Sitting of 19 January 1993

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

Royal Assent
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993

2. British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further representations she has received about her proposals to abolish wages councils; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My right hon. Friend has continued to receive representations for and against the proposals.
    Mr. Canavan: Why do the Government persist in the absurd claim that the abolition of wages councils will create jobs? That claim is clearly refuted by the research done by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Institute of Personnel Management, the London school of economics and the Low Pay Unit.
    Instead of abolishing wages councils, will the Minister take steps to give more protection to the 2.5 million people, mostly women, who are covered or supposed to be covered by wages council agreements? If the Government are serious about law and order, will they employ more inspectors to stop unscrupulous employers breaking the law by employing people at less than wages council agreements?
    Mr. Forsyth: When the hon. Gentleman represented part of my constituency he supported a Labour Government in abolishing 11 wages councils, taking half a million people out of the so-called wages councils. I am sure that he did so because he recognised the arguments for employment. It is the height of hypocrisy for him to come to the House and complain about this Government following the very measures which they—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman used a word which is unparliamentary.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to withdraw the accusation of hypocrisy. I note that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) acepts that the Labour Government abolished 11 wages councils, just as this Conservative Government will do.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the effect on employment, only a socialist would believe that one would get more jobs by increasing the price of labour.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend's history is disputable. One of the wages councils which was abolished was in the road transport industry, where collective negotiation was putting up pay.
    If my hon. Friend believes that putting pay up is the best action to take, is not the fastest way to do it to have higher rates for the minimum wage for wages councils? Does he prefer to consider the question whether abolition of the wages councils is a sensible idea in a year in which we are likely to abolish the out-of-date restrictions on Sunday trading, which will affect retail workers?
    Mr. Forsyth: I favour deregulation of the labour market in relation to Sunday trading because I believe that it will create more jobs. I assume from my hon. Friend's question that he has the same view. I am therefore a little puzzled as to why he does not see a deregulatory measure —the abolition of wages councils—as being in the interests of the labour market as a whole. It was certainly a view which he accepted in answers that he gave when he was a Minister. Then he accepted the principle that there was a relationship between the creation of jobs and the fixing of wage levels by statutory bodies such as wages councils.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State received a letter in November from Cyril Stein, the boss of Ladbrokes, who pays himself £584,000 a year? In the letter Mr. Stein welcomed the abolition of wages councils and said that the wages council award which gave his employees £2.92 an hour was causing difficulties for his company.
    Mr. Forsyth: The wage of the chairman of Ladbrokes is a matter for the board of directors and the shareholders. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are cheering might like to know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment is one of those directors.

    48-hour Week
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will refer to the European Court the decision of the Council of Ministers to consider the 48-hour week directive on the basis of the Single European Act; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: A challenge cannot be made unless the directive is adopted. We are continuing to argue strongly against its adoption. We have already made it clear that we will challenge the legal base of the directive should it be adopted in its present form.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that as the Government failed to challenge the directive on the first reading, which they could have done by not allowing a unanimous decision, they have shown that most of the phoney row between the two Front-Bench teams about the social chapter is basically artificial? Will he at least give me the simple assurance that there is no way in which the

    245
    Government will allow the vital social chapter amendment to be considered halfway through the night by a bunch of sleepy-heads when the rest of the world is asleep?
    Mr. Forsyth: The timing of consideration of business in the House is not a matter for me, I am pleased to say. My hon. Friend is wrong to imply that it would have been possible for the Government to challenge the legal base of the working time directive before it was agreed. A challenge can be made only after a directive is agreed and my right hon. Friend has had considerable success in ensuring that that has not happened. The Government remain opposed to the working time directive and we shall continue to oppose it. I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that if the directive is agreed in its present form, we shall challenge its legal base.
    Mr. Grocott: Is not it a fact that after 14 years of having a Conservative Government in power, workers in Britain work for longer hours each week and have lower annual leave entitlements and fewer statutory bank holidays than almost any of our European competitors? Does not that represent a further savage indictment of the Government's economic incompetence?
    Mr. Forsyth: What is a fact is that we have a far higher proportion of our population in work than almost any other European country. If we took the hon. Gentleman's advice employment opportunities in Britain would be reduced at a time of high unemployment. The Government, who are committed to reducing unemployment, would not be so foolish as to put socialism before the jobs of our fellow citizens.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the social chapter and the 48-hour week would have a devastating impact on jobs and prospects at a time when Britain is about to emerge from the recession?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that it is a proper role for the Government to say how long people should work in the workplace. That is for agreement between employees and employers. Only very foolish politicians on the Opposition Benches would go along with the proposition that someone should be prevented from working overtime by decisions taken in the House, the European Commission or the Council of Ministers.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest official figures for the numbers unemployed and the percentage of unemployed; and what the corresponding figures were for May 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): On a seasonally adjusted basis, claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom stood at 2,908,900 or 10.3 per cent. of the work force, in November 1992; compared with 1,087,000, or 4.1 per cent. of the work force, in May 1979.
    Mr. Winnick: The increase since 1979 should shame every member of the Cabinet, not least the Secretary of State herself. Is not it clear that unemployment will substantially increase even further shortly—to well over the 3 million mark—even on the official figures? Do not the Government recognise that they are playing with fire by
    246
    allowing such high unemployment, with all the resulting misery, poverty and devastation which it causes for our fellow citizens? If the Secretary of State had any pride, she would resign.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I share his concern about unemployed people. But I am not inclined to take any lessons from him or his hon. Friends on how to deal with unemployment, given the extraordinary proposals emanating from the Labour Front Bench in the so-called shadow budget for jobs. He and his colleagues should recall that the last shadow budget cost Labour the election. This one shows that they have learnt no lessons in economics. Their policy would damage investment and training and cut jobs, yet they call it a budget for jobs. It is ridiculous.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend, like me, find the suggestion that high unemployment is unique to this country a touch unconvincing? Can she say how many people are out of work in Europe today and how that compares with 14 years ago?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right—we share the difficult problems of unemployment and the recession that causes it with other member states in Europe and countries further afield in the industrialised world. Only the policies of this Government can possibly cope with unemployment. The ridiculous shadow budget for jobs shows the Opposition's cynisism, when they deliberately seek to tax out of existence industries that provide 350,000 jobs.
    Ms. Quin: The House would welcome some information from the Secretary of State about how she proposes to prevent unemployment from rising to more than 3 million. Would she like to comment on the figures that she supplied to me yesterday in a written reply showing the extent of adult male unemployment, which has rocketed not only in the north, where it is 16.4 per cent., but in the south-east, where it is 13.2 per cent? Do not those figures show the savage decline in our manufacturing? What will the Government do to ensure that employment in manufacturing increases?
    Mrs. Shephard: The first thing that we would not do would be to tax manufacturing out of existence, which is the intention of the Labour party. We need policies of low inflation, low interest rates, a competitive exchange rate, low wage claims and the largest-ever range of help and opportunities for unemployed people, which we have in place.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that measures in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement will create new jobs in this country and that, with the low inflation announced last week, there is a tremendous opportunity for new job creation in the economy during the next few months?
    Mrs. Shephard: That is precisely why the autumn statement was so widely welcomed by business interests. The increase in capital allowances, extra help to boost exports, the cut in car tax and help for the construction industry were all welcomed by business, which creates jobs. Those measures will help to combat the difficult problem that all of us face.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those leaving employment training in Yorkshire and Humberside achieved vocational qualifications in the last six months for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): In the six months to March 1992, 30 per cent. of all people leaving employment training in Yorkshire and Humberside gained a qualification or a credit towards one. That is significantly higher than during the same period a year ago.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that the President of the Board of Trade is hell-bent on throwing miners on the scrap heap? Does he consider that that answer will be of any assistance to them? Do not many people who go on such courses find them an insult to their intelligence and therefore leave early and do not get work at the end of the course? Indeed, many people have to go back for two or even three courses. Will he examine the quality of training, which is very low?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will publish a White Paper on the energy question. On quality, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned about getting quality from our employment training scheme, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced changes as a result of the very good settlement that she achieved in the autumn statement. It would be refreshing to hear the Labour party and Opposition Members talking about supporting training schemes, instead of opposing every scheme that the Government have introduced.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be wholly unacceptable to throw people out of work in the nuclear industry in Lancashire and Cumbria simply to provide jobs in Yorkshire?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend will draw equal comfort from the question that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked me at the previous employment questions. She rightly shows that that is one of the questions that my right hon. Friend must take into account when drawing up the White Paper.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, when the coal board was flourishing, the Yorkshire and Humberside coalfields—indeed, every coalfield in Britain—used to run a training scheme? They trained miners not only to dig coal, but to become electricians, fitters and carpenters: they trained them to do almost every job that had to be done down the pit. Literally scores of industries used those workers when they left the mines. Now there is no worthwhile training scheme; all that the Government do is run slave labour schemes, taking 500,000 young men and women off the unemployment register at the same time.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I do remember that. I also remember that most parents would prefer anything to sending their children down the coal mines.

    Industrial Action
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost to industrial action in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.
    Mr. McLoughlin: There were 504,000 working days lost to strikes in the 12 months to October 1992. That is the lowest 12-month total ever recorded.
    Mr. Duncan: Given that foreign-owned firms have a high regard for our industrial relations record and given that pressure on employment prospects will continue until well after the end of the recession, does my hon. Friend agree that a healthy no-strike record is of the utmost importance to attracting inward investment and is equally important to reducing unemployment in general?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I entirely agree. Because of our current low strike record—which is due to the industrial relations changes introduced by the Government—the United Kingdom is now receiving more inward investment than any other European country.
    Mr. Burden: Will the Minister reflect on evidence provided by the Employment Gazette, which pointed out that the number of strikes was falling across Europe, even in countries with far more extensive rights to strike than Britain? Will he also reflect on the evidence given to him by, for instance, the chambers of commerce and the Institute of Personnel Management, which have drawn attention to the foolhardiness of the Government's further trade union reforms? Does he accept that those reforms have much more to do with having another bash at the unions and appeasing the Conservative right wing than with promoting industrial relations?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The one thing that Conservative Members will not take is being lectured by the Opposition about industrial relations. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), in the past 12 months 504,000 working days were lost through industrial disputes. In January 1979, when another party was in government, 3 million days were lost—3 million days in that month alone. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about how to improve industrial relations and reduce strike action.

    Union Members
    Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill on the rights of individual union members.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Bill gives union members important new rights, including greater freedom to decide which union they join and the right to a full postal ballot before a strike. It also introduces important new rights for individual employees.
    Mr. Trend: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the legislation is another positive step towards establishing individual rights for trade union members and that it is in the best traditions of the Conservative party since 1979? Will he also confirm that every extension of trade union democracy has been opposed by the TUC and the Labour party?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree, with one qualification: Labour Members have opposed such legislation and then—before a general election—have turned round and said that they have experienced a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus. Where we have progressed forward step by step, the Opposition have progressed backwards step by step. Our action has benefited the economy as a whole and is undoubtedly the reason for the current high levels of inward investment in Britain.
    Mr. Eastham: Why do not the Government act more evenhandedly when it comes to the rights of trade unionists? Is not it a fact that some employers will not recognise trade unions in their companies? What protection will the Government give to workers?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is confused. He is confusing the interests of workers with those of trade unions—and that is why he and his hon. Friends sit on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the conversion to which he referred is not total? Does he recall that for the first time in its history there is now a proposition from the Labour party that it should be illegal to sack strikers? Is not it remarkable that Opposition Members take that position, which goes further than any Labour Government have in history?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend has great experience in these matters and I agree with him. The Labour party has always been the striker's friend and the Conservative party has always been the trade union member's friend. The Conservative party has given the trade unions back to their members and has enhanced the rights of those members in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party.

    Part-time Workers
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she intends to take to provide employment protection for part-time workers employed by their existing employer for less than five years.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill gives part-time workers new rights, including maternity leave and protection against exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. It will also give employees the right to receive a written statement of terms and conditions of employment provided that they work eight or more hours a week.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister consider it fair and consistent with the rules of natural justice that part-time workers—millions of them women—should have no protection from unfair or arbitrary dismissal? Is not it a fact that many part-time workers are dismissed or have their contracts arbitrarily altered as though they were chattels rather than people?
    Mr. Forsyth: What an astonishing question. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the provisions in respect of the rights of part-time workers which were introduced by the last Labour Government in 1975.
    Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that the more strictly regulated economies such as France or Germany do not produce the part-time work opportunities that we have in Britain?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members have not yet discovered that the more they add to the cost of employing people and the greater the burdens they put on employers in taking on labour, the more people will become unemployed and the fewer job opportunities there will be in the economy. We have the highest level of employment among part-time women workers, as well as among women in the economy as a whole, as a result of having a free labour market. If the Opposition had their way, there would be fewer opportunities for people to get jobs and I am sure that that is not what they want.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that it has been the case since records were kept that more British people, including women, are in employment than in any country in Europe except Denmark? At the same time, thousands of loyal, long-term staff, including those at Burtons and Forte, have been thrown out of full-time jobs which many of them have had for years and forced to go part time? Is not it utterly unfair that they should then be deprived of employment rights and entitlement to benefit just to suit the need and the greed of their employers?
    Mr. Forsyth: Their employment rights reflect the position that was thought appropriate by the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that he cannot continue adding to the burden on employers and expect employment opportunities to be created in the economy. The reason why we have far more people in work—that has been the pattern for some time—is that, unlike many of our European partners, we have had a longer period of Governments committed to free enterprise and policies that create wealth and employment.
    Mrs. Chaplin: Does my hon. Friend agree that many women wish to work part time because it fits in with their family commitments? Will he ensure that nothing is done to endanger part-time jobs in Britain?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right that many women work part time because they wish to do so. Only the Opposition, with their interest in the trade union movement, would wish to deny millions of people that opportunity.

    Child Care
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for the provision of after-school child care.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government are providing £45 million through training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies over the next three financial years to help employers, schools, parents, local authorities, voluntary organisations and partnerships of all these to create some 50,000 additional out-of-school places for children.
    Mr. Chisholm: Given that the United Kingdom is bottom of the European child care league, any initiative is welcome, but is the £15 million a year ring-fenced, and is this additional money, or does it come from an already inadequate Department of Employment budget? What proportion will go to Scotland, and why is the money available only for start-up costs when continuing funding is necessary for low-income parents?
    Mrs. Shephard: I refute the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. He should know that more than 90 per cent. of all three and four-year-olds already receive some kind of day care, and that the statutory school starting age is lower here than in the countries of many of our European counterparts.
    This is new money. Scotland will receive 9 per cent. of it, based on the children of primary school age formula. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more welcoming, given the welcome that the project has had from kids club networks, play groups, the Working Mothers Association, the Day Care Trust and so on.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent circular from her colleague in the Department of Health making it easier for small providers of child care to avoid some of the bureaucratic burdens piled on them by people such as health and safety inspectors? Will she promise to work closely not only with the Department of Health but with the deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that a proper path is trodden between protection of children and the capacity of respectable individuals and voluntary organisations to provide this necessary form of care?
    Mrs. Shephard: Given the entirely welcome increase in the numbers of child minders and registered day nurseries, I agree with my hon. Friend. The extra guidance from the Department of Health to what are perhaps over-zealous local authorities which might have discouraged the setting up of yet more facilities for young children is entirely to be welcomed.

    Training Levy
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for a compulsory training levy.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have no such plans.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to the Secretary of State that no amount of exhortation to the myopic and greedy people in charge of so much of British industry will persuade them to invest in long-term training? Our only hope of finding training for future generations of a sort that will enable us to hold our heads high in Europe will be to compel these employers to pay a training levy. Failing that, we are doomed.
    Mrs. Shephard: I find the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm—and that of his party—for yet more burdens on employers disappointing but predictable. Opposition Members obviously have not noticed, because they are stuck in the past, that policies of compulsion were tried in the 1960s and 1970s, and they failed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues try listening to employers instead of vilifying them as they tend to do. The commitment of employers to training remains undiminished by the difficulties of recession. This year they committed a record £20 billion to training—an excellent record representing a great commitment.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not quite extraordinary at a time of cyclically high unemployment which is disturbing us all— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity.
    Mr. Davies: I am glad to see that I still have my fan club among the Opposition. Is it not extraordinary that some people can think of nothing better than dreaming up new ideas to add to the costs of taking on more employees, thereby destroying the prospects for new jobs?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is enough to name a burden for business to be certain that Opposition Members will support it in principle. What are more damaging for business—after all, it creates jobs—are a minimum wage, a payroll tax, a training levy, and support for a social action programme. Labour supports all those; all of them threaten jobs, as my hon. Friend is right to point out.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the level of funding for training and enterprise councils in 1993–94.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: In 1993–94 we will make £2.2 billion available for TEC-delivered programmes.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware that many training and enterprise councils, including Cumbria's, are bracing themselves for substantial cuts in the volume of adult training resources being made available by the Government? Is she further aware that unemployment in south and west Cumbria is increasing dramatically and that unemployment has doubled in my constituency in the last two years? Will she give an assurance to my constituents that the Cumbria training and enterprise council will continue to have sufficient resources to provide its current quality training profile and so offer my constituents living under the shattering blow of unemployment the prospect of secure alternative jobs in new industries in the future?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman should know that the sum of £2.2 billion is broadly the same as last year, despite the fact that TECs have fewer young people with whom to deal on youth training because of the longer staying on at school rate. The recent deal in the autumn statement was greatly welcomed by the TECs. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Cumbria TEC is an active member of the action team set up by the Government in response to redundances at Sellafield and VSEL. Any question of additional resources for the TEC, should there be further problems in Cumbria, would have to be considered in the light of what could be managed at the time.
    Mr. Dickens: Why, during Question Time, are we always on the defensive? Why do we not tell people that Britain is the only country in Europe that guarantees a training place to every 16 and 17-year-old who is without a job or is not in further education? The reason is simply that we recognise that, with mechanisation and automation, skills must be changed and new skills learned. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the party—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I look sympathetically on the hon. Member, but I do not allow him to make speeches at Question Time.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is difficult to imagine anybody less defensive than my hon. Friend. He is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that during the last 12

    253
    months, about 225,000 young people entered youth training. Of those, about 10 per cent. have benefited from credit schemes and three quarters of them are satisfied with the outcome of YT. It is indeed a good record, and the Government are pledged to maintain it.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State explain to her hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that the Conservatives are always on the defensive because they have an appalling record, in particular in the funding of TECs, where the budget has been cut in real terms? Is the right hon. Lady aware that many, including a large number of Conservative Members, are concerned about special needs training? She will be aware of the recent report from the Spastics Society showing that people with special needs are not being given the training they require. She will also be aware that Members in all parts of the House have written to her on that subject. Will she meet a delegation of hon. Members on an all-party basis so that the issue may be thrashed out?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am always happy to meet delegations of hon. Members, in particular to discuss important matters such as the way in which TECs are equipped to deal with special needs. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about records, perhaps I should ask if it is not a matter of concern to him that under the last Labour Government only 7,000 youngsters were on Government training programmes.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Despite the high levels of unemployment in the south-east, may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay tribute to the TECs working in and around the county of Surrey for the work they are doing, particularly with young people? At a time when industry is having difficulties, we should commend companies that have fully participated in those training schemes.
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree that in recession some TECs have found it difficult to provide industrial places for people on youth training. TECs have employed a variety of imaginative and successful initiatives such as marketing campaigns, new workshops and initial training provision of exactly the kind described by my hon. Friend in Surrey.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes she plans to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Department has already taken steps to improve the reliability of employment statistics and additional work, including the first full census of employers since 1981, is in hand.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that a woman who works as a cleaner in the House in the early hours of the morning, who has a similar job in a London hospital in the afternoon, and who works as a barmaid at the weekend is treated by the Government as three people? Why do the Government persist in including 750,000 people who have double jobs twice and sometimes three times in the unemployment statistics? Why do they include 1 million non-existent self-employed people in the statistics and insist on counting at least 2 million part timers as though
    254
    they were full timers? They should stop blaming the last Labour Government for all their problems, stop creating fiction and start creating jobs.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The employees in employment series is the count of the number of jobs in the economy and follows the practice of the previous Administration. [Interruption.] We have made no secret of that. I am not sure from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he wants us to count the three Labour Members who are also Members of the European Parliament as doing one or two jobs.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that every time the Government arrange to improve the accuracy of the statistics Labour accuses us of distorting them?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That is correct. My hon. Friend points to the picture that the Opposition always paint. As I have said, the method used to count those who are in employment is no different from that used by the previous Administration.

    Labour Statistics
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the number of people unemployed in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In November 1992 unadjusted claimant unemployment in the Liverpool travel-to-work area stood at 72,704.
    Mrs. Kennedy: In view of those appalling figures what advice would the Minister give to the 27-year-old man who came to see me recently in Liverpool and who in 1983 at the age of 17 took Lord Tebbit's advice and went looking for work? He travelled throughout the south of England from job to job without finding anywhere permanent to settle. He returned to Liverpool in 1991 when the work dried up and has been unemployed for two years. What is the appropriate advice for him?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The appropriate advice to give that gentleman is to contact the Employment Service which has been very effective in placing a number of people in work. I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady did not quote the figures showing that between 1986 and November 1992 unemployment in her constituency fell by 2,232, which is 26 per cent. lower than in 1986.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend estimated the impact on unemployment in Liverpool of the introduction of a national minimum wage? Would not that destroy jobs whereas the abolition of wages councils will create jobs?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who rightly points out that Labour has not changed its mind about a national minimum wage, although some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have accepted that it would reduce people's employment prospects. That is a strange way to try to increase employment.
    Mr. Loyden: When will the Minister and his Secretary of State stop fudging about unemployment and stop giving ridiculous and silly answers to questions on a matter that affects millions of families? I note, and it would be significant for others to note, that the Secretary of State

    255
    constantly refers to the burden on employers. At no time did she mention the burden on the unemployed and their families. When will the Government face their responsibility for the present economic climate that brought about such unemployment?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We take the plight of those people who are unemployed very seriously. That is why we shall not take easy options to try to bring about an unrealistic end to high levels of unemployment. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that in his constituency, unemployment is 33 per cent. lower than it was in 1986. I should have thought that he might welcome that.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees are employed in manufacturing industry; and what the figure was a year ago.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom was 4,485,000 in September 1992 compared to 4,746,000 in September 1991.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that of the 21 leading industrialised nations, this country is second from bottom in the amount of manufacturing growth since 1979, and that there is a burning anger among local manufacturers and their workers about the fact that this Government are clueless about the need for policies to revive our manufacturing sector.
    Mr. Forsyth: Only today the European Community has estimated that Britain is likely to have a higher growth this year than our European partners and the hon. Member's concern about manufacturing unemployment and employment would be more convincing if he and his party did not support all the measures in the social chapter which would reduce our competitiveness and make us less likely to have inward investment which has provided so many jobs in his constituency, in Wales, in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the social chapter, which he skilfully negotiated out of the Maastricht treaty, would destroy investment, business confidence and jobs in this country? Is it not therefore the greatest hypocrisy to support such a damaging measure while at the same time claiming to care for the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. When I negotiated Britain's exemption from the social chapter I seem to recall that I was accused of making Britain a paradise for foreign investment. I hope
    256
    very much that that proves to be true. The reality is that the Opposition disagree about that. The truth is that they are hostile to industry and do not understand business. Until they drop their commitment to the social chapter they cannot also claim to be seeking lasting jobs.
    Mr. John Smith: On that very subject, is the Prime Minister aware that of all the Prime Ministers we have had since the war, he has the worst record for growth, the worst record for investment and the worst record for jobs? Is he not ashamed of such a miserable record?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fine one to talk about records. His record as shadow Chancellor lost Labour a record fourth election precisely because he proposed record tax increases.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not note that he failed completely to deny that he had the worst growth record, the worst investment and the worst employment record? Since there is anger throughout the country [Interruption]—I hope that Conservative Members will not treat unemployment flippantly. Since there is growing anger throughout the whole country at rising unemployment why does the Prime Minister not agree to put a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of monopoly privatised companies and use the money to create jobs?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman also forgot to mention another record of mine; the record for bringing down inflation so that we can recreate lasting jobs. The fact is that what we just heard is the old Labour party speaking; the party of the 1960s and 1970s. They hate profits. They would rather have nationalised industries making losses than privatised industries making profits. They cannot stand firms being successful and they do not understand that firms need profits to provide investment, to provide growth, and to provide jobs. That is why their record in government has always been one of complete and record failure.
    Mr. Smith: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why it was all right for a Conservative Government to introduce an excess profits tax on banks in the first recession but now to oppose an excess profits tax on the privatised utilities? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that every pound of these excess profits and of managers' fat salaries has come from the British people? Is not it time that they got some of it back to create jobs for them and their families?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite happy to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, since he clearly does not understand. In the early 1980s interest rates were raised sharply to control inflation. At that time, the banks did not pay interest on current accounts. As a result of that, they genuinely made windfall profits. That was why the Government taxed them. The utility tax that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Labour Members do not like understanding reality; they do not like it at all. The fact of the matter is that the utilities are already regulated. If they make excessive profits, the regulator can change their pricing formula, and he has already changed BT's from

    257
    RPI minus three to RPI minus 6.25—real price cuts for consumers, which we never saw under a nationalised industry. That is why the appropriate policy is tough regulation, not 1960s artificial control.
    Mr. Sims: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the widespread concern about the collapse of criminal proceedings against a couple whose daughter died a violent death because they invoked their right to say nothing. Is he aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has details of 10 similar cases? Whatever the arguments may be for or against the right of silence in cases generally, is not there a strong argument in favour of reviewing its application in cases where children have been cruelly treated or even killed?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot, of course, discuss the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, but I understand the concerns that he expresses. Decisions on whether to prosecute are entirely for the Crown prosecution service. My hon. Friend may know that the right to silence is one of the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I would not wish to anticipate its report.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Prime Minister give the reason for the rising and record levels of unemployment in Essex—a county which includes my constituency of Thurrock and, of course, the betrayed people of Basildon?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that is very clear about unemployment: it will fall as a result of this Government's policies. That is what he had better understand.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic indeed that in the very week when the Leader of the Opposition produces a phoney budget for jobs the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is seeking to destroy 140,000 Sunday jobs, which are vital to many families in this country?
    The Prime Minister: On this and other issues the reality is that Labour policy is inconsistent. It changes not only from election to election but from week to week. Not long ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposed the biggest tax increases in peace time. Nine months later, he said categorically that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should not increase taxes in the Budget, but 10 days later he calls for a windfall tax.
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooker: Can I ask the Prime Minister if, until unemployment starts to fall, he will make it part of his political strategy to assist the unemployed by easing the rules on socal security benefits so that those unemployed people who have household responsibilities and who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s can genuinely take
    258
    advantage of opportunities to improve their education and training rather than, as at present, be penalised if they study too much or lose their homes if they have household responsibilities? For a very small investment in people, we could have a huge return for the country.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a point which is well worth considering, and in the past we have looked at some matters related to it. This is the sort of matter which we are prepared to examine. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in social security that there is significant help, for example, with mortgages, and he will also know the additional help that is being given to people towards training and studying.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning trendy, mixed ability teaching—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are products of it—which has so damaged the education of millions of children since the 1960s? [Interruption.] I hope they care. Are not moves to return the teaching of children to traditional methods just plain common sense? Is it not now also time to end trendy teacher-training methods?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a distinguished former head teacher so I particularly welcome his remarks. I agree that the way forward is to return to the basics of education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said yesterday that we had plans to strengthen primary education. I am sure that we are right to look carefully also at getting the teaching methods right. Common-sense, practical teaching which puts good teachers in front of good children is undoubtedly the right way to improve our education system.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is it not fair that when an hon. Member is named or mentioned in a Prime Minister's question the Member involved should have the right to reply? I respect and thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put his question.
    Mr. Powell: Obviously, the Prime Minister, as with a lot of the policies that he has presented to the House, is misguided and is misrepresenting facts. The question that he was asked regarding a Bill that I will present on Friday—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must now call the hon. Gentleman to order. I am looking for a very direct question to the Prime Minister, right away.
    Mr. Powell: The Bill is an all-party Bill supported by five of the Prime Minister's colleagues. It is not a Labour party Bill and therefore the Prime Minister should correct the answer that he gave just now.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be a firm advocate of his own Bill in a few days' time. I can tell him that in due course my right hon. and

    259
    learned Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House and will give it a series of alternatives upon which to make up its mind on this thorny issue.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the highway code today? Will he ensure that copies are made available to Opposition Members, some of whom seem to be stuck on a roundabout, uncertain as to which exit to take, while others seem intent on overtaking their leaders on the inside, while we on the Government side look forward to a major road ahead?
    The Prime Minister: I should like, if I may, to try to respond to that testing question. I very much welcome the publication of the new highway code. I am bound to say that it does seem to me extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps should study it. He might learn, after his proposals this morning, that he should not signal right when he is turning left.
    Sir David Steel: Will the Prime Minister clarify the support that the Government give to enforcement action against Saddam Hussein? Is it correct that that support will be given only as long as the action is in accordance with international law in agreement with our coalition partners and involves the minimum necessary use of force?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the position thus far, and it is our position, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary set out the other day.

Parliamentary Question (Madam Speaker's Ruling)
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have to give a ruling to the House in response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) last Wednesday. I undertook to examine the circumstances in which a question was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I have established that a parliamentary clerk in the Scottish Office did in fact, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton suggested, send a question to the Table Office, and that the question was written on a question form pre-signed by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. Since the form was signed by an hon. Member, the Table Office behaved perfectly properly in accepting it. I hope, however, that any practice that may have grown up of pre-signing forms will now cease.
I must make it absolutely clear that the tabling of a question is a formal parliamentary proceeding which must be undertaken only with the specific approval of an hon. Member, if not by himself or herself personally. What happened was an abuse—[Interruption.] Order. I have not finished. I have received apologies from the Secretary of State and from the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, together with the undertakings that such an occurrence will not be repeated.
In raising this point of order with me, the hon. Member for Dumbarton said that he was referring the matter to the Procedure Committee. It will be for that Committee to decide whether it wishes to consider any wider implications that this incident may have for the rules of tabling questions. For my part, I accept the apologies and the undertakings that have been given, but I make it absolutely clear to the entire House that there must be no recurrence whatsoever of this practice.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
The subject for debate on Thursday 21 January will now be "events in the Gulf and the Royal Air Force", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I believe that that will be for the general convenience of the House. The House will also wish to know that, as I said last Thursday, the debate will be opened by my right and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and will now be wound up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that announcement. He will know that we have been pressing for a meeting of the Security Council and for an opportunity for the House to discuss these matters. I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand, especially in the light of what was said during last week's business questions, that inevitably it is likely that the debate will concentrate on the position in the Gulf. I hope that he will bear it in mind that there may be a further request for a service debate on issues involving the provision of service by the Royal Air Force at a later date.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's point. As I understand it, and subject always to the Chair, it will be in order for hon. Members to raise other points, but I have no doubt that the House will expect—as I do—that the main focus of the debate will be the situation in the Gulf.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the treasured single-day debate on the Royal Air Force will be largely about the Royal Air Force, because it is active in the Gulf?
Mr. Newton: That is a helpful point, and I think that it will command some assent from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the answers we have been given, would it not now be intelligent to consider whether the debate on Thursday should concentrate exclusively on events in the Gulf, so that as many hon. Members as possible with an interest in that topic might have an opportunity to contribute, and whether, therefore, a separate and distinct day should be assigned for a debate on the Royal Air Force?
Mr. Newton: We can all agree that it is highly likely that the main focus of the debate will be the Gulf. However, as it is principally the RAF that has been involved in the Gulf, I am not sure that it would be right to rule out reference to other matters affecting the RAF.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the debate on Thursday will deal with issues affecting the lives of British soldiers and of people throughout the middle east, and will therefore be desperately important and will require the total attention of hon. Members, can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will not seek to make Members tired and harassed by expecting them to debate vital issues, like the social chapter, in the early hours of the morning—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the House. This is a very narrow business statement, which does not relate to that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that there will be no final decision to send British troops to Kuwait until Thursday's debate has taken place?
Mr. Newton: As the latest information that I received before coming to the Chamber was that no formal request of this kind had been received, the appropriate thing for me to say is that these are matters for discussion in the debate on Thursday.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the motion be drawn sufficiently widely to enable us to consider what happens as we send troops and naval personnel to the Gulf? I am thinking in particular of the use of the flag officer sea training facilities at Portland, which have been used for every deployment to the Gulf and to other theatres of war, and of the quality of the training that is provided there.
Mr. Newton: All this will be subject to your views, Madam Speaker, as to what is in order. As I have said, the debate will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. It could not be drawn more widely than that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence will open the debate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in a position to tell us what impact the deployment of troops in the Gulf area would have on the extra battalion in Northern Ireland?
Madam Speaker: Order. That question also is far too wide. The Leader of the House has made a very narrow
264
statement about a simple change of title. He has paid the House the courtesy of informing it of the change and of letting it know which Secretaries of State will handle the debate. I must ask hon. Members to restrict the questions to those matters.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he did not consider linking this matter with the deployment of British troops in the Yugoslav theatre—
Madam Speaker: Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to "Erskine May", which, on page 297, makes it very clear that questions arising from a supplementary statement of this nature should be very narrow. I shall take only a few more questions.
Mr. Tony Benn: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance, first, that no further military attacks involving British forces will take place before the debate; and, secondly, that it will be possible to move an amendment to the Adjournment motion so that those who are opposed to the use of force will be able to register their opposition?
Mr. Tredinnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after statements.
Mr. Newton: As you, Madam Speaker, above everyone, know, questions about what would or would not be in order are for you rather than for me. However, my understanding is that amendments to motions for the Adjournment would not normally be in order. As to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South about not seeking to pre-empt the debate on Thursday.

Points of Order
3.40 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been trying to follow the ruling that you have just given, and I do not want to transgress in any way, but it occurs to me that perhaps the deployment of forces in the Iraq theatre is related, in that the numbers of troops—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman and the House. I will read the two lines from "Erskine May" that relate directly to what has just taken place:
"The Speaker has ruled that when a narrow business statement is made,"—
which is exactly what has taken place—
"changing only one item of business, supplementary questions are confined to that item."
The Chair will allow a wide debate. It is a debate on the Adjournment and, as the Leader of the House has said, it could not be much wider than that.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of seeing and hearing hon. Members.
The House has been delayed by points of order that are simply points of frustration.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that my point of order is entirely relevant. The debate on Thursday, now merged, means that the detailed consideration of a number of aspects of the problems and conditions of the Royal Air Force will now not be able to attract the attention or be given the time that would otherwise be available; problems such as contractorisation, career prospects and procurement will all be diminished.
I know that you cannot instruct the Government on how they should structure business, Madam Speaker, but my point of order is this. Every year, for so long that a precedent has been established, the House has had the opportunity for regular debates about each of the three armed forces. The abuse of this precedent—that is what it is—means that proper consideration of the service in question will be minimised.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, or, if you cannot give a ruling, the Leader of the House, to give an assurance that there will not be a long delay before the House has an opportunity to have a debate in which the detailed considerations and anxieties of the Royal Air Force can be considered.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot rule on that matter. It seems to me to be the sort of subject that he might put to the Leader of the House during business questions at some time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday there were a number of points of order arising out of your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) when he made a Standing Order No. 20 application about Iraq. I think that it is fair to suggest that your reply left the door ajar. It seems to me—I would like you to respond to this if that is possible—that this business statement today is some recognition of that half-open door, but that a debate has been produced that is unsatisfactory not only to my hon.
266
Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who wanted to speak about the Air Force in detail, but also to those of us who would have liked a proper vote in respect of Iraq and the bombing, and the lapdog attitude of the Government to Bush, that man who is drugged to the earholes. We all wanted to take part in a principled debate, but I am afraid that it is like the curate's egg: it is a bit of both and it is not the right answer that you promised yesterday.
Madam Speaker: I promised nothing yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he looks at Hansard. He must draw his own conclusions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that an Adjournment motion will not allow substantive amendments to be tabled? This seems unsatisfactory to whole range of opinion in the House, as many hon. Members would have liked to submit amendments on the degree of United Nations sanction for any action that might be taken.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that no amendments can be tabled to an Adjournment motion.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, what I think you just said—that it will be possible to have a vote on Thursday evening so that those of us who do not support the Government's policy in the Gulf may have an opportunity to register that dissent, as opposed to the consensus that has been presented to the whole country until now?
Madam Speaker: I did not say that at all. I made the point that it was a motion on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman knows what that means as well as I do: there can be no amendments to it.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible for you to use your good offices to persuade the Leader of the House to review what he has just told us? A number of hon. Members who have spoken are opposed to what has been happening. Those of us with different points of view, with reservations, nevertheless believe that it is necessary to have a debate on what is happening in Iraq and what should or should not be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and other hon. Friends have made the good point that no one will be absolutely certain about the debate: will it be mainly about Iraq or the situation in Iraq? Why not simply have a debate on Iraq?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who said that matters relating to the RAF will not be adequately raised, surely there is a case for having a proper debate, as always, on the services including the RAF. Will the Leader of the House consider changing his mind?
Madam Speaker: Such questions must be put to the Leader of the House during business questions. It is not a matter for the Speaker of the House, who has no responsibility whatever for arranging the business programme. It is for the Leader of the House and the usual channels, as the House knows.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a matter of greatest importance

267
which has come to the attention of the House during the past quarter of an hour, and I seek your advice. Although I do not want to deal with the specific case on which you rule, there is a wider case, which is the politicisation of the civil service. It seems that, over the past 14 years, there is a possibility that the objectivity of the civil service, which is precious, is now in question. How can we have a full examination of that matter by the House?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can try to achieve that by putting a question to the Government during business questions. He can achieve it either through debate or by questions in the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point is that—this is from the Front Benches—the change of title of Thursday's debate has changed the whole character of the debate. In practice, it will be a debate on Iraq. During the three previous debates on the Gulf in the last Parliament, in a consensus, supporters for the Government, mostly Privy Councillors, were wheeled out on both sides, largely to the exclusion of any significant extent of dissent.
There is a significant extent of dissent among Opposition Members towards the Government's supine support of American policies. I hope that, with your fresh occupation of the Chair, Madam Speaker, bringing a new view to the House, the consensus which prevailed in those three debates on the Gulf will not prevail on Thursday.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. The debate on Thursday is in the hands of the House itself.
Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the benefit of the House, could you rule whether the previous five points of order put to you were points of order or points of frustration?
Madam Speaker: They were certainly not points of order. I will not attempt to describe what they were, but they certainly were not points of order.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and the House will know that I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence (HON. MEMBERS: "Very important."] I agree, and if anyone thinks differently, they are fairly stupid.
Arrangements have been made for the Select Committee on Defence to visit Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe on the day of the debate. I do not need to go into great detail except to say that that will mean that many of the members of the Select Committee
268
will be excluded from the debate because they are required—[HON. MEMBERS: "You can choose."] I will continue—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to find out what the point of order is. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly come to his point now.
Mr. Cook: I am trying to remove some of the ignorance and short-sightedness which is evident on the Government Benches. If an hon. Member is to fulfil his duty to the Chamber, I must be present on the Select Committee visit. For us to get back from the visit in time will mean that probably only one hon. Member will be able to contribute to the debate. My point of order is whether you, Madam Speaker, can prevail on the usual channels to institute some device that will ensure consultation to include members of a Select Committee on a particular topic, rather than exclude them. It is a perfectly reasonable question, after all.
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members who speak in the House must first catch my eye, irrespective of whether they are members of a Select Committee, Standing Committee or whatever.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Would you ask questions in the right places about the abuse of the letter board yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me more information and come to my office. I always try to help Members on such matters.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As someone who served in the RAF in Iraq, do I stand a chance of being called on Thursday?
Madam Speaker: That is the most pertinent point of order that has been put to me today.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  LIVERPOOL HOUSING ACTION TRUST
  That the draft Liverpool Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

Telephone Entertainment Services (Supervision)
3.51 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a statutory body for the supervision of telephone entertainment services
I return again to the issue of filthy phone calls and, most specifically, those which take place in premium-rate services, about which I have spoken to the House many times. Recently, I spoke in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill at great length. Therefore, I have no desire to go into the sordid cases again. Instead, I wish to deal with the detail of how such services are regulated at present under the system of self-regulation.
I welcome the concern expressed by the Leader of the House. He is in his place for the debate, as he promised at business questions last week. That gives me an opportunity to clarify my question to him. I mentioned that, like other right hon. and hon. Members, he had daughters. I felt that that would give right hon. and hon. Members a different perspective on the offences against some young ladies which I have raised in the House over the years and the consequences of allowing the services to continue.
The Leader of the House seemed to be under the impression that I was suggesting that the daughters of Members might have been involved in the lines. I was not. I am worried about the safety of women away from the services that we are discussing—on the street and in public places. I want right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the Government and have powers over such matters to think along those lines. It might be educative and informative for them to speak to their wives and daughters about the issue that I have raised, about which there have been mountains of publicity in the past six or seven years.
When I speak of the need to improve regulation, it is obviously a criticism of the existing system of self-regulation under the so-called Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. I have long believed that the system is inadequate, and have said so on many occasions in the House. Events in recent weeks and months prove the point that I have made.
The committee is compromised, because it is funded by the industry which it is supposed to police. It is compromised because its chairman is on record as saying that he does not see anything wrong with pornographic conversations between two people. He ignored all the other problems of which Members of Parliament will be well aware.
The premium rate services started in 1985. ICSTIS was set up following growing public disquiet in 1986. What has it achieved? It has achieved one or two good things, but has done so always by the back door, picking away at the periphery and never attacking the heart of the problem. ICSTIS did not deal directly with the huge bills that youngsters were running up for their families or that employees were running up for small businesses. It established a fund, made providers of such services put up a bond of £50,000, appointed a retired High Court judge and established a bureaucracy to vet claims.
270
My view then, as now, is that, if a service being sold in the marketplace is useful and people want to buy it, there is no need for such a fund. Why try to sanitise something before it is delivered to the marketplace? That process should have been attacked, but that did not happen.
All the chatlines that caused problems with high bills have now gone because the providers of such services would not put up the increased bond, and because I and many other hon. Members encouraged people to apply for compensation from the fund, which killed it. Why go through all that trauma? Why punish families with debt? Why let all that continue without attacking the problem?
The only sanction that ICSTIS can apply is—after tortuous procedures—to recommend to British Telecom that the provider of such a service should be disconnected. I and several newspapers have given evidence to ICSTIS and to other people that the system does not work. As soon as the providers are cut off, they set up somewhere else and usually provide even worse services than before.
In her latest investigation, Denna Allen, a national journalist from The Mail on Sunday, said:
"British Telecom pulled the plug on Michael Allen's firm EasyBreak last week following revelations that girls were breaking the law by talking dirty.
But wealthy Allen has been advertising a new "Best Live One-To-One' sex line called Greetland in The Sport newspapers.
So as EasyBreak lines were silenced, Greetland numbers were humming with callers."
Both companies share the same Manchester adddress and Allen, whose wife's firm Comtel was originally cut off, is carrying on in business. Comtel was owned by his wife and was closed down three years ago when I was instrumental in getting a BBC journalist into its offices—I had to get her down via a fire escape because things were getting risky, but that is another story.
ICSTIS can demand tapes which are often doctored—as the providers have admitted—and can cut off the providers, who then go somewhere else and perhaps nominate their spouse as the next owner of the business. Such providers still employ people in Dickensian conditions, and they still corrupt and demean which is against section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Parliament cannot touch the people whom I have been complaining about for so long, and there is something sinister, demeaning and wrong about the whole process. I want to bring the subject back into the public arena, so that Parliament can restore its authority over such matters. The Telecommunications Act is ripe for fresh consideration, as people have been able to skirt around section 43 willy-nilly. ICSTIS cannot help, OFTEL will not help and Parliament should reconsider the whole subject and do something about it. As the list of sponsors shows, I have all-party support for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Don Dixon, Ms. Ann Coffey, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. William Ross and Mr. George Howarth.

