, however, including the headquarters buildings is scheduled for disposal.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Self-employed Businesses
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of self-employed businesses in the north-east for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The available information for the northern region—Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Cumbria, Durham and Cleveland—based on the labour force survey, is given in the table.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on 14 December,Official Report, column 27, what discussions he has had with the Vietnamese Government with a view to recovering outstanding trade debts.
  781
  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department has attempted to negotiate the settlement of trade debts owed by Vietnam on which ECGD has paid claims. These negotiations have proved fruitless. The Vietnamese Government have now signalled their intention to regularise their payments position with their creditors and to seek a formal restructuring of the official debt under the auspices of the Paris club.

  VAT registrations and deregistrations in Northern region

  Registrations (000?s)

  Deregistrations (000?s)

  Net change (000?s)

  1987

  7·3

  6·2

  1·1

  1988

  8·3

  6·7

  1·7

  1989

  9·1

  6·8

  2·4

  1990

  8·3

  6·7

  1·6

  1991

  6·9

  6·8

  0·1

  These figures reflect the success of the Government?s Policies in encouraging enterprise and new business formation within the region.

  Self-employed in Northern region

  (000's)

  1983

  91

  1984

  92

  1985

  104

  1986

  105

  1987

  108

  1988

  113

  1989

  110

  1990

  115

  1991

  115

  1992

  114

  These figures underline the success of the Government's policy in encouraging the growth of the enterprise culture and self-employment within the region.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with(a) Nottinghamshire county council, (b) the European Commission and (c) any other bodies on the question of the compatibility of state aid to the nuclear industry with EC treaty provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are aware that Nottinghamshire county council has made representations to the European Commission concerning the Commission's decision in March 1990 not to raise objections to the provision of state aids to the nuclear industry. It is for the Commission to respond to these representations as it deems appropriate.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his curent target in megawatts for wind power electricity.

  North-East Businesses
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the net number of new businesses in the north-east for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The available information for the northern region—Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Cumbria, Durham and Cleveland—based on VAT data, is given in the table. During the period 1987 to 1991 the number of businesses registered for VAT in the northern region increased by 6,800.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on 16 November,Official Report, column 69.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will respond to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Energy on renewable energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's response to the Energy Select Committee report on renewable energy was announced to the House on 16 July 1992,Official Report, column 997.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 479, when he received the report by the renewable energy advisory group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The report by the Renewable Energy Advisory Group was received by the President's office on 24 November 1992. Its printing was then expedited to make it available to Members before the Christmas recess.

  International Trade
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of imports, exports and trade balance in manufactured goods with the rest of the OECD countries, in total, and by individual country, in(a) 1970, (b) 1979 and (c) for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Information for 1979 and 1991 is given in the table. Information for 1970 and each year from 1980 to 1990 could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  783

  United Kingdom trade in manufactured goods1 with OECD countries

  £ million

  1979

  1991

  Exports

  Imports

  Crude balance

  Exports

  Imports

  Crude balance

  OECD total

  23,260

  27,208

  -3,948

  69,553

  79,699

  -10,146

  France

  2,320

  3,038

  -718

  9,120

  8,749

  371

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  2,055

  1,928

  127

  5,104

  4,610

  494

  Netherlands

  1,929

  1,845

  84

  6,133

  7,112

  -979

  Germany F.R. 2

  2,781

  5,310

  -2,529

  12,564

  16,484

  -3,920

  Italy

  1,175

  1,971

  -797

  5,135

  5,649

  -514

  Irish Republic

  1,835

  877

  959

  3,985

  2,860

  1,125

  Denmark

  559

  412

  147

  1,248

  1,198

  50

  Iceland

  37

  22

  15

  85

  39

  46

  Faroe Island

  3

  1

  2

  6

  3

  3

  Norway

  443

  482

  -38

  1,078

  991

  87

  Sweden

  942

  1,275

  -333

  2,032

  2,657

  -624

  Finland

  325

  572

  -247

  643

  1,252

  -609

  Switzerland

  2,225

  2,508

  -283

  2,007

  3,659

  -1,651

  Austria

  229

  328

  -98

  738

  892

  -154

  Portugal

  261

  245

  16

  880

  847

  33

  Spain

  360

  441

  -81

  3,340

  1,930

  1,410

  Yugoslavia

  153

  37

  116

  170

  134

  37

  Greece

  242

  58

  184

  499

  206

  293

  Turkey

  129

  19

  110

  547

  298

  250

  Ceuta and Melilla

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Canary Islands

  24

  5

  19

  48

  4

  44

  Japan

  481

  1,441

  -960

  1,929

  6,655

  -4,726

  Australia

  743

  247

  496

  1,229

  416

  813

  New Zealand

  284

  19

  265

  233

  52

  181

  Greenland

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Canada

  648

  519

  130

  1,148

  1,024

  125

  USA

  3,075

  3,610

  -535

  9,650

  11,978

  -2,328

  1 Manufactured goods are defined as sections 5–8 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  2 1991 figures include the former German Democratic Republic.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of the world trade in manufactures in(a) 1962, (b) 1970 and (c) for each year since 1979 to the present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures requested are shown its the table.

  United Kingdom value share of exports of manufactures from the MMC1 to the World.

  Year

  Per cent.

  1962

  15·5

  1970

  10·6

  1979

  9·1

  1980

  9·6

  1981

  8·5

  1982

  8·4

  1983

  7·9

  1984

  7·5

  1985

  7·8

  1986

  7·6

  1987

  8·1

  1988

  8·3

  1989

  8·2

  1990

  8·6

  1991

  8·5

  1 Main Manufacturing Countries.

  Source: Table E1, Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, Annual Supplement No. 2, 1981.

  Table E1, Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, Annual Supplement No. 13, 1992

  There has been a stable or increasing United Kingdom share throughout the 1980s overall, after years of decline.

  Pit Closures
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to extend the term of the existing redundancy agreement for miners following the High Court judgment preventing the immediate closure of pits; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. British Coal's redundancy terms are a matter for British Coal. It would, however, seem reasonable for the corporation not to determine its redundancy arrangements from 1 April 1993 until at least the outcome of the coal review is known.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the submission to him from Birmingham city council on the impact of coal industry restructuring.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have seen and considered the paper, a copy of which was handed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). We are taking its contents into account along with the other submissions we have received in the context of the coal review.

  Mr. Mike O?Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to repeal or amend section 46 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: I am considering British Coal's suggestion that this provision be

  785
  repealed, along with all the other evidence to the coal review. We shall shortly publish a White Paper setting out the results of that review.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the first annual reports on audit regulation of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants as recognised supervisory bodies under Part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have now received the first annual reports of these two associations on their activities as recognised supervisory bodies for the regulation of

  Title

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–931£

  Total £

  Dairy Farm, Belfast

  140,411·00

  2,294,559·92

  2,467,744·28

  40,601·58

  4,943,316·78

  North Howard Street, Belfast

  145,962·67

  1,505,163·58

  1,771,311·17

  998,451·68

  4,420,889·10

  Ashton Street, Belfast

  65,442·69

  315,463·54

  637,434·64

  4,365·05

  1,022,695·92

  Bryson Street, Belfast

  —

  —

  613,745·30

  317,898·25

  931,643·55

  Shantallow Village, Londonderry

  —

  —

  1,099,774·66

  1,784,814·94

  2,884,589·60

  Inner City Trust Heritage Centre, Londonderry

  —

  —

  —

  625,000·00

  625,000·00

  Community Enterprise Centre, Creggan, Londonderry

  —

  —

  —

  15,692·59

  15,692·59

  1 To date.

  Costs are generally shared equally between the International Fund for Ireland and the Department of the Environment (NI).

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the sums expended on the Community regeneration initiative special project in each year to date; on which projects they were spent; and what were the sources of the funds, showing in each case the amounts or as much of such information as is readily available to him.

  Mr. Atkins
  The sums expended on CRISP in each year to date and the projects where the money was spent are as follows:

  CRISP town

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–931

  Coalisland

  Cornmill

  12,557·39

  330,079·28

  486,445·41

  Fireclay Works

  —

  11,213·11

  319,805·28

  Weaving Factory

  153,529·75

  113,894·65

  9,300·53

  Carrickmore

  Milestone Centre

  8·480·14

  171,795·47

  1,010,739·55

  Garrison

  Gillaroo Court

  —

  21,531·29

  25,669·47

  Plumbridge

  —

  6,171·05

  17,564·20

  Pettigo

  Environmental Improvements

  —

  14,675·88

  227·86

  786
  company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Community Regeneration
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the sums expended under the Community economic regeneration scheme in each year to date and detailing the projects supported and the sources of the funds, showing in each case the amounts, or as much of such information as is readily available to him.

  Mr. Atkins
  The sums expended on the Community economic regeneration scheme in each year to date and the details of the projects supported are as follows:

  CRISP town

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–931

  Miscellaneous

  —

  442·50

  —

  Derrygonnelly

  Environmental Improvements

  4,838·22

  5,230·93

  —

  Creamery Complex

  —

  5,578·07

  51,597·82

  Newtownhamilton

  Core Project

  —

  2,038·15

  2,394·05

  Belcoo

  Environmental Improvements

  —

  4,731·79

  17,347·78

  Core Project

  —

  753·82

  34·49

  Dromore, County Tyrone

  Environmental Improvements

  —

  22,566·78

  44,636·90

  Workspace Units

  2,921·45

  7,448·65

  110,350·78

  Cullyhanna

  Core Project

  —

  236·54

  3,311·03

  Portaferry

  Brewery Yard

  —

  14,363·87

  55,721·85

  Downpatrick

  Core Project

  —

  555·42

  3,220·00

  Castlewellan Core Project

  —

  14,597·81

  5,828·44

  Crossmaglen

  Core Project

  —

  —

  8,237·37

  Drumquin

  Core Project

  —

  —

  6,254·31

  787

  CRISP town

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–931

  Hilitown

  The Downshire Arms

  —

  10,724·74

  132,844·53

  Castlederg

  Castle Site

  23,920·22

  48,495·00

  32,654·00

  Environmental Improvements

  5,270·29

  35,196·00

  32,493·00

  Cushendall

  Core Project

  —

  —

  54·20

  Keady

  Environmental Improvements

  2,648·72

  4,525·50

  211,140·95

  Old Mill

  —

  32,852·75

  35,560·15

  Draperstown

  Environmental Improvements

  —

  13,789·88

  1,491·50

  Belleek

  Environmental Improvements

  9,029·69

  53,023·95

  3,268·94

  Gateway Centre

  —

  92,518·50

  256,668·12

  Stewartstown

  Environmental Improvements

  —

  4,373·63

  9,240·37

  Core Project

  —

  9·78

  17,935·22

  1To 8 January 1993.

  Costs of the core projects and environmental improvement elements of CRISP are shared equally by the International Fund for Ireland and the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland.

  Information on the urban development grant element of CRISP is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. This grant is for the refurbishment of property and is available throughout Northern Ireland outside Belfast and Londonderry. It is wholly funded by the International Fund for Ireland.

  Water Services
  Mr. William O?Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the regional rate paid by ratepayers in Northern Ireland is charged for water services, including sewage disposal.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: Although the regional rate is based on expenditure by central Government in Northern Ireland on services which in Great Britain would be undertaken by local authorities, it is essentially a general charge and the proceeds are not allocated to the component services. However, since 1991–92 arrangements have been made to appropriate in aid of water services, including sewage disposal, the relevant share of regional rate income to facilitate transition to commercial accounting procedures. In 1992–93 the share of the regional rate appropriated in aid of these services is equivalent to poundage of 65·63 p.

PRIME MINISTER

  Objectives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are his objectives for 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  Among the Government's objectives for 1993 are continuing to work for economic growth and recovery and to encourage British industry to take advantage of the great opportunities offered by the single market; reducing the burden of regulations on business; pressing ahead with our reforms of education and health so that there will be more grant-maintained schools and more GP fund holders; continuing to drive for a return to basics in our schools and to give parents more information about how their children are doing; extending home ownership; making further progress with privatisation and contracting out; strengthening and modernising our police force and cracking down on juvenile offenders in particular; continuing our reforms as part of the citizens charter programme to give more power to those who use our public services; bringing forward proposals to develop a network of voluntary help in local communities; defending Britain's interests in Europe and the world.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, of 14 December,Official Report, column 34, what was the result of his inquiries relating to Telecom's arrangements for incoming calls at the Meadowbank stadium for journalists attending the Edinburgh summit.

  The Prime Minister
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 16 December setting out the telecommunications arrangements at the European Council media centre.

  Peerages
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the peerages created since 30 November 1990, together with the dates on which the holders were introduced.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows:

  Peers created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Browne-Wilkinson (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1991

  15 October 1991

  Lord Mustill (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  10 January 1992

  11 March 1992

  Lord Slynn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  11 March 1992

  11 March 1992

  Lord Woolf (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1992

  1 November 1992

  Peers created under the Life Peers Act 1958

  Lord Waddington

  4 December 1990

  4 December 1990

  Lord Sterling of Plaistow

  17 January 1991

  23 January 1991

  Lord White of Hull

  25 January 1991

  29 January 1991

  Lord Runcie

  1 February 1991

  26 February 1991

  Lord Pallumbo

  4 February 1991

  12 February 1991

  Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach

  5 February 1991

  20 February 1991

  789

  Created

  Introduced

  Baroness James of Holland Park

  7 February 1991

  19 February 1991

  Lord Laing of Dunphail

  8 February 1991

  19 February 1991

  Baroness Seccombe

  14 February 1991

  26 February 1991

  Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale

  26 March 1991

  26 March 1991

  Lord Desai

  5 June 1991

  18 June 1991

  Baroness Hamwee

  6 June 1991

  12 June 1991

  Lord Marlesford

  7 June 1991

  11 June 1991

  Lord Judd

  10 June 1991

  25 June 1991

  Baroness Denton of Wakefield

  11 June 1991

  11 June 1991

  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

  14 June 1991

  2 July 1991

  Baroness Mallalieu

  19 June 1991

  19 June 1991

  Lord Hollick

  20 June 1991

  25 June 1991

  Baroness O'Cathain

  21 June 1991

  3 July 1991

  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

  24 June 1991

  9 July 1991

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

  26 June 1991

  26 June 1991

  Lord Skidelsky

  15 July 1991

  17 July 1991

  Baroness Perry of Southwark

  16 July 1991

  16 July 1991

  Lord Cheshire

  17 July 1991

  24 July 1991

  Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden

  29 July 1991

  15 October 1991

  Lord Craig of Radley

  30 July 1991

  16 October 1991

  Lord Rix

  27 January 1992

  12 February 1992

  Lord Prentice

  30 January 1992

  12 February 1992

  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

  12 February 1992

  25 February 1992

  Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

  14 February 1992

  15 July 1992

  Lord Wakeham

  24 April 1992

  28 April 1992

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

  24 April 1992

  23 April 1992

  Lord Taylor of Gosforth

  27 April 1992

  29 April 1992

  Lord Roger of Earlsferry

  29 April 1992

  29 April 1992

  Baroness Thatcher

  26 June 1992

  30 June 1992

  Lord Finsberg

  27 June 1992

  13 July 1992

  Lord Parkinson

  29 June 1992

  7 July 1992

  Lord Healey

  29 June 1992

  1 July 1992

  Lord Owen

  30 June 1992

  8 July 1992

  Lord Howe of Aberavon

  30 June 1992

  1 July 1992

  Lord Lawson of Blaby

  1 July 1992

  6 July 1992

  Lord Merlyn-Rees

  1 July 1992

  7 July 1992

  Lord Howell

  2 July 1992

  9 July 1992

  Lord Moore of Lower Marsh

  3 July 1992

  6 July 1992

  Lord Tebbit

  6 July 1992

  9 July 1992

  Lord Younger of Prestwick

  7 July 1992

  14 July 1992

  Lord Amery of Lustleigh

  8 July 1992

  8 July 1992

  Lord Walker of Worcester

  8 July 1992

  21 June 1992

  Lord Archer of Sandwell

  9 July 1992

  14 July 1992

  Lord Ashley of Stoke

  10 July 1992

  13 July 1992

  Lord Eatwell

  14 July 1992

  19 October 1992

  Lord Weatherill

  14 July 1992

  15 July 1992

  Lord Ewing of Kirkford

  17 July 1992

  26 October 1992

  Lord Geraint

  18 July 1992

  27 October 1992

  Lord Stewartby

  20 July 1992

  20 October 1992

  Lord Clark of Kempston

  21 July 1992

  28 October 1992

  790

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Plant of Highfield

  24 July 1992

  4 November 1992

  Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare

  27 July 1992

  20 October 1992

  Lord Ridley of Liddesdale

  28 July 1992

  28 October 1992

  Baroness Jay of Paddington

  29 July 1992

  21 October 1992

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  30 July 1992

  26 October 1992

  Lord Braine of Wheatley

  10 August 1992

  2 November 1992

  Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

  11 August 1992

  3 November 1992

  Lord Barber of Tewkesbury

  12 August 1992

  2 November 1992

  Lord Hayhoe

  21 August 1992

  3 November 1992

  Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar

  25 August 1992

  4 November 1992

  Lord Elis-Thomas

  18 September 1992

  27 October 1992

  Squatting
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for squatting as an issue to the Department of the Environment.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Treasury (Advice to Ministers)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to market-test the provision of advice to Treasury Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  The provision of advice to Treasury Ministers is one of the Treasury's core functions and there are no plans for it to be market tested.