Telephone Entertainment Services (Supervision)
  TELEPHONE ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES (SUPERVISION)
  Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to establish a statutory body for the supervision of telephone entertainment services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
Orders of the Day
  European Communities (Amendment) Bill

    Considered in Committee [Progress, 18 January]
    [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
    3.59 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it still a convention of the House for hon. Members to give notice to other hon. Members when they propose to make personal attacks on them in the Chamber? I have in mind column 71 of yesterday's Hansard. Is it also a convention for the hon. Member who makes the attack to give way to the recipient? I have in mind column 73.
    I do not seek to detain the House for long, Mr. Morris, and I know that you will decide whether the conventions were observed last night. Let me say, however, that I do not think that they were observed; let me say also—as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) repeatedly refused to give way last night—that her assertion was completely untrue.
    The Deeside Toyota engine plant formed the centrepiece of my election address. The general managers of Toyota UK and Toyota Deeside wrote separately to thank me, suggesting that my co-operation and support, and my visits to the engine factory, had been much appreciated. It is a magnificent factory, and I feel that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South behaved in a rather shabby manner last night.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order at the beginning of main business. I have read yesterday's Hansard, and I note that my colleague the First Deputy Chairman dealt with the issue at the time. It is, however, worth reminding hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if they intend to refer to other hon. Members, they should do those hon. Members the simple courtesy of dropping them a note, or putting a note on the board. If neither course is possible, they should do their best to contact the hon. Members concerned in their offices.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. If your ruling applies to me, does it also apply to the attack on me that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has just perpetrated?
    The Chairman: I have already made it clear that my ruling applies to every hon. Member in the House.

Clause 1

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "(except Article 128 on page 33 of Cm 1934)'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 131, in page 1, line 9, after "II' insert
  "(excluding Article G D(18) on page 16 of Cm 1934).'.
  No. 213, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(1)'.
  No. 214, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(2)'.
  No. 215, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(3)'.
  No. 216, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(4)'.
  No. 217, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 128(5)'.
  No. 53, in page 1, line 10, after "1992', insert
  "but not Article 128 in Title II thereof.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to enable the House to discuss article 128 of the treaty, which concerns culture and creates a new legal competence for the Community. Previously, the Community justified its actions on cultural affairs by reference to article 235 of the treaty of Rome.
  If the amendment is put to the vote, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support it.
  I regard article 128 as one of the most important in the treaty. It relates to the essence of civilised living, and it will lie at the heart of future developments in Europe. When Jean Monnet, the founding father of the European Community, was asked some years later what lessons he had learnt, he replied:
  "If we were to do it again, we would start with culture."
  I wholeheartedly support the idea of the Community's stimulating intellectual ideas, cultural activities and artistic creation. However, I can see some dangers ahead and I shall discuss them later.
  Article 128 calls on the European Community to
  "contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity".
  Paragraph 1 also talks about.
  "bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore."
  I am not sure whether I know what a common cultural heritage is, but I suspect that it is grounded in the ideas and values of the Renaissance, in the Enlightenment Project and in liberal political thought. Certainly I believe that to be a better approach than seeing Europe's cultural heritage in terms of what the writer Ken Worpole described in a speech in Vienna last year as a
  "spatially bound and historically continuous national cultural past".
  Culturally, history seen in those terms is on the one hand romantic and safe, but on the other illusory and dangerous.
  I believe that the approach that I have outlined as a basis for European heritage is more likely to be useful and less open to abuse than that which seeks to define it in terms of ethnic origin, racial background or some spuriously defined European identity.
  Having said that, it is important that cultural development within the European Community should act to some extent as both challenge and counterpoint to some of the shallower cultural developments in the United States which threaten to engulf the western world. Some of that culture is shallow and tacky. That is perhaps not surprising, as it is the product of commercial and private patronage as well as an expression of triumphalist

  273
  capitalist values. While one may deplore snobbish distinctions between so-called high art and low art, we should not be afraid to contrast good and bad art and seek to build on the European traditions of good art.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Listening to the hon. Lady's somewhat surprising attack on American culture, one is bound to ask whether she has ever heard of jazz. Does she think that that is a product of unbridled American capitalism?
  Mrs. Clwyd: There are exceptions to every rule; I consider the hon. Gentleman's point somewhat unnecessary.
  Paragraph 2 of article 128 calls for co-operation between member states in four specific areas: first, the improvement of knowledge and dissemination of the cultural history of the European peoples; secondly, conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance; thirdly, non-commercial cultural exchanges; fourthly, artistic and literary creation, including the audio-visual sector.
  Paragraph 3 calls on the Community and member states to foster co-operation with third countries as well as with various international organisations. No one should be surprised that Britain was adamant that any proposals under article 128 should have no effect unless they were agreed unanimously.
  Returning to the overall aims of article 128, I begin by pointing out to our European partners that the public expenditure settlement for the arts in Britain next year shows that our Government are prepared to renege on both the letter and the spirit of its provisions. If the future of European culture and article 128 depend on the actions of this Secretary of State and this Government, bad times are ahead.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most essential cultural provisions of any civilised country is the ample provision of libraries? Those of us who had the privilege of being educated partly in public libraries—and who make no apology for that—believe that it is deeply regrettable that so many libraries are closing and that existing libraries are open only on certain days. Indeed, it is now almost impossible to find libraries which are open every day from Monday to Saturday, and then only for restricted hours, through no fault of the staff.
  Should not one of the first priorities be to reassure people that there will be adequate provision of libraries and books? Apart from all the rhetoric, such provisions have done so much in the past, and hopefully will continue in future, to give people the opportunity to read and to widen their horizons, giving them an understanding of events which otherwise they would not have.
  Mrs. Clwyd: That is a good point. There is tremendous concern about the future of British libraries. My hon. Friend is not one of the great supporters of the European Community, but he will notice as I proceed with my speech that I shall state that I hope that, when it comes to maintaining our culture and all that it means, the Community will press member Governments to make adequate provision for libraries, so that people may continue to enjoy what they enjoyed in the past under
  274
  Labour Governments. They are worried because provision is diminishing under this Government. Perhaps the Minister will offer us assurances on that.
  After the 1922 autumn statement the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service decided for the first time ever to question the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the national heritage budget. It is to be congratulated on so doing. In its report, published on 16 December, the Committee points out that in real terms, using the Treasury GDP deflator, the spending of the Department of National Heritage will fall by no less than 5.4 per cent. in 1993–94 compared with this year. The Committee goes on to say that expenditure by the Government on the performing arts will fall in real terms by more than 10 per cent. over the course of the survey period, compared with 1992–93.
  Judging by these figures which, to our European partners, are both shameful and pitiful, the future of music, literature, drama and the fine arts is far from safe in the Secretary of State's hands. It is no wonder that Peter Jones, the outgoing director of English National Opera, has described the figure as
  "a killer blow for arts organisations big and small".
  He and others have quickly spotted that, at the first opportunity, the Secretary of State has broken the Conservative party's promise in its election manifesto to maintain expenditure on the arts.
  It is a pity that successive Prime Ministers and Arts Ministers have not been able to match President Mitterrand and Jack Lang, the former French Minister of Culture, in providing inspirational drive and massive cash resources for the arts and culture. That being so, is it any wonder that, while Paris flourishes and threatens to become the cultural capital of Europe, London becomes ever more polluted and less pleasant to live in, with its culture on the verge of decline?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): The hon. Lady tempts me too much. I noticed that there were no wails of anguish when the arts budget increased by 30 per cent. over two years in the previous two years. I noticed also that she still regards Paris as only a threat—quite rightly, because the artistic talent of this country is second to none in the world and will continue to be so.
  I further notice the way in which the hon. Lady endorsed the comments of her hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about libraries, which were astonishing. His views on public libraries are antediluvian and bear no relation to the excellent library facilities that we have. As a matter of interest, it is Labour libraries that have been closing, notably in Derbyshire, and it fell to me and to this Government to insist that some of them be reopened.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister has not answered the main point of my attack. He has not denied that there will be cuts in expenditure on the arts in the coming year. His answer was a diversionary tactic. Nor does he have much to say about the future of libraries. He can only accept my hon. Friend's valid concept of the worth of the library service to the British people. I hope that the Minister will address the points that I am making rather than try to divert the argument.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is fair for the hon. Lady to attack the Government's policies. If she were a

  275
  member of the Council of Ministers and were considering applications for cultural funds from, say, Windsor castle to pay for repairs there and from the Coliseum in Rome, on what basis would she and her hon. Friends decide which was the more European proposal?
  4.15 pm
  Mrs. Clwyd: I appreciate the deep-rooted dislike that the hon. Gentleman has for the European Community, but I fail to understand the purpose of his question. One would make decisions as a Minister according to the priorities of the day, so it is impossible to answer his question. I should certainly not promise £60 million of public money to repair Windsor castle without making sure that the money was not available from elsewhere.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way later, when I have made progress with my speech.
  News of the Government's incompetence over the British Library project, which has rightly merited comment from the Treasury Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, has long since reached Europe. The management of the project, which compares badly with the way in which, for example, the French manage their great national and international schemes, is making Britain a laughing stock.
  Much of the world admires the best of European culture—Italian painting, German music, French literature and British drama—which, for the most part, have been liberating cultural forces in Europe and have helped to develop societies which are liberal, tolerant and civilised, but I am conscious of the fact that, in Europe and elsewhere, art continues to perform many roles. Governments and established institutions in Europe have often encouraged art to express national pride and identity.
  Locating art and culture in that way in specific places at specific times may be no bad thing. The problem comes when art and culture are used to create a nationalism which is exclusive and threatening and when art and culture are used emotively to stir up national passions. In the years between the two world wars, Goebbels on behalf of Hitler used many art forms—films, radio, music, dance and sculpture—for such purposes. In that way and at that time, European culture became embroiled in—and debased by—a perversely destructive ideology.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend lest I bring down upon my head scalding denunciations of my lack of culture, of which I am aware. I do not disagree with much of what my hon. Friend has been saying about a lack of commitment or finance for important aspects of our national artistic development, but will she spell out why she thinks that there should be any commitment in the Community to make that good? I see no indication that the sums of money or commitment about which she has been speaking would be forthcoming from anywhere else.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I shall not pour scorn on my hon. Friend, who frequently makes valid points in debate. I am not certain of the point of her intervention, but I will give her one example of how the EC has assisted in providing money for cultural purposes.
  276
  When I became a Member of the European Parliament, one of the first actions of the socialist group was to insert a line in the budget to support less-used languages. I am glad to say that that line is still there and that it supports, among other languages, the Welsh language of which I know that my hon. Friend has some knowledge. Many activities in Wales depend on the money provided by that line in the budget. When it was suggested recently that the money might be cut, considerable lobbying ensured that it was sustained.
  When I was a Member of the European Parliament, there was real awareness of the need to protect the diversity of culture and language in the European Community. I have no doubt that such sensitivities still exist and that money will be found when the need is established by Members of the European Parliament who, I hope, will be given more power by the treaty to influence the content of the budget.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way shortly, but for the moment I should like to proceed.
  No one should doubt that, if fascism arose again in Europe, art would once again be contaminated and artists would be tempted to collaborate with evil forces. The recent discovery that Heine R. Müller, one of Germany's finest authors, was an agent of the security police and supplied words for Stasi files, is a grim reminder of how artists can betray values. If such a regime arose, there would, of course, be differences because a modern European dictator would almost certainly concentrate more on controlling pop art and pop culture and would make more use of advertising and communications agencies, which have a curious ability to act without regard to moral values.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I share the hon. Lady's concern about the perverted use of art for ultra-nationalistic purposes. Is she confident that the article that we seek to amend will not be used by European institutions and the Commission in particular as a vehicle for European propaganda for a European state with a European culture? To a certain extent, that would be a perversion of the use of art. Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the article might be used to exert pressure to rewrite European history books? Perhaps we would find out that Waterloo was an honourable draw.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The answer is that I am not in the least concerned about that prospect. I was taught no Welsh history in Welsh schools because that became part of the curriculum only comparatively recently. I sometimes wonder how I, as a person of distinctive nationality, could have been denied the history of my country within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to address that, rather than speaking about what the Community might do to rewrite history.
  Despite worries in Europe about the rise of right-wing forces and an increase in racism, there is yet no sign that fascism is seriously on the march. However, concerns have been expressed, not least in the European Parliament, that the concept of European culture must not become an expression of fortress Europe, creating barriers to immigrants and propelling racist forces within the EC.

  277
  One of the principal reasons for setting up the EC was to prevent central Europe from developing in that way and to ensure that democracies, guided by pluralist principles, would become the norm rather than the exception. Those who would break up the EC and replace it by what President Mitterrand has called "tribal Europe" would risk loosing political and cultural forces which could destroy our democratic values. No one should be in any doubt that, in a tribal Europe based on competing nation states, cultural forces would combine for the worse with the new politics.
  There is, of course, another and more hopeful side to what I have been saying. Art does not always serve the needs of Governments. It can be critical, questioning, unnerving, radical, and even revolutionary in intent and content. It can make Governments sweat and even blow them off course, sometimes by the power of simple explanation, sometimes by using irony, ridicule and satire, or it can, as in the case of films and television, embarrass Governments by the sheer power of its imagery combined with explanation. We know that that is true. It is one of the reasons, for example, why the Government have sought to interfere with the broadcasting authorities over programmes such as "Zircon", "Real Lives", "Death on the Rock" and "Tumbledown". Nothing, not even drama, is safe from interference from the Government.
  The people of Europe know just how revolutionary art can be. Writers played an important role in helping to create the climate in which the French revolution could take place, a revolution which has been more written about than almost any other event in the history of the world. On the very morning that the revolution broke out, even Wordsworth—a reactionary poet—was forced to make the refreshing comment:
  "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
  Two hundred years later, the last Conservative Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher—for whom notions of liberty, equality and fraternity meant nothing—made it clear to the House of Commons and to the French people that she could not understand what the celebrations were about.
  More recent political upheavals, in Russia and Czechoslovakia, were given impetus by the work of writers such as Solzhenitsyn and Havel. Fortunately, oppression sometimes encourages creative art, and art sometimes inspires action through imparting knowledge, raising emotions, creating expectations and giving people courage.
  Tomorrow, in the European Parliament, there will be a debate on the priorities identified in article 128. Perhaps I can make some suggestions to enlighten that debate by highlighting the following points. First, the Community laws, which have so far been adopted with a view to creating a single market, do not provide a genuine defence of pluralism. Unless we can act quickly, there will continue to be an alarming decline in the heritage of artefacts, traditions, styles and ideas which underpin Europe's pluralist identity.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I wanted to get in before the hon. Lady went on to discuss the views which may or may not be expressed in the debate tomorrow in the European Parliament. My point relates to the third paragraph of article 128, which refers to
  278
  responsibility for co-operation with international organisations and specifically refers to the Council of Europe. There has been tacit agreement up to now that the European Community deals with a lot of things but that the Council of Europe has the lead position, as it were, in respect of culture. Does the hon. Lady feel that this article will change that balance?
  Mrs. Clywd: No. I am sure that the Council of Europe, UNESCO and other organisations will have a continuing role to play and that the one will not diminish the other in any way. I am sure that the hon. Member does not need further assurances on that matter: I have no doubt that that will be the case.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would explain to me why the Labour party has taken the position that it has. Essentially, article 128 seems to be about encouraging national diversity. It is all about co-operation between member states and third-world countries. It is not about harmonisation. Why are we discussing this? Is it just because we have put down a probing amendment, or is it about extending the competence of the Community in this way? I should like to know.
  Mrs. Clywd: I thought that I had made myself clear at the beginning. I said that it was an opportunity to have a debate on this subject and not to vote at the end of it.
  The second point that I should like to make is about language, which is perhaps the most powerful cultural influence. That being so, the EC must seek ways of protecting and promoting languages, including those spoken by minorities. The Minister and I have one thing in common: we speak the oldest living language in Europe—Welsh. He may now speak Spanish better than Welsh, but I know that he can speak the Welsh language, which goes back to the sixth century. Unlike Anglo Saxon, we need no help in understanding language that was written in the sixth century. I shall use a few words, which I shall spell out in detail afterwards:
  "Gwyr a aeth Gatraeth oedd ffraeth eu llu"
  That is part of a sixth century poem in Welsh, which everybody who speaks Welsh understands. The Minister, no doubt, will want to repeat those words. Unfortunately—
  4.30 pm
  The Chairman: Order. Despite having a Welsh surname, I regret that the Chair does not know what that means. The House should know what it means.
  Mrs. Clwyd: It is difficult to translate poetry, as every hon. Member will know. It is a battle-cry about men going into battle at Catterick camp in Yorkshire. It does not sound quite as good in English as it does in Welsh. If Conservative Members press me, I will happily recite the whole poem in Welsh.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I should like to complete the point before giving way.
  Unfortunately, less than a quarter of Welsh people now speak the Welsh language, but I have no hesitation in prophesying that the language will never die. It has lived next to a very strong culture and, despite the centuries of

  279
  living shoulder to shoulder with that culture, has managed to survive. I am sure that the new Welsh language Bill will ensure that it will survive and that the European Community will recognise the importance of other languages and cultures and help to sustain languages such as Welsh. Special attention must be paid to translation, publishing, book distribution, promotion, reading, inter-library co-operation and, of course, broadcasting.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: "a'r mwyaf o'r rhai hyn yw cariad".
  I trust that the hon. Lady can translate that for hon. Members who cannot do so.
  The Chairman: Order. I repeat that I cannot translate it. I had some difficulty passing O-level Latin, if that was Latin. It is important, and I hope that hon. Members will not abuse it, that we must know exactly what everybody is communicating. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to be kind enough to translate it for the record.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is slightly biblical. It is to do with charity:
  "faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity"—
  in Welsh.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I understood the odd word, although the hon. and learned Gentleman may need some help with his pronunciation. One or two words were quite clear.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Lady mentioned with great and justifiable pride the traditions of the Welsh language, but we are talking about the European dimension, and Hebrew is a much older language which has been in continuous use. Surely Hebrew is part of European culture and civilisation as well? It is the particularity of this—the direction of funds, the support of what and for whom, who controls it, and what are the democratically accountable elements—which determines part of this debate, and I hope that the hon. Lady will have regard, first, to Hebrew and, secondly, to who will democratically control these funds.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Member may be interested to know that Hebrew and the method of teaching it very quickly to people have been the foundation for some of the rapid courses in teaching Welsh. I thank him for that observation.
  In many ways, the process of the European Community and the European Parliament in deciding priorities and budget lines is more democratic than in the House. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, it was possible to vote a budget line by line—something that is not possible under the procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman might like to give the European Community and Parliament some credit for that.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not also true that, having voted it point by point, the European Parliament may frequently see the whole of the budget overturned in a very short time?
  The Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the European budget; we are discussing the deletion of culture, and the reasons why it should or should not happen.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for making that point, and perhaps I can answer it another time.
  The biggest problem facing the Community—and, thus far, the Community has done little to alleviate it—is the scourge of unemployment. It is the Community's biggest challenge. It is clear that the development of cultural industries across Europe could play an important role in both bringing down unemployment and enhancing civilised values. Here is a potential area of enormous growth, particularly where cultural industries link up with developments in information and communications technology. The Community has the ability to set up and maintain cultural networks and to create and strengthen cultural links.
  The European Community is the ideal forum to create a European film industry, the creation of which would provide new and exciting prospects for Europe's film buffs. A successful European film industry would have important spin-offs for many art forms, as well as providing a boost for jobs. Britain has every reason to support such a venture because of the collapse of our own film industry. Both here and in respect of the cultural industries to which I have just referred, the EC should be prepared to give grants and loans for imaginative projects.
  Mr. Key: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to leave the story half-told. This country has the benefit of some of the greatest film makers in the world. She will acknowledge the way in which, despite the very tight public expenditure round, we have joined Eurimages, the European film agreement, which will have an impact on the British film industry.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Despite the rosy picture that the Minister paints for us, I am afraid that not many people would share his view of the British film industry at the moment. Certainly film makers themselves would not do so.
  The European Community should consider ways of making member states improve the quality of life by encouraging better standards of design in all areas, including public buildings and spaces. In Paris, Seville, Barcelona and elsewhere, design has been an important driving force behind inner-city regeneration. The EC should seek to ensure that national Governments and cities have coherent planning policies and access to good architects.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: How could you do that?
  Mrs. Clwyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me tell him. It would be helpful if the European Community could set up across Europe "percentage for art" schemes through which a small percentage of new building costs is used to enhance the immediate environment with sculpture and other works of art. The European Community could ensure a level playing field in that sphere.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry, but I must proceed. I have given way many times.
  Similarly, the European Community might draw up regulations on resources for public art projects. The object of such schemes would be to improve the local environment, the design of housing estates, waiting areas in benefit offices and out-patient departments in hospitals.

  281
  Britain should want to support such ideas. Last year, although the Government spent £3 billion on public buildings and works, they failed to use design and architecture to create a good environment. Perhaps the European Community has to set the standards.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I have given way many times. I understand that some hon. Members may want to prolong the debate, but I wish to conclude.
  The European Community should certainly see one of its roles as that of preventing Government interference in the arts and guaranteeing rights of expression and the freedom of the press in Europe. British legislation is notoriously deficient in that respect and, as we all know, the recently published Calcutt report said little that was worth while on the subject. The European Community also needs to prevent national Governments interfering with, or censoring, satellite television.
  In times of recession, Governments—especially the British Government—often behave in a particularly philistine fashion and look to the arts for cuts in public spending. Governments secure those cuts not only through the direct control of central Government spending, but often by placing limitations on spending by local authorities. Britain is in precisely that situation now.
  One way out of what one might call the philistine's dilemma would be for the European Community to set minimum percentage targets for public spending—national and local—in member states and on cities and regions within member states. That would be one way of ensuring that Britain recognises the crucial importance of the arts to a civilised society and shows that recognition by substantially increasing the resources devoted to arts and culture.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Morris. I had come to listen to part of the debate, but not to participate, before going to chair a meeting. I had not expected to be provoked to get to my feet. I have the greatest personal regard for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I am delighted to welcome her to her new responsibilities—I believe that this is the first time she has spoken in the House since she took her new position—but she made an extraordinary speech, and we should put the record straight on one or two issues.
  Although we never have any cause to be complacent, we have cause for quiet pride in the arts in Britain in the past 20 years or so. I do not want to weary the House with innumerable examples, but I shall mention just a few. Let us consider the number of new art galleries which have opened in London in the past decade—the Sainsbury wing at the National gallery, the Clore gallery at the Tate and the Sackler galleries at the Royal Academy.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Capitalists paid for them.
  Mr. Cormack: As my right hon. Friend says, capitalists paid for them. I am not citing these examples to heap praise on the Government although I believe that the Government's record stands up fairly well. I am saying
  282
  that we have cause for pride in this country in what has been achieved, just as we have cause to be proud of the fact that London is without doubt the theatre capital of the world. This very day there are far more theatres open here, with wonderful productions, than in any other capital city, not only in Europe but anywhere in the world.
  Let me give a plug—if hon. Members want a wonderful, scintillating evening of marvellous British or English entertainment, let them go to the Globe theatre to see a stunning production of Oscar Wilde's "An Ideal Husband" starring Michael Denison, Dulcie Gray and Hannah Gordon. That is only one example of the richness, diversity and quality of art available.
  The Chairman: Order. I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his comments to the Community.
  Mr. Cormack: I have every intention of doing so. You must forgive me, Mr. Morris, for being provoked by the unfortunate, snide and denigratory remarks of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
  Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cormack: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too long.
  Mr. Jessel: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was, of course, disparaging London as against Paris, which gives a European dimension. Surely London is the musical capital of the world and Paris is not a patch on it. In London there is a great diversity of orchestral concerts and recitals. We have four or five great orchestras and, night after night, London is far superior to Paris.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Cormack: In his inimitable style, my hon. Friend has made the very point that I was going to make in answer to your justifiable comments, Mr. Morris.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley has considerable knowledge of Welsh Opera, but she was less than fair to our cultural richness. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) was justified in saying what he said. When we consider Britain in a European context, it is clear that we have every right to hold out heads high—and not only with regard to the performing arts. We have no cause for complacency, but we look after our great buildings far better than most other countries on the continent. Of course, there are things to be learned from other nations and it is right that we should do so. We should work together to enrich our common inheritance.
  However, one has only to pass through the villages of France, where the upkeep of churches is vested in the state, to see romanesque church after romanesque church neglected because there is no local pride, feeling or contribution. Rome has already been mentioned in passing. It is a city to which we all look for so many of our common roots, but we can contrast the appalling neglect of some of mankind's greatest monuments with the way in which we in this country try to maintain our heritage. Sometimes it is only right for us not to be complacent or ridiculously proud, but we can take a quiet pride in some of the things that we have and in what we have done to ensure that we keep them.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that he made it possible for some of us to go

  283
  to Czechoslovakia, which was to our great intellectual advantage. That leads to the issue of art theft from which the British art market—and possibly the German and French art markets—benefits but to the detriment of the churches and wood carvings of Bohemia. It is an urgent European problem, even more so in relation to Russian icons. Will the hon. Gentleman endorse the seriousness of the problem, which he, like me, has raised with the Government?
  Mr. Cormack: I am glad to give the endorsement that the hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to call my hon. Friend, seeks.
  I strongly support not only our presence in the Community but the general terms of the treaty to which the Bill refers because it gives the Community the opportunity to enlarge. It is in the enlargement and greater enrichment of the Community, by bringing in not only the Scandinavian but the eastern and central European countries in the next decade, that we shall pay our greatest cultural and political service to Europe.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Cormack: I shall just finish what I am saying in response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who raised an extremely important issue.
  A cultural heritage which is shared and treasured together is more likely to remain intact and to produce reciprocally acknowledged safeguards from the political institutions within the nation states than one which is diverse and scattered. I totally understand and utterly agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I simply do not see how the glories of European or cosmopolitan culture have anything to do with the Government. There has been cross-fertilisation for years—the French in Russia, the Russians in Poland, the Swedes in Poland, and the Poles in Sweden. It is absolute nonsense to have governmental interference with culture. As my hon. Friend is a co-author of the most hideous, hippopotamic carbuncle that is to be built in Bridge street—a building which will do everything to harm the record of British architecture and British art—he is hardly in a position to be pompous.
  Mr. Cormack: I shall not take any lessons in pomposity from my hon. and learned Friend. Nor do I need any lessons in eccentric and ridiculous utterances. Whether one likes a building is entirely a matter of taste. I should, however, make the point that many people agree with me that, in selecting Michael Hopkins to design the new parliamentary building, the House of Commons made a very wise choice. Mr. Hopkins has produced designs for a building that promises to be one of the most distinguished of the second half of the 20th century—a century not renowned for its great buildings.
  However, I shall not allow myself to be led astray any further. Although I have clashed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) on matters of taste, I totally agree with him about institutional interference in the arts. There is no art that is not diminished and impoverished by governmental interference of the sort that my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. However, it is very important to recognise the contribution that the arts of the continent make to our European identity, and we neglect them at our peril.
  284
  I shall never forget an experience that I had in Romania shortly after the revolution there three years ago. I went to talk to a group of young Romanians on the subject of democracy, and it was one of the most deeply moving experiences of my life. I met a great many young people who had never had an opportunity to travel—the opportunity to experience Britain or France or Italy or the bad manners of my hon. and learned Friend in his eccentric garb.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: I hope that this is a matter for the Chair. There seems to be a certain amount of revelry in the Committee.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is it proper for my hon. Friend, whose manners are always appalling and whose dress is worse, to comment on the dress of other hon. Members? I understood that that was something one just did not do. I am properly dressed, nationally dressed and tastefully dressed. The fact that he is a squit is no justification for such comments.
  The Chairman: Hon. Members are taking this matter much too far. Let us get back to the debate on the Commission and the Community. There must be no further insults. I ask hon. Members throughout the Committee to remember that.
  Mr. Cormack: I completely agree. In any case, any insult directed from that quarter I take as a compliment.
  The young people I met in Romania had spent their whole lives under the most appalling of regimes, yet many of them spoke faultless English. When they were asked where their inspiration came from, almost all of them said that it had been derived from literature and music and through the maintenance of their part in a common European culture.
  The Community has a role—much less intrusive than has been suggested by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—to play in ensuring that the incomparable riches of European literature, music, drama and art are not only kept alive but promoted, and it is proper that Governments should inject funds to sustain them. I was provoked by the hon. Lady's critical comments about this country. We have reason to be proud. It is important that these points be made and acknowledged by those who care about such things.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), in introducing this debate, which has taken a highly entertaining turn—a turn hardly to be expected after her speech—said that she had some difficulty in recognising European culture when she saw it. She seemed to have some difficulty in recognising culture at all. It seems to me that she was curiously blind to the culture that has emanated from the new world, which has so greatly enriched the old world and, at least in so far as it uses the English language, is now probably among the more lively components of our culture. For instance, many of the great English language playwrights of the 20th century are from the United States. Arthur Miller is perhaps the greatest living writer of plays in the English language. The hon. Lady's remarks were cheap.
  This debate seeks to focus on the role of the European Community and on the expanding part—even if the expansion is limited and gradual—that it is anticipated the

  285
  Community might properly play. There are many ways of responding to the question, "What is European culture?" In the minds of some, European culture may be the glory that was Greece, the grandeur that was Rome, and all that stems therefrom. It may be a common awareness of the cultural framework which, regardless of national boundaries within Europe, enables us to adopt cultural references. Tilting at windmills may be a Spanish metaphor drawn from Don Quixote, but it is one that springs to the lips of politicians in this country not infrequently. At times I was inclined to think that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, in attacking the Government, was behaving rather like Don Quixote with regard to the subject of the arts.
  Similarly, only the most purblind cultural nationalist seeks to appropriate to himself a particular genius within Europe. How many people beyond those who happen to live in the small country of Austria, where Mozart spent most of his life, claim to appreciate his work? It is not because Mozart happened to spend a number of months in London composing his early symphonies that we share the Europeanness of his music; rather, it is because we appreciate his music as an integral part of the heritage to which we all belong and with which we have grown up.
  Likewise, it would be absurd for the German people to appropriate Schiller as peculiarly theirs as so much of his material was drawn from other histories, other sources. I am thinking of his horrific play "Maria Stuart", which depends upon the history of my country, Scotland, and which formed the basis of an Italian opera by Donizetti.
  These cultural influences are now so interwoven that the kind of cultural nationalism which we have seen sometimes advocated by junior Ministers from the Department of Education in promoting the reading of particular books in the common curriculum seems to me to be extraordinarily misplaced at the end of the 20th century. To suggest that all children under the age of 12 in this country should become word perfect in the St. Crispin's day speech in "Henry V" seems to me to be a peculiarly narrow view of the dramatic purpose of Shakespeare's play, and to seek to appropriate Shakespeare to this country in a way that is somewhat laughable.
  5 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, as a person not quite of his high culture, but surely there is also a danger of a kind of universal culture, a mish-mash. Is there not a danger that it all gets confused, like a kind of mid-Atlantic television; like Muzak, a kind of culture-zak, which is rootless and meaningless? If we are to avoid that, people have to be grounded in the art, literature, culture and music of their own country as a starting point for going out and absorbing the culture of the world.
  Mr. Maclennan: I give way to none in seeking to promote the culture of my own country, but, if we have to start off with "Greensleeves" in our appreciation of music and elevate it in importance ahead of Mozart because it happens to be of great antiquity and a much loved piece of English music, we are getting things slightly out of proportion.
  286
  To revert to the question of what is European culture, I accept that, in describing some of the high points of European art as the common heritage of all European citizens, there may be some risk that we fall into the trap of promoting some sort of mish-mash. But I must say to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that there is not a common framework of reference for ourselves and the Chinese, for example. There is undoubtedly a very highly developed culture in China, but it is largely foreign to people living in Europe. It may be that gradually that will break down and that gradually there will be a much greater awareness of these things, but that may take centuries; it will certainly not take less than many decades.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am listening very carefully, but in this country in the 1700s very large numbers of artists were busy copying Chinese patterns, furniture and lacquer. It may certainly be true that the number of British people who read Confucius every day is limited, but the idea that somehow or other the gap between Britain and China is unbridgeable is not correct. We have shown the sincerest form of flattery, which is imitation, for some centuries.
  Mr. Maclennan: Obviously, Europeans are aware of Chinese culture, and the Chinese were aware of European culture when they produced goods for export in the 18th century modelled on European designs for the English, and even the American, market. But there is not the same degree of comprehension of these discrete cultures as there is of the European culture. This is not to rank or rate cultures; it is simply to recognise that we grow up with the language of European culture, as we do not yet with other cultures, although no doubt, as communications improve and as the influence of our ethnic minorities grows within our own community and makes us more aware of some of these cultures which are not yet appreciated in the same way, this will change.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which the English and the Scots acquired this European culture, in the course, particularly, of the 18th and 19th centuries, is extraordinary? We all know that it is only possible to acquire culture with the assistance of state grants. The way in which gentlemen went on the grand tour to try to acquire European culture was quite extraordinary. There was no Minister of Arts, no grants and no European policy for this. One might even say that it is impertinent of individuals to take upon themselves an activity which ought properly to be exclusively that of the state.
  Mr. Maclennan: I was coming on to the central point of the interventionary speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about funding. This influence goes back a lot further than the 18th century. The university of Glasgow, the city in which I was brought up, was founded 500 years and more ago on the model of the university of Bologna. The patronage that made that possible was not that of the state; it was that of the Church and Bishop Turnbull.
  There has always been patronage of the arts. In earlier centuries, it may not have been the state as currently organised, but it has certainly been as a result of the specific and deliberate fostering of what very often was a minority interest by those in authority. If one looks back to the Athens of Pericles, or the Florence of the Medici,

  287
  one sees that those people were not only wealthy, they were also rulers. That, in effect, was the state funding of its day. The fact that we have somewhat different constitutional arrangements today in no way diminishes the importance of recognising the role of the state in fostering the arts.
  The Community, in proposing to adopt article 128, in title 9, on culture, is taking quite modest steps forward in the development of this process. They are entirely desirable steps, for hitherto, although the European Community has been able to expend a modest amount of money on the arts—I believe some £5 million per annum, approximately—it has done so in the margins of other expenditure upon commerce, inter-state relations and promotion of the concept of the European identity, in a rather narrow, public relations manner. It has not been able to devote funds strictly to the fostering of the arts for their own value as such.
  The provisions of the treaty which we are now debating—there is more than one provision linked together—enable the Community to develop with greater deliberation its cultural function and identity and to take into account its cultural needs in promoting other valued activity on a Community basis. I am thinking, for example, of the importance of taking into account cultural interests in the development of competition policy. It is important that it be recognised that the national heritage should be a consideration which may be taken into account in justifying expenditure which might otherwise be struck out under the provisions of article 92, but which is explicitly safeguarded by the proposed amendments to this treaty.
  It seems to me that the European Community can help to promote the sense of citizenship, the virtue of citizenship, of this wider organisation by promoting the cultural identity of Europe and giving itself a competence which it has hitherto not enjoyed.
  As I said, it is a modest step, partly because article 128 permits only unanimous action to be taken. It does not involve a great encroachment of national authority; it merely allows steps to be taken when there is agreement. I doubt whether that will prove to be an obstacle to the development of community funding and a common approach to the arts because such matters, as opposed to other areas of public policy, tend to be less controversial between nations. Therefore, I strongly welcome the changes made to the community law as they relate to culture. They recognise the common history, inheritance, and interest in the promotion of art in Europe.
  Mr. Jessel: Some 35 years ago, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) played I believe, a violin in the Oxford university ensemble club in which I played a double bass. That is the only time that I have been in harmony with him, as I have not agreed with a single word or action of his since.
  This debate is about culture, which is a wide concept. It is about what people are. It is not simply about their language, religion, art or heritage; it is also about their loyalties and to whom they feel they belong.
  Paragraph 1 in article 128 of the treaty says:
  "The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member State, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore."
  I do not know what the "common cultural heritage" is, but I am sure that it should not be brought to the fore. I believe that it is the national and regional diversity which should
  288
  be kept to the fore. So I disagree with the basic attitude which article 128 seeks to project. The hon. Gentleman said that article 128 was modest, but attitudes matter.
  May I first refer to national cooking and cuisine, as that is an aspect of culture? I will be brief. The three greatest European cuisines are French, Turkish and Italian. French cooking is, of course, the glory of France and its identity perhaps taken with its language. It must not be blurred by some common European cultural heritage. It would be utter nonsense to expect the French to blur their cooking with fast foods, supermarket frozen foods, McDonalds and so on. We must uphold the national and regional diversity in France, Turkey, Italy, Scandinavia and the other sources of European identity as expressed in national cuisine.
  Mr. Kim Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that perhaps the European Parliament or the national Government should ban McDonalds from entering their national heritage?
  Mr. Jessel: Yes; I think that those countries might seek to encourage that, because they want to put to the fore the idea of a European cultural identity. They should not do that; they should foster national differences and put them first and foremost. That seems to be what life is all about.
  We all need to feel that we are part of something bigger than we each are. Life consists of interlocking circles. We are all part of our country, political party, village, firm, religion or whatever. Those are all natural units to which it is a reasonable human instinct to want to belong. However, it is not a natural human instinct to want to belong to a continent or to feel some sort of European identity. Attempts to bring that about artificially are doomed to failure. I hope that they are doomed to failure especially in the gastronomic field.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is it possible to have different loyalties at different levels? Can people be loyal to a continentwide culture as well as to their own country? They can be loyal to the countries within the United Kingdom, their regions, towns and villages. Why do they have to be exclusive, one from the other?
  Mr. Jessel: We all feel loyalty to more than one of those units or circles which comprise the life in which we all participate. Some of those units, such as the family and the nation, are more natural instincts than others. If one tries to foster a cultural identity for a continent which is not natural, it will not stick, and something will give.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman feeling the loyalty which he has expressed so well, but I take exception to being told that I am in some way expressing something which he must define as unnatural if I feel a loyalty to Europe.
  Mr. Jessel: It is unnatural. Hardly anyone feels it. If institutions and people try to foster an unnatural instinct, it will crash and will not work. All over the world, there are groupings of nations, federations, unions, communities and so on. We have seen federations collapse in the Soviet Union, in Yugoslavia and in Czechoslovakia. There is friction in Kashmir and in Quebec. In Europe, the Ottoman empire crashed. The Austro-Hungarian empire