  London
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Prime Minister what machinery of government deals with London affairs.

  The Prime Minister
  Government deal with issues within their areas of responsibility. The Cabinet sub-committee on London co-ordinates their policies. The 32 London boroughs and the corporation of the City of London are responsible for local government services in London, with joint arrangements where these are necessary.

  Ministerial Committees
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will update the list of ministerial standing Cabinet committees published in May 1992 to include a list of those ad hoc ministerial committees established since the formation of his Government.

  The Prime Minister
  I will publish an updated list shortly.

  Travellers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister where the responsibility lies for caravan site provision for the traditional travelling community.
  791
  The Prime Minister
  The Caravan Sites Act 1968 requires local authorities in England and Wales to provide accommodation on caravan sites for travelling people staying in or resorting to their areas. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, local authorities have a discretionary power to provide sites for travelling people.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister what provisions exist to improve access to state services for the traditional travelling community.

  The Prime Minister
  In England and Wales, the Department for Education and the Welsh Office respectively provide grant support to local education authorities to help them improve the attendance of traveller children at school and meet their particular educational needs. General medical and hospital services are available to travellers on the same basis as to the rest of the population and health authorities are expected to take account of travellers' needs when planning services. In addition, the Department of Health is funding a number of special schemes aimed at meeting the day-to-day needs of such groups as single rough sleepers, families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and traveller families.

  In Scotland, education and health services for travelling people are under regular review by the Secretary of State's advisory committee on travelling people. In Northern Ireland, a document published in November 1992 by the advisory committee on travellers reviewed progress on travelling people's access to services. A consultation process is in train.

  Cabinet Papers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the reason for withholding release of certain Cabinet papers and departmental papers on the royal family and Cyprus beyond 30 years.

  The Prime Minister
  Records relating to these matters are considered for release after 30 years in the normal way in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. Any which are deemed to require protection for longer than 30 years are either closed under section 5(1) or retained in Departments under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 in accordance with the criteria published in the Government's response to the Wilson Committee report "Modern Public Records", Cmnd. 8531.

  Government of Scotland
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what he has done since April 1992 to take stock of how Scotland is governed; when he plans to announce his proposals for the future; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I am examining a wide range of aspects of the governance of Scotland and have had fruitful discussions with numerous people in Scotland representing many walks of life and political viewpoints. Once the review is complete, the Government will announce the results to the House.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to investigate the incidence of poor nutrition and ill health among families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and what representations he has received on this subject.

  The Prime Minister
  There is evidence concerning the association between ill-health and adverse social circumstances, but little to identify specific causes of this, particularly the role of nutrition. Indeed, the nutritional content of the diets of people of all incomes is remarkably similar. A balanced diet with more bread, cereals, seasonal vegetables and fruit, and fewer fatty foods can be cheaper than a less healthy diet. The Nutritional task force set up to help implement the White Paper "Health of the Nation" will seek ways to improve the promotion of healthy eating.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will direct the Secretary of State for Employment to discontinue replying to hon. Members' questions over regional unemployment by referring them to the NOMIS data base in the Library; and if he will make it his policy that the information requested should be published in the Official Report.

  The Prime Minister
  I endorse the procedure followed by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, which is to refer hon. Members to NOMIS when more than 10 figures are asked for. The introduction of this procedure was announced, in answer to a parliamentary question, by the then Secretary of State for Employment, on 19 October 1990. This was done only after extensive consultation with both sides of the House and with the then Speaker. The procedure does not result in withholding information and does not deny hon. Members the opportunity of asking questions about unemployment or other labour market issues. NOMIS is a public data base, which can be accessed through a terminal in the House of Commons Library. It provides an open and an efficient way of publishing statistics, which 1 welcome under the citizens charter. The Official Report has never been a statistical digest.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has made any changes to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 44th Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  With effect from 1 February 1993 my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) and my noble Friend, Lord Newall will become representatives on the delegation and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and my noble Friend, the Earl of Dundee, will become substitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has resigned from the delegation.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.
  793
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Coreper
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes took place in the operation of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the European Council during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

  The Prime Minister
  None, other than that the chair was taken by the British representative.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Village Halls
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to standardise the financial controls on loans given to village halls under different Government schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are no plans to standardise the financial controls on loans given to village halls under different Government schemes. However, the Government keep these schemes under review.

  Cars (Taxation)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield in 1991–92, and what is the latest estimate of yield in 1992–93, from(a) petrol duty, (b) DERV duty, (c) vehicle excise duty, (d) VAT on petrol and derv sales, (e) VAT on vehicle sales and (f) car tax.

  Sir John Cope
  Information on the outturn yield in 1991–92 and the projected yield in 1992–93 is provided in the table:

  1991–92 Outturn £ billion

  1992–93 Forecast £ billion

  Petrol duty

  8·0

  8·3

  DERV duty

  2·8

  2·8

  Vehicle excise duty

  2·9

  3·2

  VAT on petrol and derv

  1·6

  n.a.

  VAT on vehicles sales

  2·7

  n.a.

  Car tax

  1·2

  0·5

  No direct figures are available for the VAT spent on petrol and DERV and on vehicle sales. The table contains estimates of the outturn on total VAT yield that can be attributed to these items on the basis of national accounts data on expenditure. For petrol and DERV the VAT estimate covers only consumers? expenditure—the yield from business expenditure is highly uncertain because the majority of businesses can reclaim the VAT paid as input tax. The relevant data are not available for 1992–93.

  The 1992–93 forecasts for car tax have been revised to take account of abolition of the tax in November 1992.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  IRA Bombing Campaign
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he intends to make in the structure and operations of police forces in England and Wales to counter the current Irish Republican Army bombing campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I consider that the existing operational arrangements for dealing with terrorism are satisfactory.

  Safer Cities
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main achievements of his Department's safer cities initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safer cities projects have been established; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness.

  Mr. Jack
  There are currently 20 safer cities projects which through a partnership approach have delivered over 2,800 crime prevention projects many of which, as the latest safer cities progress report shows, are now delivering effective reductions in both crime levels and the fear of crime.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the prison population.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison population in England and Wales on Wednesday 13 January was 41,134, including 273 prisoners in police cells.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what was achieved by his Department during the United Kingdom presidency.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We made progress on a wide range of interior and justice issues including immigration and asylum policy, police co-operation, action to combat drugs, and judicial co-operation. The meetings of Immigration and Trevi Ministers on 30 November and 1 December reached agreement on a number of issues, notably in relation to various aspects of asylum policy and member states' practices regarding expulsion.

  In addition, at a special meeting of Interior and Justice Ministers held on 18 September, it was agreed to establish a joint group of police and judicial experts to report within six months on the organisation and structures of the Mafia and other international criminal organisations.

  Asylum Applications (Europe)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications from European countries were successful in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for the EC as a whole.
  795
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The large majority of recent asylum applications from the former Yugoslavia are still under consideration. Of applications from other central and eastern European countries that were decided in the period January to November 1992, 3 per cent. were recognised as refugees under the 1951 UN convention and granted asylum. We do not have corresponding information on the outcome of such applications to other EC member states.

  Press Office
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, columns 662–64, what progress has been made in his review of his Department's press office's procedures for handling inquiries about individual inquiries.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have completed the review and am satisfied that, under existing procedures, there is no question of my press office divulging personal details of any individual who has not sought to publicise his own dealings with my Department. I propose to continue this policy while reserving the right to stop silly and unfounded rumours.

  Police (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police are available for duty on the beat in(a) West Yorkshire and (b) the Pudsey division.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the chief constable that a total of 2,834 officers out of the present force establishment are available for patrol duties. The corresponding figure for the Pudsey sub-division is 128.

  Bombing (Manchester)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional measures his Department has taken to assist Greater Manchester police following the bombing in central Manchester on 3 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Operational responsibility for the investigation of the terrorist incidents in central Manchester on 3 December rests with the Greater Manchester police, who are able to draw on any assistance which they might require from the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch. I have every confidence that, as in the investigation of other forms of crime, the police are well equipped to carry out this responsibility.

  Rave Parties
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the power of local authorities to levy charges and set conditions for the holding of rave parties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no plans to make any changes to the present arrangements governing the licensing of such events by local authorities.

  Police (Northumbria)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to meet representatives of the Northumbria police authority to discuss manning levels.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of Northumbria police authority on 10 December to discuss resource matters of concern to them. Staffing levels were included in those discussions.