  289
  crashed. If one forces nations together against instinct, it will not stick; it will crash in violence and blood, and it will end in tears.
  Mr. Maclennan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is making an extremely serious point about federations and so on, and he used gastronomic examples to illustrate his point. Does he accept that he is on a hiding to nothing if he forces British or English people to eat toad-in-the-hole in preference to poulet à l'estragon?
  Mr. Jessel: Of course we all want to taste foreign cooking. I am proud of the fact that I am the chairman of the all-party Indo-British Parliamentary Group. I believe that there are more Indian restaurants in Britain than in India. That is a most remarkable thing, if it is true. I am delighted that there is an increasing consumption of Indian food in Britain, but that does not mean that we should govern India, or that the Indians should govern us.
  The Chairman: Order. That subject does not come under this amendment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will relate his point to the Community rather than to India.
  Mr. Jessel: Absolutely, Mr. Morris. I accept your rebuke. You are right; I was trying not to dodge the question of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
  I turn to the question of the arts in Europe. After 17 years' service, I have just resigned from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is the 25-nation body on which you, Mr. Morris, have also served. You will be familiar with what I am saying. I was the rapporteur for the introduction of European Music Year 1985, which was the tercentenary of the births of Bach, Handel and Scarlatti who were all born in 1685. European Music Year, on which we did three years' work, was an instance of co-operation between the Council of Europe countries and the European Community. It would have been inconceivable to hold European Music Year without involving Austria—the country of Mozart—Norway—the country of Grieg—or Spain, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will know, was not then a member of the European Community.
  At the outset of European Music Year, I arranged for the great Belgian violinist, the late Artur Grumiaux, to play an unaccompanied Bach partita in the hemicycle of the Palace of Europe. Incidentally, that building belongs to the Council of Europe and is rented part-time to the European Parliament, which sometimes pretends that it owns the building.
  If there is a common cultural heritage within the wider Europe, it does not spring from the fact that it is European. The mainspring of the cultural tradition which is called European is either religion—mainly Christian, or it could be widened to Judaeo-Christian—or national patriotism and loyalty. The common heritage springs from those two factors. In no way does it spring from some European continental instinct.
  Let us take the great movements in European art—for example, in painting. They include Italian religious paintings, Dutch interiors, the great Spanish school and English paintings such as those by Reynolds, Gainsborough, Constable and Stubbs. The latter are English. They are British. Their inspiration is English. In
  290
  the context of the treaty and the debate, there is a bogus argument, with bogus logic. It is that England is in Europe; therefore, those English paintings are European paintings; therefore, they are part of a European cultural heritage; therefore, we shall bring a European cultural heritage to the fore. Yet there is no such thing. They are English paintings, and their inspiration is English.
  Dr. Howells: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that painting cannot be defined simply by its subject matter. The practice of oil painting spread from Europe. Our lack of awareness that technology, technique and ways of doing things are cross-frontier and universal has informed the whole debate so far. It is facile to describe such concepts as national. Paintings are as much about Europe as about Britain.
  Mr. Jessel: Usually a painting is of a person, an event or a scene. The context is a country and a school of painting. The inspiration of a particular painting is generally much more national than European, even if techniques have travelled across boundaries. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is total rubbish."] It is not rubbish. Let us take Italian opera, German orchestral and instrumental music or the British choral tradition—there are three choral societies in my constituency—or the work of Elgar, which is purely English and British. The "Pomp and Circumstance" marches or "Land of Hope and Glory" are clearly patriotic music which evokes patriotic feeling about Britain, not Europe.
  British people want to keep institutions such as the last night of the Proms, which are a British, not a European, tradition. British people certainly want to keep our tremendous tradition of British military bands, which are the finest in the world and are trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall in Twickenham and are the envy of the world.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a painter, may I say that nothing that goes on in Europe is likely to alter my style of painting or influence it. I do not regard it as European but as Fairbairnian. Dutch paintings, for example, is as it is because the light in Holland is different from that in France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal. That is why painters from those countries all paint differently. God help us if we all try to make them paint the same.
  Mr. Jessel: Of course we must all accept that. No one would suggest that my hon. Friend is in any way the same as other people. Long may he remain that way. I hope that we shall continue to enjoy seeing his paintings in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Perhaps my hon. Friend could help me. Some time ago, I bought a painting by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It is of an Italian harbour scene. Is it an Italian painting, a Scottish painting, a Fairbairnian painting or a European painting?
  Mr. Jessel: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend knew that my hon. Friend was a keen European and would be likely to buy the painting. [Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech, or is he giving way?
  Mr. Jessel: I have not finished my speech. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister intended to intervene.
  There are several aspects of European culture which we do not want here. One of them is pornographic films, as broadcast on cable television. They are broadcast in increasing quantity. People are worried about the effect on the well-being of their children. Nothing is being done to stop the broadcasting of such films. Everyone has seen and perhaps enjoyed rude things of one sort or another from time to time, but people do not want this stuff to come into their houses by cable television. The European Commission seems entirely lacking in determination to stop it. The Commission is not carrying out the will of the people of Britain in that matter.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that even all Members of Parliament together can do nothing to stop Europorn coming into Britain, because of the European broadcasting directive, which was referred to briefly at two o'clock in the morning one day in 1989? That is a fact. Even if 650 Members of Parliament said that we wanted to stop European porn such as "Red Hot Dutch" coming into Britain and being sold in Harrow and elsewhere, there is nothing that we could do about it. It is not the fault of the Commission but that of the directive, which was approved by the Council of Ministers [Laughter.] It is not a matter for Foreign Office Ministers to laugh about. Some of us care deeply about porn being sold in Britain as a result of a European broadcasting directive.
  Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench heard what he said. I hope that they will say something about it when they reply.
  Mr. Marlow: I realise that my hon. Friend is about to start on another part of his speech, which I am sure is important. Before he does so, may I ask him a question? He will be aware that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who moved the amendment, said at the end of her speech that she hoped that, under article 128, the great panjandrums of Europe such as Mr. Delors and his friends would be able to set a target for spending on culture of a certain percentage of Government expenditure for all European countries, including Britain. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the article is pregnant with such potential atrocities?
  Mr. Jessel: Yes. It is all part of the European Community institutions trying to tell us more and more what to do. It is all part of the concept of pooling the government of Britain with that of continental countries. The people of Britain do not want that in the arts, in culture or in any other field. Most of us have nothing against, for example, Spaniards or Italians, but the British people do not want to share in ruling Spain or Italy. They certainly do not want the Spaniards and the Italians to have a share in ruling us.
  We want friendship and co-operation. In cultural matters there is already a tremendous amount going on by way of exchanges. Our great orchestras, singers, operas and ballets frequently travel on the continent. There is enormous international movement not only of the live arts but of exhibitions of the work of creative artists—so much so that some people have begun to worry.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Jessel: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must conclude.
  Paintings are moved so often that some people are worried that they may be damaged as they are flown around the continent in aeroplanes. Many exhibitions are paid for by the British Council. I am all in favour of bilateral sponsorship, and some exhibitions are sponsored by American and Japanese interests.
  The system is going extremely well. It does not need to be tampered with. We do not need bits of paper from the European Commission. We should remember that sound and sensible American doctrine: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it." Let us concentrate on diversity and cut out all the nonsense about bringing a common cultural heritage to the fore. We do not want it, we do not need it, we ought to have nothing to do with it, and we ought to throw out this terrible treaty.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: As someone who considers the definitions of what constitutes good, or high art, and bad, or low art, to be problematic at best and irrelevant most of the time, it grieves me to have to beg to differ with my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I suspect that the lyrics of Cole Porter and Bob Dylan explored and reflected the experience of contemporary life with at least as much veracity and insight as the very best librettist of a 20th century opera, and probably a lot better. It is not helpful to talk about the influence of culture in that way, nor is it possible to describe what is a great culture and what is bad.
  So-called high or great art has appropriated modes of dance and speech which were—and are—developed in popular dance halls and on the streets, which are not necessarily recognised as the seedbed of great art by the people who are paid excellent salaries to tell us what does or does not constitute great art. I hope that article 128 will not result in a proliferation of salaried positions throughout Europe for culture vultures who, I am afraid, expropriate far too much of the money that is made available to artists, writers and musicians in Europe, and which should end up in their pockets, rather than with quangos from Dublin to Berlin.
  The interesting aspect of article 128 is that it may make possible co-operation in film production throughout Europe. This country has a great, but aging reputation in film. We have watched our film industry decline rapidly during the past 20 years. Although we must be careful not to romanticise the French and Italian film industries, we have a good deal to learn from them about the way in which we fund films. It is important to emphasise that the British film industry—I say British because I want to differentiate between English and Welsh films—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about Scottish films?
  Dr. Howells: I shall discuss Scottish films in a different way.
  We must understand the relationship between film making in this country, which is mainly English-speaking, and in America, as that is important if we are to understand our relationship with Europe. There has been a great flowering of European film making, especially after

  293
  the second world war, and a parallel decline in British film making. Perhaps that has as much to do with the direct competition that we face from English-speaking film makers in America as it has to do with any decline in cultural talent and creativity in this country. I believe that it has much more to do with that competition.
  During the past five years, the Welsh language channel S4C has been one of the great cradles of film making, albeit on a modest scale, and large sums of money have been made available to it. I understand that they run to about £45 million a year at the moment. Knowing the Government, it is a mystery to some of us why that generosity continues. I am glad it does, because it is an interesting and worthwhile experiment, which shows that it is possible to fund film, or at least to create a seedbed of talent and hope that it will develop.
  Mr. Key: That illustrates exactly what we mean by subsidiarity. The great benefit of article 128 in the treaty of Maastricht is precisely that it concentrates on what national Governments should do and does not seek to establish a grand European design. In the same breath, I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what is happening in Scotland with the Gaelic language and the fact that, when talking about less-used European languages, it is important to understand exactly what we mean. We are not merely talking about languages spoken by a few score thousand people. The Danes are very sensitive about Danish being a less-used European language, as are the Germans in the context of publishing.
  Dr. Howells: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I think that that is one of the easier examples of subsidiarity to understand. However, it must constantly be tested in this Parliament. We cannot take it for granted that next year's grant for Welsh or Scottish language film making will be automatic. I assume that it will not be, and that we shall have to fight that battle next year as we have done in the past.
  Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is no hint of any application of the principle of subsidiarity in article 128?
  Dr. Howells: Thank you. I understand that the article comes under the heading of those governed by subsidiarity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is in the first sentence.
  On the funding of film making in Europe, I do not for a moment believe that the future lies with some sort of Euro-film culture. Some examples of joint film production in Europe are excellent, but I am afraid that some are the filmic equivalent of the Eurovision song contest. As a fan of cowboy films, I think some of the awful spaghetti westerns that have been made on the prairies of Spain and at Cinecitta in Rome are an example. However, we should not be put off by that—and nor should we see it as the model for the future.
  The interesting aspect of article 128 is the possibility that it offers for the movement of capital and the joint funding of films. For whatever reason, there have been many heroic attempts to raise large amounts of money to make films in Britain. One thinks of the successes of people such as David Puttnam in doing so.
  Film making is a phenomenally expensive industry, if the films are to compete in an international market. I
  294
  understand that the latest Steven Spielberg film cost about $55 million, and that the lead character—a dinosaur—cost more than it cost to make the film Casablanca. We must come to terms with how we can raise that amount of money. Whether because of Government policy or the backwardness of banks and financiers and their unimaginative policies, the money has not been forthcoming and our best talents have had to move across the Atlantic to try to find it. I hope that the opportunities presented by article 128 will make the Government take notice of the possibilities, and take a lead in seeking funds.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend mentioned the provision by the Community of money for the making of Welsh language films. Small amounts may be specifically allowable for what are patronisingly called "less-used languages"; but if the British film industry made a determined attempt to secure the fiscal and other support that other European countries give to their film industries, we should immediately be told that that would distort the pattern of trade. It simply would not be acceptable.
  Dr. Howells: I cannot agree. This may sound like heresy, coming from an Opposition Member, but I do not believe that the future of films depends on state subsidy. The state cannot fund the film industry, regardless of who governs the state concerned. We cannot ask the taxpayer to put up $50 million, or the sterling equivalent. The role of the state is to create the seedbed for film talent—and, so far as I can see, nothing in article 128 will preclude that happening in this or any other European country. Indeed, we may be able to learn from the European example.
  None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has raised an important point. What will happen, for example, if free competition across European frontiers requires the fair competition office in Brussels to investigate the £45 million given by the British Government to S4C, the Welsh language channel? Will it be seen as unfair competition, on the ground that it promotes the British film industry? I fear that this may spell trouble for many of our finest institutions which currently receive state funds.
  I have hopes for article 128. I think that it may advance the film industry—not through the idea that we shall come up with a European image of film, which I consider hopeless nonsense, but perhaps through the idea that the individual creative talent which exists in each European region and nation can be helped by receiving funds.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): I call the Minister of State.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that it will be convenient if I speak briefly—[Interruption.]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to select speakers, and I have selected the Minister of State.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Thank you, Dame Janet. Like other hon. Members, I am extremely anxious to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has to say.
  The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for making it clear that her purpose was to provide the Committee with an opportunity for debate. So far, we have engaged in an amusing and interesting debate, and we have enjoyed that;

  295
  I must tell the hon. Lady, however, that—charming colleague though she is outside the House—her speech was, I fear, disappointing to all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) rightly described it as an extraordinary speech, snide and denigrating in tone; the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said the same.
  The hon. Lady treated us to a tour d'horizon, but I fear that her horizons proved rather narrow for me, at any rate—and, I believe, for the Committee. Hardly a commonplace did not receive a mention. The hon. Lady's remarks about United States culture and renaissance values, her attacks on the Government and Baroness Thatcher—[Interruption.]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not expect to hear a seated commentary.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Thank you, Dame Janet.
  Those remarks by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley were, I think, a disappointment to the Committee. They were not up to the standards that we expected. Moreover, in your absence, Dame Janet, she came out with some quotations in Welsh and invited me to follow her down the same route. I shall resist the temptation, as heaven above knows where it might lead me.
  5.45 pm
  The hon. Lady crowned her speech with a very silly proposition: that the European Community should set minimum standards of expenditure—and later on, no doubt, minimum standards of culture. As I have said, she came out with a number of commonplaces; even Dr. Goebbels got a mention. I think that it was Dr. Goebbels who said, "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver."—[HON. MEMBERS: "Goering."] I am bound to say that when I hear the hon. Member for Cynon Valley discussing this subject I tend to reach for my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—who, alas, is not present today. I think that he would have dealt with the hon. Lady's remarks much more briskly and comprehensively than I could.
  The article, as drafted in the treaty, responds to our concerns and provides a fully satisfactory basis for the development of cultural activity. It puts the emphasis where it rightly belongs—on national initiatives. It talks, for example, of the Community's "supporting and supplementing"—not replacing—co-operation between member states, and of the need to respect "national and regional diversity". It is also outward-looking in recognising the need for both the Community and member states to co-operate with third countries, the Council of Europe and others; and, in what is inevitably a sensitive area, it offers the safeguard of unanimity and specifically excludes harmonisation.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has supported me throughout today's debate. As the creation of the new Department of National Heritage has underlined, the arts and heritage are of growing importance in many people's lives. That is true both in this country and in other member states. In practice, EC Culture Ministers have been meeting for several years, and the level of Commission activity has tended to increase.
  It is an obvious advantage to have a proper legal basis for the co-ordination of this activity, which previously took place in a rather unfocused legislative context. Even
  296
  better is to have a clear definition of what it is appropriate for the Community to do in the cultural field. Thankfully, article 128 eschews the grandiose, and identifies some sensible areas, which member states can usefully work together.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to clarify the legislative basis on which Ministers have worked together towards co-operation if—as the right hon. Gentleman has told us—those Ministers do not intend to implement legislation at senior level? Surely Ministers cannot co-operate cheerfully and then suddenly say that they want a legislative base without giving the House a clear indication that they will do something with that legislative base.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: There are two answers to the hon. Lady's perfectly fair question. First, in the past four or five years we have become increasingly aware that, unless the areas in which Commission activity is permitted are specifically defined and limited, the Commission in its enthusiasm—which is sometimes well placed and sometimes misplaced—will seek to involve itself in areas where we had not envisaged its intervention. We have become increasingly exposed to that possibility since the passage of the Single European Act. Some articles in the treaty would permit such involvement—by unanimity, I am glad to say.
  Secondly, as taxpayers' money is likely to be spent, even though the sums involved will not be huge, I think it right to define, limit and clarify the areas in which the Commission can act.
  The extent of cultural co-operation and interchange in Europe is growing all the time. It is already a practical reality that we have experienced in Britain and shared with our European neighbours. One recent example in the United Kingdom was the European city of culture programme and hon. Members, particularly those representing Scottish constituencies, will remember that Glasgow played a quite outstanding role, which has been of continued benefit not only to the citizens of Glasgow but to Scotland as well.
  Dr. Godman: What is the Government's current position on the Council of Europe charter on regional and minority languages? Are the Government closer to becoming a signatory to that charter, or do Ministers still have serious reservations about it?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, it is under active consideration. We hope to be able to respond to that question shortly, although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer now.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point about Bohemian wood carvings. Several of our diplomatic posts in eastern Europe have reported details of stolen articles of this kind. An exercise is being co-ordinated in co-operation with the Department of National Heritage with the objective of establishing a register of stolen articles, including Bohemian wood carvings, which can be circulated to auction houses in the United Kingdom.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an interesting and charming speech. At the end of that speech he said something which would have touched a chord with members of all parts of the Committee—
  Hon. Members: We cannot hear.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the Minister that both for practical reasons and for reasons of courtesy it is better that he should point in the normal direction.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham was expressing a sentiment that will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all need to feel a sense of belonging to our own nation. That is important to us in the expression of our national identity. One of the anxieties that many hon. Members have felt is that, for a number of years, the Community has been moving towards seeking to persuade us that the sense of belonging that we feel for our nation can be, may be or should be replaced and substituted by a sense of belonging to the greater European ideal. In my judgment, the treaty in which the article that we are debating appears gives the lie to that and, to the extent that it ever was true, arrests the process and begins to reverse it.
  Chancellor Helmut Kohl said in a speech in Oxford on 11 November:
  "We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate which will reduce everything to the same level and blur the differences. Rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of unity in diversity."
  I am confident that the Europe to which article 128, through the cultural dimension, will make a contribution, will be one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham will feel at home and comfortable and in which his English identity is both respected and enhanced.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am pleased to be following the Minister, as it seems to me that article 128 sums up precisely what is wrong with the treaty. It is really about time for the House of Commons to say plainly that the Community must stop imposing from above views that ought to grow from co-operation between nations. The article is a classic example of that.
  The Minister told us that, because the Commission does not have a clearly defined role, whenever there is a difficulty it begins to expand into areas in which it has no business to operate. I can understand the Minister's wish to prevent those divisions from getting into administrative and legalistic problems, because they have no direct legal right to interfere in national affairs. But the reality is different.
  The House of Commons gets into a frightful muddle when it talks about culture. We have heard one or two examples of that this afternoon. For example, the culture of my grandchildren, which to a certain extent involves the use of videos, books and paintings that are based on the use of computers and computer design, is not the culture from which I benefited many years ago, from teachers who had a far more formal way of teaching. I do not think that they necessarily gave me a more widely based culture—it was simply different.
  We should be worried about accepting something that talks about a common culture and says that we should make money available for grandiose events that will look as if they are joint efforts, without asking precisely what that means.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was concerned about the diminishing British film industry. There are bilateral treaties, and over the past 30 years there have been attempts by the industry itself and by
  298
  various cultural organisations to produce co-operative films, with varying degress of success, but the reality is that the Community allows enormous differences in national approaches, as it does on so many issues. Were we allowed to protect British films in the way in which the French protect their film industry, there would be some point in looking for a legalistic basis.
  The French have always used every known barrier to protect French films, and they will continue to do so with impunity. They will think of a dozen different reasons. They will say that it is entirely a matter of protecting their language and culture, and that it is important to carry that culture to other nations. They use the money available for cultural budgets to go to Africa and other third-world countries to establish bases which are used, sometimes quite brutally, for the extension of trade—and good luck to them if they can get away with it.
  If we tried to do the same thing, we should rapidly be told that there was no such protection available for English language films, because English is not a minority language. Not even in the House do we pretend that English is a minority language. From time to time, we might believe that we have the sole right to take control of it, but the truth is that, throughout the world, the film industry makes films in a language which is used commercially in a hundred different countries for a hundred different reasons.
  The Community does not need such an article to get co-operation for cultural events. It is quite capable of that without any such definition. The Commission needs the article because it wants to extend its hegemony. That is the reality behind the clause, and that is my basic objection to it. Not all the affectionate or slightly esoteric commitments to the protection of the cultures of those using—that marvellous phrase that the Minister used—"less-used" languages will change the fact that the treaty is meant to "canalise", if we are making up words—[Interruption.] The Community makes up words all the time—its treaties could have been written by Lewis Carroll—so why cannot we all play the same game?
  In any case, the Community is after a means of defining cultural pursuits and co-operation and the money available for culture. That is disastrous. The whole history of Europe shows that culture is the flowering of the arts created by individuals, not dictated by civil servants, by legislation or even by representative groups such as the House of Commons. Culture comes from inside people.
  6 pm
  Recently I saw the best piece of live theatre that I have seen for many years, in St. David's cathedral. It was an nativity play about morality, produced just before Christmas by mentally handicapped pupils of a school in the vicinity—young people who believe implicitly in the magic they create and who used that wonderful cathedral to the full, because they understood the connection between what they were presenting and that age-old marvellous church in Wales. That could not have been produced on a co-operative European basis. It grew out of the love and understanding of those young people.
  Some hon. Members believe that the House of Commons has had its day, that we are moving to a larger theatre: a European theatre. So why, they ask, should we worry about an extension of the Community's powers?

  299
  They say that this is a logical evolution, a normal development towards different political institutions. Not so.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that, although some of the more enthusiastic pro-Maastricht Members think that the House of Commons has had its day, very few of them want to go to the European Parliament, but very large numbers of Members of the European Parliament, the moment there is a vacancy in the House of Commons, put forward their names and work hard to get here?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend should adopt such a cynical approach to our colleagues' aspirations in the other European institutions. It is remiss of him to think that some self-interest might be involved—
  Mr. Budgen: In her absence, perhaps I might speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has aspirations to move on from this parochial gathering to a wider and nobler gathering in Europe. Perhaps she is an exception to the general rule.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I had hoped that the hon. Lady would be here in person tonight, because with her histrionic abilities, I am sure that she could define the difference between the theatre of the House of Commons and the theatre of the European Parliament.
  To return to the article under discussion, some people think that it is possible to produce an entire programme, using taxpayers' money—taken from the taxpayers of the Community—to develop cultural and co-operative projects. The House is right to have deep reservations about this article. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) made a warm and committed speech, but I am not sure whether she thought it a good thing that we should develop this European cultural co-operation, or whether, on the whole, she had reservations about it. I at least have strong feelings—
  Dr. Kim Howells: Is my hon. Friend saying that culture, as defined by article 128, is so narrowly described as to preclude the idea that the children who took part in that cultural event in St. David's cathedral will probably be able to remain in and around it because we have some European money to help to build roads out to Pembrokeshire? We have also managed to get some European money to build roads up to the valleys.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: We are just getting our own money back.
  Dr. Howells: That may well be so, but we should not assume that one lot of money is acceptable while another is not—or that the one is not related to culture and the other is. That is to take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes culture in Europe.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: This is my day for being told off by my Welsh colleagues. As a humble woman, I accept that criticism with humility—but I must tell my hon. Friend that what he says is a load of baloney. Some road schemes in this country are announced on large notices emblazoned with blue and gold stars. Those schemes enjoy a tiny percentage of money from the Community and a very large percentage provided by the British taxpayer. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we can develop cultural events only by obtaining money from the Community, I
  300
  am not convinced. I should want to see a large budget, clearly defined and under the control of these, admittedly inadequate, Ministers before I was prepared to go along with such an idea.
  One has only to read article 128 to realise the difficulties:
  "The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore".
  What a load of rubbish.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Read us some more.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I could read more of it in considerable detail. There has always been a common commitment to the beautiful. It was William Morris who said that one should have nothing in one's house that was not either useful or beautiful—and I think he meant, preferably both.
  Those of us who want the lives of every citizen of this country to be enriched have always wanted access for those citizens to the best of our literature, translated or otherwise—even translations from Celtic enrich those who read them. We want access to museums, to art galleries and to the best of all real art. But the great dearth of culture in the lives of many of those who serve will not be filled by any of this nonesense. Their culture grows out of their interests and their views, and who are we to gainsay them? This article does not deal with that problem, and it does nothing about the dearth of money—money that is needed to help to create the essential arts.
  In my constituency, a small unit teaches teachers to enrich the lives of small children using computers in fabric design, picture design and writing music. I have seen the children in question freed from the pressures of having to draw up staves and create tunes by working them out in their heads. They can use the keyboards and computers to compose music. That is the sort of project that we should be pursuing. Nowhere in the Community does it happen, because it would be regarded as beneath those in the Commission who are full-time cultural employees, concerned only with their manipulative powers to control from Brussels.
  That is what this is about. It has nothing to do with culture. It is concerned with the extension of the powers of the Community. As such, I would go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and her fellow occupants of the Opposition Front Bench if they voted on removing the provision.
  I would take that view not because I am against culture—even though my ex-husband always used it as a word of denigration; even I know that one must have an expensive public school education before one can be rude about culture—but because I do not see that we are discussing an area in which the EC has any right, legitimate interest or vision of what it is doing. It should not interfere where it has no business to stray.
  Mr. Budgen: It would be disgraceful if I spoke for long, because my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who was a distinguished Minister at the Department of Education, will undoubtedly have a unique contribution to make to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is also anxious to speak, for he has a strong view about the expression of British identity which is endangered by the article that we are discussing.

  301
  We are aware of the vigorously authoritarian attitude that is being pursued by the Government in bashing the Bill through the House. They will do their best, by the means available to them, to prevent my hon. Friends from expressing their views. I shall not do the business of the Whips by speaking for too long, thereby excluding my hon. Friends who have distinguished contributions to make to this important debate.
  In a long and important contribution, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) demonstrated what can be described as the progressive force of the Community. She says of article 128, "My goodness, this is a jolly good little article. This is a provision by which we in the Labour party can encourage the institutions of the Community to use their power to subvert the will of the British people, as for the time being expressed in electing a Conservative Government to power.
  "We," says the hon. Lady, "would like to see rather more money spent on the arts. We should also like to see local authorities interfered with by a Labour Government in imposing various architectural standards and standards of expenditure. Sadly, we have not been elected by the British people to carry out those proposals, so let us see if we can get them enforced on the British people by a European side wind."
  The hon. Lady then uses article 128 as a way of subverting our constitution, and she suggests ways by which it could be extended. As we know, certain people in the Commission would support her in those aspirations. In addition, the European Court, sometimes called a progressive institution, would be pleased to support the aspirations of the Commission in extending the power of the European institutions. So it is easy to see how article 128 could be used for the purposes which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley suggests. For those and other reasons, it is important that we hear the views of the Committee before a vote is taken on the subject.
  It is easy for the Minister to look at a narrow interpretation of article 128 and say that the British Government are not likely to agree to it being extended by the Commission or by any of those in the EEC with federal aspirations. But the most dangerous feature of the way in which business is done in the Community is the trade-off. Consider, for example, the trade-off which allows a British Conservative Government to applaud even the extension of cohesion funds and to pretend that that extension fits easily with the philosophy of the Government, in so far as they have any philosophy.
  6.15 pm
  I understand that the Government now pride themselves on having none. In the bad old days when we had a British Conservative Government with a philosophy, it used to be rather uncomfortable to return with proposals for rapidly increasing expenditure in the EEC. In the bad old days when Lady Thatcher was leading the Conservative party, she used to find it disagreeable to explain that she had agreed, as part of a trade-off, to increases in expenditure.
  When it is said that we do not particularly want the soldiers of the Cheshire Regiment or, as it may become, the Staffordshire Regiment, unhappily risking their lives for European purposes in Bosnia; and when, as may be the case, this House begins to express its distaste for the
  302
  European purposes of the Commission in the old Yugoslavia, it is likely that somebody will ask, "If you are going to take your troops away, do you think you could give us a bit more money for European culture?" So, rather than saying no to everything, the trade-off will be a slightly more progressive attitude towards article 128.
  As I said, I shall be brief, because I am anxious that my hon. Friends are not excluded by the authoritarian attitude of the Whips from expressing their attitude towards the subject—[Interruption.] I hope that they will not only give their attitude but take action. Indeed, I am anxious that we hear the views of the whole House.
  Article 128 is no insignificant matter, because it is to be considered a means of supporting and enhancing the identity of the European state. Why does any state subscribe money to the arts? In our modern democracies, money is sometimes given simply to buy support, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is so crude as to point out—[Interruption.] He is a very good man, whose views I summarise by saying that he points out that sometimes the funds subscribed by working-class taxpayers are used to buy middle-class support for expensive shows for which the middle class would rather themselves not pay entirely.
  That is state expenditure of a modern, democratic sort. Much reference has been made to state expenditure on the arts in the past. It is pointed out that the Medici spent a great deal of money. That happened not because the Medici were demonstrating, as they spent their money on art, that they had a particularly warm feeling for their citizens and were saying, "We must never poison another human being."
  Mr. Cormack: Perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to the Borgias.
  Mr. Budgen: Let us not go in for another assassination: let us respect the dignity of our citizens. The Medicis decided to put some cash into culture to demonstrate the power, the authority and the identity of their state. That is what article 128 is about: it is designed to allow those who wish to enhance the identity of the European state to give money to promote that aim.
  I listened with care to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I wonder what my attitude would be if I were a Welsh nationalist and there was before Parliament a measure authorising expenditure on the making of the Union Jack. I would vote against it, because the Union Jack is a symbol of the authority and identity of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Budgen: I should like to finish this peroration, and shall deliver a second one when I have had time to draw breath.
  Article 128 is designed to enhance the identity of the European state, and that is no more and no less than what every state has done throughout the ages. It has taken money from the taxpayer to enforce its power and enhance its identity.
  Mr. Rowe: I find my hon. Friend's picture more encouraging than the reality, which appears to be that organisations such as the European Community or the Arts Council spend far too much money encouraging

  303
  extremely divergent cultures and do their level best to revive minority cultures that would be better consigned to oblivion.
  Mr. Budgen: In a democracy, Governments use cultural subsidies to buy the support of various groups. I shall give an example. Until recently, Wolverhampton council was for a long time controlled by the Labour party and used to buy the support of ethnic groups by offering subsidies to ethnic theatres. Of course, that is not much different from the Government offering to support the middle class and trying to buy their votes by giving enhanced grants to the Arts Council. That is an inescapable part of the modern democratic process, but it has been the practice throughout the centuries for the state to spend money on culture to enhance its authority. Of course, article 128 does not state the honest federalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) but slips it in slowly and surreptitiously, carefully and hypocritically, and deals with
  "bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore."
  I do not know when European cultural policy will have a new boost. Perhaps it will be in 1996, when there is a mark 2 Maastricht treaty or when, eventually, the true federal nature of the European institutions will be unclothed a little more. Article 128 is just as much an expression of European identity as the provisions for European citizenship. Those of us who are British nationalists want to reject it all.
  Mr. Randall: Essentially, the article is about co-operation between member states and with the third world to encourage diversity. That is a wonderful aim, which I wholly support, because culture transcends national boundaries. The article extends the Community's powers to cover culture, and that is welcome. The private sector, not just the Government, has an important role in funding the arts and culture. I was devastated by the way in which the funding of the Royal Shakespeare Company meant that some important productions had to be terminated. There was no scope for cutting costs, other than by reducing quality, and joint funding was essential.
  The co-operative involvement of all Community countries as outlined in the article will benefit culture not only in this country but throughout the Community. Some such structure is needed because current co-operation is far too limited and needs to be extended. The arts and culture involve minority interests that cannot be funded by the market, because insufficient money is collected at the kiosks of theatres and other establishments. Therefore, there must be some subsidy.
  Article 128 contains some worthwhile elements, and I am pleased that my party supports it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that we would not vote against it, but one's voting intentions on the treaty as a whole do not show whether one supports or is against an article. That is why I intervened on my hon. Friend.
  The co-operative improvement of knowledge of European culture and its conservation would be excellent. The notion of exchanges of artistic and literary creations would strengthen the arts and culture. The article would encourage national diversity: if it did not do that, but sought to create homogeneous cultures, I would have great reservations about it.
  Dr. Godman: Article 128 would give the Commission far more competence on cultural matters. Is my hon. Friend relaxed about such a development?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Randall: Yes, I am—for the main reason that, when it comes to decision-making, recommendations will be made but there will be a question of unanimity, so I believe that there is protection if one has a feeling of horror about the power of the Commission. That is a powerful argument.
  We are not talking about harmonisation at all. We are not saying that each national Government has to have the same legislation on this and that we are going to create art and culture like sausage out of a sausages machine. I am convinced that the will will exist throughout the Community and in our own Government and Opposition to ensure that that richness in our society would not be swept away. I believe that, although it is easy to put over the cynical argument that this is the Commission with Delors marching through and tearing our paintings off the wall and stamping on them and carrying out all that kind of nonsense, that cynical argument does not stand up because of the importance of this whole thing.
  We are talking of the whole character and personality of our country expressed through this medium. That is all I wanted to say. Article 128 is worth while if one looks at it in isolation, as we must do in Committee. It is comprehensive and encouraging. The notion of the countries of Europe co-operating in this way is something which I find exciting; I am convinced that it will enrich the culture of our society and of Europe in a shared way which is utterly exciting.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: This culture article—article 128—reads like an article in the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It enjoys all the same sort of ad hominem goodwill, such as:
  "while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore."
  It has a series of aspirational claims. However I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who led for the Opposition in characteristic form, showing the true colours of this debate. She moved an amendment to remove article 128 from the treaty, and I intend to speak in favour of that amendment. The hon. Lady suggested that she was probing, but I could not identify one probing comment in her remarks. She indicated, however, that she did not intend to oppose the article. I am disappointed about that, and I will give my reasons.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) gave the essential concept of the nature of what is stated: art and culture are often used for the purposes of aggrandisement. I am very conscious of that aspect because in some of the instances that have been mooted and floated around the House—the great ruling families such as the Hapsburgs and the Medicis—it was to be an adornment for the state. That brings me to the point that I think has informed these debates the whole way through the examination of the Bill in Committee—that this is a constitution that we are considering. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) tried, under title I, to identify whether this did not have the elements of the state, of the executive, of their powers and

  305
  competetences and so on. One acknowledges that this small article 128 is an instance which lays claim to a common policy.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley noted that the article added a new legal competence to the Community, and said that additionally it was under a single institutional framework. Why is this necessary? The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was cautious under title I to say that this House need only legislate for that which is necessary. What is necessary about legislation within the United Kingdom to enforce the objectives of this article? What is wrong with working as we have always worked—intergovernmentally—to establish the objectives and ideals that we seek?
  We can go through the words, but what is diversity of culture and "flowering of cultures"? What is European culture? I suggest that European culture is the sum total of all the constituent elements in it, no more and no less. When we say "culture", it includes all the elements of those things to which we respond. Opposition Members identify what is meant by the distinction that is often made in a popular sense: popular culture, high culture and middle-brow culture.
  All these are competing elements, and many of the objects now identified as culture grew from the popular activities of the people of individual nations. Over the years, they fade or come into glory as they are: the insistent drum-beat, that everything now needs subsidisation or the transfer of funds from one area to another, is to keep what in being? I think of all the thousands of artefacts from ancient Greece that have been destroyed. Part of life is a remembrance of things past; part of it is the echo through the lines of culture that we have. What hon. Members have said is quite right: our culture is a common culture in one particular—that it draws from all the strengths and beacons of light, of intelligence, of spirit and soul that have illuminated the ages. Yet none of this has required a central European organisation to identify it.
  Who is the best custodian of culture? If it will not flower from within ourselves or the people, surely it is the national Government who have the greatest regard. Has French culture failed to flourish because there is no European central commission initiating proposals for the survival of French culture? The proposition is ridiculous. France, vigilant as always to its honour, its integrity, and the regard in which it is held in the world, consigns a third of its public revenues to the maintenance of its cultural objectives. It recognises in culture that the prestige, the association and the grandeur which comes from that are part of its standing in the world as a whole.
  It is because the French as a nation state within the European Community identify that, that others do so. We see in Germany the huge level of subsidies poured into state opera companies, and God bless them for it. They must direct their resources where they want and identify the elements of culture that are theirs.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley opened by saying that she was in harmony with our Front Bench, thus emphasising that we are now living under a Con-Lab Government in respect of Maastricht and there is resentment clearly emanating from Labour Front-Bench
  306
  Members that they are not sitting with their colleagues in this matter, on the Government Front Bench. That illustrates the tensions involved.
  No one, not even the Minister of State, explained why the matter needed a single institutional framework, nor why it needed a legal competence. If I understood his rather dismissive argument, it was that the Community extends its competences anyway and that putting some new competence in and giving it a legal life would limit its natural instinct to expand into other areas. That is a most extraordinary argument and a very confused one. If we are saying that we are all at risk without giving greater competences to the Community, that it will have them anyway, and that by giving them greater competences we are limiting this one, that is a very curious argument. Yet that is the sort of low-level, shallow argument of lies and deceit to be forced on the nation to tide us through on this Bill.
  There has been no candid examination of any clause that I have heard in terms of what it is intended to accomplish. Why does it require a single institutional framework? Why does it need adjudication by the European Court of Justice? How do we democratically effect the objectives? We have talked about subsidy. Opera is a particular identity of Italy. The Italian state and the regional governments pour sums into opera houses that we do not even begin to understand. Does that require subvention from the centre,
  "acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission"?
  Notice the insidious way in which the Commission must propose, because the proposer holds the agenda and controls the directions to which the Community looks.
  That assault on such things as our culture has caused the Danes to pause and hesitate, because linked with culture is another matter that we shall debate later—citizenship and all the linking elements of the state. The treaty is driving us towards a conclusion that, of the whole Community, only the British Government—in association, of course, with Labour Front-Bench spokesmen—wish to hide and conceal from the British people. Ours is the only Government in the Community who do not believe that the treaty is a centralising treaty. Every other leader has said, "Hallelujah—we are now marching towards a more central, single identity."
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who would not give way to me.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I have given way to my hon. Friend on other occasions; I am sorry that I did not do so today. Does he think that the Dutch Government, whose unitary text was defeated, went back saying that this was a great success?
  Mr. Shepherd: I said that every other Government believed that Maastricht is a centralising treaty.
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: Let me finish my point. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had had the courtesy to listen to the points and arguments advanced by Members across the Committee he would have been able to respond to them. It is difficult to put an argument when the response has already been given. The Dutch Government did not

  307
  get as federalist and centralising a measure as they would wish. Nevertheless, they recognised that the treaty is a centralising measure and told their people that.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: When?
  Mr. Shepherd: Several times—press reports have shown that.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is making a series of assertions. The fact is that the Dutch Government were openly disappointed about the defeat of their text. I am not aware—if my hon. Friend is so confident, perhaps he can give an instance—that they have said that they regard Maastricht as a centralising treaty.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is a consolidating measure. My right hon. Friend will have to accept my recollection from press reports. I assure him that assertions have been made across the Community that Maastricht is essentially a centralising treaty, that the elements of the state are coming into place and that competences are being extended. The parrot chant of the new Con-Lab Front Bench is that the treaty is held back by a concept of subsidiarity, but no legal judgment has given flesh to confidence, in a juridical sense, in the belief that that means anything.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Has my hon. Friend noticed the insidious wording of paragraph 1 of article
  128, which says:
  "The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore."
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, when there is conflict between the two, as there is bound to be, the Community will emphasise the common culture at the expense of the national culture?
  Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend identifies one of the central concerns. I add the concern that a common anything is a homogenisation. The criticism of American culture made by many people on the continent of Europe is that it insidiously infects and diminishes European culture. The violence of American films and the crassness of American civilisation and culture are often cited. We all affect each other, but I fear that a central institutional framework will homogenise, reduce and diminish. Ministers have not argued why the French need protection for their diversity and the flowering of their own culture.
  The second concept that has not been dealt with in the debate is
  "Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in the following areas".
  The first is
  "improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples."
  Again, I do not know what that means or why each individual nation, which is responsible for the custody and safeguarding of its historic traditions, cannot argue its own perception.
  What is a European history with a common perspective? The one glory of life, civilisation and culture is that we stand on different hillocks, perhaps looking at the same distant horizon, but because the angle of perception is different, our interpretation of the view is also different. That is an intimate part of the culture and
  308
  diversities of the people of Europe. The institutional framework set out in the article contradicts the objective that it claims to seek.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend may be living under some misconceptions, which the article will help to put right. For example, he may believe that King Harold was a great English patriot trying to keep the French at bay and that Edward the Confessor was a traitor because he asked those dreadful Frenchmen to come here. The reality is that Edward the Confessor was a great European patriot, and what he did when he ceded his kingdom to William the Conqueror was a precursor for the Maastricht treaty. When the Commission takes over the writing of the European history that our children are taught in school, that new reality will be very much the truth.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for that. I am always in awe of the perspective from Northamptonshire.
  The dissemination of the culture and history of the culture of European people is a major debate on what constitutes history and what is history. Every hon. Member reads—other than the Home Secretary in connection with this treaty and public interest immunity certificates. Aragon was asked, "What is history?" His response was, "First you have to invent it." That is the argument that I am trying to put. We look from different perspectives and each of us has a particular recollection: that of the nation state, by language, unites a view. We fight over the interpretation of history, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has shown. We are very particular in our understanding of what it is. My fear is the homogenisation of all these matters.
  The last thing that I want to say is about
  "artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector".
  Let us remember what art and culture was about. It was a popular expression of who we are, but now we have to subsidise it. I recall a directive on the proportion of television programmes which could be devoted to matters emanating from the United States. The European Commission wanted to protect what it regarded as the European concept.
  We genuinely have a difficulty: English is our language.
  Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" reaches around the world. We will always have a difficulty in that the accessibility of ideas, thoughts and spirit is communicated in a tongue that we understand. The United States will always be a great influence on us—and we, hopefully, on it—because of the commonality of our language. Our language reaches Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At the heart of all cultural, historical perceptions and so on, stands the fact that, no matter how rich or poor or what colour people are, we are united by our language. We speak the intimacy of our thoughts and experiences each to the other in our language.
  All this nonsense, which is an endeavour to destroy the character of communities, of countries and of languages—all this tries to strike at the one great deception of Europe: it is not equal as regards public opinion, knowledge or understanding because it is not common in language. What do we do about that? Do we do something about it through this measure or through educational measures seeking some sort of Esperanto? In what direction are we heading?