  Young People (Recidivism)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deal with the problem of recidivism in young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are concerned about recidivism generally. In particular, we believe that more could and should be done to deal with the problem of persistent offending by what appears to be a comparatively small number of juvenile offenders. We are therefore looking urgently and critically at the existing legal and administrative arrangements for responding to juvenile offending.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for consultation on Sunday trading.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement on 26 November that we are consulting the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Keep Sunday Special Campaign about how to reflect their models for reform of the law on Sunday trading in a Government Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend and I have also met representatives from a number of organisations and retailers to discuss our proposals for reform.

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution the Home Office makes to the Government's overall strategy for tackling drug and alcohol abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office works closely with other Government Departments to ensure that the law and the wide range of Government policies for tackling the misuse of drugs and alcohol are effective. It has responsibility for the national criminal intelligence service whose drugs division provides intelligence on drug trafficking to Customs and the police. The Government's drug prevention initiative is co-ordinated by the Home Office through a central drugs prevention unit which manages and supports 20 local drugs prevention teams in England, Scotland and Wales. The work of the prison and probation services includes helping offenders with drug and alcohol problems.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in crime since 1979 for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) South Wales and (c) Neath.

  Mr. Jack
  This answer refers only to England and Wales. Between 1979 and 1991 recorded crime in England and Wales has risen at an average rate of 6·3 per cent. In South Wales it has risen by an average of 7 per cent. Crime figures for Neath are not collected centrally.

  Unemployed Offenders
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in the east midlands and in England and Wales were unemployed in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the employment status of those appearing before the courts in England and Wales is not recorded centrally.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received on the level of funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for the financial year 1993–94 and subsequent years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a number of representations about future levels of section 11 funding from hon. Members, local authorities and representative organisations, individual schools and colleges, professional associations and other interested bodies such as racial equality councils. My right hon. and learned Friend and I regret that in the present economic circumstances it is not possible to sustain throughout the next three years the level of expenditure that had earlier been planned.

  Violent Offences (Women)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the penalties that can be awarded by the courts for violent offences against women.

  Mr. Jack
  Courts already have at their disposal tough maximum penalties for violent crimes against women, as against any victim: life imprisonment is mandatory for murder and is the maximum penalty for manslaughter, rape and the most serious woundings. Indecent assault carries up to 10 years' imprisonment. Within these maxima, it is for the courts alone to determine the most appropriate sentences in individual cases in the light of all the available information about the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.

  Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which came into force on 1 October 1991, the courts now have enhanced powers to sentence violent and sexual offenders; within the statutory maxima, courts may pass longer custodial sentences than would be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, if it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 412, if he will list the cases in which out of court settlements or court awards were made in civil actions against the police between 1988 and November 1992; and what disciplinary or other action was taken in each case against the police officer involved.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Refugees
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia who have been granted entry into Britain in the past 12 months; and what plans he has to increase the number of refugees who will be granted refuge in Britain.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1992, a total of about 5,600 nationals of the former Yugoslavia, excluding dependants, applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. The large majority of these applications are still under consideration and the applicants are being allowed to stay in the meantime.

  In addition, as I announced to the House on 30 November 1992, we are willing to accept 1,000 ex-detainees from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all. The first group of these ex-detainees have already arrived.

  Indictable Offences
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the number of persons found guilty of, or cautioned for, indictable offences, showing those cautioned as a percentage of all found guilty or cautioned for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on persons cautioned and found guilty of indictable offences is published annually in the Command Paper "Criminal statistics, England and Wales". Tables 5.3 and 5.11 of the 1990 publication give the requested data back to 1980. The 1991 volume will be published in February 1993. Table 1 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 30/92 "Cautions, Court Proceedings and Sentencing, England and Wales, 1991" gives estimated data for that year. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Charities
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the support given by the Government to voluntary and charitable organisations in 1992–93; and to how many charities this support was given.

  Mr. Jack
  The information for 1992–93 is not yet available. Details of Government support for the voluntary sector during the last year for which information is available, 1990–91, were given in the reply to a question from the hon. Member for Chislehurst(Mr. Sims) on 16 July 1992, cols 868–69.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford(Mr. Lloyd) on 8 December, col. 555.

  Kent county council has since been granted leave to apply for judicial review of decisions that were taken related to the competitive tendering of prison education. The action is due to be heard in the High Court next month. To avoid prejudicing the outcome of these proceedings and to ensure continuity of education provision in prisons, after 1 April 1993, the prison service has today written to local education authorities and colleges and institutions of further education which currently provide education in prisons. The letter invites them to continue to provide education services in prison establishments on the present basis of remuneration until 31 August 1993, by when the current action and any related legal proceedings should have been resolved.

  It remains the Government's intention to ensure quality and value for money in the future provision of prison education through competition and to let contracts on this basis as soon as is practicable. Accordingly, if local education authorities and colleges and institutions of further education are either unwilling or unable to continue to provide these services on the present terms until 31 August 1993, contracts will be let on the basis of the current competition from 1 April 1993. Otherwise, and subject, of course, to the outcome of the hearing, it is the intention to let such contracts from 1 September 1993.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 597, if he will list the 30 private sector organisations which have bid to provide prison education services in 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. I do not believe it is right to provide individual details of the tenderers bidding to provide future educational services to prison establishments in England and Wales while the competition is still running and decisions on the placing of contracts have yet to be taken. It could commercially disadvantage the Home Office in its negotiations and there is no expectation or understanding on the part of tenderers that the information should be made public.

  Channel Islands (Wartime Occupation)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1992,Official Report, columns 7–8, what account he took, during his review concerning the wartime occupation of the Channel Islands, of the documents held by the authorities in Jersey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None. The Jersey records are not subject to the United Kingdom Public Records Acts and do not come within my responsibilities. Any decision relating to them is wholly a matter for the Jersey authorities.

  EC Border Controls
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what documents or means of identification have to be shown to immigration officers at British ports of embarkation by travellers to another member state of the European Community; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Immigration Act 1971 provides that an immigration officer may require any passenger on embarkation to produce a passport or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the extent to which this power should be exercised in future in relation to travellers to other EC member states.

  Race Relations
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many jobs section 11 funding is supporting in England and Wales currently; and what were the figures for 1992 and in 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under new projects approved for funding from 1 April 1992, a total of 10,118 posts, in full-time equivalent terms, attract grant support under section 11. A final figure for 1991–92 is not yet available, but it is estimated that 10,425 approved posts were funded. In 1990–91, 9,662 approved posts were funded.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inner city projects in England and Wales are being supported by section 11 funding this year; and what were the corresponding figures for 1992 and 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available in the form requested. A project format for section 11 funding was introduced under new administrative arrangements for the grant which came into effect on 1 April 1992. The grant currently supports approximately 870 projects in England and Wales. Very many of these projects relate to activities throughout authorities' areas, both rural and urban.

  Tyre Dumps
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many tyre dumps in the United Kingdom are classified as major hazard sites; what specific precautions have been taken against fire at such dumps; and if he will make a statement; (2) what contingency plans have been prepared for any serious fires at major tyre dumps occurring in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is the duty of each fire authority to make provision for fire-fighting purposes in its area and to ensure that its fire brigade has adequate and efficient fire cover arrangements. These would include contingency plans for all significant fire risks. Those inherent in major tyre dumps, for which the fire service has available special techniques, would typically include arrangements for liaison with the other emergency services and for the evacuation of the area if necessary.

  Following two recent tyre dump fires in Canada and Wales, guidance on the storage of tyres in the open air is

  801
  being revised. No tyre dumps are covered by the CIMAH—Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards—Regulations or the NIHHS—Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances—Regulations.

  From 1 April 1993, all tyre storage in the open air becomes subject to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This will require the occupier or operator of the tyre storage facility to make an application for a licence, under section 30 of the Act to the Local Waste Regulation Authority.

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority in respect of its difficulties in fulfilling its statutory duties; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chairman of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 30 December about the authority's difficulty in complying with the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover in two specific areas. I shall write to the chairman as soon as possible.

  Pescado
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Devon and Cornwall police to raise the fishing vessel Pescado; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The salvage company which has been contracted to raise the Pescado on behalf of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, is monitoring the weather closely and awaits favourable wind and sea conditions for undertaking the salvage operation.

  The chief constable is responsible for the police investigation into the sinking of the Pescado and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation while it is continuing.