  309
  Glory be to our diversity. What was it, that wonderful thing?
  "Glory be to God for dappled things."
  We are a "dappled thing". Let us have glory for what we are and reject the nonsense of homogeneity in this treaty insidiously undermining our institutions and opening up a gulf between both Front Benches and the people. How can the people have respect for the House when we are marched through the Lobbies and forbidden to speak? We cannot even return to a question. Every application for closure is accepted. We have had no free speech on this measure.
  What do all the dumb journalists in the Hallelujah Chorus up in the Gallery think they do with their absurd commentaries on the British process of making and unmaking laws? Not one stays to listen to the detail of debate. "Yesterday in Parliament" is now in the business of mere sketch-writing. I listened to it this morning and I did not know what were the matters being discussed in Parliament in respect of the greatest constitutional settlement of the past 200 years, taking away our ability to change what Commission officials—Eurocrats—determine is in the interests or nature of European civilisation, culture and history.
  We are it, we are part of it, and our constituents are part of it. So long as we can hold Ministers accountable for their actions, we can change the laws under which we live. We can direct all the funds that we wish to any objective that the British people deem appropriate. But by these arrangements, sneakily put through by conniving Front Benches, the Con-Lab alliance on this matter intends to try to take away that right.
  If I speak passionately on this, it is because I feel passionate about it. If I hear people ask why we have not got through the debate, as some foolish hon. Members do, I will tell them that this was the method by which other countries of Europe lost their freedom: good men sat on their hands. Good men—and women, too—said that it would not work, that our fingerprints must not be on the treaty, and all the rest of it. Yet here are the fingerprints, embedding themselves into our very vitals, demonstrating what is the spirit of it.
  Across the continent of Europe, there have been moments when each of us has had to turn to the other for the survival of things in which we believe. We have seen atrocities, but so long as there are beacons for freedom, so long as there are Parliaments such as this which can express the views and will of the people, we can stand against the tyrannies which face the ordinary person in this world.
  The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 257.

  [Division No.115]

  [6.53 pm

  Ayes

  Adley, Robert

  Amess, David

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ancram, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Ashby, David

  Alton, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  310

  Atkins, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bates, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gallie, Phil

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Garnier, Edward

  Booth, Hartley

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jack, Michael

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  311

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mans, Keith

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marland, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stephen, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Streeter, Gary

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Sumberg, David

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sykes, John

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thomason, Roy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trend, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Trotter, Neville

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tyler, Paul

  Ottaway, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Paice, James

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wallace, James

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pickles, Eric

  Waterson, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Welsh, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Whitney, Ray

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Richards, Rod

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Robert Hughes and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Austin-Walker, John

  Blunkett, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Body, Sir Richard

  Battle, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradley, Keith

  Beckett, Margaret

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Beggs, Roy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  312

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

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hoey, Kate

  Burden, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Butcher, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Byers, Stephen

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hutton, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Carttiss, Michael

  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)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Keen, Alan

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Cox, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Cryer, Bob

  Legg, Barry

  Cummings, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lord, Michael

  Davidson, Ian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Denham, John

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Don

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Madden, Max

  Dowd, Jim

  Maginnis, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mahon, Alice

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mandelson, Peter

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Marek, Dr John

  Eastham, Ken

  Marlow, Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maxton, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Milburn, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Garrett, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gill, Christopher

  Morley, Elliot

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mudie, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hall, Mike

  Olner, William

  Hanson, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Harvey, Nick

  Pawsey, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  313

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stott, Roger

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Randall, Stuart

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Trimble, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rogers, Allan

  Walley, Joan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Watson, Mike

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wilkinson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  Short, Clare

  Winnick, David

  Simpson, Alan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 70, Noes 297.

  [Division No. 116]

  [7.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Leighton, Ron

  Austin-Walker, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry

  Lord, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  McAllion, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Madden, Max

  Body, Sir Richard

  Maginnis, Ken

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Mahon, Alice

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Marlow, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Burden, Richard

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Butcher, John

  Pawsey, James

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Redmond, Martin

  Cash, William

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Cran, James

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Cummings, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Simpson, Alan

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Fry, Peter

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Sweeney, Walter

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Trimble, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Wilkinson, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  314

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Elletson, Harold

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Alton, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Faber, David

  Ashby, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  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, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  315

  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)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  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)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

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

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyler, Paul

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wallace, James

  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

  Welsh, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Patnick, Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Willetts, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rathbone, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Redwood, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Richards, Rod

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Riddick, Graham

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): We come now to amendment No. 6.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. We have just heard a speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the importance of Parliament as a democratic assembly. It was with some irony that the closure was moved immediately afterwards. It certainly gave rise in some people's minds to the view that perhaps there was some sort of timetable agreed with the Chairmen and Chairwomen of the Committee. I am sure that that is not true—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order. I am seeking your advice, Mr. Lofthouse, on a matter relating to the amendment which we are about to consider. You will know that education and vocational training were never part of the original treaty of Rome, although the subject was mentioned slightly in the Single Act. However, we are aware that it now becomes very much part of what will be decided in this country, because it is very much part of the Maastricht treaty, which we are currently debating.
  The House will be well aware of my interest in health matters, and I have to put this point to you because it affects the quality and standard of health in this country. Will we be obliged to accept diplomas, degrees and qualifications from European universities which are not of a standard equal to our own in this country, if we proceed with this Bill and ratify the treaty?
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite aware that that cannot possibly be a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The closure was moved at the end of the last debate at a disgracefully early time; it was less than three hours after the debate had started.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Chair. If he wishes to do so, he must put down the appropriate motion.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. While appreciating the enormous difficulties and pressures that you face in present circumstances, I must draw to your attention the fact that amendment No. 131, which relates to a very important article on page 16 of the treaty, was not referred to in any way during the debate that we have just had.
  If you take the trouble to choose an amendment, I wonder whether it is in order for the closure to be moved when that amendment, relating to article 18, title V, which I and some others think is a matter of considerable moment, is not referred to, directly or indirectly, in any way during the debate. Can you give any guidance to the Committee on whether it is in order for the closure to be considered when one of the amendments which you have selected has not been referred to?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Of course it is in order, or it would not have been done. It is a matter for the judgment of the Chair.
  Mr. Marlow: I seek to help the House, and I seek your assistance in doing so, Mr. Lofthouse. You are probably aware that, from about 6.35 onwards, there was a growing number, outside and inside the Chamber, of payroll Members. They seemed to be surging towards the Chamber at that stage.
  We know how you respect the House and its procedures and are anxious to have proper debates. It has occurred to me and to many of my hon. Friends that the Government are desirous of getting two groups of amendments through before 10 o'clock, because they are fearful that, come 10 o'clock, if they want to move the 10 o'clock motion and the Labour party is here and the Irish Members are here, they might not get it. So there is concern—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have heard sufficient to know that this is not a matter for the Chair. Is it not a common occurrence that the payroll gathers before divisions? It has always happened since I have been in the House, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of this. That was not a point of order.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a further point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Perhaps you can confirm that the Chair does not have to accept the closure when it is moved by the Whips—that there is a discretion in such matters.
  The First Deputy Chairman: It is a matter of judgment for the Chair, and there it stands.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that I heard you say a moment ago that it is normal practice for hon. Members to be present at the time of a Division. The thing that worries me is how any of those Tory Members, the lap dogs of the Common Market, and everybody else—[Interruption.]—and them as well—manage to know that you would accept a closure.
  Of course, all hon. Members will turn up at 9.30 or whatever if it is a 10 o'clock vote. However, if it is an unexpected closure, when the Chair has decided that it is the appropriate moment, how on earth do all those lap dogs know? Since you were not in the Chair when it happened, Mr. Lofthouse, it may well be that there was a nod and a wink in a certain direction from the Whips. If so, it is time that the gang was stopped.
  7.30 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair is not aware of where hon. Members are at any given time. The point of order is not a matter for the Chair. I think that I have taken the points of order far enough.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Recently, I went to the Library to ask how many amendments were grouped together during the passing of the Single European Act, and I was told that it was an average of three or four. This time, however, the number of amendments grouped together is nearly 10. Are you taking that point into account when you consider the length of debates and agree to accept a closure?
  If we have an average of 10 amendments, compared to the usual three or four, it will be inevitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has pointed out, that on some occasions, as in the previous debate, some amendments are selected but not mentioned at all. I wonder whether you will take that into account in the next two hours and 29 minutes.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair takes those matters into account when it makes its decision.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Is it a different point of order from the previous one?
  Mr. Marlow: Yes, it is a different point of order. You heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) express concern about the coincidence of the timing of the vote with the presence of Government Members. I will not say anything about that, because my point of order is totally different. We all have a great deal of respect for the Chair, and we are conscious that we should help the Chair and continue to show respect for it.
  If the Government are seen to want to get two votes on two groups of amendments, there might be a concern among hon. Members that they were getting their way at the expense of Back Benchers. That is obviously the Government's intention, because we feel that they would like to start tomorrow on a clean sheet of social policy.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I cannot see any point of order there. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is simply making a speech which borders on criticism of the Chair.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In the conduct of business in Committee or in the House, when the Government wish to push such matters through, the normal procedure is to table a guillotine motion. This is no criticism of the Chair, because I accept that you, or whoever is in the Chair, must make a judgment based on the position when a motion of whatever sort is put to you.
  However, is it not interesting that what we are seeing is beginning to look very much like a guillotine by motions being put to the Chair? I find that very worrying. I hope that you will take into account the perception and the impression which may be created outside if it does not stop. There is a guillotine working, although it was done without having had a debate on it.
  The First Deputy Chairman: There has been no guillotine motion whatever. We will now move to the amendments.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have taken the points of order far enough.
  Mr. Marlow: I spy strangers.
  Notice taken, that strangers were present.
  Whereupon The FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143, put the Question, That strangers do withdraw.
  Question negatived.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert
  "(except Articles 126 and 127 on page 32 of Cm 1934)'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: It may be convenient to consider at the same time the following amendments: No 193, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert "except Article 3(p)'.
  No. 199, in page 1, line 9, after "II' insert
  "except Article 57(2) on page 13 of Cm 1934'.
  No. 212, in page 1, line 9, after "II' insert
  "except Article 127(2) on page 32 of Cm 1934'.
  No. 365, in page 1, line 9, after "II', insert

  319
  "except Article 57 as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.
  No. 52, in page 1, line 10, after "1992', insert "but not Article 126 in Title II thereof'.
  Mr. Lloyd: Despite a delayed start, I begin the debate on vocational training by simply saying that the new competence which would reside in the Community is something to which we attach considerable significance. That is why the Minister will understand that the amendment is a probing one. Perhaps I should not reveal the Opposition's hand too early but simply say that we do not wish to put it to a vote, whatever the intentions of others.
  It is widely recognised throughout the Community that vocational training and education lie at the heart of the future, certainly of young people in Europe and more generally in terms of the economic future of the whole Community. I must begin by pointing out that, during the United Kingdom's recent presidency of the Council of Ministers, it is significant that the Government paid so little attention to vocational training that there was only one formal meeting of the Social Affairs Council during the six-month period, and that only one resolution was adopted which had any relevance whatever to vocational training.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that it is the rule rather than the exception that there should be one Social Affairs Council. During the past five years, which is 10 presidencies, I think that I am right in saying that we have had more than one Social Affairs Council only twice during a presidency.
  Mr. Lloyd: If we had a Government who took unemployment and employment issues seriously, it might have been appropriate to start the presidency with a full meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss what most people in Europe recognise to be the dominant issue facing our economy. There is no argument that there could—and, indeed, should—have been more meetings.
  The central point which I was establishing is that, during the six months of the presidency, only one resolution went through which dealt even vaguely with training and associated matters. That was a resolution on the transparency of qualifications.
  The six-months presidency certainly did not demonstrate the Government's commitment to development of a Euro-competence in which adult training and education were involved. A European Community publication called "Skill Shortages: A Growing Problem in the Community" made it clear that the Community, the Commission and other institutions attach massive importance to the role of training. They argue:
  "In general, the level of adult labour-market training activity tends to be higher in Member states where economic productivity is above the Community average and lower in countries with lower productivity."
  Most importantly, they pointed out that there seems to be, effectively, a virtuous and vicious circle of economic development. Those countries which fail to train have low productivity and, having low productivity, fail to train. Those countries with high productivity have high levels of training and, consequently, continue to have high levels of productivity.
  That is certainly the real history which we can observe between, for example, the United Kingdom and Germany.
  320
  Over the years, the Germans have put considerable effort into both increasing productivity and investing in training, whereas in the past 13 years we have had a Government who deride training and want us to move towards a low-wage, low-productivity economy—one with all the worst features of the vicious circle which the European Commission described.
  When, as recently as today in the House, the Secretary of State for Employment described training as a burden which the Opposition want to impose on employers, she was very much out of step with the dominant view throughout the rest of western Europe, which sees training as the hub of any attempt to get the economies of western Europe off the ground and into full gear. For those reasons, it is lamentable that we have a Government who are so negative about training.
  It is instructive to compare and contrast the records of different countries in the Community. In Britain, the Government's own working party said in a document which fell into my hands that, far from having a training policy, they had a policy which was effectively about massaging unemployment statistics. It said:
  "It was agreed that there had been a clear policy shift away from National Education and Training Targets and that Training for Work was largely an employment measure rather than a skills training programme."
  Even the Government's friends recognise severe and real flaws in the Government's attitude to training.
  Mr. George Robertson: Not only them.
  Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says, not only them. Certainly those who have any knowledge or experience of training are disillusioned with the Government's efforts.
  The Government's abolition of employment training and employment action, and their move towards the so-called training for work initiative represent a move away from skills training towards simply massaging unemployment figures. Those measures are simply a means of keeping the dole queues as small as possible in the statistical publications.
  We know from recent parliamentary answers that the Government have systematically cut the finance available from central Government for training initiatives. Let us compare in constant terms the amount of money which the Government have planned to spend in 1993–94 with the estimated outturn for 1992–93. There has been a significant drop—more than 10 per cent.—in the training budget during that period.
  Let us consider the number of participants in schemes such as employment training. The Government have cut the cost of those schemes which might suggest that more people could be accommodated. The reverse has happened. In 1989–90, 210,000 people were put through employment training schemes. The Government estimate that there will be as few as 150,000 people on the training for work scheme in 1993–94.
  Those training schemes are designed for the long-term unemployed, yet unemployment has shot up dramatically and cruelly. The Government's response has been to cut the amount of money available for those schemes and to cut the number of places, so that fewer people have the opportunity to receive that type of training.
  Mr. Cash: I do not particularly like making this point often, but I am astonished as I look across the Chamber to see that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to literally two other members of his party on a matter which affects

  321
  policy on education and vocational training for the whole of the rest of Europe, as well as for the United Kingdom. I wonder whether he could encourage some of his hon. Friends to come along and at least listen to his pearls of wisdom.
  Mr. Lloyd: You will understand, Mr. Lofthouse, that at this stage in the proceedings I would find it difficult to go out and perform the task that the hon. Gentleman invites me to perform. Even as I gaze at the Benches opposite, it is clear that, unfortunately, the debate has not attracted many listeners. That may be my fault. We shall see whether the numbers flood in later when the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the monumental and excessive windbaggery of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) may have allowed word to get out from the Chamber that there is something marginally tedious about our proceedings on the Bill?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in admirable style. The issue of training is vital to the future of Britain. The number of Members present certainly does not reflect the importance of training to the nation.
  Mr. Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on a relevant point. It is nothing to do with windbaggery or whether many Members are present on the Opposition or even the Government Benches. Under the treaty of Rome, education and training were not within the remit of the Commission of the European Community. Under the Maastricht treaty, education and training become very much part of the remit of the Commission. One of the Commissioners has recently said that he wants to become involved in education and training policy. The Commission will use money to do that.
  Does the hon. Gentleman, who is leading for the Opposition in this debate, believe that the European Commission is better able to direct funds for education and training in Britain than the Westminster Parliament through the Department of Education and the Department of Employment? If he does, where will the money come from unless we pay a much heavier account to the European Community and allocate much greater resources to it, depriving the United Kingdom Government of funds which they can currently spend, I hope, from a position of better knowledge than the EC?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is an opponent of long standing of most things that come out of Brussels, so at least he is consistent. However, his Government introduced the Single European Act and moved us towards the single market. Those of us who have had doubts about some areas of Europe's competence must also accept that there is no future for regions such as that which I represent if development of labour market activities does not take place in parallel with single market activities.
  It is obvious to me that there is a paramount need for consistency in levels of training. I hope to demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the British Government, with their appalling record on training,
  322
  stand in poor comparison with most of the rest of western Europe. To that extent, I would cheerfully exchange the levels of training which are provided in Britain for those, for example, in Germany or France. I look to the European Community to kick-start the British Government into doing things which they alone are unwilling to do. That is the answer to the nub of the question which the hon. Gentleman puts to me.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for the constructive response which the hon. Gentleman has made to the points that I put to him, but he referred to Germany. I am sure that he will admit that the system of education and training in Germany has nothing to do with the treaty of Rome or the European Community. Historically, Germany has had a different education and training system from ours. I like Germany's technical education, which has stood Germany in good stead, but surely that has nothing to do with the European Community. If we had wanted to copy Germany, we could have done so many years ago, long before the European Community came into being.
  Mr. Lloyd: The relevance of Germany's educational philosophy to the European Community is probably about the same as that of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the debate. I suspect that he makes them for a different purpose, but I shall treat his comments seriously, because, he raises a valid point.
  In Germany, there is an education and training culture, something which I fear has slipped enormously in Britain in recent years. We must redevelop it. I do not have confidence in the Government to achieve that. It cannot be delayed. We are losing the training race almost daily. We must begin to make some efforts to reinvest in training. As I said, I look to the Commission to provide a kick-start in the process.
  If hon. Members will forgive me, I shall make some progress in the substantive points that I wish to make in the relatively small amount of time that the Committee will make available this evening.
  Mr. Winterton: Why? How do you know?
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman knows something that we do not.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have given way several times.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) seems to know something that we do not know. Do you know it? Is it that the debate will not take long tonight?
  The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know anything about it and that is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Lloyd: If you do not know, Mr. Lofthouse, I can place it on the record that I am in even greater ignorance, although the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) may choose not to believe me.
  By common consent, the Government have lost their way on training. There have been significant cuts in the numbers of trainees and the quantity of funding for Government-led schemes. Employment training is at the

  323
  heart of the Government's training philosophy, but there has been a significant cut in the amount of finance, in constant terms, available to each trainee. For example, the real-terms value in 1992 constant pounds of the cost of an employment training course in 1989–90 was £6,504. By 1992–93, it had dropped to £6,074, which is a significant cut in real terms of about 10 per cent.
  One of the real tragedies is that, while the Government have exhorted the private sector to train, they have listened with deaf ears because they have been beset with the problems caused by their very own recession. We know that the Department of Employment's Employment Gazette recently let the cat out of the bag with an analysis which showed that in Britain most people on employment and youth training schemes do not believe that they are receiving significant amounts of job-related training.
  However, the amount of money made available by the private sector fell significantly, as did volumes of trainees. While it is true that things are a little better than they were in the early 1980s, the 3 million employees of working age in Britain who receive training are a far cry from the levels of training required for a labour force of about 20 million. We know that the Government and the private sector are failing the nation.
  During the election, the Government made great play of the fact that the Opposition wanted to introduce a training levy, which would have kick-started the private sector into providing the sort of training that is needed. The Government said that that would be a burden on industry, would add to industrial costs and would wreck industry and shed jobs, but such an idea is viewed as ridiculous throughout the rest of Europe, where they prefer a virtuous cycle, in which high-quality training leads to high productivity and vice versa.
  For example, in the year before last, more than 600,000 people used the vocational training places made available under Germany's dual system and 70 per cent. completed their courses. It is significant that 30 per cent. of the entrants were already educated to A-level standard.
  The German concept of training, within the dual system, is seen to be important, as it establishes the training culture that allows such high productivity. German productivity is about 60 per cent. higher than in Britain, and wage levels are about 70 per cent. higher, and the two are interrelated. Britain has a low-wage, low-cost economy. Germany has a high-wage, high-productivity economy, which is in the interests of the German nation and its people.
  The situation in France is different, but it is at least similar to that in Germany, in that, as long ago as the early 1970s, the French were struck by their lack of a training culture. I do not know whether I am allowed to mention Jacques Delors—the bête noir of many Conservative Members—who introduced a legal obligation for employers to participate in vocational training. When the scheme was introduced it required each employer to spend 0.9 per cent. of the wage bill on training. That figure has been increased to 1.2 per cent., but most employers spend considerably in excess of that amount, and some large companies spend up to 10 per cent. of the wages bill on training. In doing so, they are investing in the future of France and French industry.
  Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Germany, and I do not doubt his figures, as I know them to be accurate, but does he
  324
  agree that some European countries are not embarking on comparable training schemes, and that one of the dangers of the article is that money will go from northern Europe—and this country—to enable southern European countries to embark on ambitious vocational training schemes which will compare with our own? That will make those countries more competitive in the new industries that they are developing, which could cause great dangers to our economy, especially if the Community continues to have a low-growth economy.
  Mr. Lloyd: The reality is that all Europe will be dragged down by the concept of a low-wage, low-skill economy, which periodically chooses to shed labour, as has happened throughout most of western Europe—in the Community countries and beyond—in recent years. There is no future for the Community as a low-wage economy, and the whole Community must accept that. Social tensions have already been caused by mass unemployment in France, Germany and Italy. Unemployment has caused problems in Britain—for example, in my constituency, where a young boy was shot and killed recently.
  I cannot accept a scenario in Britain or in the Community in which we accept the concept of a potentially redundant army of labour, which can be brought in or dispensed with at will—a scenario in which pockets of long-term unemployment become virtually permanent, and in which no hope is given because the Government have provided Mickey Mouse training schemes. We must develop a wider approach. I look to the Community to develop a coherent training philosophy, so that it becomes a way of life throughout Europe.
  The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) asked whether I did not fear that we would end up having to prop up standards in Portugal. It may surprise him to learn that Portugal is already ahead of Britain in many aspects of training. Britain is third from bottom in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds who participate in education, and Portugal is one of the countries ahead of us. The days when Britain could look loftily down on the Mediterranean countries as despised nations are gone. The position has shifted during my lifetime, and perhaps a different generation has to account for that. The simple reality is that the Portuguese will not look to Britain for lessons on training.
  The amount that various European countries spend on training is also significant. Germany is not the only country to spend more than Britain, as Ireland also does do. Ireland has long been regarded as an alternative labour market for the British economy. I come from a part of Britain where Irish people have lived for many years, and I know that they have been viewed as an alternative labour force in boom times, and that they have been expendable during recessions. It is especially significant that Ireland is spending more than Britain on domestic training, even though it has tremendous problems of labour emigration.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that one makes low-skilled people more productive by investing more capital in equipment and machinery, rather than by trying to give them additional training? Throughout the Pacific rim, where our main competitors come from, wages and skill levels are relatively low, but those countries are rapidly improving.

  325
  That is being done within the work process, without complicated Government training schemes, and we should aim to do the same here—never mind about Europe.
  That is the way in which skills are passed on—by building on the shoulders of the former generation. The plans envisaged in the Maastricht treaty simply will not work. We cannot separate ourselves from that other part of the world, which contains 90 per cent. of the population, while Europe only has one tenth.
  Mr. Lloyd: If that is the hon. Lady's view of the world, I find it almost immeasurably sad. Not only is she technically wrong; the flaws in her argument are precisely the kind that lead to the introduction of stupid policies such as those that the country has experienced for the past 13 years.
  The hon. Lady suggested that countries on the Pacific rim considered education and training unimportant. Countries such as Taiwan and Singapore—which in my lifetime have been seen as the low-wage, low-skill nations described by the hon. Lady—are now investing a fantastic amount of national effort in the education and training of their young people: they are doing far more than this country in that respect.
  The idea that such countries accept peripheralisation is born of an era that is rapidly disappearing. Suppose we told the Japanese that they should return to the days when they competed on the basis of volume rather than quality! The hon. Lady also mentioned the Koreans; they too are spending a considerable amount on training. She may be surprised if she looks at the comparative figures.
  8 pm
  The really sad aspect, however is this. The fact that the hon. Lady rests her case on bogus evidence suggests that she presses Ministers to provide bad training in this country. That is where the tragedy lies, and that is the reason for the anti-education, anti-training culture that has existed here for so many years. I believe that the Minister knows something about language training. In schools driven by the national curriculum—my children attend such schools—pupils are forced at the age of 13 to confine themselves to the study of a single foreign language, because of the needs of the curriculum. It is ridiculous, and atrocious, that they should be denied access to foreign languages. We are handicapping our young people: in France and Germany, for instance, that simply could not happen nowadays. The current state of affairs is almost uniformly barren; the Government's record bears no comparison with that of other western European countries.
  As I told the Minister earlier, these are probing amendments, but we want him to respond in detail to our questions about why Britain's vocational training record is so bad. Under the treaty, vocational training and education will be governed by the terms of qualified majority voting; Britain—the anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-training country that it has become—will no longer be able to hold to ransom not only the rest of Europe, but the British people themselves.
  For those reasons, many people welcome this part of the treaty.
  Sir Richard Body: I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will not mind my saying that I, for
  326
  one—and, I am sure, every other Conservative Member—found his speech disappointing. I do not mean that personally; no doubt the hon. Gentleman was entirely sincere. I had hoped, however, that he would probe this part of the treaty more fully and carefully, given the immense implications that it could have for millions of people in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of statistics. As I said earlier, I do not doubt those statistics, but the hon. Gentleman would surely agree that they came from the public sector. They excluded the many schemes in this country—and, indeed, in the countries listed by the hon. Gentleman—which are privately funded by business enterprises. Those of us with some experience of such schemes would say that, more often than not, they are more effective and do more to strengthen our economy than publicly funded schemes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to the Pacific basin. In numerous countries in that area which are now booming, effective training in the private sector provides the main body of recruitment. Only a week or two ago, I met a number of business men in my constituency who said that they deplored Government-funded schemes and that if they could only have half as much money for training, they would ensure that it was more cost-effective and more in line with the needs of industry. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay: we should support private-sector schemes rather than those funded by the Government.
  This article will enable the Community to spend a great deal of money which is, in the main, obtained from the northern European countries—the principal contributors to European funds. We are well aware how some southern European countries—especially Spain—want the money to be spent. We know what Mr. Gonzales has been saying about cohesion funds; we know that he will be difficult, over and over again.
  Mr. Marlow: Yet again, my hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention to the way in which all these bits and pieces combine to produce another slush fund, which the Commission will be able to use. All right—the Government are not heavily committed, but money will be available—and majority voting will be possible. The fund will not deal with the content of educational programmes, but to an extent it will enable the manipulation of such programmes in a European direction, which some may want and others may not. It will also constitute a slush fund to be used in what Europeans call the regions—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We know what they want to do with the regions; they want to divide and rule. Will my hon. Friend deal with some of those fundamental issues?
  Sir Richard Body: I will indeed. My hon. Friend, like me, represents a corner of England. I use the word "England" deliberately: those of us who represent English constituencies are aware that we do not get much out of the slush funds.
  In an earlier debate, it was pointed out that cultural expenditure would be used for enticement purposes—to enhance the popularity of Wales, or other parts of the Community. There is plenty of evidence that a good deal has been spent in Wales—and whenever money is spent there, the famous flags with stars on a blue background is

  327
  there to show that the money came from the European Community, although only a tiny fraction may have come from that source.
  Mr. Cryer: Under article 126,
  "Community action shall be aimed at … developing the European dimension in education".
  That really means the European Community dimension. Taxpayers' money is being used to mount a propaganda drive to promote the claimed virtues of the Community. The adoption of the word "European", which belongs to a continent rather than to a political or economic organisation, illustrates the arrogance of the organisation which is promoting its ideas. This will be not education, but propaganda.
  Sir Richard Body: That applies to all 12 countries—to western Europe as a whole, and it is the overriding argument against the Maastricht treaty: the treaty will make it much more difficult for the Scandinavian countries, the alpine countries, the countries of eastern Europe—and, in due course, those further east in the old Soviet Union—to be part of a European Community or Commonwealth. My dream is a European Community which allows all Europe to take part in common policies which are in the interests of individual countries.
  Mr. Marlow: I apologise for intervening, but this is probably one of our more important debates on the treaty. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and my hon. Friend spoke about the money that will be in the hands of the Commission and how it could be used.
  Let me draw my hon. Friend's attention to a powerful revelation that we had today. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is no fool. She is a very intelligent lady. She referred to things that have been done in her constituency with Community money. As we know, she is a fervent European. One of the reasons why she is in favour of Europe is that she perceives that these good things have dropped out of heaven from the European Community as if the European Community has a factory where it manufactures cash and with its generosity provides cash to her constituents. If we accept the article as it is at the moment, rather than take it out, there will be more money for more Eurocrats to spend in more constituencies so that more people can be seduced by the slush funds.
  Sir Richard Body: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have almost forgotten green shield stamps. The money that goes back to Wales can be likened to green shield stamps. The people of Britain, including the people of Wales, contribute a great deal more than what is coming back. I am sorry that the hon. Lady, who is not in her place, has allowed herself to be deceived by payments out of what my hon. Friend calls the slush funds.
  Mr. David Harris: Slush funds?
  Sir Richard Body: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is with us. He has been travelling to Strasbourg and he knows nothing whatever about slush funds. He is always totally innocent of anything of that nature, as indeed are most of those involved in Europe. It is only a minority who dip their fingers into slush funds.
  We are not criticising European Parliamentarians. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was speaking about the opportunities which
  328
  would be created by a further slush fund. We have debated the cultural slush fund and now we are discussing further funds to be allocated by majority voting, as the Council of Ministers may prescribe on the recommendation of the Commission as the article specifies.
  Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am very disturbed to find on the Bench here an envelope which says, "Can you keep going until 10 pm? If so, they surely cannot close." You were in the Chair last night when there were allegations of collusion. Surely there cannot be collusion between my hon. Friends. I cannot begin to think who might have written this diabolical note—
  Mr. James Cran: Let me see the handwriting.
  Mr. Harris: I do not know about that. It seems to me that there are some guilty people. It cannot be right that hon. Members are being egged on to filibuster to keep the debate going until 10 o'clock at night. Can you give your ruling on that?
  The First Deputy Chairman: It is not a matter for the Chair what notes are passed.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that someone suggested that the only possible provenance of that dreadful piece of paper could be someone from the Whips Office as all my hon. Friends who take a similar view—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have just given a ruling that it is not a matter for the Chair what notes are passed. Sir Richard Body.
  Sir Richard Body rose—
  Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I understand that we are attempting to implement article 126 this evening, but we have just given Scottish universities a fund to look after when that used to be a United Kingdom responsibility. As we have guarded our separate education system in Scotland, is it not nonsense to be faced with a proposal such as article 126?
  8.15 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that Scotland will be homogenised by what we are discussing tonight. As a mere Englishman, I concede that Scottish education is of the highest standard—much higher than that in England. Whether it will continue to be so is another matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to put in a word for Scottish education, to prevent it from being contaminated—if that is not too unkind a word—by anything which may emerge out of Brussels.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we in Northern Ireland should pay particular attention to what is happening, as the more money that goes into the slush fund directly from the United Kingdom to southern Ireland threatens the development of our own education and training services in Northern Ireland?
  Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman may well be right that there are moves that he knows only too well, if I may coin an awful word, to desectorise Northern Ireland education and require pupils to go to the same schools, whatever their background. It may well be that the

  329
  European Community will use what they call incentive money to give money to such schools. That may or may not be a good proposal, but it is surely for Great Britain and particularly for the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they want their education policy to take that direction. It should not be a matter for Brussels and, above all, it should not be a matter for majority vote in the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) made a wise intervention, but there may be people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland who believe that they would do better through the Council regions and through the slush fund money for education. However, the whole system is based on the fact that we make a net contribution to the Community budget of £2,500 million a year which by grace of this treaty will increase to £3,000 million a year. If that were not passed to Europe as part of the mega-slush fund, we would have more of our own money to spend in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland on culture and education in all parts of our country, but because of the structure and status that we have at the moment it goes to Europe, it goes to Brussels and it gets the stamp of Mr. Delors: it gets a European flag and we all have to bless the great and the good in Brussels.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Some of the interventions are rather lengthy speeches. Sir Richard Body.
  Sir Richard Body: It is much worse than my hon. Friend describes when it comes to vocational training. This where the hon. Member for Stretford is mistaken. We shall be required to put a large sum of money into Community funds to enable vocational training to take place. We can try to ensure that there is—I hate to use the tired old phrase—a level playing field throughout the Community and equal opportunities for such training. Although the hon. Member for Stretford disputed this, we know that vocational training is not so advanced in southern Europe as in northern Europe, so there is bound to be a diversion of funds from the north to the south, to Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.
  Mr. Beggs: And southern Ireland.
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed, although plenty of money is already going there—whether it can collar any more under the scheme, I do not know. At all events, there will be a massive transfer of funds to southern Europe from the taxpayers of northern Europe, to give the inhabitants of the south vocational schemes as good as those in the north.
  Mr. Budgen: One of the most exciting and useful aspects of all this is the way in which the Community represents a gathering of friends and colleagues—of Heads of State. It is such a pleasant thing to see the friendship between politicians as they extract money from their taxpayers and hand it over to their friends, the other politicians, so that the latter may bribe their respective electorates. This is always described in each country as a great triumph for its national self-interest. It would be churlish if we did not recognise the process and express our admiration for it.
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend is right. We must admire it, but there comes a time when we should question it.
  Mr. Budgen: If my hon. Friend starts questioning it, he will soon find himself in the kind of difficulties that I faced recently, when the Whips Office started ringing up my chairman and suggested that it was not the role of a Back Bencher to question anything that the Government were doing or to cause as much trouble as possible. I warn my hon. Friend against that line of action. We are, after all, here to rubber-stamp the Government's actions—and the most important thing that we can do is to express our admiration for everything that the Government have done.
  I fear that my hon. Friend will come to regret his impertinence. He should bear in mind the authoritarian behaviour of the Whips, as shown by their moving the closure and preventing many of our hon. Friends from expressing their admiration for the Government. Most of us feel an extreme affection for my hon. Friend and hope that he will not jeopardise his career by being so stupid as to express criticism of the treaty or of the Government. To do that would be to undermine loyalty to the Government—a crime of which I am sure he would not want to be found guilty.
  Sir Richard Body: I will try to take that advice. The only ambition I have ever had in this House was to work in the office of the Patronage Secretary. I am old-fashioned enough still to call the Chief Whip that. I imagined that I would learn a lot there. I see on the Front Bench the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who was once in the Patronage Secretary's office and who had me to deal with among his flock. I am sure that he will confirm that I never questioned anything and sought always to do his bidding.
  If the hon. Member for Stretford was truly expressing the policy of the Labour party and if, as a result, unemployment rises, he and the rest of his colleagues will have a great deal to answer for at the next election. We cannot be certain that the European Community will enjoy a high growth rate from now on. The smaller countries of Europe outside the European Community have more favourable growth rates at the moment. Germany is in difficulties with a declining growth rate. The German Government are under intense pressure over their revenue and monetary policies—
  Mrs. Gorman: I should very much welcome my hon. Friend's wisdom and advice, as I know that he is a great repository of knowledge. Is it not true that in Germany young people are trained on the job? At 16 they take up training courses in firms—bakers, butchers or plumbers—where they are taught the skills by those who have them and who can pass them on without the need for any slush funds or Government intervention. Is it not also true that those young people, knowing the value of their training, do not expect to be paid as much as adults while being trained? They are paid the sort of money that the Labour party would describe as appropriate to sweated labour or pin money. In fact, the process is part of a tradition that my hon. Friend and I would like restored to this country so that we can avoid the sort of mega-schemes envisaged