  Inner Cities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of self-help employment, social and training projects in inner city areas were supported by section 11, urban programme funds or both in the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available in the form requested

HEALTH

  AIDS
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date the London borough of Bromley applied for AIDS support grant for the current financial year; and what efforts have been made by her Department to urge Bromley to apply for it;

  (2) what amount of AIDS support grant was allocated to each local authority in each year since 1990–91:

  (3) what extra costs she estimates to have been incurred by neighbouring boroughs obliged to deal with HIV/AIDS
  802
  cases turned away by Bromley social services department; and what steps she proposes to take to recompense the neighbouring boroughs;

  (4) by what date London boroughs should apply for the AIDS support grant for 1993–94; and what steps she will take to ensure that the London borough of Bromley applies for the grant on time;

  (5) how many people in each London borough have died from AIDS:

  (6) how many cases of HIV have been reported in the borough of Bromley in each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  In December 1991 the Department issued a circular (LAC(91)22) inviting all social services departments in England to bid for extra resources for HIV and AIDS services in 1992–93 under the AIDS support grant scheme. Criteria for bids under this scheme are set out in the circular. Copies are available in the Library.

  The closing date for bids was 7 February 1992. The London borough of Bromley submitted an application in November 1992 although not in the form and detail set out in departmental guidance. By that time AIDS support grant moneys had been fully committed. The Department was, therefore, unable to allow Bromley's bid to proceed.

  Although not in receipt of AIDS support grant money in 1992–93, we understand that the London borough of Bromley plans to spend £15,000 on HIV and AIDS services in the current year. We have no information to suggest that the borough has been compelled to turn away people affected by HIV.

  For 1992–93 local authority social services departments will again be invited to apply for an AIDS support grant allocation. The closing date for applications will be 8 February 1993. It will, of course, be open to the London borough of Bromley to bid for funds under this scheme.

  Information on the number of HIV and AIDS cases reported in individual boroughs and of deaths is not held centrally.

  The table shows the AIDS support grant allocations which have been awarded since 1990–91:

  Allocations for Individual Authorities

  Authority

  1990–91 Allocation £

  1991–92 Allocation £

  1992–93 Allocation £

  Former 'A's

  Camden

  471,000

  489,840

  730,000

  Hammersmith

  1,003,359

  1,042,000

  1,300,000

  Kensington

  627,500

  652,600

  970,000

  Lambeth

  551,000

  573,040

  930,000

  Westminster

  625,000

  650,000

  940,000

  Former 'B's

  Avon

  127,500

  132,600

  200,000

  Birmingham

  194,700

  202,488

  300,000

  Brent

  290,000

  290,000

  400,000

  Ealing

  250,000

  260,000

  290,000

  East Sussex

  317,500

  263,690

  400,000

  Greenwich

  136,280

  136,280

  190,000

  Hackney

  322,500

  335,400

  460,000

  Hampshire

  106,250

  110,500

  140,000

  Haringey

  357,500

  371,800

  500,000

  Hounslow

  231,250

  240,500

  320,000

  Islington

  235,000

  244,400

  360,000

  Leeds

  234,801

  244,193

  271,000

  Leicestershire

  86,084

  89,527

  115,000

  Lewisham

  163,750

  170,300

  240,000

  Liverpool

  263,000

  253,000

  276,000

  Manchester

  486,250

  510,000

  709,000

  Newcastle

  130,000

  150,000

  223,000

  803

  Authority

  1990–91 Allocation £

  1991–92 Allocation £

  1992–93 Allocation £

  Oxfordshire

  156,250

  162,500

  240,000

  Richmond

  135,000

  140,400

  200,000

  Southwark

  215,000

  215,000

  300,000

  Tower Hamlets

  309,000

  321,300

  481,000

  Wandsworth

  165,122

  120,152

  188,000

  Former 'C's

  Barking

  14,000

  17,173

  32,236

  Barnet

  —

  26,000

  40,000

  Barnsley

  25,000

  11,362

  23,150

  Bedfordshire

  25,000

  25,000

  30,000

  Berkshire

  25,000

  26,000

  50,000

  Bexley

  25,000

  26,000

  46,000

  Bolton

  3,500

  —

  21,105

  Bradford

  25,000

  36,000

  200,000

  Bromley

  8,500

  9,520

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  5,950

  17,640

  16,870

  Bury

  25,000

  26,000

  63,000

  Calderdale

  25,000

  26,000

  32,915

  Cambridgeshire

  20,860

  26,000

  41,000

  Cheshire

  21,000

  26,000

  39,000

  City of London

  25,000

  26,000

  47,000

  Cleveland

  17,000

  26,000

  70,000

  Cornwall

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Coventry

  25,000

  26,000

  68,000

  Croydon

  24,500

  30,000

  49,000

  Cumbria

  17,500

  21,000

  39,000

  Derbyshire

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Devon

  12,250

  25,000

  50,000

  Doncaster

  —

  6,500

  39,000

  Dorset

  13,897

  17,252

  26,009

  Dudley

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Durham

  35,000

  36,400

  55,000

  Enfield

  14,938

  16,702

  50,000

  Essex

  25,000

  35,000

  60,000

  Gateshead

  16,002

  16,640

  38,500

  Gloucestershire

  25,000

  26,000

  43,000

  Harrow

  25,000

  26,000

  42,000

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford

  25,000

  26,000

  43,000

  Hertfordshire

  25,000

  26,000

  36,400

  Hillingdon

  23,207

  35,000

  120,000

  Humberside

  40,600

  42,224

  78,000

  Isle of Wight

  25,000

  26,000

  28,170

  Kent

  25,000

  30,000

  93,000

  Kingston

  25,000

  26,000

  64,000

  Kirklees

  25,000

  26,000

  49,000

  Knowsley

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Lancashire

  25,000

  26,000

  27,140

  Lincolnshire

  22,050

  22,955

  39,000

  Merton

  14,000

  17,178

  66,000

  Newham

  72,500

  110,000

  250,000

  Norfolk

  25,000

  26,000

  27,066

  Northamptonshire

  25,000

  26,000

  45,000

  Northumberland

  25,000

  25,000

  31,080

  North Tyneside

  55,623

  52,732

  67,000

  North Yorkshire

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Nottinghamshire

  17,003

  26,000

  60,000

  Oldham

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Redbridge

  18,602

  19,675

  15,374

  Rochdale

  25,000

  26,000

  30,436

  Rotherham

  24,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Salford

  25,000

  26,000

  32,492

  Sandwell

  —

  26,000

  32,564

  Sefton

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Sheffield

  25,000

  26,000

  107,000

  Shropshire

  25,000

  26,000

  130,000

  Solihull

  4,690

  —

  —

  Somerset

  25,000

  26,000

  30,800

  South Tyneside

  39,613

  41,198

  56,000

  Staffordshire

  24,860

  26,000

  39,000

  St. Helens

  18,750

  20,365

  29,675

  Stockport

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  23,236

  23,520

  60,000

  Surrey

  25,000

  25,000

  39,000

  804

  Authority

  1990–91 Allocation £

  1991–92 Allocation £

  1992–93 Allocation £

  Sutton

  22,260

  30,000

  57,000

  Tameside

  25,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Trafford

  17,737

  26,000

  39,000

  Wakefield

  25,000

  26,000

  50,000

  Walsall

  25,000

  26,000

  50,000

  Waltham Forest

  70,000

  90,000

  135,000

  Warwickshire

  24,570

  25,520

  33,860

  West Sussex

  17,500

  18,200

  23,370

  Wigan

  25,000

  24,290

  26,180

  Wiltshire

  24,000

  26,000

  39,000

  Wirral

  —

  22,500

  39,000

  Wolverhampton

  14,700

  13,050

  15,727

  Computerisation
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to ensure value for money from investment in the computerisation of the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  A national health service strategy for information management and technology was launched on 10 December. It included: new criteria for approving all substantial IT investments. Investments of £1 million or more will be scrutinised by the management executive and not approved unless the criteria are met; new procurement procedures to secure compliance with national standards to ensure compatibility of systems across the whole NHS; and a requirement for general practitioner systems to comply with national requirements as a condition of the GP systems reimbursement scheme.

  Sellafield (Cancer)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has received from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on the study by Draper et al. published on 9 January about the incidence of cancer in young people living in the vicinity of Sellafield.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government welcome publication of this study. It was commissioned by the Department at the request of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment following an earlier report which concluded that there was a higher than expected incidence of leukaemia in young people living in the vicinity of Sellafield over the period 1953 to 1983. This latest study's main finding was that the incidence of cancer in the age group 0 to 24 years in the village of Seascale has continued to be higher than expected when compared with national experience and that for the whole period 1953 to 1990 this was unlikely to have arisen by chance.