  331
  under Maastricht, which would remove the training function from the people who know what needs to be taught.
  Sir Richard Body: Of course my hon. Friend must be right. As she was speaking, I remembered the old adage that those who can, do, and those who cannot, teach. I fear that some professional full-time vocational training teachers are those who have not done well in the occupation that they originally chose. That certainly applies to the building and engineering industries. Those who are good at those jobs go into firms and prosper; those who are not so good find themselves out of work and having to take up employment providing some form of vocational training.
  Mr. Marlow: The beginning of this article speaks of the Community contributing to the development of quality education. If the Community is to contribute to the development of education, even though it does not have the right to change laws in this area by means of directives, it is implied that the Community will be involved in everything at an early stage—for instance, in the geography and history syllabuses. The involvement will be indirect, but it will be effected by means of incentives, slush funds, and so on. Is my hon. Friend worried about that?
  The article also mentions quality. My hon. Friend is a far greater expert on the English language than I am. What is meant by quality?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have recently drawn the attention of the House to the length of interventions. Experienced hon. Members should not need to keep being reminded by the Chair about this. They are making speeches, not interventions, and I shall use my office to enable the debate to take place within the rules of the House. I will not allow the near-abuse of our procedures.
  Sir Richard Body: I will, if I may, follow up what my hon. Friend said about quality education. I am troubled by that term. My mind goes back to the time many years ago when I began breeding pigs and contacted various butchers. I remember one outlet kept talking about quality meat. I realised that the person involved was not really looking for quality meat, but for meat that was cheap and nasty. I have no doubt that the education of which we are speaking will not be cheap, even though it may be nasty.
  8.30 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend is talking about quality meat. As we are talking about education, will he confirm that the word "quality" is a noun and not an adjective, so there cannot be anything called quality education? It is difficult to see how one can have a common view of what Germany did to Poland, Germany did to France, or Russia did to Poland as a common quality educational instruction.
  Sir Richard Body: As ever, my hon. and learned Friend is right. It is disturbing to find the word "quality" in any treaty and I suspect that this is its first appearance. To apply it to education is inappropriate and I would not rely on any Commissioners or group of officials in Brussels to decide quality in our terms.
  Mr. Budgen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reflections on a difficult adjective.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) said that it was a noun.
  Mr. Budgen: I apologise—of course it is a noun. If I were subject to overall supervisory care by some European gauleiter, I should probably have a more normal way of speaking, though it might be less interesting.
  I am pleased to see that the Chairman has returned, as I wish to support the First Deputy Chairman in his observations to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to the effect that a large number of Conservative Members wished to take part in the debate. My hon. Friend—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member has been on his feet since I entered the Chamber, which means that he has made an excessively long intervention. He is clearly preventing other hon. Members from making their speeches.
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I was merely endeavouring to put a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). So far as I could see, you had only just come into the Chamber, and I respectfully suggest that I detected—
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Budgen: —a degree of prejudice.
  The Chairman: Order. I note that the hon. Member was called earlier. I produced the list earlier in the day and put him on it, so I do not know what sort of prejudice he thinks may exist. I remind him and all hon. Members that interventions should be short. I came through the doors into the Chamber well over a minute ago, and the hon. Member was already in full flight. I suspect that he has been a member of other Committees. He should know that interventions must be short and to the point.
  Sir Richard Body: I shall endeavour to keep my remarks short, but I remind the Committee that I have been endeavouring to speak for some time and that this is the first time that I have spoken in this Parliament. One endeavours to get in and it sometimes happens that, having got in, one feels disinclined to sit down again.
  Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek clarification. Are you aware that in a debate in which, say, only one or two Conservative Members are called, it is imperative that we try to make our points through rather more lengthy interventions than we would otherwise make, as otherwise we would never speak at all?
  The Chairman: The hon. Lady might argue that an intervention is as long as it is short. I must obey the rules of the House. I do not create them. They have been created by the House over the centuries. "Erskine May" says that an intervention should be short and to a single point, so that the hon. Member who is intervened upon can respond. I have been listening to all the interventions for the last hour. Few of them have been short or to the point.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your guidance. Would you give an indication of the meaning of "short"?
  The Chairman: It is my judgment.
  Sir Richard Body: I appreciate that interventions must be short, and clearly, a short intervention makes it easier for the person intervened upon to deal with the intervention. But I remind you, Mr. Morris, that there have been a number of closure motions.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian. I learned and listened at his feet in these cloisters. He knows that the subject of closure motions is not part of the amendments before the Committee. Will he please return to the subject under discussion?
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed, and I return to what the hon. Member for Stretford said about vocational schemes.
  Mr. Marlow: I promise that this will be a short intervention. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) pointed out that "quality" was a noun and not an adjective. The text of the article refers to "quality education." There is no such thing as quality in that it is good or bad or high or low quality. What are we supposed to deduce from an article in a treaty which is ungrammatical and undefined? How are we to evaluate the treaty in those circumstances?
  Sir Richard Body: That is an important point and I hope that when the Minister replies—which I hope will not be immediately I resume my seat, although I fear, on past performance, that that may be the case—he will deal with it. Presumably at Maastricht the word was considered carefully by whoever was then representing Her Majesty's Government. That person no doubt queried the necessity for using the word "quality" and was satisfied, after receiving certain assurances, that it had a particular meaning and purpose.
  If education is not about quality, it should not be education at all, so the word is surplus. Even so, having been inserted in that way, it raises a degree of suspicion. We must be told why it has been inserted in the provision.
  The hon. Member for Stretford denigrated the Government's record in matters of vocational training. His speech almost mirrored that of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who equally denigrated the Government's record.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of what he is saying. I think he meant to say "qualitated" rather than "denigrated."
  Sir Richard Body: I used the word "denigrated" and I suppose that if one really probed the meaning of it, it might have some racial undertone. I did not mean it in that way. I hope I am not being unfair in saying that the hon. Gentleman denigrated the Government's record. He was sharply critical of the Government's programme of vocational training. He alleged that Britain was spending much less than Germany and other countries on it and he called for more to be spent. No doubt the Minister will supply some figures.
  I do not think that the figures supplied by the Opposition spokesman included money spent in this country by the private sector. That money has been increasing and should be included. It may be almost impossible to quantify because much training is undertaken by small firms, but it should be possible to provide a guestimate. If that were put into the equation, it
  334
  would be seen that total spending on vocational training in this country compares well with the amount spent by our Community competitors.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend speaks about the potential threat to the private sector of what is almost a Community incentive policy for education. I hope to raise that in my speech. Paragraph 2 of article 126 refers to
  "developing the European dimension in education,".
  Does that mean that there will be a European dimension to history and geography? What impact would there be on the understanding of British history and British geography if the Commissioners got to work through the slush fund?
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend raises two issues, the first of which is the threat to existing vocational training schemes. If the Community embarks on major schemes for such training which are more or less uniform throughout the Community, there will be two results. First, the Government will be less than enthusiastic about spending money on vocational training because they will be able to obtain funds from the Community. I know how the Treasury operates, and I know that the Chief Secretary or one of his assistants will reduce his vocational training estimate for the Department of Employment. In that respect the availability of Community money will be a disadvantage. The other threat is much more real. More money from the Community will lead to firms in this country deciding not to spend money on schemes they prefer when, with a bit of a push, they can get money from the Community.
  Mr. Cryer: Firms proposing to do that should be warned that Common Market funds can be arbitrarily cut. When I was the EC member for Sheffield, a firm called Tyzack employed some apprentices who were partly supported by money from the EC social fund. The EC Commissioner demanded that they should be given computer training different from the computer training that they were receiving. Since such training could not be provided, the money was stopped. The reason for the dodge was that Italy had complained to the Italian Commissioner that the United Kingdom had been receiving too much money and that the distribution was unfair. That is precisely what happened in the case of a perfectly good training scheme. However, the apprentices were kept on and continued to train because Sheffield council paid Tyzack to keep them employed.
  Sir Richard Body: I hope that the Minister has noted that and will deal with it, because it is the sort of thing that might happen if the power moves from here to Brussels. At least at the moment we can seek funds. We may not always be successful in dealing with European matters and the machinations of the Patronage Secretary's office, but at least we can raise issues in Adjourning debates. I suspect that, when the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was in the European Parliament, he had fewer opportunities to articulate his case than he has here. The hon. Gentleman's reference to Sheffield brings to mind another training scheme.
  I am interested in promoting schemes for certain kinds of farming. One of our universities has a great reputation in agriculture, but it was unable to get money for a particular kind of farming in this country. A deputation went to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  335
  for funding but was unable to get it. However, Sheffield polytechnic approached Brussels and I understand that it was successful in obtaining money.
  The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about vocational training?
  Sir Richard Body: Yes. Farming is indeed a vocation. It is a most unprofitable occupation, as my hon. Friends will confirm.
  8.45 pm
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to do a little better than that. Everything is a vocation. Was the specific grant for vocational training? If it was not, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could use a different example.
  Sir Richard Body: I think that I am on a good point, and it came to mind when the hon. Member for Bradford, South intervened. With due respect to Sheffield polytechnic, it had no expertise in this area and sought advice from me about where to obtain it, but it did that after obtaining an assurance from Brussels about money. Before allocating money for something of this kind, one would have thought that Brussels would seek out—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman speaks about "something of this kind", but that is not vocational training. I am here to serve the Committee. The amendments are fairly tightly drawn and we are debating vocational training. In his heart, the hon. Gentleman knows whether the advice that he offered related to vocational training. If it did, his remarks are in order: if it did not, he should not continue that line of argument.
  Sir Richard Body: I shall move on, but I should have thought that training in a particular form of farming was vocational.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I should like to ask my hon. Friend about the mention in the treaty of what is called the "European dimension in education". What will be the European dimension in education of the Franco-Prussian war, the invasion of France by Germany, Poland's experience over 400 years, the concentration camps and the second world war?
  The Chairman: Order.
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. and learned Friend poses a fundamental question. I should prefer the whole issue to be left to the Council of Europe, but I shall not digress. If Monnet could hear our debate, he would be intrigued. Directly in reply to what my hon. Friend has said, in 1988 at a gathering to commemorate the work of Mr. Monnet as founder of the Community—I suppose that we would not be having this debate were it not for Monnet—Mr. Regis Debray, the former French prime minister, said that shortly before Mr. Monnet died he said that, had he been starting again, he would have sought to found the Community not on economics but on culture and education.
  I think that that probably answers the question posed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir Nicholas Fairbairn) because Mr. Monnet was all for—I do not want to use this ugly word—homogenising. He believed, in all good faith and with total sincerity, that the conflicts of Europe would never come to
  336
  an end unless we were tending to think alike and to share the same values and therefore to share the same culture and to be educated in much the same way.
  Mr. Monnet would have been appalled at the kind of history lessons that I and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend had when we heard about Waterloo, Trafalgar and matters of that kind. He would have preferred education to be European education, written objectively and treated impartially in the classroom. That meeting to commemorate the work of Monnet was very significant. Monnet might well have been right to give that opinion in those last few weeks of his life if he was seeking to create a superstate out of western Europe.
  Of course we are going to have a European dimension for history, literature, and perhaps geography and other subjects, if we allow this part of the treaty to proceed and to be part of a common education policy. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies, will say that there is no such intention because there is to be subsidiarity. I can almost see him making that speech now. My hon. Friend will realise already that this article uses the term "majority voting".
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: In article 126, in subparagraph 4, invoking 189b, and in article 127, under subparagraph 4, invoking 189c, both give the Commission a strong position to bring forward to the Council a rule on quantitative majority voting. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the importance of that in relation to these matters?
  Sir Richard Body: I should have thought that anyone concerned about educational standards would be concerned about that—including, of course, the Minister when he replies. We have been arguing for the last few years about a national curriculum and about standards, and arousing the ire of many schoolteachers on the subject. There is a hornets' nest in certain schools. Yet having gone through all that, we are putting our head into a noose and making our Minister, when he goes to the Council of Ministers, very vulnerable.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Is one to understand that the European dimension will be to say that the first and second world wars and the battle of Waterloo were draws? May I ask my hon. Friend to interpret the treaty which speaks of the increasing dimension of distance education? I have not had much education and I am very close to my hon. Friend in all ways, but I do not understand why a noun is again being used instead of an adjective in an educational paragraph. What is distance education? Does it mean that the teacher is so scared of his pupils that he lives in the Isle of Wight and has to shout?
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking what is distance education, but he must allow the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor to respond.
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. and learned Friend should not be surprised by the drafting of this. Has it not been drafted by one of his fellow poets? Hardly a phrase, certainly not a whole sentence, nor any part of the treaty, can be described as being in decent literary English.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education(Mr. Tim Boswell): Perhaps I can assist the House by saying that my understanding of

  337
  distance education and distance learning, allowing for the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and his aversion to the use of nouns as adjectives, is that it is learning or education done at a distance, rather than being conveyed on a personal basis across the classroom. It is teaching which may be delivered, or learning received, by means of a number of modern techniques, audio-visual cassettes, written material sent through the post, which is particularly characterised in this country by the Open university and done very well.
  Sir Richard Body: I always keep my distance from anyone who is teaching, for very good reasons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I had assumed that that was the meaning of this. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross has touched on an important point about this European dimension. I can see, as the whole House can surely see now, that we shall have large parts of our history books and syllabuses reconsidered with incentive money. That is the term used. It was hinted at in particular by the Commissioner for education when he went to Madrid. I think that it was last November when he talked about how important it was to have a common system of education for Europe and said that the Maastricht treaty would enable that to come about, so I am sure that the fear expressed by my hon. and learned Friend is right.
  Mr. Marlow: I have many weaknesses and one of them is that I am a great patriot and populist and I am keen on England and English history. There are great victories in English history like Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers which we talked about at school. If one looks at a French map one will not find those battlefields. Is it likely that under the provisions of this article future generations of our children, when they look at history maps in English history lessons, or European history lessons as they will be, will not find Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? They will not be on the map or be talked about. They will not be anything. There may be other aspects of English history where the same things may happen.
  Sir Richard Body: No doubt that will be the case. Many people, including some hon. Members, look forward to the day when our schools no longer teach such subjects and when our history is "more objective", as they say. Many in the teaching profession look forward to that day.
  Mr. Cryer: Does not this exchange show the sloppy drafting of the treaty? The European dimension can mean little or it can mean a lot. Unlike the drafting of Government legislation and delegated legislation, there is no area that defines the words that are used—hence the term European, which I assume refers to the Community but could equally apply to the whole of Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is dangerous language to accept in a binding treaty, because once it has been established it is as long as a piece of string to anybody who wants to interpret it?
  Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman is right to use the word "dangerous". I use the word "arrogant". It is appalling arrogance to attribute to 12 countries the description "Europe", but that appears over and again in the Maastricht treaty. One or two of my hon. Friends are
  338
  enthusiastic about the treaty, although I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) beside me, who is pretty pragmatically enthusiastic about it all.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Intelligently.
  Sir Richard Body: Intelligently, yes.
  9 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is customary in Scotland to teach Scottish history up to 1707 and United Kingdom history thereafter. The content of history books depends much on whether battles were won or lost.
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed. We in England should learn our English, United Kingdom and European history. I was taught European history half a century ago by somebody who inspired me to take an interest in the subject, and that interest has never left me. I get rather fed up with being denounced as anti-European, because I enjoy reading about Europe and European history and have been interested in the subject for a long time.
  That is one of the reasons why I am so hostile to the idea of the European Community. European history shows over and again that such ventures always end in tears. There has been no exception to that.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the reference to European is not confined only to article 126 but appears on the face of the Command Paper? We are debating the treaty on European union. Is that the rich man's club of 12 or does it take in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and even Russia?
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman—my right hon. Friend, if I may so describe him—is right and I endorse his comments wholeheartedly. The European dimension will exclude matters of geography, history or anything to do with, for example, Bohemia, which was mentioned earlier, or Russia. Russia is part of Europe. I believe that Tschaikovsky was European. Chekhov's plays and Tolstoy's novels are European. The treaty provides for education in an European dimension, but I wonder whether literature will include Tolstoy or only those authors who came from one part of Europe—that covered by the EC.
  Mr. Cryer: And given EC subsidies.
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: We are discussing the nonsense of describing the EC as Europe as if the rest of Europe did not exist. What shall we call this ridiculous Community when Turkey is included, 98 per cent. of which is in Asia?
  Sir Richard Body: Turkey has long had an application to join the European Community, and some years ago I went to Ankara and heard their enthusiasm to join. I pointed out one or two difficulties that they might encounter, but I have since discovered that Turkey is very unlikely to be admitted, and for one very good reason of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will be aware, that Germany is almost certain to veto it because—I must not speak too harshly of the Germans—they are reluctant to

  339
  have any more Turks coming into their country, and perhaps they may be right to be reluctant, given the troubles in eastern Germany.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend touched on the issue of distance education, but I do not think that he gave it as much attention as it perhaps merits. In one of our earlier debates here, one of our hon. Friends talked about satellite broadcasts of a programme called "Red Hot Danish Love". I understand that, to a certain extent, it was educational—
  The Chairman: Order. That does not come under this article.
  Sir Richard Body: I am disappointed, Mr. Morris. I thought that we might hear more about this "Red Hot Danish … "—I forget the last word. I implore my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster to close her ears. Perhaps we should not go along that road. I think I ought to get back—
  The Chairman: Order. I have some difficulty in working out where the hon. Gentleman is going. Will he address either of the two particular articles that we have before us, neither of which has anything to do with enlargement or any of the other areas that he has drifted into?
  Sir Richard Body: I am very anxious to get back to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member for Stretford, because his speech was riddled with fallacies. In particular, he and his party should reconsider their attitude of support for Community-funded vocational training.
  It is common knowledge that Mr. Gonzalez, the Prime Minister of Spain, has insisted on large sums by way of cohesion money. He threatened to veto the Maastricht treaty unless the money was advanced to Spain. This heading will, in my view, enable large sums of money to go to Spain, and it will be necessary—because Spain, and Portugal, I will allege, despite what the hon. Gentleman said, Italy and Greece, are all far behind us when it comes to vocational training. This article will enable money to be diverted from our resources to southern Europe. It is inevitable because, if we are to have fair competition throughout western Europe in the single market, we must have systems of vocational training that are more or less in line, and at present they are not. No one can say that they are in line at the moment.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is talking about vocational training, but he knows that among the amendments we are also discussing education, and he will be aware that, when article 126 says that
  "Community action shall be aimed at … developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education system of the Member States",
  it means people visiting each other, going backwards and forwards; money; Europe; slush fund. It could be very seductive, and it could be abused.
  I would be very interested to hear my hon. Friend's views as to whether this is an appropriate use of European taxpayers' money, how it could and should be used and what constraints and controls he would put on it.
  Sir Richard Body: I am sure that it will be abused. Indeed, the Court of Auditors has made it plain year after year that national Governments were ineffective in policing how Community money is spent in their own
  340
  countries. I shall not mention the common agricultural policy because I should be ruled out of order but £5,000 million has gone astray. Our Government have been criticised by the Court of Auditors, although I am sure they behave much better than some other Governments in spending that money. There is no encouragement for Governments to ensure that Community money is properly, effectively and honestly spent.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Article 126 states that Community action shall be aimed at
  "encouraging the development of youth exchanges".
  Few of us would disagree with that, but what is meant by
  "exchanges of socio-educational instructors"?
  Would my hon. Friend care to comment?
  Sir Richard Body: That merely confirms what I said earlier—a poet such as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) could not have drafted a single sentence of the treaty.
  Socio-economic policies—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The words are "socio-educational".
  Sir Richard Body: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has spotted that. As ever, she is taking an acute interest in the subject and perhaps she will contribute to the debate later if she is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Morris.
  I was trying to give a warning, although it is perhaps not for me to do so.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You have not said what they are—
  Sir Richard Body: I was diverted. Mr. Morris, you will—
  The Chairman: Order. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who appears to be having a conversation with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Will he please deal with one of the two articles so that I can follow exactly what he is saying?
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed I shall, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is always tempting me. I shall seek to avoid her blandishments and raise my voice to speak directly to you, Mr. Morris, as I know I should. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I step back a little from her.
  Mrs. Gorman: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of training and the use of slush funds, I should be interested to hear his comments on the attitude revealed in article 57 and amendment No. 199. The article is sinister because it refers to the laying down of
  "directives for the co-ordination … by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States"
  in relation to the activities of self-employed persons. It is sinister because the essence of many forms of self-employment is that people can drift into them, especially when they have lost other work. If there are to be directives, laws and regulations—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady's point is relevant. She has asked a question and perhaps she will now allow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to answer.
  Sir Richard Body: I agree wholeheartedly with the point of my hon. Friend's intervention. I was self-employed before I came to the House—many of us were. A self-employed person should be sufficiently endowed to be able to decide for himself or herself what type of vocational training is suitable. It is amazing that the European Community or those who drafted the treaty should go so far as to suggest that the self-employed should take part in such schemes—it should be entirely a matter for them.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that article 57 does not offer opportunities for everyone? The second sentence of paragraph 2 of article 57 refers to
  "training and conditions of access for natural persons."
  My hon. Friend seems to have studied this matter carefully. As we know from last night, however, the Minister does not answer questions but simply reads prepared speeches. That is unfortunate, but perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. Bearing in mind the reference to "natural persons", can he tell me what unnatural persons are? Or perhaps some Opposition Member can enlighten us.
  This is a very serious point. The Bill with which we are dealing is to become the law of the land. Training and access are to be provided for natural persons but not, apparently, for unnatural persons. What on earth is a natural person? May we have an assurance—
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not keep asking the same question. He has asked what a natural person is. Perhaps he will allow his hon. Friend to respond.
  9.15 pm
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This just goes to show how difficult it is to translate these documents into some kind of English. At one time I did a little lecturing in company law. We used to talk about "persons". A person can be a corporate entity. For example, I believe that, in law, ICI is a person.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: But a natural person?
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend and I are natural persons. I shall not point to anyone who might be described as anything other than a natural person; indeed, all of us here are natural persons. In law, ICI, Unilever, Shell and all other such organisations are persons, but not natural persons.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is one of the wisest people in the House, but I have to point out that he is stating what he thinks the position to be. Is there a definition anywhere? Constituents of mine will probably have to obey these laws. When it comes to training and access, I shall have to ask, "Are you a natural person?" My hon. Friend says that he thinks that he and I are natural persons. Where is the definition? This is not fun; it is a serious matter. All those who say that this Bill should be rushed through should realise that what it contains would become the law of the land. I demand that before we leave this matter we be told, by my hon. Friend or by somebody else, what the blazes a natural person is.
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend should not be quite so naive as to believe that the people who drafted this treaty, as well as those who will put it into effect, have very much interest in the people of Southend. The treaty
  342
  contains many examples of the way in which it will be very difficult for ordinary people, particularly those who are self-employed, to understand the laws that govern their lives, disobedience of which may result in punishment.
  Mr. Cash: Perhaps tucked away in this convoluted treaty is a reference to a Euro-person. In the light of previous debates, I believe that we are moving rapidly to the notion of a European culture in which a person will be seen as natural in the European context. This is very disturbing. Does my hon. Friend know of a recent conference in Madrid that was partially funded by the European Commission? We are told that at that conference a certain Dr. Lenarduzzi of the Commission said that the Commission had been seeking to influence education—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows his way round the treaty better than most hon. Members. I am finding it difficult to relate his remarks to article 126 or 127. Or can it be that, as the hon. Gentleman has just appeared in the Chamber, he has lost track of where we are?
  Mr. Cash: I had just reached the point about education policy and training. Dr. Lenarduzzi said that for a very long time the Commission had sought to influence education policy, especially through selective financial support. He admitted that under the treaty of Rome there was no remit to do this, and that therefore these provisions were being used to legitimise something that was known to be not within the vires of the existing treaty.
  Sir Richard Body: I did touch upon what that gentleman said, because he is a Commissioner and he was speaking about the powers of the Commission as at present and how he sought to extend them. Reading the extracts from the speech that I have seen, he seemed to revel in the prospect of the enhanced powers that he would have as a Commissioner in deciding matters of education and vocational training.
  This illustrates again, and very vividly, that as Commissioner he will be in charge, and he sees more power going to him. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, as we all know, is an intelligent European and has credentials in this field. But she feels some dismay that this Commissioner was boasting—I do not think that that is an unfair word—that he would have so much more power.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There was a reference to ultra vires persons; I was saying that these are intra vires persons, since legal language is being used.
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend shares with me the distinction, although I am not sure that it is a distinction, of having both been a barrister and a farmer. I know that she is well aware of the law on this subject. The Commissioner in question was hinting that he, as Commissioner for education, was exceeding his powers and therefore acting ultra vires, to use my hon. Friend's expression, when in future they will be intra vires and he will have the power to do things that he cannot do at the moment.
  That is why some of us feel very concerned about this article, and indeed other articles, and why we believe that the people of this country should be alerted to how powers

  343
  are moving away from here to Brussels, to be exercised by someone who boasts as does the Commissioner whose name I fear that I cannot pronounce.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, but does he really think that the socio-educational instructor is a natural person? He can be a schoolteacher or a youth leader, but, whoever he is, do we really need a treaty in law to define what he is? If we intend to encourage the movement of people, can we not do so on a basis that makes good sense, and in good English?
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right, and I endorse those views entirely. To some extent there may be a need for international co-operation in matters of education and, if there is, I would think that the Council of Europe was well equipped to do what is necessary. Indeed, it would be able to speak for virtually all Europe, other than parts of what was the Soviet Union. As I understand it—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Morris, as a former member of the Council of Europe—it already has a cultural and educational dimension.
  Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the excellent educational arrangements that we have in Northern Ireland. We respect the rights of those who wish to send their children to church schools, we have an excellent state system, grammar and secondary schools, and we have an integrated system. If this treaty is to proceed headlong, is there a risk that there will not be recognition of the rights of those who wish to make choices in Northern Ireland? In one section of article 126 we see that Community action shall be aimed at
  "promoting co-operation between educational establishments".
  But then, further down, it also says that the Council,
  "acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations."
  Is it conceivable that it might ultimately be said that in Northern Ireland there should be only integrated education? Will we be directed ultimately from Brussels as to what is best for our young people?
  Sir Richard Body: That is how I understand it. I wonder what my hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say in response. The matter is one of many to which we should have a response. Northern Ireland has high standards. It is the part of the United Kingdom which has more university places per head of population.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Because of the grammar schools.
  Sir Richard Body: I am not sure about that. Lincolnshire has kept grammar schools, but it does not yet have a university. We hope to have one. I must not digress to talk about a university in Lincolnshire except to say that we hope to have one by the turn of the century, subject to what the Minister of State says about it. I do not think that there is a causal relationship.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was not suggesting a causal relationship between grammar schools and a local university. I was suggesting a causal relationship between the excellence which a grammar school education gives and the capacity of its students to get to university. It does not need to be in Lincoln; it could be in Lancaster, where we have an exceptionally good grammar school.
  The Chairman: Clearly, it is not in Brussels and is not relevant to the article, interesting though it is.
  Sir Richard Body: I am sorely tempted to describe my visit to Lancaster university, but I will not. There should be concern in Northern Ireland about the Commissioners having the power to propose education schemes, as, indeed, in Scotland where there is and has been for generations a much higher standard than has prevailed in most of England.
  Under the article, it is plain that the Commissioners will have the power to propose education schemes to include Northern Ireland. Such schemes would be to the detriment of Northern Ireland at present. At the Council of Ministers, if we have United Kingdom representatives who wish to object to that, I hope that they will.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) may agree that representatives from the United Kingdom who are attending the Council of Ministers may not always have the interests of the United Kingdom uppermost in their minds. One can be sure that the interests of Northern Ireland might have to be lowered in preference to the interests of some other parts of the United Kingdom or the United Kingdom as a whole. Certainly, we should be concerned that the Commissioners may propose education schemes which could include Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with that point categorically.
  Under this article, the Commission will have the power to allocate money or propose the allocation of money by way of incentives to a national Government to adopt schemes which the Commissioners have introduced. That is a dangerous practice. The danger is heightened by the fact that a majority will vote on the issue. When it comes to majority voting, my hon. Friend will agree that Northern Ireland will not have a good chance. As someone with Ulster blood in his veins, I regret that.
  The hon. Member for Stretford was making a grave mistake on behalf of his party. I hope that the Back Benchers behind him will see the danger in his argument that vocational training schemes should be devised in Brussels. If vocational training schemes are devised in Brussels, we can be sure that the amount of money available will be limited.
  If the amount of money available is to be parcelled up equally, those who represent Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece will insist on more money than the northern European countries. They will say, "It is not fair. We are behind northern Europe in vocational training so we cannot compete fairly in the single market." One can hear the Spaniards saying, "We already have 10 per cent. out of work. We shall have even more if we have to face competition from northern Europe. We must have vocational training as good as that which pertains in northern Europe."
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Molyneaux: I apologise for intervening a second time in the hon. Gentleman's admirable speech. Does he agree that it will be a question not of bringing southern European countries up to our standards but of levelling us down to a common lower standard?
  Sir Richard Body: My right hon. Friend has almost plucked the words from my mouth. I was going on to say

  345
  that. The amount of money will be limited. We cannot assume that large sums of money will be available for vocational training. The budget will be limited.
  If the European Commission says, to use that tired phrase, that there must be a level playing field and that vocational training schemes must be more or less the same throughout the Community, we can be sure that standards in southern Europe and southern Ireland will have to be raised. If the budget is limited, less money will be available for comparable schemes in northern Europe. Therefore, we shall be placed at a disadvantage. That is crucial if we are to seek, as we should, to get rid of the wretched horror of mass unemployment. I see nothing but dangers ahead.
  In the main wages are lower in southern Europe. People can afford to accept lower wages because heating, clothing and other costs tend to be lower than in northern Europe.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give us his views on the fact that, under articles 126 and 127—those which are covered by the amendments that we are discussing tonight—the Commission's proposals will be subject to qualified majority voting? Therefore, the standards which apply in other parts of Europe, which may well be much lower than the fine quality education standards that we have described in our own territories—Scotland, Ireland and many parts of Wales and England—may supersede our standards. The decision will be taken by majority voting. We shall be only one twelfth of the voting body.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already given us his views on majority voting, so I am sure that he will not be tempted down that route.
  Sir Richard Body: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with the point in his reply. It is important. With all due respect, my experience has been—I hope that he will not contradict me; I shall be sorry if he does—that Ministers do not always reply to some of the points that are made in the debate. I hope that they will deal with the matter. After all, majority voting is a serious matter. It means that, if one country or perhaps two or three countries stand out with interests different from those of others, their interests would be overridden. I can see precisely that happening on vocational training.
  Anyone who has attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers in recent years will confirm that the Spanish Minister in particular is for ever being extremely difficult about any concessions that might be in our interest but which might conflict with those of southern Europe. He needs only to obtain the support of France and possibly another country to win the day and override our interests.
  Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend has studied the matter carefully, I expect that he will have read the article in Education on 18 September by Mr. Ken Hopkins, a former chief education officer in Mid Glamorgan, in which he mentions a previously not well-recognised concession made by our Prime Minister saying:
  "Mr. Major's apparently minor concession at Maastricht thus has significant implications for the education service in the UK. The previous heavy vocational emphasis to the Commission's programmes will be lifted."
  Whereas the only impact that the bureaucrats had on our education system in the United Kingdon was through vocational training, it now extends throughout the whole realm of education.
  Sir Richard Body: Yes, I have had the advantage of seeing that article.
  The Chairman: Order. This is not the appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to read the article. He should have come prepared.
  Sir Richard Body: I am not seeking to read it: I would not do so. That article was not written casually. It is in the journal for education and was written by someone with considerable experience of education and education policy. The article expresses grave concern about article 57 because the author believes that our educational system is satisfactory. Although that may not altogether please Opposition Members, I hope that at least on the Conservative side of the House that view will be supported.
  He queries whether we can maintain that standard and whether we would have to change. In the article he says that if we are to change our education system we should decide to make the change. We should not surrender our interests and allow our education standards to be determined through qualified voting procedures by people whose interests might not be the same as ours. That is a powerful argument and I commend it to every hon. Member.
  Mr. Cran: What a wonderful speech my hon. Friend has made, which is why I have not intervened so far. Could he turn his mind to article 126, which seeks the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study throughout Europe? Would he like to comment on the fact that many academics and graduates at my local university in Hull are extremely worried about that? They take the view that the academic standards achieved in British universities—especially at the university of Hull—are higher than those achieved at some universities in other parts of Europe. Does he agree that that concern is real and if so, why is it not recognised by the Government?
  Sir Richard Body: Hull university has a distinguished professor of government. I sit on an editorial board beside him and can vouch for the good advice that he always gives. He is well known to many Members of the House, has written several books about the House and dearly loves it, but—if he does not mind me saying so—he has strong views about the way that it seeks to be cavalier about the way that its powers are slipping away.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Maastricht treaty gives educational advantages to some member countries of the European Community? That is the whole purpose of the Maastricht agreement. Is he aware that the new Government which has just been formed in the Republic of Ireland—a coalition of Fianna Fail and the Irish Labour party—issued a joint policy statement, before the Government was confirmed by the southern Irish Parliament?
  That statement announced that, for the first time, grants would be available to provide free third-level university education. The grants would be financed by the cohesion fund that the Maastricht agreement would create, and paid for by British and German taxpayers. That is how the parties presented their Government policy.
  Sir Richard Body: Indeed, that must follow. After all, Ireland receives from Community funds six times more

  347
  than she puts in. Ireland is a major beneficiary—as, allegedly, are her farmers. I must not digress, but we know only too well how the money has disappeared; it is not really enhancing the farmers' standard of living. It is a great pity that they do not understand what is going on.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is not just the Government of the Republic of Ireland who are aware of the big difference and the approaching changes; the Commission are aware of that too. Perhaps my hon. Friend can find a way of letting the Government read the Commission's recently published report on Lingua, which was featured in Education magazine on 28 August 1992. The report revealed that, during that year, 200 teachers in the United Kingdom had undergone in-service training in a foreign language, compared with 71 in Spain, 66 in France and 48 in Germany.
  Even in regard to the number of students going on the foreign exchanges that the treaty will formalise, encourage and finance, Britain's record was about four times higher than that of France. If money is to be provided to equalise the position, Britain will lose out: it will pay more, while gaining no advantage for its people. Less money will be available to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the provision of necessary facilities.
  The Chairman: Order. Let me remind the House that, as we are still to debate the cohesion funds, it would not be appropriate for the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) to develop that argument now. Let us return to the two articles covered by the amendment—as I know the hon. Gentleman was about to do.
  Sir Richard Body: I believe that the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is germane. It relates to how the article that we are discussing could affect our standards. It asserts that our standards are, on the whole, very good, and quotes statistics to establish that. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will endorse that, rather than adopting the line of the hon. Member for Stretford and allowing it to be said that our educational standards are lower than those generally prevailing on the continent.
  What the hon. Member for Stretford said is likely to be mirrored again and again in southern Europe. I hope that the Committee is as grateful as I am for this warning of what will happen in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. The Commission will be bound to try to enforce similar standards for vocational training, and that will mean either that our standards will be lowered, or that the taxpayers of northern Europe—primarily those in Germany and the United Kingdom—will have to contribute much more than is currently envisaged.
  If that does not happen, our employees will be put at a disadvantage. They will not have the standard of education that they have now. When the Opposition say that our standards are poor, they must realise that those standards will be worse if we go ahead and allow the Commission to lay down standards and impose a uniform pattern across western Europe.
  Mr. Cran: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer on article 126. Will he address his mind, albeit temporarily, to article 57? He will be well aware of the facts and I do not ask him to read it, but I shall try to tell him succinctly that that extraordinary article requires the Council to issue directives on the mutual recognition of diplomas,
  348
  certificates and other evidence of formal qualification. Does he not agree that it is already Government policy that there are far too many directives coming out of Europe? Can he guess why the Government are asking for more directives, albeit on this subject? Do we not want fewer directives?
  9.45 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I owe my hon. Friend an apology for not answering that question previously. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it in his reply to the debate. We are gathering quite a catalogue of questions and I suspect that only a very few of them will be answered when the time comes.
  Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the spate of delegated legislation that the Government are producing is based on introducing statutory instruments to implement directives? Does he agree that 1992 saw an unprecedented number of statutory instruments, orders and regulations? There were more than 3,000—a number never before achieved by any Parliament or Government in history. As the hon. Member for Beverely (Mr. Cran) said, one wonders why the Government are going after a treaty that will produce still more directives.
  Sir Richard Body: I once judged a country's degree of socialism, or the socialist instinct of its Government by the number of regulations upon its people as each one tells at least someone what they shall have or what they shall do. The hon. Member has raised a very strong point. We are deluged by statutory regulations and it is a matter of very great concern to the business community.
  Large companies all have one or two people whose job it is to examine the regulations and ensure that the company is keeping the law, but they are a severe burden on small businesses. I can think of businesses in my constituency, and I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member can say the same, that they are desperate about some of the legislation being produced. They almost always complain about secondary legislation; it is very seldom primary legislation.
  Mrs. Gorman: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about training in business and professions, will he turn to amendment No. 199, which deals with article 57? Paragraph 3 deals with training and qualifications and co-ordinating of the medical and pharmaceutical professions and the progressive abolition of restrictions between countries in those professions. I am sure that my hon. Friend has great knowledge of the subject. Does he agree that it is extremely dangerous for us to remove such separations, as we expect very high standards which are not necessarily followed throughout the market? Can he give us the benefit of his experience?
  Sir Richard Body: That is true of several professions. The standards of veterinary training in Spain and Portugal are way below ours, although I regret to say that, because I am fond of Portugal. We founded the profession, and the standards set by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other centres of learning here have been of the very highest. Those who wish to enter training for the profession need A grades at A-level. There are other such examples, and no doubt my hon. Friends can think of them.

  349
  There is no doubt that we will be disadvantaged if we agree to this article, which is bound to lower our professional standards.
  Mr. Cran: I am sorry to be tiresome, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend to return to article 57. I do not want my hon. Friend to read it because he has a great deal else on his mind—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now attempting to read the article for the third time. He should do hon. Members the courtesy of recognising that they have followed the debate and they know what is in the article.
  Mr. Cran: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have not taken up much of the time of the Committee and I put it to you that I was going to present an entirely new aspect of article 57—
  The Chairman: Order. It is of little relevance how often an hon. Member may have spoken. Some hon. Members who have spoken many times have spoken in order. Others who have spoken only once may have been out of order. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. Cran: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The point that I was going to put to my hon. Friend was entirely different from the one that I put to him before. It relates to why doctors and dentists are being treated—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot just persist. He should know that it is not right to quote at length from the treaty. He should recognise that hon. Members have read it and know what is in it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and they have followed the debate intensely. I call Sir Richard Body.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. It is a known fact that the Home Secretary has not read the treaty.
  The Chairman: I call Sir Richard Body.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a different point of order, Mr. Morris. The treaty is not couched in the normal language of the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom. I suggest that there will inevitably be large parts of each article, therefore, that need explanation by Ministers. So far they have not been giving us explanations.
  The Chairman: With the greatest respect, Ministers have not had the chance to respond to anything yet. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has been on his feet for the best part of two hours, so it is a little hard to chastise Ministers.
  Sir Richard Body: I do not deny that I have been speaking for two hours. I began by taking the hon. Member for Stretford to task, and there have been some interventions to which I have sought to respond. That is only courteous.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman himself decides whether to give way to interventions, but they are all part of his speech and count towards the time of that speech.
  Sir Richard Body: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Morris, but I believe that one of the amendments alludes to article 57. It is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was trying to refer. It concerns the medical and pharmaceutical professions. Why should not there be differences between this country's view of those professions and that of other countries in the European Community?
  The article seeks to harmonise the education, training and qualifications of those two professions in such a way that anyone in them can freely cross frontiers and, having done so, can practise. I accept that there are many advantages to that, and none of those who share my views about the Maastricht treaty would suggest that professional people should not cross frontiers. But we are concerned about the education, training and qualifications of those who will cross frontiers, because we want the highest standards to prevail in those professions.
  Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is possible, under arrangements for the mutual recognition of diplomas and degrees, for a first-class degree from one of the great British universities such as Oxford or Cambridge to be equated with a similar first-class degree from some other place that clearly does not carry the same quality, as a result of which there will be complete confusion as to the value of first and second-class degrees?
  Sir Richard Body: Yes, and we must ask whether those professions and the patients who seek advice from them will be at a disadvantage.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Hon. Members are aware of my interest in the health service and its quality. My hon. Friend alluded to the interests of patients. If we are forced to accept what I would describe as a substandard medical qualification because of the Maastricht treaty, which extends vocational training and education to the Commission and the European Community, the British Parliament, by proceeding with the Bill, could be putting the safety of British patients in jeopardy. We should be deeply concerned about that.
  Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend speaks with authority on that subject and I cannot aspire to his understanding of the two professions in question. But as I said, I know something about the veterinary profession, and in that the standards in some southern European countries, particularly Spain, are manifestly lower than they are in Britain. I am in favour of free transfer, but only if we can decide the appropriate standards for our own country.
  Mr. Cran: I assure my hon. Friend that I am not besotted with article 57. Is he aware that there is dubiety about whether an English doctor who practises in another country in Europe need speak the local language and, similarly, about whether a doctor from a European country need speak English? That reinforces my hon. Friend's argument that health care will go down rather than up.
  Sir Richard Body: That is self-evident, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with that and the catalogue of other questions that have been raised. I beg him to treat this group of amendments more seriously than Ministers treated previous groups and to deal with every point that we have raised. It has been said that we do not

  351
  need a referendum because the matter will be fully debated and all the points at issue will be answered. If the questions that we raise are not answered that will weaken the Government's case for denying a referendum. It is in the interests of the Government to deal adequately with all these matters in a language that the people can understand. That cannot be said of the treaty because we have already heard many examples of how it—
  It being Ten o'clock. THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee to report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Commercial Court
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: This is very much a case of third time lucky. After the fracas on the day before the start of the Christmas recess, I was prevented by Opposition Members from making this speech.
  In drawing attention to delays in the commercial court, I declare an interest as a solicitor and a director of companies which, from time to time, have had reason to use the commercial court. One of the main reasons why hon. Members should not be deterred from holding outside interests is that they are able to bring to the attention of the House problems that arise in those outside interests and which the Government can remedy.
  Britain is a trading nation, and depends on international trade and commerce for its existence. At its heart is the City of London and, as I am a Member for a London seat and many of my constituents work in the City, its success is paramount to my constituency's interest. The City of London has a pre-eminent role in global trade and, inevitably, there are disputes in such trade. The commercial court provides a disputes resolution service for the international trading and commercial community, and to date it has been most successful.
  The commercial court enjoys a worldwide reputation for providing the service for which it was instituted nearly 100 years ago in 1985. It was set up to overcome delays in the High Court—which, ironically, is now its chief fault. In well over half the cases that appear before the court, all the parties are foreign enterprises, and in more than three quarters of the cases, at least one of the parties comes from abroad. One of the chief results of that success is that the court is a substantial earner of foreign exchange in the form of invisible earnings. Those earnings arise not merely from those directly using the court, because the existence of the court in London means that the big international law firms in the City have an advantage over their overseas competitors and can offer as part of their services their familiarity with the practices of a court of world renown.
  Bearing in mind the huge costs of commercial legal advice and advocacy, it would not be an exaggeration to measure the financial benefits of the court in hundreds of millions of pounds per annum. According to the Central Statistical Office balance of payments year book, foreign legal earnings are £425 million per year. The success of the commercial court over recent years is demonstrated by the fact that the court is so popular that the number of judges on commercial cases has increased from one 30 years ago to the present six. It is a credit to this Government and the Lord Chancellor's Department to have nurtured and promoted this state-owned industry. However, a few problems have recently occurred. Due to the international nature of the court, it has developed a system of providing fixed hearing dates. One of the principal reasons for this is that a system of fixed dates gives foreign litigants and witnesses fair notice of when they will be required to travel to this country.
  Another important reason is that all those concerned with commercial affairs much prefer to know in advance when their disputes and differences will be resolved. In

  353
  order to provide fixed hearing dates that are reasonably reliable, the court must have a constant minimum number of commercial court judges.
  Given that starting point, the court can construct a list of court cases and dates. It is the aim of the commercial court that, in principle, cases should be heard at the earliest date on which the parties can be ready. That is in line with the suggestion in the civil justice review, that cases should be listed and heard within 12 months from the time of giving a trial date. That aim is also, most importantly, in line with what commercial enterprises want and need from a commercial disputes resolution service. In this field, justice delayed is likely to be justice denied or at least diminished.
  Within an establishment of six judges sitting full time it was possible in the past to come close to achieving that aim. However, the situation has deteriorated recently. At the beginning of the last legal term, only five judges were available, and for reasons which are not surprising in a commercial court, four of those judges had become tied up in cases which had overrun or been brought on expeditiously. So we have a situation in which one judge is doing the work of six. He is the judge in charge of the commercial list, who is unable to undertake any trial of any length, as he has to be available to deal with the administrative matters and paper applications, which run to dozens every week.
  The upshot of that is that the commercial court faces an immediate and serious problem. Had the full complement of judges been available, the difficulties would largely have been overcome, but on 22 October 1992, the question of judicial resources was raised in the other place when Lord Byron specifically raised the problems faced by the commercial court because of the lack of a full complement of commercial judges.
  The Lord Chancellor, dealing with this point, observed that it was not immediately possible to replace those promoted to the Court of Appeal, but that he hoped to be in a position to appoint replacements and that the matter was temporary. A similar response was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. John M. Taylor), when, in answer to an oral question on 30 November, he said that a further appointment would shortly be made and implied that that would solve the problem. He gave that response in absolute good faith and I assure him that I am not suggesting otherwise.
  Unfortunately, since then it has transpired that the problem is proving more than temporary. The complement of commercial judges is, on information I have available, likely to be affected indefinitely. As my hon. Friend is aware, three fresh appointments have been made in recent weeks, but I am informed that, because of shortage of judges in other parts of the Queen's bench division, two of these new judges can be made available next term for the use of the commercial court, and one is one of the five already struggling.
  If I may anticipate my hon. Friend's reply, he may suggest that this is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, but the Lord Chief Justice has been saying for many years that he does not have enough judges. My hon. Friend may say that this is a matter for the working party recently set up, but I put it to him that it has already been submitted to the working party that the High Court requires more judges.
  354
  In other words, the shortage of judges in the commercial court will continue, and the difficulties will multiply every day. They cannot be solved next term, because the court will not have the judges available to do next term's list, let alone grapple with this term's problems of the emergency problems that next term itself may bring.
  The commercial court users committee met last month. It is a committee not merely of lawyers with a vested interest in the success of the court but predominantly of major City and international organisations that reflect the cause of global trade. Its spokesman in discussions with the Government is Peter Tudball, the chairman of the Baltic Exchange, who has done much to raise the issue, not to be difficult but to protect London as a centre of world trade. I wholeheartedly support that attitude.
  On being advised of the present position, the committee considered the matter so serious that an immediate approach should be made to Government. Its aim was to ensure that all concerned were made aware that it is not only the lawyers of the court who believe that a properly manned commercial court is essential for the continued well-being of many City institutions, which provide international service and thus enable Britain to earn its living in the world. It believes that a total of four new judges are required.
  The situation is now such that the judge of the commercial court list recently wrote:
  "To my mind, the Commercial Court is no longer merely in a state of crisis. It is about to reach the point when it would be dishonest to continue to pretend that it is capable of providing the service for which it was instituted."
  This autumn, Lord Donaldson, a former Master of the Rolls, said:
  "The situation has gone from crisis to catastrophe."
  If that is true, it is a very serious matter indeed. In drawing it to the attention of the House, I have sought to show that the problem can be resolved.
  It is not clear to me how we have reached this position. I am aware that the Government must exercise restraint in public expenditure, but there is a solution for the commercial court. The sums of money in dispute in the commercial court are huge and run to millions of pounds, but the writ fees are insignificant. If the writ fee were raised to £1,000 for every case filed in the commercial court, it would be a drop in the ocean to the users of the court, but it is estimated that it would raise £2 million per annum.
  That would make the court largely self-financing, would allow for the appointment of even more judges, and might leave a small profit for the Treasury. Perhaps that will help the Treasury to review the situation and allocate more funds directly for more judges in the commercial court.
  On that happy note of suggesting a small profit for the Treasury, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's proposals for sorting out this situation. I emphasise my belief that this institution is a credit to the Government, and that its problems are capable of resolution.
  10.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about delays in dealing with the work of the commercial court, and I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate.