  The Government are grateful to COMARE for its advice. In summary, the committee accepts the study findings while acknowledging that studies of this type cannot determine the cause of the raised incidence of cancer in young people in Seascale. The committee also considers that the level of concern raised by the earlier report is maintained by this study. COMARE notes that appropriate studies commissioned by the Government to elucidate the position are proceeding. These studies comprise epidemiological, dosimetric and laboratory- based research programmes which COMARE will wish to consider alongside this latest study as part of their current

  805
  review of the situation around Sellafield. The Government look forward to receiving COMARE's full report on cancer incidence in the vicinity of Sellafield.

  Following is the full text of COMA RE's advice:

  COMARE statement on Sellafield epidemiology study
  1. In September 1989 the Department of Health requested COMARE to review the epidemiological data concerning cancer in the vicinity of Sellafield. At COMARE's request the Department of Health commissioned a study from a group of United Kingdom independent experts including Dr. Gerald Draper, Professors Cartwright and Craft. The results of the study (Draper et al BMJ reference) have now been published and considered by COMARE.
  2. The Report of an Independent Advisory Group, under the Chairmanship of Sir Douglas Black, had previously investigated the incidence of cancer in West Cumbria in the period 1953 to 1983. Draper et al review this earlier period and extends it to the end of 1990. They have considered, in particular, leukaemia and other cancers occurring at ages 0–24 years including four patients in this age range with cancer being diagnosed between 1984 and 1990. One Seascale resident is known to have developed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in 1991, which is too recent for analysis in the current study.
  3. Draper et al report that the incidence of cancer arising in the age group 0–24 years in the village of Seascale has continued to be higher than the level expected on the basis of experience in the rest of the United Kingdom. Assessing the whole period from 1953 to 1990, the authors conclude that the pattern of cancer incidence in Seascale is very unlikely to have arisen by chance, although this possibility cannot be entirely excluded.
  4. Analysis of information for the surrounding districts of Copeland and Allerdale, or for the rest of Cumbria, does not show an excess cancer incidence.
  5. COMARE welcomed the study and has accepted its findings. In comparing the information from the period 1953 to 1983 with 1984 to 1990, the Committee noted that the four new cases identified were: two patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, one patient with Hodgkin's disease, and one patient with pinealoma. There were no additional cases of lymphoid leukaemia in the latter period although this was the most frequent type of cancer among the cases in the earlier report. The Committee also noted:

  (i) lymphoid leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma occurring in childhood should be considered as a continuous spectrum of disease and therefore agreed that it was appropriate to combine them in the analyses.

  (ii) there is no body of medical data to suggest that Hodgkin's disease or pinealoma can be caused by radiation.

  6. COMA RE wish to include these new findings as part of their current review of the incidence of cancer in young people in the vicinity of Sellafield. The Committee considers that the level of concern raised by Sir Douglas Black's report is maintained by the new information provided by Draper et al. The Committee acknowledge that studies of this type cannot directly address the problem of determining the cause of the raised cancer incidence in Seascale, which remains unknown. The Committee is aware of the current hypotheses which have been made regarding the causation of these cancers and note that appropriate studies to address the issues are proceeding.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the full cost to her Department of correcting the calculation for the community care special transitional grant indicative allocations to individual local authorities; and what is her estimate of the cost to local authorities of adjusting their budgetary calculations in the light of these corrections.

  Mr. Yeo
  The cost was minimal. It is routine practice to issue proposed allocations to allow authorities to check and, if they wish, to query the figures. In this case, a revised 806
  circular notifying authorities of their revised allocations was issued less than two weeks after the first. A further circular would in any event have had to be issued detailing the distribution of the additional allocation of £26·8 million for authorities' additional responsibilities for severely disabled people following the closure of the independent living fund. The revised circular was able to include this and therefore give full figures for the special transitional grant.

  DES
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representatives she has received from the daughters of the women who took the drug DES during their pregnancy; what plans she has to assist them with compensation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a few representations, including some from DES Action UK, about the potential effects of Diethylstilbestrol. If an individual feels that she or he had been harmed through the mother's use of DES, they may seek legal advice on the nature of any remedy which may be open to them. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 12 January, column 699.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each month in the period from July 1991 to July 1992 the number of applications to dental practice boards for approval of dental treatment above the £600 limit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  General dental services Number of applications for prior approval 1 July 1991 to 7 July 1992 England and Wales

  Number

  1991

  July

  6,583

  August

  5,308

  September

  4,437

  October

  5,746

  November

  4,717

  December

  3,331

  1992

  January

  5,037

  February

  4,551

  March

  4,528

  April

  4,408

  May

  3,907

  June

  4,323

  July1

  902

  1 1 to 7 July.

  Note:

  The prior approval by volume limit was set at £600 from 1 July 1991 to 7 July 1992 and reduced to £200 with effect from 8 July 1992. The figures show all applications for prior approval, including those made for reasons other than a cost in excess of £600.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each month in the period from July to December 1992 the number of applications to dental practice boards for approval of dental treatment above the £200 limit; and if she will make a statement.
  807
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  General Dental Services Number of Applications for Prior Approval: 8 July 1992 to 31 December 1992 England and Wales

  1992

  July (8 to 31)

  5,476

  August

  10,624

  September

  17,765

  October

  24,609

  November

  24,069

  December

  23,591

  Note: The figures show all applications for prior approval, including those made for reasons other than a cost in excess of £200.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the Bloomfield report of the review of dental remuneration; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will inform Members of the content of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report shortly.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all of the investigations presently being carried out in relation to the West Midlands regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health and the statutory auditor are currently investigating loans made by West Midlands regional health authority to a charitable company, Health Management Trust, to assist a subsidiary company, FIP Ltd. I am also aware that the auditor is conducting a review of West Midlands regional health authority's management of Healthtrac and the management buy-out of the management services information division by Qa Business Services.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the section 20(3) report issued recently in relation to the West Midlands regional health authority by the district auditor; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We will consider publication when our inquiries into the specific points raised by the report are complete.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve the management of the West Midlands regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our priorities for the west midlands, which are shared with the West Midlands regional health authority, are to improve the health of the local population and to ensure that services are efficient and effective, underpinned by managerial and financial systems of the highest possible standards. Important changes have taken place in recent weeks to improve the management of the regional organisation, and I am confident that Sir Donald Wilson, the new regional chairman, will provide a strong lead on the challenging agenda ahead.

  Patient Numbers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the use of completed consultant episodes to measure patient throughput; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Regional Returns
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish information from the quarterly monitoring returns from the regions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are management returns which were instituted in 1991–92 and which are still under development. There are no plans at present to publish the results on a regular basis.

  Patient Numbers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing (i) the number of acute in-patient completed consultant episodes for the first six months of 1991–92 and the first six months of 1992–93 and (ii) the number of day cases also dealt with over these two periods.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of general and acute ordinary admissions and day cases purchased by the national health service in England, and the number of those which were day cases in the two periods, are shown in the table.

  1991–92

  1992–93 (provisional) 000?s

  Ordinary Admissions and Day Cases

  3,520

  3,740

  Of which: Day Cases

  659

  818

  Note: Day cases are defined as acute elective admissions using a bed but not requiring an overnight stay.

  London Health Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 6 November 1992,Official Report, column 450, if she will now list the members of the implementation group for Tomlinson on the future of London's health care; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall publish membership of the London implementation group when we announce our detailed proposals for change in London's health services.

  Nicotine Patches
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued on the use of nicotine patches; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has issued no guidance on the use of nicotine patches, but guidance for the user can be found in the patient information leaflet provided with the patches.

  Female Circumcision
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to ensure that the law relating to female circumcision is monitored and enforced; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are determined to eradicate this abhorrent practice. The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes it an offence to carry out any of the procedures which are known as female circumcision, but which are more accurately described as female genital mutilation. The Act also makes it illegal to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of these procedures. Further legal protection is provided by the Children Act 1989.

  In October 1991 we issued guidance entitled "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989" to all local authorities, health authorities, the police, the probation service, schools, doctors and a wide range of voluntary organisations working in the child care field. This guidance contained advice on the 1985 Act and on dealing with FGM. We provide funding for FORWARD—the foundation for Women's Health and Development, which works to educate the relevant communities and the professionals concerned about FGM.