  355
  I should first explain that the commercial court is part of the Queen's bench division of the High Court and came into existence in 1895 to provide a tribunal with greater familiarity with the subject matter of commercial and mercantile disputes and procedures to enable those disputes to be justly determined expeditiously, effectively and without undue formality.
  Those remain the objectives of the court, which operates a system of fixed rather than floating lists because its users, many of whom carry on their businesses in foreign countries, are given fair notice of when they will be required to travel to London, so they know in advance when their disputes and differences will be resolved.
  Under section 6 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the Lord Chancellor nominates the High Court judges who may then be deployed to sit in the commercial court. Apart from the commercial judge, who is in charge of the list and who sits full-time in the commercial court, the others who sit there are drawn according to need and availability from the pool of judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor.
  The work load of the commercial court has shown a steady increase, year by year, since 1988. The number of judicial sittings has also increased proportionately, from 936 days in the year to July 1988 to 1,256 in the year to July 1992. The commercial court had reached a relatively stable position and had been able to allocate trial times for parties who were ready for trial. Recent promotions to the Court of Appeal have, however, had a temporary effect on waiting times.
  At the beginning of the last legal term, only five judges were made available from the pool of nominated judges to sit in the commercial court, although lists were planned on the basis that six judges would be available to sit. Of those five judges, two were tied up on cases which had considerably overrun their time estimates, as my hon. Friend indicated. Two others were involved in cases which were expedited—that is, ordered to take priority over other cases in the list. There was therefore only one other judge available to take the cases at that time. All five were, however, transacting the business of the commercial court.
  It was not possible to secure immediate replacements for judges who had been promoted to the Court of Appeal. The pool of suitable practitioners is relatively small, and full-time appointments of judges suitable for nomination to the commercial court bench are difficult to arrange, especially as appointees may have other commitments to be met. I am pleased to say that further nominations have now been made, and the Lord Chief Justice has additional judges available for him to deploy in that court.
  On 30 November, the Lord Chancellor nominated a further judge, Mr. Justice Tuckey. On 9 December, he further nominated Mr. Justice Colman, who was appointed to the High Court on that day. On 11 January, Mr. Justice Clarke, another new appointee to the High Court bench, was also nominated, to bring the number of nominees in the pool up to 10 who, together with the commercial judge, thus providing 11 judges who are currently able to sit in the commercial court, although I understand that there has had to be some replanning of lists for the current term because of last term's difficulties.
  Of course, some of the judges who sit in the commercial court have other commitments. Two of the High Court judges who sit in the commercial court are presiding judges on circuits, and visit those circuits for part of the legal term. Others are also deployed to sit in other parts of the
  356
  Queen's bench division, the Court of Appeal, the divisional court and the Crown court from time to time by the Lord Chief Justice.
  The day-to-day deployment of judges in the Queen's bench division is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice. While it is important that fixtures arranged in the commercial court several months in advance should be kept, the Lord Chief Justice, in deciding on where judges are deployed must, of course, give due weight to the needs of the Crown court, the Queen's bench division, the Court of Appeal, criminal division, and the divisional court. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice consider a reduction of waiting times in these latter two courts to be of the utmost importance at this present time. At any one time, therefore, there will be difficult questions of priority to be decided in the allocation of judges. This is an important point and one which is accepted by the commercial court judge.
  As the Lord Chancellor explained in the other place on 22 October 1992, in response to an unstarred question from Lord Irvine of Lairg, there is some difference between the waiting times in the various parts of the High Court, and this is true within the Queen's bench division itself. The most recent figures I have seen illustrate these differences. In the warned list, the statistics show that waiting times have halved since June 1991, from two months to one month, while the waiting times for fixtures and after fixtures fell from 15 months to eight months and from six months to three months respectively. There have been improvements in waiting times in other areas of business.
  The overall picture is a very complex one, and there is no doubt, therefore, that the situation requires a thorough review. It is one thing to believe that, because of delay, more judges seem to be required; it is quite another to determine how many and on what basis.
  It has been said that there is a need to plan for more judges overall, so as to ensure that enough are available in all jurisdictions, including the commercial court. That there should be sufficient High Court judges to hear the most serious, sensitive or complex cases is a natural public concern, and in recognition of this concern, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have asked a group of senior judges and officials to provide advice on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges. The group is chaired by Lord Justice Kennedy, and its other judicial members are the Deputy Chief Justice, Lord Justice Watkins, Lord Justice McCowan, Lord Justice Scott, Lord Justice Rose, Mrs. Justice Bracewell, Mr. Justice Johnson and Mr. Justice Macpherson.
  The group's first meeting was on 5 October 1992. It has met several times since then. The chairman has commissioned material relating to the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges from members of the group and from other members of the judiciary who have responsibility for, or knowledge of, specialist High Court jurisdictions.
  The advice which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are seeking would cover a number of areas. The first area is what work, civil and criminal, it is appropriate for High Court judges to undertake and merits their expertise and what work can be left to others. The second is how High Court judges should be deployed to dispose of that business, having regard to the relative needs of the circuits and, in London, of the Court of Appeal, the three divisions of the High Court, the

  357
  employment appeals tribunal and the other commitments they must meet. The third and related area is the system for deploying High Court judges, including the information needed to allocate appropriate business to them and to deploy them flexibly within the courts' structure to carry the work out.
  It is hoped that the advice will help to address the number of High Court judges not simply in terms of needing more, or indeed fewer, to meet immediate demands, but in developing a more systematic method of determining those numbers.
  The commercial court judge has contributed his views and those of the users of the court—to which my hon. Friend referred—to the group of judges and officials, and these views will be taken fully into account. It is hoped that the advice will be received soon, but until it is received it would be premature to speculate or reach conclusions about how many High Court judges are needed adequately to discharge the work load falling on them in all or any of the jurisdictions in which they sit, or how best they should be deployed to meet it.
  I think it pertinent to mention finally that, since the Lord Chancellor came to office in October 1987, the number of High Court judges increased from 79 to 85 in June 1992. Although that number has fallen very recently to 83 because of promotions and retirements, steps are being taken to bring the number back to 85 as soon as is practicable.
  It has been suggested that fees should be increased to pay for more judges in the commercial court. I am grateful for this suggestion. Supreme Court fees are currently subject to review, and I have offered to meet my hon. Friend to hear his views on that. The commercial court cannot, however, be seen in isolation from the rest of the court service and there could be no guarantee that increased fee income would translate directly into increased "judge power" in the commercial court.
  358
  It has also been suggested that the problems of the commercial court might lead to a significant decrease in this country's invisible earnings. I find it improbable that a temporary reduction in the total number of judges available to sit in the commercial court will do any long-term harm to its excellent reputation.
  I have been asked whether the advice of the group of senior judges and officials will be published. It is unclear yet whether the advice will be in a form which could be published. Parliamentary and Privy Council approval is required to increase the current statutory limit, so in the normal course of events, any changes which were proposed to be made as a result of the advice would come into the public domain.
  I should add, however, that, even if an increase in High Court judge numbers were agreed, the need to seek such approval and the problems of disengaging candidates from their current practices would mean that some time would inevitably elapse before any appointments would become effective.
  The list of judges, then, nominated to sit in the commercial court as at 11th January 1993 was as follows: Mr. Justice Sheen, Mr. Justice Hobhouse, Mr. Justice Saville, Mr. Justice Gatehouse, Mr. Justice Phillips, Mr. Justice Potter, Mr. Justice Waller, Mr. Justice Cresswell, Mr. Justice Tuckey, Mr. Justice Coleman and Mr. Justice Clarke.
  Mr. Justice Sheen is the Admiralty judge and devotes about 20 per cent. of his time to the commercial court. Mr. Justice Waller and Mr. Justice Potter are also presiding judges on circuits.
  I should like to thank the House for the opportunity to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend and, once again, to congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate on a very important subject, about which I know he cares very sincerely, and of which he has considerable knowledge.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Children's Play
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what effect he expects his decision to withdraw central support for the children's play and recreation unit to have on research currently being undertaken in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Sports Council will be taking over direct responsibility for a number of the play unit's functions after 31 March 1993. I am not aware that this will effect any research currently being undertaken in Nottingham.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the representations he has received concerning future funding for the children's play and recreation unit.

  Mr. Brooke
  Between 3 December 1992, when I made my announcement about future funding for the national children's play and recreation unit (Official Report, column 325) and 15 January 1993, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have received 21 letters from hon. Members, 20 from local authorities, 24 from voluntary sector play organisations, eight from other organisations and nine from members of the public.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what money will be available from grant aid through the Sports Council in 1993–94 for children's play.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Sports Council has agreed to allocate £220,000 to children's play in 1993–94. Further discussions are now taking place between my Department and the council on this basis.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had to ensure that there is a national strategy for children's play.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. Decisions on play provision are best taken at local level.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to commission research on a national lottery in addition to the GAH consultants' report.

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  Hambledon cricket club minute and account books

  Hampshire record office

  Unconditional

  Sculpture by Henry Moore

  Leeds city art gallery

  Conditional

  Collection of eight contemporary paintings consisting of: "Bomb Store" by David Bomberg

  Tate gallery

  Wish

  130
  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans at the present time to commission further research.

  Weight Training
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what advice he has sought about the risks to the health of persons under the age of 18 years of(a) weight lifting and (b) weight training;

  (2) if he will discuss with the chairman of the Sports Council the risks to the health of persons under the age of 18 years of (a) weight lifting and (b) weight training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I meet the chairman of the Sports Council from time to time to discuss issues of mutual interest and look to the council for advice on all sports-related issues. The council's advice is that both weight lifting and weight training are acceptable for those under 18 provided that they are carried out in a controlled environment under the supervision of suitably qualified coaches.

  Coalfield Areas
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 539, what discussions he has had with the English tourist board and the East Midlands tourist board to ensure there are sufficient reserves available to bring economic regeneration to coalfield areas.

  Mr. Key
  Discussions are currently in progress between my Department and the English tourist board on the criteria for the allocation of funds to the regional tourist boards.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half year ended 31 December 1992 of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed in the matter of allocation by testators or executors; if he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax; and if a press notice will be issued by his Department in the event of any information being given in his reply which has not been previously announced.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information that the hon. Member requests is as follows;
  131

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  "Man Hosing Metal Fishboxes" by Prunella Clough

  Tate gallery

  Wish

  "Self Portrait, Recto and Verso" by David Bomberg

  Wakefield art gallery

  Wish

  "Ghetto Theatre" by David Bomberg

  Wakefield art gallery

  Wish

  "Woman and Goat" by Robert Colquhoun

  Wakefield art gallery

  Wish

  "Two Figures Monotype" by Robert Colquhoun

  Wakefield art gallery

  Wish

  "Pears" by William Scott

  Wakefield art gallery

  Wish

  Untitled work by Roger Hilton

  Wakefield art gallery

  Wish

  Vintage motorcar and two motorcycles

  National motor museum (motorcar)

  Unconditional

  Bradford industrial museum (Scott motorcycle) Tank museum (Brough motorcycle)

  Rembrandt etching and 31 illuminated manuscripts

  National art collections fund

  Conditional

  Items awaiting allocation

  Date of acceptance

  Portrait by Beechey

  20 April 1990

  Beccafumi paintings

  20 November 1991

  Press notices have already been issued announcing the allocations that have been made to date.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the attendance figures for 1992 reported by the national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with the figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1991.

  Mr. Key
  The estimated number of visitors during 1992 to the 11 national museums and galleries for which I am responsible are as follows:

  Estimated attendance in 1992

  Percentage change from in 1991 estimated attendance

  British museum

  6,725,192

  +4.0

  Imperial war museum

  1,140,883

  +9.2

  National gallery

  4,300,000

  No change

  National maritime museum

  530,000

  –8.5

  National museums and galleries on Merseyside

  1,207,000

  –2.9

  National portrait gallery

  796,000

  –8.2

  Natural history museum

  1,267,000

  –15.5

  Science museum

  2,579,000

  +2.1

  Tate gallery

  2,150,711

  –11.7

  Victoria and Albert museum

  1,526,199

  +9.9

  Wallace collection

  200,000

  +42.7

  Total

  22,421,985

  +4.6

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the organisations who have expressed an interest in tendering for the franchise to run the national lottery to date.
  132
  Mr. Brooke
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what tender criteria will be used to award the licence to run the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  The licence to run the national lottery will be awarded by the director general of the national lottery. The director general, once appointed, will decide the criteria for awarding the licence, in line with his overriding duties under the legislation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which are the three legal aid area boards with the highest and lowest grant rates in percentage terms in respect of legal aid applications made to magistrates courts by defendants charged with(a) causing actual bodily harm, (b) shoplifting, (c) drink-driving, (d) criminal damage and (e) possession of an offensive weapon; and what was the percentage in each case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in the form requested. Between April 1991 and March 1992, the area committees of the Legal Aid Board with the highest approval rates in respect of criminal legal aid were: East Midlands (91.7 per cent.), South Western (82.1 per cent.) and North Western (70.7 per cent.). The three area committees with the lowest approval rates were: Northern (46.5 per cent.), Merseyside (47 per cent.) and West Midlands (49.4 per cent.). Renewed applications may also be made to the courts. The area committees deal only with applications which have previously been rejected by the courts. Statistics reflecting the nature of the offence are not kept.

  Law Students
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints the Lord Chancellor has received from students who have been failed on the Bar vocational course; and if he will make a statement.
  133
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As of 11 January 1992 the Lord Chancellor had received four representations from students.

  The Lord Chancellor takes a keen interest in legal education and equality of opportunity in the profession. However, the independence of the legal profession precludes him from intervening in the administration of the Bar vocational examination by the Council for Legal Education. The Commission for Racial Equality is shortly to conduct an investigation into the results, with which the Council for Legal Education will be co-operating fully. In addition, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct, which is a statutory body independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department, has received 17 representations and will be addressing this question as part of its review of legal education.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what review the Lord Chancellor has undertaken of the number of complaints from students dissatisfied with the way the Council of Legal Education has been conducting the course and its assessment procedures.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal profession is independent of Government and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to conduct any such review.

  The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct, which was established by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 as an independent body, has a duty to assist in the maintenance and development of standards in legal education, and has to have regard to the desirability of equality of opportunity when doing so. The committee is obliged under the Act to keep legal education and training under review; it launched a major review on 25 November 1992, which will address this question among others. However, the statutory independence of the committee precludes the Lord Chancellor from directing how it should discharge its duties.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Office Staff
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the staff of his Office and their grades.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Principal private secretary (Grade 3)

  Private secretary—overseas affairs (Grade 3)

  Chief press secretary (Grade 3)

  8 Special advisers

  Deputy chief press secretary (Grade 5)

  Secretary for appointments (Grade 5)

  Private secretary—economic affairs (Grade 5)

  2 Private secretaries—Parliamentary affairs and home
  134
  affairs (Grade 7)

  4 Senior information officers

  2 Senior executive officers

  5 Higher executive officers

  2 Assistants

  10 Executive officers

  22 Senior personal secretaries

  4 Personal secretaries

  11 Administrative officers

  4 Typists

  1 House manager

  1 Door keeper

  13 Support grade band 2

  10 Support grade band 1

  1 Support manager 3

  1 Senior cook

  In addition there are 10 custody guards, nine telephonists and four drivers who are not employed by my Office.

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations since the Bill was published on 5 November.

  The Bill will increase the rights of trade union members, enhance the rights of individual employees, provide new protection for the community against the effects of unlawful industrial action, and improve the operation of the labour market.

  Electrical Engineering
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on Government support for electrical engineering;

  (2) what steps the Government have taken to reward excellence in the field of electrical engineering.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set up sectoral divisions, including electrical engineering, leading to a closer dialogue to promote the recognition and importance of electrical engineering within the United Kingdom economy. The Government acknowledge the importance of electrical engineering and fully support the industry through a range of assistance that includes overseas trade, research and development, regional support and promoting awareness.

  Excellence in the industry is acknowledged through the Queen's awards including those for technology and exports, where electrical engineering is well represented. Additionally there are, of course, a number of people of eminence in the field of electrical engineering whose achievements have been recognised in the usual ways.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are make by the prison service on identity, name and address of people visiting convicted prisoners; how it establishes the purpose of each visit; and how it records this information.
  135
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The procedures in respect of visits to convicted prisoners are laid down in prison service standing order 5, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on advertising electoral registration in North Tyneside, Wansbeck and Blyth Valley in each year since 1990, and how much will be spent in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The amount spent by the Government on electoral registration advertising in England and Wales in each year since 1990 was as follows. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  Electoral registration advertising

  Year

  £'000

  1990

  923,000

  1991

  627,000

  1992

  617,000

  The proportion of this total spent in each individual district council area is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The 1993 budget figure is not yet available.

  Arms Amnesty
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will sanction a further arms amnesty in Hampshire on the lines of the one held in 1988 to cover firearms, knives and other weapons.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Firearms amnesties require the agreement of the Attorney-General not to bring prosecutions for certain offences. They are, therefore, exceptional events which are held only on a national basis.

  No such agreement is required in respect of knives and other offensive weapons. It is, therefore, open to individual police forces to hold a campaign for the surrender of such items at any time.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now reply to the letter sent to his Minister of State on 9 November 1992 by the hon. Member for Gower regarding a constituent residing in Gorseinon, Swansea.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 12 January.

  Electoral Systems
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the decision of the European Parliamentary Commission on electoral systems: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have received no such decision.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority the approved establishment and budget for 1992–93 and for 1993–94.
  136
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table. Information on 1993–94 budgets is not available.

  Force

  1992–93 Budget £ million1

  1992–93 Establishment2

  1993–94 Establishment3

  Avon and Somerset

  123.553

  3,087

  3,087

  Bedfordshire

  43.516

  1,178

  1,178

  Cambridgeshire

  51.376

  1,241

  1,241

  Cheshire

  73.382

  1,920

  1,920

  City of London

  46.947

  798

  798

  Cleveland

  60.198

  1,502

  1,502

  Cumbria

  47.500

  1,187

  1,187

  Derbyshire

  73.728

  1,850

  1,850

  Devon and Cornwall

  131.068

  2,928

  2,928

  Dorset

  56.191

  1,302

  1,302

  Durham

  52.995

  1,389

  1,389

  Dyfed Powys

  39.814

  969

  969

  Essex

  126.716

  2,950

  2,950

  Gloucestershire

  48.794

  1,184

  1,184

  Greater Manchester

  291.000

  7,077

  7,077

  Gwent

  38.580

  1,010

  1,010

  Hampshire

  129.300

  3,269

  3,269

  Hertfordshire

  69.516

  1,684

  1,684

  Humberside

  84.500

  2,034

  2,034

  Kent

  136.394

  3,096

  43,136

  Lancashire

  128.200

  3,229

  3,229

  Leicestershire

  73.000

  1,853

  1,853

  Lincolnshire

  48.312

  1,206

  1,206

  Merseyside

  188.595

  4,706

  4,706

  Metropolitan

  1,488.974

  28,260

  528,293

  Norfolk

  59.668

  1,446

  1,446

  Northamptonshire

  52.009

  1,190

  1,190

  Northumbria

  148.250

  3,613

  3,613

  North Wales

  55.943

  1,369

  1,369

  North Yorkshire

  58.572

  1,418

  1,418

  Nottinghamshire

  91.045

  2,344

  2,344

  South Wales

  129.381

  3,168

  3,168

  South Yorkshire

  120.500

  3,031

  3,031

  Staffordshire

  87.549

  2,215

  2,215

  Suffolk

  51.114

  1,233

  1,233

  Surrey

  71.055

  1,673

  1,673

  Sussex

  118.674

  3,014

  3,014

  Thames Valley

  168.930

  3,812

  3,812

  Warwickshire

  42.000

  1,020

  1,020

  West Mercia

  84.687

  2,053

  2,053

  West Midlands

  284.917

  6,977

  6,977

  West Yorkshire

  218.326

  5,295

  5,295

  Wiltshire

  50.313

  1,181

  1,181

  1 Estimated revenue budget for 1992–93.

  2 Approved establishment at 31 October 1992.

  3 Approved establishment at 1 April 1993.

  4 The 1993–94 approved establishment for the Kent constabulary includes 40 reimbursed posts for the channel tunnel which came into effect on 1 January 1993.

  5 The 1993–94 approved establishment for the Metropolitan police includes additional posts resulting from planning in the 1991 public expenditure survey.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  KPMG Management Consultants have been awarded one contract by my Department over the past 12 months—it is a contract to review the work and organisation of the Police National Computer Organisation.

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of those entitled to apply for temporary transfers from prisons in Britain to Northern Ireland have actually applied, distinguishing between(a) loyalist prisoners, (b) republican prisoners, (c) men and (d) women;

  (2) how many applications have been received for transfers from prisons in Britain to Northern Ireland, from (a) loyalist prisoners, (b) republican prisoners, (e) men and (d) women; and how many of each have been accepted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Revised criteria governing transfers between United Kingdom jurisdictions were announced on 23 November 1992. It is open to any prisoner to make a request for such a transfer; 39 male and two female prisoners who were previously known to have expressed an interest in transferring to Northern Ireland have been specifically invited to submit requests for transfer under these criteria.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Financial year

  Awards made

  Compensation paid (at actual prices) (£ million)

  GDP deflator

  Compensation paid (at 1979–80 prices) (£ million)

  Compensation paid (at 1992–93 prices) (£ million)

  1979–80

  17,460

  15·737

  43·174

  15·737

  37·999

  1980–81

  20,138

  21·462

  51·089

  18·137

  43·794

  1981–82

  17,350

  21·977

  56·022

  16·937

  40·896

  1982–83

  19,733

  29·445

  60·013

  21·183

  51·150

  1983–84

  21,133

  32·821

  62·791

  22·567

  54·492

  1984–85

  19,771

  35·293

  65·976

  23·095

  55·767

  1985–86

  22,534

  41·560

  69·577

  25·789

  62·271

  1986–87

  21,925

  48·242

  71·816

  29·002

  70·029

  1987–88

  20,991

  52·043

  75·763

  29·657

  71·611

  1988–89

  27,752

  69·381

  81·279

  36·854

  88·989

  1989–90

  27,926

  72·722

  86·622

  36·246

  87·521

  1990–91

  35,190

  109·330

  93·537

  50·464

  121·852

  1991–92

  39,249

  143·660

  100

  62·024

  149·766

  1992–93

  104·250

  TOTALS

  311,152

  693·673

  387·691

  936·138

  Firearms
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress on transferring responsibility for firearms and shotgun licensing to a national firearms control board.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is in the process of consulting Ministerial colleagues about this and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Mental Health)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons currently residing in prisons in England and Wales are considered to have mental health problems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. However, the psychiatric profile study of the sentenced population carried out by Professor John Gunn and published in October 1992 estimated the prevalence of psychiatric disorders as 38.8 per cent. of which substance dependency or abuse accounted for 19.6 per cent.
  138
  Of these, 15 male prisoners and two female prisoners have submitted requests for permanent or extended temporary transfer which are under consideration. Two male prisoners have requested permanent transfers only.

  Statistics on the political background of prisoners seeking transfers to Northern Ireland are not kept.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many payments were made to individuals by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for each year since 1979;

  (2) what was the total sum paid to victims of crime by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for each year since 1979 (a) in current prices and (b) in 1979 prices.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table. It has been taken from CICB's published annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. Revaluation of the compensation paid in year to current and to 1979 prices has been made using the GDP deflator.

  Press (Unauthorised Disclosures)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary action has been taken against officials in his Department(a) generally and (b) in the press office for unauthorised disclosures to the press in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No Home Office official, either generally or in the press office, has been subject to disciplinary action for unauthorised disclosures to the press in the last 12 months.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 December to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair),Official Report, column 662–64, if he will make a statement on his review of the procedure for handling inquiries on individual citizenship applications.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) on 14 January at columns 793–94, to which I have nothing to add.

  Betting Offices
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the evening opening hours of licensed betting offices.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In October 1991, the Government issued a consultation document inviting the views of all interested parties on whether licensed betting offices should be open in the evening and, if so, at what times. Over 800 representations and a number of petitions have since been received. The views expressed fully reflected the arguments for and against evening opening. In the light of that consultation process, I have decided that evening opening should be allowed until 10 pm on Mondays to Saturdays between April and August inclusive.

  Government policy on gambling is that there should be adequate properly regulated facilities available for those who wish to gamble. It is clear that the growth in the number of evening horseraces has created increased consumer demand for evening opening of licensed betting offices during the summer months. In those circumstances, the Government believe that there are no public interest or policy reasons to object to evening opening.

  I know that many bookmakers, their staff and the greyhound racing industry are concerned about the effect which evening opening may have on them. I have taken account of those concerns and I believe that the approach now proposed achieves a sensible and reasonable balance between the various interests.

  My decision is broadly in line with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons following its inquiries into the funding of horseracing and greyhound racing. However, as some horseraces are run after 9 pm and to allow time for payment of any winnings, I propose that the latest closing time should be 10 pm rather than the 9 pm recommended by the Committee. This will be a standard latest closing

  Type of property

  Number in MPS estate

  Vacant

  Percentage

  Available for disposal

  Percentage

  Houses

  1,271

  68

  5·3

  45

  3·5

  Flats

  1,215

  196

  16·0

  151

  12·4

  Section houses

  26

  3

  11·5

  1

  3·8

  Bed spaces in section houses

  2,981

  714

  23·9

  373

  12·5

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  The Queen (Income)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what income Her Majesty the Queen receives in right of her Duchy of Lancaster; whether it is liable to income tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Payments are made to the Keeper of the Privy Purse from revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster for Her Majesty's use. The sovereign is entitled to these revenues in right of her Duchy of Lancaster.

  Payments to the privy purse are detailed in the Duchy accounts which are placed in the Library of the House. In
  140
  time throughout April to August. A variable closing time, perhaps linked to the last horserace, would have created enforcement difficulties.

  The Government are committed to removing unnecessary regulations on business and extending consumer choice where possible. Evening opening represents a further important measure of deregulation and will give bookmakers greater freedom to adjust their opening hours to suit the needs of their customers.

  The opening hours of licensed betting offices are prescribed by regulation, subject to the negative resolution procedure. I have today laid an order before parliament which will permit evening opening with effect from 1 April 1993. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay a similar order to permit the same evening opening hours in Scotland.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how observations from interested persons or organisations should be submitted for consideration by Lord Colville in his report on the operation in 1992 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Written observations should be submitted to Lord Colville c/o Room 647, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT no later than Friday 5 February 1993.

  Metropolitan Police Property
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 601, if he will list the total number of residential properties owned by the Metropolitan police and the number, and percentage of the total of these which are empty.

  Mr. Charles WardleM
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The information requested is contained in the table:

  the year to 29 September 1991 the sum of £3,100,000 was paid to the privy purse. Duchy accounts for 1992 will be in the Library by mid-February.

  Duchy revenues are not subject to income tax. On the tax question I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26 November 1992, at column 982.

  Sir Charles Powell
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps were taken under the rules relating to business appointments for former civil servants in connection with the appointment of Sir Charles Powell as a director of Jardine Matheson.

  Mr. Jackson
  Staff at Sir Charles Powell's grade are required to seek approval for any paid outside appointment they wish to accept within two years of
  141
  leaving the civil service. Applications are referred to the head of the home civil service, who advises the appropriate departmental Minister whether any conditions should be applied. Individual applications are treated in confidence.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated full-year revenue effect in 1992–93 and 1993–94 of(a) abolishing the upper earnings limit for employee's national insurance contributions, (b) allowing personal allowances against such contributions and (c) both (a) and (b).

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated effects in a full year are shown in the table. For (b) and (c) it has been assumed that the levels of earnings used to calculate National Insurance contributions are gross earnings less the personal allowance. For the 1993–94 calculations, personal allowances have been increased by the autumn statement assumption of 3·25 per cent. over 1992–93 levels. No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes which might result from the measures.

  Cost(—)/Yield(+)

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  (a) Abolishing the upper earnings limit for employees national insurance contributions

  2,700

  2,900

  (b) Allowing personal allowances against employees' national insurance contributions

  –5,100

  –5,300

  (c) Part b with upper earnings limit for employee's national insurance contribution abolished

  –3,500

  –3,500

  Whisky
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the consumption and the revenue elasticities of duty on whisky and whiskey.

  Sir John Cope
  We do not have details of elasticities for individual spirits products. We estimate that the price elasticity of demand for spirits consumption is –1.1. The impact of changes in the duty rate on consumption, and hence revenue, will depend on the duty content of the retail price.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he plans to put forward at the ECOFIN Council in Brussels on 18 January.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Council will discuss the economic situation in the Community as part of its regular exercises in multilateral surveillance and the package of measures to promote economic recovery which was agreed at the European Council in Edinburgh. I have no plans to put forward other proposals.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed by his Departments specifically to investigate avoidance of income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In excess of 1,000 staff in the Inland Revenue are involved in the investigation of errors, differences of legal interpretation and avoidance which they discover in the tax returns and accounts of individuals and trusts. Information is not available about the proportion of their time which is spent specifically investigating avoidance of income tax. The figure given excludes those investigating tax evasion.

  Trading Expenses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's present policy with regard to the setting of pre-production expenses against tax liability as they are incurred; and what proposals he has to allow this in all areas of economic activity.

  Mr. Dorrell
  When calculating trading profits for tax purposes, revenue expenditure incurred in the five years before a trade commences is treated as if incurred when the trade starts, provided the expenditure would have qualified as a deduction had the trade commenced. Qualifying capital expenditure which is incurred for the purposes of a trade prior to its commencement is also deemed to have been incurred on the first day of trade.

  These are general rules which apply to all trades.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the total amount invested in the business expansion scheme for each year since the scheme's inception, (b) the amount invested in private rented housing, for each year since the scheme was extended to housing, (c) the total cost of tax relief for each year and
  (d) the amount of tax relief in respect of investment in private rented housing, for each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates for years up to 1991–92 were given in my reply on 21 October 1992,Official Report, columns 313–14. Estimates for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement indicating the nature of the over-provision in respect of Wales indicated in footnote 2 to table 2B.3 and footnote 2 to table 2B.4 in the 1992 "Autumn Statement".

  Mr. Portillo
  The sums relate to the correction of a miscalculation of housing revenue account subsidy for Wales in the 1991 public expenditure survey.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to tax invalidity benefits.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 October 1992,Official Report, col. 190.
  143
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated yield from taxing invalidity benefits.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Available information is given in my reply to the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 27 October 1992, at column 572.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average value of the pound sterling in European currency units in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The average annual value of the pound sterling in European currency units since 1987 is as follows:

  1ECU/£

  1987

  1·4200

  1988

  1·5060

  1989

  1·4886

  1990

  1·4000

  1991

  1·4284

  1992

  1·3620

  1 Based on market exchange rates.

  Press Office
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed by his Department's press office in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The number of press and public relations staff employed in my Department was as follows:

  Staff

  1986–87

  10

  1987–88

  10

  1988–89

  10

  1989–90

  10

  1990–91

  10

  1991–92

  9

  Information for the years 1979–85 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent up to 31 December 1992 on preparation for privatisation of parts and the whole of the Inland Revenue's operation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the present financial year, the costs to date of market testing activities in the Inland Revenue are around £1.3 million. Estimates of the costs for earlier years are not readily available, but would be much smaller.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's detailed plans for reform of the Inland Revenue and the time scale over which any changes are expected to occur.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The Revenue's change programme was first announced by the
  144
  Chancellor in his statement of 6 March 1992 Official Report, column 323–25, and further details appeared in the Board of Inland Revenue's report for the year ending 31 March 1992 (Cm. 2086) and the first report of the citizens charter (Cm. 2101). The Revenue's management plan, due for publication in the spring, will set out the Department's main aims and objectives over the period to 1996–97.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate Her Majesty's Government have made of the reduction in the number of smaller and more rural Inland Revenue offices in the event of changes being made in the way the Inland Revenue conducts its duties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The Inland Revenue is reviewing the organisation and structure of its local offices with the aim of increasing the quality of service to taxpayers and the efficiency of the operations. Any changes would take place over a number of years, following consultation with staff, and no estimate has yet been made of the number of smaller and more rural offices needed.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to the need to maintain the guarantee of confidentiality in the course of any changes in the way the work of the Inland Revenue is conducted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: We recognise the importance of this issue. If work is contracted out, there are two safeguards. The first is that all relevant contracts contain provisions obliging contractors to make all necessary arrangements to protect the privacy of personal information. The second is that contractors and their employees are subject, in the same way as Revenue employees, to the criminal sanctions—a fine, or imprisonment, or both—provided by section 182 of the Finance Act 1989, for unauthorised disclosure of personal tax information.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received on the Government's intention to subject the work currently undertaken by the Inland Revenue to market testing;

  (2) what consultations he has had with interested parties regarding plans to introduce market testing to the work currently undertaken by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: We have received a number of representations about the market testing of services in the Inland Revenue; officials have held discussions with trade unions representing staff in the Department and with other interested parties.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining the discretionary powers available to local Customs and Excise officers; and what steps he takes to monitor the differences in enforcement and interpretation of VAT rules from one part of the country to another.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Local VAT officers have certain limited discretionary powers in relation to tax control, compliance and debt management. These are contained primarily in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the VAT Act 1983 and the Finance Act 1985.
  145
  The care and maintenance of VAT is the statutory responsibility of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. This includes ensuring consistency of treatment for all taxpayers and is achieved by giving local VAT officers specialist training and written guidance from headquarters. The application of this guidance is carefully monitored both locally and centrally. Departmental systems and procedures are also subject to overview by Customs and Excise's own internal auditors and by the National Audit Office.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the annual retail prices index of a standard rate of VAT imposed on(a) newspapers, books and periodicals, (b) children's clothes, (c) domestic fuel and (d) public transport.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The table gives our current estimate of the impact on the RPI of applying the standard rate of VAT to the categories outlined.

  Category

  Percentage increase in RPI

  Newspapers, books and magazines

  0·3

  Children's clothes

  0·2

  Domestic fuel

  0·8

  Public transport

  0·2

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects petroleum revenue tax to produce for the Exchequer in the current and each of the next three financial years; and if he will make it his policy to reduce it in cases where companies invest in refurbishment of existing offshore gas and oil installations in order to help the fabrication industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The revenue raised by petroleum revenue tax in 1992–93 was estimated at £100 million in the autumn statement. It has been the practice to include outturn estimates, and a coming year petroleum revenue tax forecast, in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" issued on Budget day.

  The costs of refurbishing offshore installations in oil and gas fields would normally already qualify for immediate relief in full against petroleum revenue tax, where the field is within the charge to that tax.

  Civil Servants (Bicycles)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current conditions on which civil servants in his Department are granted salary advances to enable the purchase of bicycles for home-to-office travel; if he will make a statement on the current conditions in each agency of his Department; what plans he has to change the conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: In common with other Departments, the Treasury has arrangements under which it can make interest free
  146
  advances of salary of up to £100 to assist staff with the purchase of a bicycle for home-to-office travel. Advances are repayable over one year.

  It was announced on 16 December 1992, Official Report, column 285–86, that responsibility for determining the conditions on which such advances can be made has been delegated to Departments. The Treasury will be reviewing its arrangements in the light of that delegation.

  Trade Sales and Management Buy-outs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's guidance note on trade sales and management buy-outs within the public services.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: No. The written guidance referred to is intended for internal use by Departments and vendor units engaged in, or considering, privatisation by trade sale.

  Personal Taxation
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average tax charge in the United Kingdom on a married man with two children with earnings in each of the decile groups in each financial year since 1986–87.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information is available only for income tax. With the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91, comparable figures are available for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92. Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In calculating decile groups it is appropriate to take account of the tax liability on total income for income tax purposes, not just earnings. Income tax liability is not affected by the number of children so the figures below include all married men who pay income tax.