  To date, there have been no prosecutions under the 1985 Act. This may be because it can be difficult to acquire evidence. Any information we receive about specific instances of alleged FGM is sent to the police, and we ask others to do likewise. It is for the police to investigate any such allegations and discuss with the Crown prosecution service how to proceed. When appropriate, we also pass details to the General Medical Council, the local social services department, and the district health authority, if the offence is said to have taken place in a private hospital or clinic registered and inspected by the DHA.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bosnia
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the pledges made by the United Kingdom and others; and if he will list the pledges which have been converted into cash for relief supplies for Bosnia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have committed over £70 million in humanitarian relief to the former Yugoslavia. Of this, £41 million has been pledged multilaterally through the EC and over £29.5 million in direct bilateral assistance. Most of this is focused on central Bosnia. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on 23 November, columns 452–53, for details of how we are spending these funds. Comprehensive figures for the commitments made by other donors are not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency Fraud
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the feasibility study into the market testing of sector fraud within the Benefits Agency has been completed; and if he will make a statement.
  810
  Miss Widdecombe
  The study commissioned into the feasibility of market testing all or part of the fraud work has not yet been completed. Once the eventual findings have been considered decisions will be taken on the extent to which market testing should be applied to this area of work.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will compensate disabled people who are unable to make an application to the independent living fund because of delays in the processing of attendance allowance and disability living allowance claims.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to provide such compensation. The independent living fund is an independent charitable trust which is managed by trustees, who deal with all administrative matters.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of claims received by his Department for the disability working allowance in each month since its introduction; and if he will provide a breakdown by region.

  Mr. Scott
  A regional breakdown is not available. The total number of claims received in each month is as follows:

  1992

  Total

  March

  4,153

  April

  4,124

  May

  2,570

  June

  2,700

  July

  2,344

  August

  2,081

  September

  2,085

  October

  1,432

  November

  1,431

  December

  1,008

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by number and percentage of the total number of (i) initial and (ii) renewal claims for disability working allowance received by his Department that were refused on the grounds that(a) the claimant was not in remunerative work, (b) the claimant's income was above the limit, (c) the claimant was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit, (d) the claimant was receiving family credit, (e) the joint income of the claimant and his or her partner exceeded the limit, (f) the claimant was working less than 16 hours a week or (g) for other reasons.

  Mr. Scott
  By 2 January the total number and percentage of claims refused in each category was as follows:

  Claims refused

  Number

  per cent.

  Not in work or working less than 16 hours a week

  New claims

  11,069

  57

  Renewals

  61

  33

  811

  Claims refused

  Number

  per cent.

  Income of claimant and partner exceeds DWA level

  New claims

  2,150

  11

  Renewals

  108

  57

  No qualifying benefit

  New claims

  5,128

  27

  Renewals

  8

  4

  Receiving family credit

  New claims

  494

  3

  Renewals

  0

  0

  Other reasons

  New claims

  448

  2

  Renewals

  12

  6

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for the disability working allowance have been received by his Department to date; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage of these that were refused and (c) the number and percentage of these that are awaiting a decision.

  Mr. Scott
  By 2 January 1993, 24,280 claims had been received with following results:-

  Number

  Percentage

  Awards

  3,360

  14

  Refused

  19,480

  80

  Awaiting further information

  625

  3

  Withdrawn before decision

  815

  3

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations he plans to consult and outline any other plans the Department has for consulting disabled people and their organisations on the next revision of the claim pack for disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The disability living allowance and attendance allowance claim packs were developed in close consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We continue to consult widely both formally and informally. A reprint of the claim packs is being produced for April 1993. A table of the organisations we have consulted since 30 November 1992 is as follows.

  DLA claim pack—Draft consultation with outside organisations

  1. Access Committee for England

  2. Action for Blind People

  3. ADSS Disabilities Committee

  4. Age Concern

  5. Alzheimer's Disease Society

  6. Arthritis Care

  7. ASBAH (Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus)

  8. Association for Speech Impaired Children

  9. Association of Hospice Social Workers

  10. Association of County Councils

  11. Association for Residential Care

  12. Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children

  13. BACUP

  14. Barnados

  15. BCODP (British Council of Organisations of Disabled People)

  16. Birmingham Welfare Rights

  812

  17. British Association of Social Workers

  18. British Epilepsy Association

  19. British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association

  20. British Association of Social Workers

  21. British Medical Association

  22. British Diabetic Association

  23. Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund

  24. Carers' National Association

  25. Caring for People with Disabilities

  26. Caring Costs

  27. Central London Social Security Advisers Forum

  28. CHAR

  29. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  30. College of Occupational Therapists

  31. Council on Disability for Shetland

  32. Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust

  33. Cystic Fibrosis

  34. Derbyshire Centre for Independent Living

  35. DHSS NI

  36. Disability Alliance

  37. Disabled Living Foundation

  38. Disablement Income Group

  39. Disablement Income Group (Scotland)

  40. District Nursing Association (UK)

  41. Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  42. Federation of Independent Advice Centres

  43. Good Practices in Mental Health

  44. Health Visitors Association (Services) Ltd

  45. Haemophilia Society

  46. Help the Aged

  47. Herfordshire Welfare Benefits Advisers

  48. Huntingdon's Disease Association

  49. Independent Living

  50. Independent Health Care Association

  51. Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People

  52. Lancashire County Council Welfare Rights Service

  53. Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  54. MENCAP

  55. MIND (National Association for Mental Health)

  56. Motor Neurone Disease Association

  57. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  58. Muscular Dystrophy Group

  59. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association

  60. NACAB (National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux)

  61. National Deaf Children's Society

  62. National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  63. National Association for Health Authorities

  64. National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  65. National Information Forum

  66. National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  67. National Bureau for Students with Disabilities

  68. National Association of Voluntary Help Organisations

  69. National Association for Limbless Disabled

  70. National Care Homes Association

  71. NFBUK (National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom)

  72. Northern Ireland Council on Disability

  73. Parkinson's Disease Society of the United Kingdom

  74. People First

  75. PHAB

  76. Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled

  77. RADAR (Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation)

  78. RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind)

  79. RNID (Royal National Institute for the Deaf)

  80. Sandwell Social Services Department

  81. Schizophrenia Association of Great Britain

  82. Scottish Association for Mental Health

  83. Scottish Council on Disability

  84. Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  85. SENSE (National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association)

  86. Social Work Department. St. Georges Hospital, Lincoln

  87. Soldiers, Sailors and Airmans Families Association

  88. Spinal Injuries Association

  89. SSAC

  90. Terrence Higgins Trust

  91. The Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disablement

  92. The Disabled Drivers Association

  813

  93. The Spastics Society

  94. Wales Council for the Deaf

  95. Wales Council for the Disabled

  96. Wales Council for the Blind

  97. Wandsworth Social Services Department

  98. Oakleaf Enterprise

  99. London Borough of Hounslow

  100. Tower Hamlets Law Centre

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of the higher rate mobility component made since 3 February 1992 were made(a) on the grounds that the person was severely mentally impaired and displayed severe behavioural problems and (b) under the deaf-blind provisions.

  Mr. Scott
  Recorded numbers of people awarded the higher rate mobility component since 3 February 1992 are as follows:

  (a) On grounds of severe mental impairment and severe behavioural problems—1,352 at 31 December 1992.

  (b) Under deaf-blind provisions—110 at 30 November 1992.

  Includes new claims and "top-up" claims from existing Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance beneficiaries.
  All figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to attempt to identify the numbers of people who lost the chance to submit an application to the independent living fund solely because the Benefits Agency had not processed their claim for the care component of disability living allowance or attendance allowance; and if he will compensate people in this position by extending the independent living fund deadline or otherwise.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the numbers of people expected to become entitled to the severe disability premium as a result of extending entitlement to people living with a person who is registered blind; and what is the estimated cost to his Department.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that a few hundred severely disabled people who are not currently entitled to the severe disability premium because they have an adult living with them will qualify for the premium because that adult is blind and their presence will be disregarded. We estimate that the cost will be of the order of £1 million a year.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests up to 26 November 1992 had been received for a review of a decision(a) not to award the highest rate of disabled living allowance care component and (b) not to award the higher rate of attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of the amounts, dates and basis upon which the chief executive of the Benefits Agency has been awarded any performance bonus.

  Mr. Burt
  The basis on which the chief executive of the Benefits Agency could earn a performance bonus under his 814
  contract was set out in my reply to the hon. Member on Tuesday 27 October 1992, at column 640. The chief executive's total remuneration for 1991–92 is set out in the Benefits Agency annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library, although the elements within that total remain confidential.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of the changes he plans to make to the medical control procedures applied to invalidity benefit announced in his autumn statement; and if he will provide details of how he expects to achieve his estimate of £240 million savings and to specify the numbers of people expected to have their invalidity benefit withdrawn as a result of these changes.

  Mr. Scott
  The changes which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 November 1992 are intended to streamline the medical control procedures which already apply to all incapacity benefit claims. People invited to medical examinations will be given more notice, asked to tell us if they cannot attend, and warned that failure to do so without good cause will result in loss of benefit. Improved reports by examining doctors will reduce the number of people who need to be examined more than once; enabling them to deal with more of the cases referred for control action. In the first year, we estimate that some 80,000 people who no longer satisfy the entitlement conditions will be identified earlier than under the existing arrangements.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will express the average income of single people and couples in receipt of invalidity benefit as a percentage of average income of equivalent household units in the country.