  Decile groups of taxpaying married men

  Average income tax liability (£ per year)

  Per cent.

  1990–

  1991–

  Bottom 10

  120

  130

  10 – 20

  400

  420

  20 – 30

  680

  730

  30 – 40

  980

  1,000

  40 –50

  1,300

  1,400

  50 – 60

  1,600

  1,700

  60 – 70

  2,000

  2,200

  70 – 80

  2,600

  2,800

  80 – 90

  3,600

  3,900

  Top 10

  10,400

  11,200

  Average

  3,200

  3,500

EDUCATION

  Education Spending
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the link between education standard spending assessments and academic attainment.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment, since standard spending assessments are primarily a mechanism for distributing grant and local education authorities have discretion to order their spending priorities as they wish.
  147
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what level of funding, based on secondary education standard spending assessment, an 11 to 15, 1,000-pupil school would receive in(a) Wakefield, (b) Bradford, (c) Wandsworth and (d) Westminster.

  Mr. Forth
  Standard spending assessments are designed to reflect the varying costs, in different areas, of providing a standard level of service, taking account of different local circumstances. They are essentially a mechanism for distributing grant: decisions on spending priorities between education and other services and within education are for individual local authorities. The funding that a school receives thus largely depends on local decisions about priorities and also on the local authority's scheme for local management of schools. Moreover, the education elements of SSAs relate to all LEA functions, including central services and the maintenance of special schools. There is no separately identifiable element relating to the funding of ordinary schools.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the standard spending assessment per post-16 education student for each metropolitan authority in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  From 1993–94 the education of most post-16 students will be the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council. LEAs will continue to be responsible for pupils over 16 in schools and for certain kinds of further education for adults. There is no separately identifiable element in 1993–94 SSAs for further education for adults. The post-16 element of SSAs relates to 16-plus pupils in schools, including special schools and related central services and support functions such as home-to-school transport.

  Hearing Impairment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been undertaken to date by his Department to evaluate the effect of the introduction of the local management of schools regime upon specialist educational provision for hearing-impaired children.

  Mr. Forth
  None. The purpose of local management of schools is to ensure that funds are allocated to schools on an objective basis, taking account of local circumstances. LMS does not qualify in any way the duties of LEAs or schools regarding pupils with special educational needs, including the hearing impaired.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three and four-year-olds were in nursery education for each local education authority at the latest available date.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of three and four-year-olds attending maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1992 is shown in the following table.

  Pupils aged 3 and 4 in maintained nursery schools and classes in England—January 1992

  LEA

  Pupils

  City

  29

  Camden

  1,012

  Greenwich

  3,103

  148

  LEA

  Pupils

  Hackney

  2,212

  Hammersmith

  1,509

  Islington

  1,797

  Kensington and Chelsea

  826

  Lambeth

  2,294

  Lewisham

  2,569

  Southwark

  2,707

  Tower Hamlets

  2,687

  Wandsworth

  2,211

  Westminster

  1,049

  Barking

  1,750

  Barnet

  2,351

  Bexley

  1,127

  Brent

  2,390

  Bromley

  154

  Croydon

  1,159

  Ealing

  3,246

  Enfield

  1,484

  Haringey

  2,546

  Harrow

  958

  Havering

  247

  Hillingdon

  3,150

  Hounslow

  2,469

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,173

  Merton

  2.593

  Newham

  4,445

  Redbridge

  987

  Richmond upon Thames

  706

  Sutton

  1,684

  Waltham Forest

  2,502

  Birmingham

  10,342

  Coventry

  2,196

  Dudley

  2,881

  Sandwell

  4,640

  Solihull

  1,728

  Walsall

  4,223

  Wolverhampton

  3,936

  Knowsley

  2,477

  Liverpool

  6,350

  St Helens

  1,632

  Sefton

  2,470

  Wirral

  2,314

  Bolton

  3,057

  Bury

  1,446

  Manchester

  7,324

  Oldham

  2,386

  Rochdale

  2,018

  Salford

  3,315

  Stockport

  1,731

  Tameside

  2,504

  Trafford

  1,820

  Wigan

  2,125

  Barnsley

  2,951

  Doncaster

  3,326

  Rotherham

  2,974

  Sheffield

  5,720

  Bradford

  6,025

  Calderdale

  1,799

  Kirklees

  4,445

  Leeds

  8,276

  Wakefield

  4,322

  Gateshead

  1,798

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,995

  North Tyneside

  2,648

  South Tyneside

  2,225

  Sunderland

  3,137

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  4,923

  Bedfordshire

  5,135

  Berkshire

  5,780

  Buckinghamshire

  2,694

  Cambridgeshire

  2,196

  Cheshire

  5,481

  Cleveland

  9,422

  Cornwall

  1,611

  Cumbria

  3,002

  Derbyshire

  8,950

  Devon

  2,743

  149

  LEA

  Pupils

  Dorset

  805

  Durham

  6,856

  East Sussex

  1,460

  Essex

  2,446

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  1,993

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,274

  Hertfordshire

  8,422

  Humberside

  8,756

  Isle of Wight

  186

  Kent

  1,984

  Lancashire

  6,857

  Leicestershire

  5,372

  Lincolnshire

  1,349

  Norfolk

  855

  North Yorkshire

  3,505

  Northamptonshire

  2,915

  Northumberland

  2,833

  Nottinghamshire

  13,293

  Oxfordshire

  2,574

  Shropshire

  1,343

  Somerset

  239

  Staffordshire

  6,566

  Suffolk

  2,952

  Surrey

  2,857

  Warwickshire

  2,123

  West Sussex

  602

  Wiltshire

  561

  England

  329,597

  Under-sevens
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest available figures for the expenditure per child under seven years by each education authority and grant-maintained schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Available expenditure data cover nursery and primary schools as a whole and cannot be disaggregated between particular age ranges. The table indicates each local education authority's average school-based funding per pupil in nursery and primary schools in 1990–91, the latest year for which information on actual expenditure by LEAs is available. There were no primary grant-maintained schools in 1990–91.

  LEA

  Net institutional funding per pupil (£)

  City

  1,950

  Camden

  1,710

  Greenwich

  1,720

  Hackney

  1,900

  Hammersmith

  1,970

  Islington

  1,770

  Kensington

  2,060

  Lambeth

  1,840

  Lewisham

  1,710

  Southwark

  1,850

  Tower Hamlets

  1,940

  Wandsworth

  1,820

  Westminster

  2,110

  Barking

  1,460

  Barnet

  1,550

  Bexley

  1,260

  Brent

  1,670

  Bromley

  1,410

  Croydon

  1,440

  Ealing

  1,690

  Enfield

  1,430

  Haringey

  1,840

  Harrow

  1,480

  150

  LEA

  Net institutional funding per pupil (£)

  Havering

  1,290

  Hillingdon

  1,540

  Hounslow

  1,510

  Kingston-upon Thames

  1,430

  Merton

  1,750

  Newham

  1,490

  Redbridge

  1,350

  Richmond-upon Thames

  1,530

  Sutton

  1,360

  Waltham Forest

  1,570

  Birmingham

  1,260

  Coventry

  1,300

  Dudley

  1,230

  Sandwell

  1,450

  Solihull

  1,240

  Walsall

  1,510

  Wolverhampton

  1,390

  Knowsley

  1,390

  Liverpool

  1,290

  St. Helens

  1,210

  Sefton

  1,260

  Wirral

  1,280

  Bolton

  1,220

  Bury

  1,190

  Manchester

  1,320

  Oldham

  1,370

  Rochdale

  1,200

  Salford

  1,270

  Stockport

  1,260

  Tameside

  1,320

  Trafford

  1,170

  Wigan

  1,140

  Barnsley

  1,260

  Doncaster

  1,250

  Rotherham

  1,340

  Sheffield

  1,390

  Bradford

  1,500

  Calderdale

  1,440

  Kirklees

  1,300

  Leeds

  1,430

  Wakefield

  1,340

  Gateshead

  1,390

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,520

  North Tyneside

  1,310

  South Tyneside

  1,290

  Sunderland

  1,280

  Avon

  1,320

  Bedfordshire

  1,380

  Berkshire

  1,340

  Buckinghamshire

  1,320

  Cambridgeshire

  1,260

  Cheshire

  1,260

  Cleveland

  1,230

  Cornwall

  1,190

  Cumbria

  1,340

  Derbyshire

  1,370

  Devon

  1,310

  Dorset

  1,290

  Durham

  1,370

  East Sussex

  1,240

  Essex

  1,240

  Gloucestershire

  1,200

  Hampshire

  1,260

  Herefordshire

  1,360

  Hertfordshire

  1,340

  Humberside

  1,280

  Isle of Wight

  1,250

  Kent

  1,120

  Lancashire

  1,310

  Leicestershire

  1,290

  Lincolnshire

  1,210

  Norfolk

  1,280

  North Yorkshire

  1,230

  Northamptonshire

  1,230

  Northumberland

  1,320

  Nottinghamshire

  1,390

  151

  LEA

  Net institutional funding per pupil (£)

  Oxfordshire

  1,570

  Shropshire

  1,350

  Somerset

  1,230

  Staffordshire

  1,270

  Suffolk

  1,310

  Surrey

  1,340

  Warwickshire

  1,220

  West Sussex

  1,240

  Wiltshire

  1,260

  Note: Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education. They include school-based spending on salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books, equipment and other supplies and services, and unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. They exclude spending on home to school transport, school meals, LEAs' central administration and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy that all education authorities should receive funding for the education of under-sevens at the same level as Westminister education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Standard spending assessments, which determine the distribution of grant between authorities, are designed to reflect the varying costs, in different areas, of providing a standard level of service, taking account of different local circumstances.

  Independent Residential Colleges
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how new students at independent residential colleges are to be funded as from April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  In April responsibility for funding the long-term residential colleges in England, including the cost of student maintenance, will pass to the Further Education Funding Council for England and responsibility for funding Coleg Harlech in Wales will pass to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. It will be for the councils to decide on the most appropriate system of funding student maintenance.

  A-level Music
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which London boroughs provide A-level music courses for sixth form pupils.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally. It is for schools and colleges to decide which A-level courses to provide.

  Education Assets Board
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many recommendations from the Education Assets Board are awaiting a decision by his Department; and if he will list these and the time they have been with his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  There are 12 cases awaiting final determination by my right hon. Friend. These are:
  152

  Institution

  Date received

  Grant maintained schools

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls, Kent

  December 1992

  Great Barr School, Birmingham

  August 1992

  Hendon School and Queen Elizabeth School for Boys, Barnet

  June 1992

  Kingsley Park School, Northamptonshire

  September 1992

  Pate's Grammar School, Gloucestershire

  November 1991

  Rickmansworth School, Hertfordshire

  June 1992

  Stratford School, London

  May 1992

  Wymondham College, Norfolk

  December 1992

  Higher education institutions

  University of East London

  May 1991

  Falmouth College of Art and Design

  September 1991

  University of Greenwich

  September 1991

  University of West of England; Bath College of Higher Education

  November 1991

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those higher education institutions which receive public funds from his Department by way of fees for each undergraduate above those set from time to time in the three bands of tuition fees.

  Mr. Boswell
  Fees, other than the tuition fees payable to universities, are paid by local education authorities for students at the constituent colleges of the universities of Cambridge, Durham, Kent, Lancaster, Oxford and York in recognition of their collegiate structure. The recurrent grant paid to these universities by the Universities Funding Council is abated in recognition of these college fee payments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Computer Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will make a statement on the range and type of(a) general and (b) computer services which may be accessed from the Library by the constituency offices of hon. Members; what advice and assistance is available in establishing links between constituency offices and the House; what plans he has to enhance such services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waller
  All services of the Library are available to the constituency offices of hon. Members by telephone, fax and post. In addition, Members can request direct access to POLLS, the Parliamentary on-line information service managed by the Library, from their constituency if they have the necessary personal computer and modem. The Library provides an information sheet on establishing a telecommunications link to POLLS and will provide such support as it can, given the wide range of equipment used by Members.

  A pilot project for a parliamentary data and video network is at present being undertaken in 7 Millbank. Members and staff in 7 Millbank have direct cabling to the network, but access from elsewhere is via modem. Services from the Library available now, or shortly on the system, include POLIS and the HMSO CD-ROM disks of Hansard. Other services such as CD-ROMS of national

  153
  newspapers will also become available. The pilot project of the network will be reviewed by the Information Committee in the next few months.

  Any plans to enhance the network services beyond those necessary for the pilot project must depend upon the Information Committee's report and the House's reaction to it.

  The computer officer and his staff are available to provide advice and assistance to Members on information technology matters; a list, approved by the Information Committee, of appropriate IT equipment; and training for Members, their staff and constituency offices to access and use the pilot network.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will ensure provision for more bicycles within the Palace of Westminster precincts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I will make sure this matter is included on the agenda of the Committee for consideration at a future meeting.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  International Development Association
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Agreement was reached on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association at a meeting in Berne of representatives of donor Governments on 15 December. Donors pledged to provide a total of SDRI3 billion, approximately $18 billion. It will enable the World Bank to offer concessional aid over the period 1993–96. Subject to parliamentary approval, the United Kingdom will contribute £620 million, a share of 6.15 per cent.

  The replenishment agreement provides for greater emphasis on poverty reduction and performance by borrowers, to ensure resources are allocated to those countries where they are needed most and can be most effectively used. There will also be a stronger focus on sustainable development, in line with the agreements reached at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio last June. Donors also endorsed a series of measures designed to improve project quality and implementation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress his Department has made to secure the return of pension moneys paid to the Saudi Government by British workers once employed in Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British embassy in Riyadh has assisted British claimants to secure refunds of personal 154
  contributions from the Saudi Arabian general social insurance scheme (GOSI). It has persuaded the Saudi authorities to ensure that the terms for obtaining a refund are clearly and widely publicised. It has continued to urge GOSI to deal with requests quickly. The embassy has followed up the cases of individuals who have experienced difficulty in obtaining their entitlement.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the future of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) on 6 December 1990 at col.188.

  Iran
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in relation to violations of human rights by the Iranian Government against the Baha'i community; how many cases of confiscation of Baha'i property, in Yazd, Teheran and Isfahan, by the members of the Imam Khomeini Foundation, have been reported to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made representations on a number of occasions to the Iranian authorities about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, both bilaterally and together with our EC partners. We made representations in Tehran on 25 October, on behalf of all EC member states, about death sentences passed on two Baha'is following summary trials and the reports of 24 cases of confiscations of the homes and property of Baha'is. We and our EC partners co-sponsored an UNGA resolution reflecting international concern at the human rights situation in Iran. It was adopted on 18 December by a large majority. It specifically referred to the treatment of the Baha'i community.

  Iraq
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit to the United Kingdom of Iraqi negotiators dealing with GEC.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that eight Iraqi businessmen recently visited the United Kingdom to discuss with GPT, a partly owned subsidiary of GEC, the possibility of business once the sanctions regime is lifted. We agreed to the issue of visas—fewer than the Iraqis wanted—against the background that there is no reason why British firms should not hold such discussions with the Iraqis. But we made clear to GEC that, since Iraq is in breach of the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 setting out the terms of the formal ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war, there is no immediate prospect of sanctions being lifted and therefore no prospect of GPT being in a position to fulfil any contract with the Iraqis. We also told it that we were not therefore ready to put an application to the United Nations Sanctions Committee.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas have been issued to Iraqis to visit the United Kingdom on business in the last 12 months.
  155
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Statistics according to nationality and purpose of visit are not centrally recorded and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of the British Government on the matter of those British subjects held by the Iraqi regime; and if he will inform the Iraqi Government that any use of these people as a human shield will result in retaliation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made many representations to the Iraqi Government on behalf of Paul Ride and Michael Wainwright, and have taken every opportunity to press for their release. We have no reason to believe the prisoners will be used as human shields.

  Mansoor Hussain Qureshi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the explanatory statement concerning the refusal by the United Kingdom to grant entry clearance to Mansoor Hussain Qureshi—Ref: K051037—sent by the post to London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The explanatory statement is in the course of preparation. On completion, it will be sent to the Independent Appellate Authority. A copy will also be sent to Mr. Qureshi or his authorised representative.

  UN Commission on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which will be the lead Government Department for the newly created UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At present, the FCO leads within Whitehall on institutional aspects of the follow up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including the establishment of the Sustainable Development Commission.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he is proposing to hold with British non-governmental organisations on the creation of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and other changes currently taking place in the UN system as a result of the UN Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Environment attended a meeting with non-governmental organisations on 15 September, chaired by the International Institute for Environment and Development. Representatives of non-governmental organisations subsequently participated in the United Kingdom delegation at the UN General Assembly discussions on Rio follow-up. The United Kingdom will host an international non-governmental organisation conference "Implementing the Rio Agenda: Partnerships for Change", in Manchester in September.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he has made of whether the work of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development will be adequately funded under financial arrangements recently agreed in New York.
  156
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  UN General Assembly resolution 47/191 called for the Sustainable Development Commission to be"funded from the UN regular budget and depend to the maximum extent possible upon existing budgetary resources."
  We await the Secretary General's detailed proposals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the proposed United Kingdom national authority will undertake its role of demonstrating to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that the United Kingdom Government are fulfilling its obligations as set out in the forthcoming chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The United Kingdom national authority will act as a channel of communications with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which will include transmitting declarations from United Kingdom sites. The verification regime operated by the OPCW inspectorate will ensure that the United Kingdom meets its obligations under the convention.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he plans to publish annual reports about the work of, and information collected by, the national authority under the proposed chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No decision has been taken yet about whether the National Authority will publish an annual report. This will be the subject of consultation with interested bodies. The information received by the authority will be subject to the terms of the annex to the convention dealing with the protection of confidential information.

  Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when current supplies of stockpiled depleted uranium will be depleted from re-use.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the owners of the material.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 4 December 1992,Official Report, column 443, if he will publish in the Official Report his letter to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A copy of my letter of 7 January to the hon. Member has been placed in the Library. I see no need to publish the letter in the Official Report as well.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the environmental benefits of the Silver II toxic waste solvent destruction rig developed by the Atomic Energy Authority research establishment at Dounreay.
  157
  Mr. Eggar
  Evaluation, including consideration of the environmental implications, has been carried out by the AEA.

  Colliery Pumping Operations
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the possible pollution of waterways resulting from ceasing pumping operations at Vane Tempest and Easington collieries.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is an operational matter for British Coal. I understand that there is regular liaison between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority at local and regional levels on all issues relevant to the National Rivers Authority's responsibilities for regulating water pollution.

  Mortgages (Payment Protection Schemes)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received to amend the provisions to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 with regard to exemptions for insurance companies in the provision of payment protection schemes for residential mortgages.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have received representations including some from the trading standards department of Shropshire county council on the subject of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and insurance. Insurance contracts will be subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive which is currently being negotiated.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to make an announcement on the review of assisted area status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our intention is to announce the results of the assisted areas map review as early as possible, taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after the necessary clearance of the European Commission.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs in manufacturing industry have been created in the United Kingdom in 1992 as a result of foreign investment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The most recent figures available are for the 1991–92 financial year. In this period 42,767 jobs were associated with foreign direct investment in the manufacturing sector; 17,615 of these jobs were newly created.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.

  Beer Orders
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the operation of the Beer Orders.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Beer Orders came fully into force only on 1 November last year. The Director General of 158
  Fair Trading will be keeping them under review to ensure that the national brewers comply fully with their requirements. However, I have been giving further consideration to the merits of an early full scale review of the orders. The period since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 1989 report on the supply of beer has seen many significant changes taken place in the brewing industry, partly due to the Beer Orders but also in response to commercial pressures. The full effect of these changes will only gradually become apparent. Moreover, it is highly desirable that both brewers and tenants alike should now have a period of stability to plan ahead within the new framework that has been created by the orders. A full-scale review later this year of the effects of the orders would further prolong uncertainty within the industry. While the director general will continue to monitor the market and will investigate fully any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in line with his statutory duties, we have concluded that it would be wrong to ask him to carry out a further full-scale review of the market.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the steps taken to ensure the fabric of the mines at all the collieries which he announced were to be closed have been satisfactorily maintained; arid what assessment of this has been made by Her Majesty's inspectors of mines.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: British Coal, whose responsibility this is, has given frequent assurances that it is preserving the fabric of the 10 pits so that if, at the end of the period of consultation, it is decided to keep any or all of them open, that will be possible. My right hon. Friend has asked Boyds to report on whether the fabric of the 10 pits is being preserved in accordance with those assurances.

  The HSE, through Her Majesty's inspectors of mines, continues to inspect these pits in accordance with its plan of work to ensure the health and safety of those working there.

  Single Market
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the directives, regulations, statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament required to create the single market, distinguishing between(a) those which have been made effective to 31 December 1992 and (b) those which remain to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information about single market measures and their implementation in the United Kingdom is provided in the "Spearhead" computer database produced by my Department. The database is publicly available, and can by accessed by the Library.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost(a) directly to the Exchequer, (b) to local authorities and (c) to businesses of implementing all the directives, regulations, statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament to create the single market; and if he will make a statement.
  159
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: When both negotiating and subsequently implementing domestically all European Community measures, Departments do attempt to assess, and minimise unnecessary, costs to both public and private sector interests. Our objective throughout the single market programme has been to secure agreement on measures which will provide positive benefits to United Kingdom businesses and consumers.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the chemical weapons production facilities in the United Kingdom designed, constructed or used since 1946 that will require destruction following the ratification of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Chemical weapons have not been made in the United Kingdom for almost 40 years. It is not thought that any facilities which might have been used before that date still remain but investigations are under way to confirm this.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value of United Kingdom(a) imports, (b) exports and (c) trade balance for manufactured goods with each member state of the European Community in 1970, 1979 and the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information for 1970 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information for 1979 and 1991 is given in my answer to the hon. Member on 14 January 1993, Official Report, col. 782.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of monies retrieved by trustees in bankruptcy proceedings during the last year have gone to trade creditors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: This information is not held centrally by the Department in the form requested, and could not be easily obtained.

ENVIRONMENT

  Grant Allocations
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that metropolitan councils are not disadvantaged in grant allocation as a result of the basis on which population estimates take into account unenumerated people.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have considered the population figures produced by the registrar general based on 1991 census results most carefully in relation to their implications for standard spending assessments and revenue support grant. We are satisfied that the methods he has employed to produce these estimates, particularly in relation to census underenumeration, are the most appropriate in the circumstances and do not therefore disadvantage metropolitan or any other class of authorities.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has(a) to revise part L of the Building Regulations to achieve significant improvements in the energy efficiency of new buildings and (b) to extend the regulations to cover rehabilitation work on older houses.

  Mr. Baldry
  I intend to issue a consultation paper shortly setting out proposals to amend part L of the Building Regulations 1991 strengthening the existing provisions for energy conservation in new buildings. These will include measures for use in older houses when undertaking alteration or conversion work covered by the regulations.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost per square foot of the rental or lease of office accommodation in(a) London and (b) elsewhere for which his Department is responsible for providing to his own and other Government Departments and agencies.

  Mr. Howard
  The current average cost per square foot for the rental or lease of office accommodation provided by my Department is estimated to be as follows:

  £

  (a)London

  15·23

  (b)Elsewhere

  7·22

  The figures relate to the 63 per cent. of office accommodation which is leased and excludes freeholds.

  Housing (Self-build)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what further plans the Government have to encourage self-build as a housing option in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what grant funding is specifically available to self-build projects to build homes in the United Kingdom.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation has a revolving fund of £3 million in the current financial year and the next, from which loans are advanced to self-build projects for outright ownership. Grant from the corporation is also available to self-build groups, channelled through registered housing associations, where they cannot afford the cost of full owner-occupation.

  We have no further plans to encourage the development of self-build groups.

  The information is for England only and similar information on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many self-build housing units have been completed in the United Kingdom for each year since 1987; and what comparable figures he has for other European countries.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not collected by this Department.

  Noise
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the report of the noise review working party, the Batho report.

  Mr. Maclean
  Over half of the recommendations of the noise review working party have now been acted upon. The speech by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Noise Council seminar on 15 May 1991 and that of my predecessor to the Institution of Environmental Health Officers on 10 September 1991 summarised progress to date on the Government's response to the report of the noise review working party, the Batho report. Since then, the Government have issued consultation documents on the control of aircraft noise and on proposals to extend noise nuisance to the streets. A complete draft of the planning policy guidance note "Planning and noise" was issued for consultation at the beginning of 1992. Guidance on the control of noisy parties was issued to local authorities and the police on 4 September 1992. My speech to Euronoise '92 on 14 September included a further update of the Government's progress in responding to the Batho report.

  Tenant's Death
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he issues to local authorities concerning rent payments, where the lawful tenant has died and there is no succession to the tenancy, during the period immediately following death when the deceased's affairs are being dealt with.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. However, a secure tenancy does not cease on a tenant's death. Normally, the tenant's executors would be responsible for paying the rent until they and the authority terminate the tenancy. If the tenant did not leave a will, and there are no letters of administration, the tenancy vests in the president of the family division of the High Court.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the need for landfill waste disposal and to make recycling of waste more financially attractive than disposing of waste in landfill sites.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have introduced, through the Environmental Protection Act 1990, tough new environmental standards for waste disposal which we expect to result in higher disposal costs. The same Act requires waste disposal authorities to divest themselves of their operations, ensuring that the full economic costs of waste disposal are reflected in prices. We have also introduced recycling credits so that the effect of higher landfill prices feeds through to those involved in recycling household waste.

  We have recently published a report on "Economic Instruments and Recovery of Resources from Waste", a

  162
  copy of which is in the House Library. In the light of that report, we are considering whether any further changes to the economic framework for solid waste would be justified.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to send information to central and eastern European nations on the Green Ministers structure whereby each Department has a Minister responsible for environmental policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's approach to environmental policy, including the concept of Green Ministers, was set out in the 1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance". We have sent that document and the two subsequent annual reports which also refer to the concept to countries in central and eastern Europe and have discussed it with the Environment Ministers of several of them.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research relating to the health implications of living in proximity to opencast sites that he has considered in reviewing the opencast planning guidelines.

  Mr. Baldry
  Research into environmental health issues is carried out by the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Government's main agency for biomedical research, which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology. I am however aware that the Department of Health's medical staff have discussed with Drs Temple and Skyes their recent research on the subject of asthma and opencast mining and I understand that the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants is also being asked for advice on this matter. I am also aware of a recent epidemiological study carried out by the Institute of Occupational Medicine on behalf of British Coal into the respiratory health of opencast coal workers, the main conclusion of which was that neither asthma nor chronic bronchitis among them was related to exposure to airborne dust.

  My Department will take account of all material considerations in its review of the opencast coal planning guidelines.

  Housing Investment, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual housing investment programme for Lambeth for each of the last 15 years expressed in current values.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of the revisions to the capital finance system introduced in April 1990.
  163

  Housing investment programme ( HIP) allocations by Lambeth borough council and capital expenditure, 1978–79 to 1992–93

  £ thousand

  HIP allocations1

  Housing capital expenditure

  Cash

  1992–93 prices2

  Cash

  1992–93 prices2

  1978–79

  42,956

  121,018

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  56,334

  136,027

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  54,915

  112,057

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  41,530

  77,282

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  43,314

  75,242

  32,185

  55,909

  1983–84

  42,333

  70,284

  46,812

  77,721

  1984–85

  40,185

  63,497

  45,201

  71,423

  1985–86

  34,372

  51,501

  44,112

  66,095

  1986–87

  35,587

  51,659

  56,201

  81,583

  1987–88

  33,969

  46,741

  56,582

  77,857

  1988–89

  30,683

  39,355

  37,064

  47,539

  1989–90

  23,450

  28,222

  68,346

  82,254

  New capital finance system3

  1990–91

  30,329

  33,803

  46,755

  52,110

  1991–92

  33,248

  34,661

  432,351

  433,726

  1992–93

  32,354

  32,354

  541,287

  541,287

  1 Allocations for the years up to and including 1989–90 are final allocations, ie the initial allocation plus any increases to the initial allocation made in-year. The allocations figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are the HIP allocations (housing annual capital guidelines plus specified capital grants) issued prior to the start of the financial year. These figures do not include any supplementary credit approvals issued during the year.

  2 Cash figures have been converted to 1992–93 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  3 From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation is an assessment of relative need for housing capital expenditure rather than a direct borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Estimated.

  One-bedroom Flats
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many one-bedroom flats have been built in county Durham since 1979; and how many are attributed to each local housing authority in the county in total.

  Housebuilding: One-bedroom flats completed1: County Durham by local authority

  Number

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Chester Le Street

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Darlington

  76

  114

  88

  51

  205

  142

  142

  Derwentside

  0

  0

  76

  21

  12

  0

  48

  Durham

  0

  4

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Easington

  81

  38

  33

  40

  89

  0

  0

  Sedgefield

  1

  48

  8

  0

  18

  41

  25

  Teesdale

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wear Valley

  0

  20

  24

  19

  12

  0

  0

  County Durham

  158

  224

  264

  131

  342

  183

  235

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  Chester Le Street

  20

  42

  0

  0

  46

  12

  0

  Darlington

  40

  106

  35

  108

  41

  33

  10

  Derwentside

  24

  0

  9

  6

  8

  0

  6

  Durham

  5

  20

  0

  23

  0

  28

  13

  Easington

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sedgefield

  0

  40

  28

  23

  21

  53

  13

  Teesdale

  0

  0

  0

  6

  3

  20

  3

  Wear Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  County Durham

  89

  208

  106

  166

  119

  146

  45

  Notes:

  1 The table shows total housebuilding activity by private enterprise, housing associations and local authorities in the respective local authority areas.

  2 The 1992 figures cover January to November only.
  164
  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Housing Association Homes
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the Government are making in fulfilling its pledges in respect of provision of housing association homes.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's election manifesto promised 153,000 housing association homes over the period 1992–93 to 1994–95. The Housing Corporation now estimates that it will be able to provide around 170,000 new homes in that period.

  This includes more than 17,000 homes which the corporation expects housing associations will be able to buy with the £580 million provided for the purchase of new, empty and repossessed homes as part of the housing market package announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement. It also includes the release of up to 2,000 existing housing association homes with the additional £20 million provided by the package for grants under the tenants' incentive scheme.

  Repair Grants
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applicants are waiting for mandatory repair grants in(a) Stockport and (b) the north-west.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not collected by the Department. Once a valid grant application has been received, an authority must approve or refuse it within six months of the date it is made.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the grant-related expenditure assessment base to standard spending assessment introduction has affected efficient distribution of resources; and how this has been investigated.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The SSA system is under constant review. Each year the SSA formulae and their implications for authorities are approved by Parliament. This follows a process of extensive discussion with local authority representatives. It was the intention in moving to SSAs that they should be easier to understand but no less fair than GREAs. It would be difficult for any investigation to establish whether this has led to a change in the efficiency with which resources are distributed—none has been carried out with this aim in view. The Audit Commission is at present carrying out a study of SSAs. As soon as its report is available we will consider it carefully.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what date the 1991 census results will be used for all standard spending assessments; and what transitional arrangements will be introduced for authorities with major changes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The detailed results of the 1991 census will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the calculation of the standard spending assessments for 1994–95. The need for transitional arrangements will be considered when these assessments become available in the autumn.
  166
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total level of capital receipts received by each local authority in England in the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities provide returns to the Department giving the capital receipts they received in 1991–92 and the receipts they are forecasting to receive in 1992–93. I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an independent analysis of standard spending assessments for the purpose of identifying local authority spending requirements.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Standard spending assessments already reflect detailed research evidence from a wide range of sources, both within and outside Government, as well as extensive discussions with local authority representatives over a number of years. They are updated and refined to take on board new data and evidence every year. The Audit Commission is currently engaged in a special study of standard spending assessments. We shall study carefully its findings and recommendations once these are available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the lowest shire county standard spending assessment as a proportion of the highest shire county SSA; and what is the lowest metropolitan authority SSA as a proportion of the highest metropolitan authority SSA.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94 provisional standard spending assessments:

  £ million

  Shire counties

  Highest SSA

  Kent

  963·077

  Lowest SSA

  Isle of Wight

  77·498

  Lowest as proportion of highest

  0·080

  Metropolitan districts

  Highest SSA

  Birmingham

  879·076

  Lowest SSA

  Bury

  104·766

  Lowest as proportion of highest

  0·119

  A major factor affecting all standard spending assessments is the underlying population of the authority concerned.

  Land Reclamation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether land reclamation that has already received support from regional offices of his Department will continue to be supported by the urban regeneration agency when it is formed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Where the Department has approved derelict land grants, support will continue on the present basis. Once the urban regeneration agency has been established it will receive applications for further support. The Housing and Urban Development Bill makes provision for a new unified grant regime for the agency which will replace derelict land grant and the other grants to be transferred to it. The agency will determine its own priorities in the light of guidance the Department issues to
  167
  it. The Government will take account of the current priorities for existing grants, including derelict land grant, when preparing this guidance and constructing the new unified grant regime.

  Abandoned Coal Mines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet placed a contract for research into problems associated with methane and other gas discharges from abandoned coal mines; and when it is planned that the study will report.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following a tender competition, an offer of a contract to investigate the appropriate response of the planning system to methane and other gas emissions from disused coal mines has been made to Wardell Armstrong. The details of the contract are being negotiated and it is expected that work will commence in March. The results will be reported in the spring of 1995.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time taken to deal with complaints under the staff grievance procedure of Property Services Agency Building Maintenance south-east; what proposals he has for reducing the time taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  PSA Services introduced a revised procedure for dealing with complaints and grievances in April 1992. This procedure recognises that many informal cases are settled quickly and amicably between individuals and their line managers. The recommended time limit for dealing with formal complaints is four weeks, but this can vary according to the nature and seriousness of the complaint.

  The only formal grievance raised in BM South East took much longer than four weeks to resolve. As a result all directors are being reminded of the need to adhere more closely to the recommended time limit.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the list of names of PSA Projects staff not chosen for secondment was finalised; on what date PSA Projects was sold to Tarmac; on what date a complete ethnic breakdown of those staff not chosen for secondment was produced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  PSA Projects was sold to Tarmac Construction on 1 December 1992.

  The Projects staff choice exercise was completed on 13 November 1992 and the full list of those staff not chosen for secondment was passed to the PSA Services equal opportunities unit on 17 November 1992. The unit carried out a detailed analysis to establish whether there had been any discrimination in the selection process. None was identified.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the proportion of ethnic minority PSA Projects staff(a) in general and (b) of those not picked for secondment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The proportions of ethnic minority staff in Projects are;168

  (a) 8·2 per cent. of the total staff in post at 20 November 1992

  (b) 8·5 per cent. of those not picked for secondment

  Although the difference in percentage terms is not statistically significant the PSA's equal opportunities unit examined each case individually and concluded that there had been no discrimination in the selection process.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of District Councils and other local authority organisations about compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has received representations from a number of local authority organisations, including the Association of District Councils, on the operation of the current CCT regime, the planned regulations and guidance clarifying the existing statutory framework and on the proposals to extend competition to local authorities' construction related and corporate services. Copies of these representations are available through the Library of the House.

  Minerals (Planning Guidance)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new draft minerals planning guidance note 3 will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We hope to issue draft revised guidelines for public consultation as soon as possible after the outcome of the coal review.

  Superquarries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what geological evidence he has considered relating to the potential for development of superquarries for aggregate mining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Geological evidence about coastal superquarries was provided to my Department by consultants who were commissioned to investigate the potential of such quarries to supply aggregates to the south-east of England. A copy of the published report "Coastal Superquarries to Supply South-East England Aggregate Requirements" is in the House of Commons Library. The work undertaken by the consultants consisted primarily of a desk study of geological maps and other published material. Their resource assessment concluded that North West Europe—particularly Norway and Scotland offered a number of good opportunities for developing coastal superquarries.

  My Department has taken the views of the consultants into account in preparing revised mineral planning guidance for aggregates on the provision in England and Wales (MPG6). Public consultation on the draft revised guidelines is currently taking place and a copy of this has been placed in the House of Commons Library. I have sent a copy to the hon. Member.

  The Government consider that coastal superquarries could provide an increasing contribution to aggregates supplies in the next century and is currently seeking views on the practical levels which could be expected. The Government recognise that individual applications will

  169
  need very careful assessment both in respect of the proposed extraction and where the material would be landed.

  Noise
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work the Building Research Establishment has done on behalf of his Department in studying the proposals arising from the noise review working party.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The Building Research Establishment has provided my Department with technical advice on a number of the recommendations of the noise review working party, including the current draft of the Planning Policy Guidance note on planning and noise which will replace circular 10/73 and proposals to increase controls on noise from audible intruder alarms. They have represented my Department on BSI committees responsible for the revision of BS4142 (industrial noise) and the replacement of BS4737 (alarms) by a European standard. They have also completed initial research into the use of noise abatement zones by local authorities.

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken or proposes to take to encourage the recycling of newspapers and magazines within the United Kingdom; what proportion of Her Majesty's Government's target of the recycling of 25 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000 will be comprised of waste paper; what is the estimated tonnage of that proportion; and what outlets he expects there to be in place in the year 2000 to utilise this waste paper by recycling.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: We are setting an economic and legislative framework which encourages an environmentally justified level of recycling. This will affect newspapers and magazines as well as other recyclable materials. We have also agreed with the newspaper publishers and newsprint producers that they will aim to increase the proportion of recycled fibre in newsprint used in Britain to at least 40 per cent. by the year 2000. Subject to parliamentary approval, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to offer a £20 million grant to the papermaking company SCA to invest in a major newsprint mill at Aylesford in Kent, which will produce newsprint made entirely from waste paper.

  The Government have not forecast the proportion of waste paper from household sources which will be recycled in the year 2000, nor the outlets which will be available to recycle this paper.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Income Support
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each office of the Social Security Agency the number of(a) female and (b) male single persons who are in receipt of income support; and of these how many in each area and category are single parents.
  170
  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alex Wylie. However, I understand that the information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Intensive Therapy Units
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number and location of intensive therapy units in the Province; and how many donors have arisen in each in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are eight intensive therapy units in Northern Ireland, which are listed below, together with the number of donors in each in the past 12 months.

  Donating hospital

  Number of cadaveric solid organ donors

  Belfast City Hospital

  4

  Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry

  3

  Ulster Hospital, Dundonald

  2

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast

  18

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital, Belfast

  1

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  4

  Mid Ulster Hospital, Magherafelt

  2

  Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children

  1

  TOTAL

  35

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each Housing Executive district in the western region the number of(a) female and (b) male single persons who are in receipt of housing benefit; and of these how many in each category are single parents with (i) one dependent child, (ii) two dependent children, (iii) three dependent children and (iv) more than three dependent children, or as much of such information as is available to him.

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

  Training Centres
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the future of the training centre network and the measures which he proposes to introduce.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J S Crozier to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 15 January 1993:

  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a sstatement on the future of the Training Centre network and the measures he proposes to introduce.

  The development, management and administration of the Training Centre network, lies within the responsibility

  171
  of the Training and Employment Agency (T&EA). As Chief Executive of the Agency I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply on his behalf.

  Training Centres are an important source of craft level training in Northern Ireland. I envisage a continuing need for the services they provide in the foreseeable future.

  The Agency has been conducting an internal review of the Training Centres to identify what action should be taken to ensure they are managed efficiently and cost effectively. We are currently conducting a feasibility study on the market testing of Centres. I expect that study to be complete by April 1993 with a view to a market test being initiated shortly afterwards. Proposals concerning the future of Training Centres will be formulated when these exercises are complete.

  1992

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Number of searches

  Total number of searches carried out

  29

  41

  44

  32

  38

  42

  Total number of inmates searched

  22

  27

  32

  19

  25

  20

  Number of prisoners searched once

  17

  19

  22

  12

  12

  2

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  4

  7

  8

  5

  13

  15

  Number of prisoners searched more than twice

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  3

  Reason for search

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  8

  7

  14

  2

  10

  1

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  8

  10

  10

  9

  7

  7

  Attending trial

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Inter prison visit

  4

  3

  4

  3

  2

  7

  Pre-release home leave

  9

  18

  11

  16

  12

  25

  Compassionate home leave

  0

  2

  2

  2

  4

  0

  Visits to outside hospital

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Attendance at court for bail

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Bail granted

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  No prohibited articles were found during these searches and no prisoners refused to be searched.

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners for scheduled offences have been transferred from prisons in Northern Ireland to Britain for each of the last 10 years; what was the length of their original sentence; what sentence those now released actually served; and what length of sentence those still in prison still have to serve.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  When a prisoner is transferred to Great Britain from Northern Ireland all records concerning the prisoner are passed to the receiving jurisdiction. The information requested is consequently unavailable in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of strip searches made on female prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry monthly since July 1992; what was the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; what prison contraband, smuggled items or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for each search.