  Mr. Scott
  The information in the table is based on the estimates for 1988–89, the two calendar years combined.

  Per cent.

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  Singles

  70

  69

  Couples

  76

  79

  Note:

  The estimates are based on Family Expenditure Survey data from the ?Households Below Average Income? series.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) where and on what date the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Amendment (No. 2) Order 1992 was first published;

  (2) when he first announced his intention to make the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Amendment (No. 2) Order 1992;

  (3) on what date and through which media he has taken steps to publicise to the general public the terms of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Amendment (No. 2) Order 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The legislation was announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr.
  815
  Hayes) on 17 December at columns 369–70, and through a press release and letter to Members of the central advisory committee the same day. The legislation was laid before Parliament on 18 December 1992 and published by HMSO on 6 January 1993.

  Hearing Loss (Military Service)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) why he proposes to remove the eligibility of ex-servicemen for lump sum compensation claims for hearing loss of less than 20 per cent. caused during their military service;

  (2) if he will publicise the proposed abolition of the eligibility of ex-servicemen for lump sum compensation claims for hearing loss of less than 20 per cent. caused during their military service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The introduction of a 20 per cent. disablement threshold for claims for noise induced hearing loss brings the war pension rules more into line with those for claims for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme. The proposals form part of a package, the other element of which is the removal, from April 1993, of rank differentials in war disablement pensions; almost 200,000 war disablement pensioners will gain up to £5 a week as a result. The decision was announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 17 December 1992 at columns 369–70, and publicised through a press release and letter to members of the central advisory committee on war pensions the same day.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the relationship between the level of retirement pension and the cost of living.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The retirement pension is statutorily uprated each year in line with the movement in prices. We have no plans to alter this.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make the retirement pension a means-tested benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to remedy the situation referred to by the social security commissioners in decisions CIS/587/90 and CSIS/78/92 whereby a retirement pensioner previously receiving an invalidity pension is deprived of the higher pensioner premium if he or she reached retirement pension age before 11 April 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The rules discussed in the decisions quoted are intended to ensure that a person who was receiving the premium because he had invalidity pension did not suffer a reduction in income as a result of taking retirement pension. The premium continues provided he remains in receipt of the relevant income-related benefit. The regulations fully reflect this policy. It was never the intention that a person who had already ceased to receive invalidity benefit when the relevant income-related benefit was claimed should qualify for the premium. We have no plans to change this policy.

  Maxwell Pension Fund
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the Social Security Committee's report published on 12 January.

  Mr. Lilley
  I shall want to read the Committee's report carefully before responding fully. But my immediate response is to endorse firmly its main objective, the early distribution of assets already recovered or in the common investment fund to the Maxwell pension schemes.

  The Committee makes two recommendations intended to help secure that objective. I have, in line with its first recommendation, asked Sir John Cuckney to continue to encourage mediation as a preferred course of action. In this he has my firm support and backing. If rapid progress cannot be made in the common investment fund by agreement I hope all parties will consider mediation.

  The Committee also recommended that Sir John's role be extended to help ensure that any administrator or liquidator does not delay a settlement by pursuing highly doubtful claims to assets that were once in the possession of Robert Maxwell companies. These office holders are variously appointed by, and are accountable to, the court or the creditors. The scope for direct action by other parties is therefore limited. However, I have agreed with Sir John that he will be available to assist the office-holders wherever possible.

  Regulation of Earnings Factors Order
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the application of the Social Security Regulation of Earnings Factors Order 1992 as it applies to additional pension paid with invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Lilley
  The policy intention has been that the revaluation order should apply to additional pensions paid with invalidity benefit. We have received legal advice that provisions enacted in the Social Security Act 1990 and carried forward into the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 have not given full effect to this. This means an estimated £9 million paid between April 1992 and April 1993 will have been paid on a basis which is incorrect on the strict interpretation of the law. We intend to continue payments on an extra-statutory basis to ensure that claimants receive a level of benefits in line with the policy intention. Appropriation will be obtained in due course. The total amount paid on this basis, initially estimated at a cost of £0.8 million, rounded, per month, will be reported in a note to the Department's appropriate account.

TRANSPORT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now reply to the letter sent to him on 2 October by the hon. Member for Gower relating to a constituent from Bishopston, Swansea.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I replied to the hon. Member on 18 December.

  Public Transport Investment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what limits are placed on the freedom of the chairmen of British Rail and London Transport to speak publicly on the investment needs and the maintenance spending required for their main businesses.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. However, in the context of the annual investment and financing review for nationalised industries, Government Departments and the industries find it useful to exchange information in confidence.

  A46 Upgrading
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects(a) commencement and (b) completion of work on the Lincoln to Newark section of the upgrading of the A46.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The scheme is planned to go to public inquiry this spring and further progress will depend on the outcome of that inquiry. It is not therefore possible to provide a firm date for start of construction works, but it is likely to take about two years to complete.

  Railway Expenditure
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of investment spending have been assessed and requested by British Rail as required to(a) maintain the track and signalling so as to avoid speed restrictions and (b) replace outdated track, signalling and rolling stock.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board allocates its investment spending within its overall external financing limit. The need for the board to maintain and replace infrastructure and rolling stock was taken into account in determining the additional resources for the railways announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the additional funds made available to British Rail in the autumn statement for leasing capital equipment could be appropriately used for the ordering of new long-distance network trains for the Kent coast services; and what constraints or impediments prevent British Rail from entering into such arrangements in the near future.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chancellor's autumn statement enables BR to order on lease an additional £150 million worth of new rolling stock. Only the leasing payments will count against its external financing limit. BR is currently considering which rolling stock orders would be suitable for leasing; the options include new rolling stock for Kent coast.

  I have asked BR to proceed as quickly as possible with negotiations on a suitable leasing arrangement.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the role of local public inquiries where decisions they take have national significance in cases where national policy is still under consideration;

  (2) if he will suspend the public inquiry into the Port of Bristol Harbour Revision Order until the future is decided of the collieries in South Wales and the midlands which are linked to the outcome of this inquiry.
  818
  Mr. Norris
  Issues of overall Government policy are not properly a matter for local public inquiries. The Harbour Revision Order about which a local public inquiry is now in progress deals with the transfer to a company, First Corporate, of some of the harbour authority powers of Bristol city council. I understand that the company is constructing a bulk import facility but that it is not relying upon the order to obtain the powers to do so. It is not therefore appropriate to suspend the inquiry.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. William O?Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects to report to Parliament following the consultation on the future of the vehicle inspectorate; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that road safety will be monitored in any changes that may be made in future vehicle testing following the current consultation exercise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the responses to our consultation on the future of the vehicle inspectorate's heavy goods and passenger carrying vehicles testing functions and will make an announcement in due course. As the consultation paper made clear, the Government are determined that under all options for the future, existing standards of vehicle testing should be maintained and where possible improved.

  Oil Tanker Pollution
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumption he makes for the purposes of pollution compensation schemes of the likely pollution clean-up cost of a major oil tanker pollution casualty on the south coast of England.

  Mr. Norris
  The limits of the funds available under the international compensation arrangements are designed to meet fully the costs of any incident in European waters. The current limit is some £50 million and this has not been exceeded in Europe since the system came into operation in 1978. However a diplomatic conference in November, co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, has agreed on protocols to double the current limit which will come into force once a minimum number of states have ratified them.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a comprehensive review of the existing methods and routes of transportation of crude oil, oil products and hazardous chemicals around the coastal waters of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  The inquiry, under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson, which was announced by the Secretary of State on 11 January will include a comprehensive review of the routing of tankers around the coastal waters of the United Kingdom.

  Salvage Convention
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans Her Majesty's Government have to ratify the 1989 salvage convention.

  Mr. Norris
  It is the Government's intention to ratify this convention as soon as parliamentary time can be
  819
  found for the necessary primary legislation. The main provisions of the convention are applied commercially when there is a Lloyd's open form 1990 contract between a shipowner and a salvor, as in the case of the Braer.

  MV Braer
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the current arrangements for refunding the costs of pollution clean-up in a situation such as that caused by the Braer casualty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Under the relevant international conventions, to which the United Kingdom is a party, these costs are recoverable from the ship's insurers and the international oil pollution compensation fund. This is a tried and tested international scheme.
  820
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will widen the terms of reference of the inquiry into the causes of the stranding of the Braer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No. The terms of reference of the inquiry being carried out by the marine accident investigation branch are broad enough.

  Tyre Treads
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek a derogation from the EEC requirement that tyre tread depths should be a minimum of 1·6 mm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no plans to do so.