  Mr. Mates
  The information requested is as follows:

  received for transfers from prisons in Northern Ireland to Britain from prisoners serving sentences for scheduled offences.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Between 1982 and 1992 13 prisoners convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland, made a total of 18 applications for permanent transfer to Great Britain but were unsuccessful in securing transfer. A further 10 prisoners transferred to Great Britain in the same period but as their records are now held in the receiving jurisdiction it is not known if they were convicted of scheduled offences. In addition, 20 prisoners convicted of scheduled offences applied for temporary transfer and of these 14 were transferred, normally for periods of between two and six weeks.

  Ulster Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the attendance figures for 1992 reported by the Ulster museum, including its outstations; and what was the percentage change compared with the attendance figures for 1991.
  173
  Mr. Hanley
  In 1992 a total of 450,800 people visited the Ulster museum and the Armagh county museum—an increase of 41.9 per cent. on the attendance figures for 1991.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to introduce goals and timetables for the professional and technical grades of the Northern Ireland civil service.

  Mr. Mates
  The professional and technical grades of the Northern Ireland civil service comprise a wide range of occupations many of which require particular skills and specific qualifications. It is not practicable therefore to consider a single goal and timetable in respect of this group of staff as a whole. Nevertheless, the appropriateness and practicability of goals and timetables as an affirmative action measure in respect of the various disciplines which comprise the professional and technical grades of the NICS are presently under consideration and will be the subject of further discussion with the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Northern Ireland civil service trade unions.

  Building Regulations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation has taken place on proposals for amendment to parts E and EE of the Building Regulations (NI) 1990; what responses have been received to the consultation document; and when the revised regulations will be promulgated.

  Mr. Atkins
  A consultation paper setting out proposals for amendments to parts E and EE of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1990 was issued for consideration, on 31 December 1991, to a total of 115 public and private sector bodies. These proposals are based on similar requirements which have since been incorporated in the Building Regulations 1991 which apply in England and Wales.

  Twenty-three responses to the consultation paper were received.

  It is likely that the statutory rule amending the regulations will be made in late 1993, following consideration by the European Commission, and will come into operation in 1994.

  Civil Servants (Bicycles)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current conditions on which civil servants in his Department are granted salary advances to enable the purchase of bicycles for home-to-office travel; if he will make a statement on the current conditions in each agency of his Department; what plans he has to change the conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Salary advances are available to home civil service staff to assist with the purchase of bicycles for home-to-office travel, but no requests have been received since the introduction of this facility in August 1991. The advance would be required to be repaid over 12 months and the bicycle used for travel to work. Proof of purchase would be required. No changes are planned to these conditions.
  174
  There is no facility available within the departments or agencies of the Northern Ireland civil service to permit civil servants to be granted salary advances to enable the purchases of bicycles for home to office travel. There are no plans to introduce such a facility.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a target date by which time motorway service areas will be located at an average distance of 30 miles apart throughout the United Kingdom motorway network.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Under a new policy on the provision of motorway service areas announced on 6 August, it is now for the private sector rather than the Government to identify where there is a need for further motorway services and to secure their development.

  Damaged Car Tyres
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to prevent the sale of structurally damaged car tyres from accident write-off cars at car boot sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I propose to go out to public consultation later this year on proposed safety regulations to be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which will supplement that Act by making it an offence to sell or otherwise supply in the course of business any used car, motorcycle or retread tyre that is defective.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of households in each local authority area do not possess a car.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Information on households car ownership for individual local authorities is provided by population censuses. The local authority area results from the 1991 census will be published soon.

  Roads (Porous Ashphalt)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to secure the widespread use of porous asphalt on motorways and trunk roads in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is the Department's policy to use porous asphalt where it can be shown to be the most suitable and cost effective surfacing. A specification and advice note on porous asphalt are to be published shortly by the Department of Transport jointly with the Welsh Office, Scottish Office and Department of Environment (Northern Ireland). These documents will set out those situations where porous asphalt is likely to be suitable.

  Railway Track, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the length of railway track open to traffic in Wales in 1979; what is the length at the most recent available date; and if he will make a statement.
  175
  Mr. Freeman
  In 1979 British Rail had 984 route miles of track open. The figure for 1991 was 927. Other than the technical closure of the Vale of Rheidol line on its transfer to the private sector, no passenger lines were closed during this period.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much rolling stock was in use on the railways in 1979; how much is currently in use; and what is the average age of rolling stock currently in use in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information for British Rail is given in the table. However, it is not possible to give a meaningful indication of the average age of all vehicles. Such a figure would vary widely according to the type of rolling stock.

  1979

  1991–92

  Locomotives

  Diesel

  3,261

  1,634

  Electric

  310

  262

  Sub-total locomotives

  3,571

  1,896

  High speed trains

  Power units

  136

  197

  Coaches

  533

  728

  Advanced passenger trains

  Power units

  5

  —

  Coaches

  15

  —

  Diesel Multiple Units

  3,284

  2,074

  Electric Multiple Units

  7,458

  6,909

  Bakerloo

  1972 stock. Currently being refurbished.

  1962 stock. Currently being replaced with brand new stock as part of modernisation programme—first new train in passenger service expected spring 1993.

  Central

  Circle and Hammersmith and City

  1969 and 1977 stock. Currently being refurbished.

  District

  1969 and 1977 stock.

  East London

  1962 stock.

  Jubilee

  1983 stock.

  Metropolitan

  1962 stock.

  Northern

  1959 and 1972 stock. Currently being refurbished.

  Piccadilly

  1973 stock.

  Victoria

  1967 stock. Currently being refurbished.

  Speed Control
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with the final report from the village speed control working group; and when he expects the final report to be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Measures have already been implemented at most of the trial sites in the working group's study. They are being monitored and the results will be analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory. The working group's final report is expected to be published in the summer.

  Tanker Routes
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the crude oil-carrying tanker Aegean Sea passed through the Minch.
  176

  1979

  1991–92

  Loco-hauled passenger coaches

  5,885

  2,114

  Non-passenger coaches

  4,336

  1,100

  Sub-total Coaching Vehicles (Excluding power units)

  21,511

  12,925

  Sub-total power units

  141

  197

  Freight vehicles (excluding brake vans)

  Covered

  11,439

  1,679

  Open

  14,415

  13,500

  Others

  111,735

  4,698

  Sub-total Freight Vehicles

  137,589

  19,877

  Total all vehicles

  162,812

  34,895

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1991–92 exclude 13,166 freight vehicles and 11 locomotives privately owned. 1979 figures not known, but are broadly the same for wagons, with no locomotives.

  2. Reduction in locomotives follows replacement by multiple units, notably by Regional Railways, and withdrawal of lower powered units. This has also had an impact on loco-hauled coaches.

  3. Reduction in diesel multiple units caused by electrification schemes, and replacement in certain cases by vehicles of higher capacity, and use of shorter train formations.

  4. Reduction in number of freight vehicles and non-passenger coaches largely caused by withdrawal from certain categories of traffic, notably in the wagon load type of business.

  5. In 1979 4,228 railway cars were in use on London Underground. The equivalent figure for 1991–92 was 4,146 cars.

  Over the 10 London Underground lines, most of the rolling stock is aged between 20 and 30 years. The rolling stock currently in use on each line is as follows:

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not hold information on the route taken by the Aegean Sea.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to renegotiate the provision of the 1958 international convention on the territorial sea and contiguous zone to change the designation of the Minch as an international strait with a right of innocent passage.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter which falls within the terms of Lord Donaldson's inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now place an exclusion order on the passage of oil tankers using(a) the Minch, (b) the Little Minch and (c) the sea off the Hebrides, and instruct oil tanker masters to use the deep-water route westward of the Outer Hebrides; and if he will make a statement.
  177
  Mr. Norris
  The deep water route west of the Hebrides is the recommended route, agreed by the International Maritime Organisation for all laden tankers over 10,000 grt. My Department, with the support of the industry, takes every opportunity to encourage vessels to use this route. The waters of the Minch, although within territorial limits, have been accepted by Parliament as an international strait to which the right of innocent passage applies. Thus the deep water route is recommended and not mandatory. In poor weather the risk of an accident may be greater if a tanker goes into the open Atlantic rather than using the comparatively sheltered waters of the Minch where anchorages are available. The Department's view has been that masters must retain this option in adverse weather.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to set up an oil tanker exclusion zone around the sensitive coastal and marine areas around the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter which falls within the terms of reference of Lord Donaldson's inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend. An exclusion zone for tankers in international waters would require international agreement. In the meantime, we are exploring the possibility and feasibility of introducing interim measures for tanker operations around the United Kingdom.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a requirement for motor manufacturers to fit alternative fitting points for backward facing seats for pre-school children in all new cars.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department has been working with manufacturers and various international organisations to find better and more convenient ways of fitting child seats to vehicles. It is intended that this work will eventually result in European legislation requiring all cars to be fitted with anchorage points suitable for securing forward or rearward-facing restraints for children of all ages.

  Unadopted Roads
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to legislate on the subject of unadopted roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Private street works law was reviewed in 1983. Subsequently it was decided that there should be no
  178
  change either in the arrangements for the adoption of unadopted roads or the principle of frontager liability for the expense of making up such roads. Some minor amendments to private street works law may be brought forward if a suitable opportunity arises.

  Motorways
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway in England are currently being widened.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A total of 30·4 miles.

  A259 (Bypass)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the exhibition of plans for the A259 Icklesham bypass will take place.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A public consultation exhibition of proposals for the Guestling Thorn and Icklesham bypass is expected to be held this spring. I will announce the detailed arrangements as soon as possible.

  Road Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed level of expenditure in England in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 on(a) new road construction and improvement, (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenance on trunk roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  An announcement about national roads expenditure for 1993–94 will be made shortly. Provisional figures for the following years will appear in the 1993 departmental report, which will be published next month.

  Train Driver Instruction
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to allow the private sector to establish train driver instruction schools.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have accepted all the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations in their report, "Ensuring Safety on Britain's Railways" which was published on 12 January. These included the recommendation that the Health and Safety Commission should be empowered to accredit other bodies including private training organisations, to carry out driver training and certification following assessment against clear standards.

  English Channel
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many collisions occurred in the English channel in the last five years; and what reasons were established for them.

  Mr. Norris
  To establish the number of accidents in any sea area would entail a great deal of research. To add to that the task of manually listing each accident and the reason for it would entail staff time and resources at disproportionate cost.

  Data for 1991 onwards is being input into a recently installed, computerised accident database in the marine accident investigation branch. This will allow information as requested to be provided for accidents which occurred during and after 1991.

  Vehicle Engines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to limit the time that vehicle engines are left running while the vehicle is at a standstill.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078) already provides that the driver of a vehicle shall, when the vehicle is stationary other than due to the necessities of traffic, stop the action of any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so far as may be necessary for the prevention of noise.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy fully to inspect all non-EC registered oil tankers over 10 years old calling at United Kingdom ports;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to scrutinise fully the qualifications of officers and crew on all non-EC registered oil tankers calling at United Kingdom ports.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The criteria for inspecting ships under the memorandum of understanding on port state control (MOU) are agreed by all the signatories. They are amended from time to time in the light of experience and are continually under review.

  It would not necessarily be the best use of resources to inspect all non-EC tankers over 10 years old calling at United Kingdom ports, or to make a full scrutiny of the qualifications of the officers and crew an automatic duty for a surveyor conducting such an inspection.

  Inspections do include operational aspects which enables the surveyor to "look behind" the paper qualifications and make some assessment of the abilities of the officers and crew to respond to emergency operations and other duties assigned to them.

  Responsibility for standards, both of a ship and a crew, lies primarily with the owner and the flag state, but where a port state inspection reveals deficiencies in crew qualifications the surveyor may detain the vessel until suitably qualified personnel are found.

  The United Kingdom has been pursuing the necessity to improve standards of vessels worldwide and will continue to do so. We will bestriving to raisecrew qualification standards when the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping convention comes up for review at the International Maritime Organisation in March.

EMPLOYMENT

  Microfabrication
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the number of people employed in that sector of the electricity industry related to microfabrication.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of employees in the microfabrication sector of the electricity industry is not separately identifiable.

  Young People (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures she plans to help young people in north Nottinghamshire to find employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The local employment service and North Notts training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help young unemployed people in the area find the best and quickest route to employment.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the budgets of training and enterprise councils in the north in the last financial year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The budgets of training and enterprise councils in the north in the last financial year amounted to £596 million.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will increase Government support for the training and enterprise councils.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Training and enterprise councils' budgets for next year will be broadly in line in cash terms with the planned expenditure for this year. They will have sufficient resources to carry out the objectives agreed in their business plan.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received regarding the level of reserves held by TECs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received only one previous question on the matter, from my hon. Friend himself.

  Working Time
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of the working time directive on jobs and economic activity in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No directive has yet been adopted. Unnecessary and complex restrictions on working time can only damage the competitive position of British employers and undermine long-term employment prospects.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the work of the employment service to help the unemployed.
  181
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The employment service provides a wide range of services to help unemployed people find work, including placing them in jobs and referring them to training and other programmes. Over a million opportunities will be available in 1993–94. It also pays unemployment benefits to people who are entitled to them.

  Check-off
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received on the rights of trade union members on check-off.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the subject of check-off. Proposals in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will protect the rights of trade union members by ensuring that check-off deductions cannot be made from their wages without their express knowledge and consent.

  Acquired Rights
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about implementation of the EC directive on acquired rights.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The directive was implemented by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Government doubt whether the directive is compatible with the principles of subsidiarity and it will certainly be among those directives which the Government will continue to question as the subsidiarity exercise develops. In addition, the Government will press in any negotiations for the revision of the directive to make it absolutely clear that the directive does not cover the contracting out of services where no business is transferred.

  As long as the directive remains in force, however, the Government must ensure that United Kingdom law implements it fully. Clause 26 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, now in Committee, makes some minor amendments to the regulations to ensure this. These amendments do not change the fact that the regulations apply only if an undertaking is transferred as a going concern. This has always been, and will continue to be, the test of whether or not the regulations apply.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current unemployment figures for the north-west.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In November 1992 seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in the north west was 329,100 or 10.8 per cent. of the work force.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total number of people registered as unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth and (b) the total number of job vacancies registered in the London borough of Wandsworth on 11 January.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available data relate to 12 November 1992 for claimant unemployment and 6 November 1992 for unfilled vacancies at jobcentres. On these respective dates there were 18,334 claimant 182
  unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth, and 136 unfilled vacancies at jobcentres covering the Wandsworth area.

  Simple comparisons between the unemployment figures for a local area and the equivalent vacancy figures can be misleading because the coverage of jobcentre vacancies can vary between different occupations and different areas. Within any one area there is not necessarily a match between the location and skills of the unemployed and the location and nature of the vacancies available.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about unemployment levels in the north-west in the manufacturing sector.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is estimated from the labour force survey that in the summer of 1992, 72,000 unemployed people in the north west had last worked in manufacturing.

  Weymouth and Dorchester
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on work being undertaken by her Department in the Weymouth and Dorchester travel-to-work area over the next five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department will continue to provide a full range of employment, training and enterprise measures to help unemployed people in the area as elsewhere.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created in the London area in the past five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on job losses and job gains is not collected. Between September 1987 and September 1992 there was a net decrease in the civilian work force in employment in Greater London of 436,000 or 11.1 per cent.

  Press Office
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were employed by her Department's press office in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Number

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  Not available

  1986–87

  8

  1987–88

  9

  1988–89

  9

  1989–90

  17

  1990–91

  17

  1991–92

  14

  1992–93

  14

  Figures for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 are for the Department's press office only. The Department's press

  183
  office was merged with the Training Agency press office in November 1989 and the figures from 1989–90 onwards reflect this.

WALES

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many entrants for initial teacher training last year undertook a period of pupilage, or other work with children, before starting their courses; what percentage of all students this was; and what contribution his Department has made to encourage this practice;

  (2) how many schools, counted separately, in the primary, secondary and special education sectors, offer pupilage to prospective initial teacher training students; and what is the percentage of schools involved;

  (3) how long a period of pupilage in a school lasts, on average; what are the longest and shortest periods of time; and what advice is given by his Department to encourage high quality student experience.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally. The Government have given financial support to a number of "taster courses" in Wales providing school experience for people who are interested in teaching.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the way in which initial teacher training establishments are selecting applicants on the basis of their personal qualities for effective classroom management and for relating well to children, the way in which his Department is contributing to more effective selection procedures and the number and percentage of applicants who are not accepted for initial teacher training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses require institutions to ensure that entrants to teacher training have the necessary personal qualities for the profession, including an ability to manage and to get on well with children. No one can be accepted on to an ITT course without being interviewed.

  The number of applicants not accepted on to ITT courses in England and Wales in 1992 were, for undergraduate courses, around 9,900—39 per cent. of applicants—and for postgraduate courses around 8,800 —35 per cent. of applicants.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken in the last two years to promote multicultural awareness and equal opportunities in schools and initial teacher training establishments.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the last two years the Government have continued the phased introduction of the national curriculum, which is designed to challenge and stimulate all pupils whatever their ethnic or cultural origin. The Curriculum Council for Wales and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council, which advise my right hon. Friend on the curriculum and assessment, are required in exercising their functions to take account of the ethnic and cultural diversity of society in Wales and the importance of promoting equal opportunities for all pupils regardless of ethnic origin and gender. The Government are also proposing to strengthen religious education, which provides opportunities to study other faiths and cultures and develop greater tolerance and understanding.
  184
  The criteria for the approval of courses of initial teacher training include a requirement that they should help student teachers to develop an awareness of individual differences, including social and cultural dimensions. We have encouraged the development of ITT courses for people from ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of teacher training courses in developing group management skills; and if he considers further specific measures are needed in this regard;

  (2) what assessment he has made in the last two years of the effectiveness of basic counselling skills for students in initial teacher training establishments; and how many establishments have been studied for this purpose.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The criteria for the approval of courses of initial teacher training require that students should be trained both in the effective management of groups of pupils and in the pastoral skills required to interact well with individual children. HMI, in its inspection of all ITT courses in Wales, and the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in its scrutiny of all course proposals have collected evidence of the satisfactory compliance of the institutions with these criteria.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of those involved in the provision of teacher training in determining whether potential teachers have the ability to relate well to pupils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Higher education institutions are required to interview all students they admit to courses of initial teacher training. Assessment of students' ability to relate well to children is done during that interview and as part of the assessment of the student's teaching practice. We have not made a specific assessment of how institutions undertake this task.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of initial teacher training establishments in introducing students to the concept of peer support and its uses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have not made an assessment of peer support within initial teacher training courses in Wales. The use of group work is a feature of all ITT courses in institutions in Wales and teaching practice guidance includes the expectation that students should employ various strategies, including group work, in their work with pupils.

  Pupil Behaviour
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales since 1990–91 how much money under the grants for education support and training scheme has been allocated to programmes dealing with the management of pupil behaviour; and what percentage of overall funding this is.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The following sums have been specifically allocated to programmes within GEST aimed at improving support services for the most difficult pupils and for training to help improve teachers' practical skills in managing pupil behaviour:
  185

  £

  Percentage of total GEST funding

  1990–91

  280,600

  1·2

  1991–92

  289,200

  1·2

  1992–93

  233,000

  0·8

  TOTAL

  802,800

  1·0

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities provide midday supervisors and other non-teaching staff with training in the management of pupils' behaviour; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of this training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally. No assessment of such training has been undertaken by the Department.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of local education authorities in promoting better coordination between various local agencies dealing with pupils with behaviour or attendance problems and their families.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Effective liaison with other agencies is an essential element in dealing with pupils with behaviour or attendance problems and its importance is stressed in much of the guidance produced on the Children Act 1989. The Department issued guidance in 1991 drawing attention to the need for statutory and non-statutory bodies to collaborate in order to secure the successful implementation of the Act.

  The Department has agreed to contribute financially to a cities in schools initiative that has been established in Gwent to help combat truancy and to improve the quality of life for young people in the area.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has sponsored in the last two years on the implications for pupil behaviour of arranging pupils in groups for teaching purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. The behaviour implications of grouping pupils for teaching purposes were, however, discussed in the Elton report into discipline in schools.

  Articled Teachers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have become articled teachers since the inception of the scheme; and in what sectors and subjects.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Sixteen students are currently being trained under the Clwyd local education authority articled teacher scheme. Of these 16 students, five are training to become primary teachers and the remaining 11 are being trained for the secondary phase. A breakdown of the subject specialisms of the secondary students, is as follows:

  Subject

  Number of Students

  Mathematics

  2

  Chemistry

  2

  Biology

  2

  186

  Subject

  Number of Students

  Welsh

  4

  English

  1

  The students are due to complete their training at the end of the current academic year.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of in-service training for articled teachers; and what percentage have withdrawn from the scheme since its inception.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Only one local education authority in Wales has adopted an articled teacher scheme. The students involved have yet to complete their training. OHMCI is scrutinising the scheme and will come to a conclusion on its effectiveness at the end of the period of training. Of the 17 students who started the course, one has withdrawn from the scheme.

  New Teachers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of local education authority induction programmes for new teachers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Induction programmes are assessed within inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspector of schools, whose reports I see.

  Induction training funded under the grants for education support and training programme is assessed and taken account of in the consideration of LEA applications for GEST grant. Greater priority to improving induction training was given in the 1992–93 GEST programme. In addition I am funding a research project at University college of Wales, Swansea, aimed at developing guidance on induction programmes for schools in Wales.

  Intervention Powers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities have used their powers of intervention under section 28 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; and on how many occasions.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to encourage the recruitment of teachers from minority ethnic backgrounds; and what success has been achieved in the last two years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government have adopted a range of measures to encourage people from ethnic minority backgrounds to consider a career in the teaching profession. They include teaching as a career, publications, advertising, participation at careers events, stimulating the development of special access courses, and supporting relevant local projects.

  The Government introduced ethnic monitoring of teachers in January 1990 following recommendation by the Swann committee, but the quality of the response from

  187
  local education authorities and grant-maintained schools so far has been poor. As a result it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about the percentage of teachers in Wales who are from ethnic minorities, nor to identify improvements over the last two years.

  Management Training (Senior Teachers)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of management training programmes for head teachers and other senior staff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is for individual schools and teachers to decide which training programmes can most effectively meet their particular needs.

  The Department has helped by supporting the development and assessment of a number of new management training initiatives in recent years. A survey of overall provision for school management training was commissioned in 1989 to guide and support the work of the school management task force. This work is being taken forward in Wales by Wales Officers and Advisers Development, a consortium set up by Welsh local education authorities.

  The office of her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales has responsibility for inspecting the training of teachers including management training programmes.

  Records of Achievement
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of of records of achievement in giving due weight to a wide range of pupil achievements and personal qualities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The national record of achievement is an effective summary for school-leavers to take forward to further education and working life. Recent evaluation has shown that take-up of the NRA among schools has been high. I attach significant value to the continued use of the NRA. That is why regulations governing reports on pupils' achievements which are to be laid before Parliament shortly will require schools in Wales to use the NRA format to provide a specified minimum of information for school-leavers. Copies of the regulations and an explantory circular will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities provide in-service training in classroom management for supply teachers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Teaching Skills
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of staff providing training in teaching skills have had at least one term's regular teaching experience in the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The criteria for the accreditation of initial teacher training includes the requirement that, from the beginning of the current academic year, all staff at institutions who are concerned with training students in 188
  teaching skills must have had at least one term's experience of teaching in school in the previous five years. OHMCI monitor courses regularly to ensure that institutions comply with this requirement.

  School Bullying
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken by his Department to overcome bullying and racial harassment in schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Bullying and racial harassment are serious matters and we expect schools to deal firmly with them when they arise. While there is no evidence to suggest that racial harassment is a problem in schools in Wales, I am aware of incidents of bullying. To emphasise the importance of firm action against bullying, the Department has sent copies of the information and guidance pack "Action against Bullying" and of a booklet produced by the South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education to all schools in Wales. In addition, the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales has been asked to ensure that all inspecting teams appointed under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 pay particular attention to the arrangements for securing good discipline and behaviour.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of bullying have been reported in each local education authority in the primary, secondary and special education sectors in each of the last three years; and what percentage of those cases were racially motivated.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Charcoal Dressings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will ensure that pensioners at home suffering from cancer with fungating wounds can use charcoal dressings on prescription for use by district nurses in the community;

  (2) if he will review the type and nature of dressings supplied on prescription for cancer sufferers living at home.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Additions to the GP prescribable list, such as new dressings, must be subject to the availability of resources. Dressings prescribed by a consultant for a patient discharged into the community, and not available on the GP prescribable list, are the responsibility of the provider unit; that is, directly managed unit or NHS trust.

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people suffering from cancer receiving care in their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  One of the major strategic aims of the NHS in Wales is to bring health care closer to a patient's home. Our emphasis is on health gain and we wish to see an increase in the quality of life for people with cancer. I am pleased that health authorities are addressing these issues.

  Difficult Pupils
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the provision that local education authorities make for their most difficult pupils; and how many local education authorities have been studied in this regard.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. As part of its detailed inquiry into discipline in schools, the Elton committe asked local education authorities about their provision for pupils whose behaviour teachers found most difficult to manage. Their report commented on both the nature and quality of the provision made and has been beneficial to local authorities in helping them to devise strategies for dealing with difficult pupils.

  For the future, inspecting teams appointed under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will pay particular attention to schools' arrangements for securing good discipline and behaviour.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest information he has concerning the number of indefinite exclusions of pupils from(a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Education (Serious Incident Reporting)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of local education authorities' serious incident reporting systems.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. It is for local education authorities to determine what arrangements are most appropriate to enable them to discharge their functions effectively.

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  to ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet a deputation of councillors and officials from county and district level concerning the building of the new River Dee crossing.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes.

  Discipline in Schools Report
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken on recommendation(a) 68 and (b) 69.1, of the Elton report on discipline in schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have issued "Education: A Charter for Parents in Wales" which deals with parental responsibilities as well as their rights. It emphasises the need for parents to support the work of schools in the education of their children.

  The Curriculum Council for Wales has issued guidance to schools on the content of family-life education, including education for parenthood, and its place in the wider curriculum.

  Education Welfare Officers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many education welfare officers are employed by each local authority; what is the ratio of officers to pupils in each local education authority; and if he will make a statement about the adequacy of this provision.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally. It is for each local education authority to determine whether the number of education welfare officers employed is sufficient to enable it to meet its statutory responsibilities.

  Classroom Management
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the way in which the principles of good classroom management are being implemented by teachers and their trainees; and what contribution his Department has made in this process and to the extent to which implementation has been achieved.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In February last year I launched a debate on classroom organisation and teaching methods in primary schools in Wales. Following extensive consultations with teachers in Wales, the Curriculum Council for Wales issued guidance to primary schools on these issues in November. Good classroom practice is a matter for teachers, headteachers and schools and will continue to be subject to inspection either by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools or by inspectors registered by the office of Her Majesty's chief inspectors of schools from September 1993. The criteria for the approval of courses of initial teacher training require that students should be trained in the effective management of groups of pupils.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest information available to him on the money needed to bring all school buildings into a good state of repair.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The state of repair and management of the local authority estate was addressed in the efficiency initiative. Following the issue of the report of the "Quality Circle" on property review, the authorities were expected to provide reports on their estate holdings, including the education estate, but have not yet done so.

  Road Construction and Maintenance
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of motorway in Wales are currently(a) open, (b) under construction and (c) planned in Wales either (i) as completely new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The mileages are as follows:

  (a) Open—74 miles.

  (b) Under Construction—6 miles.

  (c) Planned—19 miles (new motorway) and 8 miles (widening of existing motorway).

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown of the planned expenditure on(a) new construction and improvement,
  (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenance on trunk roads by his Department for each year from 1993–94 to 1995–96.
  191
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Total planned central Government net expenditure in 1993–94 on the roads and transport programme in Wales is £201.3 million. Further details will be published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96: Departmental Report by the Welsh Office" in February. Planned net expenditure in 1994–95 and 1995–96 is £209.3 million and £219.7 million respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the numbers and locations of (1) the(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales which have opted out of local education authority control; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) the (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales which have applied to opt out of local education authority control; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Twelve schools have to date published proposals to become grant maintained. They are:

  (a) PRIMARY SCHOOLS

  Cefnpennar Infants, Mid Glamorgan

  Llanerfyl, Powys

  Caergeiliog, Gwynedd

  Derwen, Clwyd

  Penybryn, Clwyd

  (b) SECONDARY SCHOOLS

  Queens, Gwent

  Cwmcarn, Gwent

  Bishop Vaughan, West Glamorgan

  Brynmawr, Gwent

  Emrys ap Iwan, Clwyd

  Maelor, Clwyd

  Stanwell, South Glamorgan

  Assisted Places Scheme: Payment to Schools Financial Years 1981–82—1991–92

  School

  1981–82 £

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Christ College, Brecon

  7,986

  21,443

  36,063

  48,289

  62,116

  95,473

  131,470

  155,404

  189,033

  244,081

  321,779

  Howell's School, Denbigh

  11,011

  37,883

  70,107

  96,971

  132,971

  179,033

  225,465

  243,740

  237,474

  231,442

  254,759

  Howell's School, Llandaff

  17,774

  57,094

  106,799

  144,940

  209,858

  274,274

  314,274

  319,099

  334,290

  358,798

  328,763

  Llandovery College

  3,737

  9,217

  19,615

  31,013

  38,279

  454,407

  55,732

  75,308

  92,650

  140,381

  203,641

  Monmouth School (for Boys)

  18,515

  52,035

  92,610

  134,170

  181,642

  233,684

  307,291

  277,352

  323,194

  303,951

  374,475

  Monmouth School (for Girls)

  9,644

  21,677

  37,072

  52,598

  68,760

  90,225

  109,297

  144,422

  128,010

  140,618

  166,552

  Penrhos College

  5,108

  21,973

  38,489

  62,843

  81,089

  99,399

  140,459

  136,944

  156,617

  183,500

  225,688

  Rydal School

  4,194

  38,206

  53,896

  56,864

  67,768

  93,274

  110,254

  112,767

  128,121

  153,508

  189,153

  Lowther College*

  23,709

  15,244

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  101,678

  274,772

  454,651

  627,688

  842,483

  1,519,769

  1,394,242

  1,465,036

  1,589,389

  1,756,279

  2,064,810

  * Lowther College closed in July 1982.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many economically active males there were in each district in(a) 1987 and (b) 1991; what percentage those numbers represented of the population of each district;
  192
  Of these, the applications from Cwmcarn, Brynmawr, Bishop Vaughan, and Emrys ap Iwan schools have been approved for grant-maintained status and those from Queens and Cefnpennar have been rejected.

  Proposals from the other six schools are currently before me for decision and I hope to make announcements on them soon.

  River Corring (Pollution)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made of the pollution caused from the spoil from the Nantewlaeth reclamation scheme discharging into the River Corring in the Aran valley following flooding.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Rivers Authority undertook a visual assessment following the pollution incident which affected the Rivers Corrwg and Afan on 30 November 1992. This found siltation of the river gravels and a corresponding smothering of fish spawning reeds. A survey of the effect of this incident on fish populations will be undertaken by the authority later this year.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amount of money given under the assisted places scheme to each of the private schools of Wales in each of the years from the schemes inception up to the latest possible year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  and what was the percentage change in the number of economically active males in each district between 1987 and 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of economically active males and the percentage they represent of the malt population of working age are given for 1986 and 1991 it the following table. Data for 1987 are not available. The percentage change between the two years is not shown a: the sources used for the data are not strictly comparable
  193

  Economically active males in Welsh districts 1986 and 1991

  1986

  1991

  Econ active males aged 16–64 (000)

  Percentage of males aged 16–64 economically active

  Econ active males aged 16–64 (000)

  Percentage of males aged 16–64 economically active

  Alyn & Deeside

  19·1

  87·2

  20·8

  87·2

  Colwyn

  10·8

  83·4

  12·5

  81·1

  Delyn

  17·6

  86·3

  18·3

  84·2

  Glyndwr

  10·4

  86·0

  11·0

  84·6

  Rhuddlan

  11·7

  81·0

  12·2

  79·7

  Wrexham Maelor

  31·0

  85·6

  30·0

  83·3

  Carmarthen

  12·8

  83·5

  13·8

  81·4

  Ceredigion

  15·1

  80·7

  15·6

  80·1

  Dinefwr

  8·6

  80·1

  9·2

  78·1

  Llanelli

  17·4

  78·1

  17·2

  76·9

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  17·8

  84·7

  18·2

  82·5

  South Pembrokeshire

  9·7

  82·2

  10·5

  81·7

  Blaenau Gwent

  18·8

  77·6

  18·4

  76·9

  Islwyn

  16·3

  81·5

  16·7

  79·1

  Monmouth

  19·6

  86·6

  20·5

  84·7

  Newport

  33·0

  84·0

  34·2

  82·9

  Torfaen

  23·4

  83·1

  23·1

  81·2

  Aberconwy

  10·3

  85·0

  12·6

  82·4

  Arfon

  13·1

  84·4

  13·3

  80·2

  Dwyfor

  6·4

  82·5

  6·7

  82·4

  Meirionnydd

  7·4

  83·5

  8·1

  82·2

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  18·0

  85·0

  17·6

  82·3

  Cynon Valley

  15·6

  78·3

  15·2

  76·0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  13·9

  75·8

  13·7

  75·9

  Ogwr

  31·9

  79·1

  33·2

  80·4

  Rhondda

  18·3

  72·5

  17·9

  74·5

  Rhymney Valley

  25·3

  76·3

  25·0

  76·8

  Taff-Ely

  22·8

  78·6

  25·0

  81·0

  Brecknock

  10·0

  84·1

  10·4

  81·6

  Montgomeryshire

  13·8

  89·8

  14·4

  86·1

  Radnor

  5·9

  87·0

  6·2

  85·5

  Cardiff

  68·0

  82·0

  70·3

  81·8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  29·0

  85·9

  29·4

  83·5

  Lliw Valley

  14·9

  82·1

  15·3

  79·3

  Neath

  16·2

  77·0

  15·8

  78·1

  Port Talbot

  12·2

  76·5

  11·8

  75·0

  Swansea

  45·7

  79·5

  43·8

  78·7

  Notes:

  1. Economically active students are excluded.

  2. Data for 1991 are from the 1991 Census.

  3. Data for 1986 are extracted from the Welsh Inter Censal Survey are subject to sampling error, and are not strictly comparable to Census data.

  Roads Department (Wildlife Protection)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Roads Department has taken and will take to minimise disturbance to badgers and other wildlife; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provision of badger-proof fencing, badger crossings and gates, together with the relocation of setts are among steps that are, or may be, taken, depending on the particular circumstances. Mitigating measures for other wildlife are subject to the species involved.

  The Department's highways directorate recognises the need to mitigate and minimise the effects of road construction on wildlife and will continue to pursue that objective.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the budget for the programme for environmentally sensitive areas in each year since 1985; and what the budget will be in each year for the next three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The first environmentally sensitive area in Wales—the Cambrian mountains (original)—was 194
  not designated until 1 March 1987. The Cambrian mountains (extension) and Lleyn peninsula ESAs were designated on 1 January 1988. I intend to designate four further ESAs—Anglesey, Radnor, Preseli and the Clwydian range—during 1993. Actual and estimated Welsh ESA payments to farmers are set out in the following table:

  Year

  1£m

  1987–88

  0·02 (actual)

  1988–89

  0·37 (actual)

  1989–90

  0·70 (actual)

  1990–91

  0·88 (actual)

  1991–92

  1·46 (actual)

  21992–93

  3·74 (estimate)

  31993–94

  5·79 (estimate)

  31994–95

  7·61 (estimate)

  31995–96

  7·76 (estimate)

  Notes:

  1 The figures have been rounded.

  2 Actual 1992–93 expenditure will be published in the 1992 Appropriation Accounts.

  3 The 1993–94 provision will be published in the 1993–94 Main Supply Estimate Class XV Vote 2. The provision for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will also be published in the Main Supply Estimate for those years.

  Special Education
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how special education will be regarded under the proposed system of unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Special education will continue to be treated as a matter of high priority under the new structure of local government. The local education authority will retain responsibility for assessing, and making appropriate provision for, children with special education needs.

  National Biodiversity Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to develop a national biodiversity plan for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The action plan on biodiversity is being prepared on a UK-wide basis, but the Welsh Office and the Countryside Council for Wales are, of course, being closely consulted.

  National Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the attendance figures for 1992 reported by the national museum of Wales, including its outstations; and what was the percentage change compared with the attendance figures for 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A total of 867,943 people visited the national museum of Wales during 1992, an increase of 27 per cent. over the attendance reported for 1991.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level of farm incomes in(a) less favoured areas, (b) disadvantaged areas and (c) severely disadvantaged areas, in cash terms and real terms in each year since 1982.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is available in this form only since 1985–86 and is as follow:

  Less favoured areas income

  Disadvantaged areas income

  Seriously disadvantaged areas income

  Current prices £

  1Real terms £

  Current prices £

  1Real terms £

  Current prices £

  1Real terms £

  1985–86

  7,616

  10,727

  5,938

  8,363

  7,913

  11,145

  1986–87

  7,906

  10,830

  3,129

  4,286

  9,604

  13,156

  1987–88

  9,453

  12,438

  5,985

  7,875

  10,703

  14,083

  1988–89

  14,250

  17,813

  10,353

  12,941

  15,721

  19,651

  1989–90

  8,805

  10,121

  5,370

  6,172

  10,022

  11,520

  1990–91

  7,561

  7,959

  1,592

  1,676

  9,932

  10,455

  1991–92

  12,254

  12,254

  4,386

  4,386

  15,340

  15,340

  1 Deflated by the RPI 1991–92=100.

  Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the Welsh housing budget was used to fund the tenants' cash incentive scheme in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991–92, resources amounting to £200,000 were made available for tenants' cash incentive schemes. This represents 0·038 per cent. of the total Welsh Office provision for housing amounting to £527 million for that year.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what account was taken of the legal action being taken against Dr. Roy Bichan in the United States when he appointed him deputy chairman of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I take full account of all available information in making appointments.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the Welsh Development Agency's technology growth fund budget—allocated funds has been spent since being set up (i) in cash terms each year, (ii) as a percentage of the Welsh Development Agency's total budget and (iii) as a percentage of Welsh Development Agency's international budget.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is a matter for the Welsh Development Agency. I have arranged for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman and for a copy of his response to be printed in the Official Report.

  Letter from Philip J. Head to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 7 January 1993:
  In response to the above question I am pleased to enclose the information you requested concerning the Agency's Technology Growth Fund.
  The Agency is, of course, involved in promoting the use of technology and technology related investment through both its Business Services and Welsh Development International divisions. In the Business Services Division alone some £1.3 million of expenditure was directly related to these activities in the 1991–92 financial year.
  Please let me know if you require any further information.

  Technology Growth Fund

  Year

  Expenditure £K

  Percentage of Agency Expenditure Per cent.

  Percentage of WDI Expenditure Per cent.

  1988–89

  80

  0·07

  3·18

  1989–90

  540

  0·41

  17·24

  1990–91

  120

  0·08

  3·40

  1991–92

  90

  0·06

  2·16

  Cereal Crop
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of cereal crop production in Wales in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  According to the cereal production survey conducted during September 1992, the production of cereal crops in Wales for the 1992 harvest was as follows:

  Wheat

  80 thousand tonnes

  Winter barley

  90 thousand tonnes

  Spring barley

  80 thousand tonnes

  Oats

  20 thousand tonnes

  Triticale

  1 thousand tonnes

  Roads
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work to improve the A483 Welshpool to Shropshire borders road is due to commence; and if he will make a statement.
  197
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The A483 Pant-Llanymynech bypass scheme is expected to start in the medium term, between April 1995 and March 1998.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the consultants for the Newton bypass will be appointed; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Consultants are expected to be appointed in spring 1993.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the possibility of trunking the South Glamorgan peripheral distributor road; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am aware of no such representations.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average rent of council homes in Wales for each year since 1979 adjusted for rises in inflation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average rents of council homes set by local authorities are given in the following table:

  Average weekly rent of council homes in Wales

  Rents adjusted to 1992–93 prices £s

  1979

  15·26

  1980

  16·02

  1981

  21·27

  1982

  24·20

  1983

  24·16

  1984

  24·51

  1985

  24·77

  1986

  25·01

  1987

  24·64

  1988

  25·32

  1989

  26·90

  1990

  27·21

  1991

  28·05

  1992

  29·81

  Source: 1979–1989 CIPFA.

  1990–1992 Local authority returns.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average income of hill sheep farmers in Wales in each of the past five years; and what are the projected levels for the present and the coming financial years, taking into account any changes to the grant system.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Average incomes of hill and upland sheep farms for each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 are as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  9,380

  1988–89

  15,283

  1989–90

  9,468

  Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 together with income forecast for 1992–93 are at table 14 of the statistical tables prepared in connection with the 1992 autumn review of hill
  198
  livestock compensatory allowances. A copy is available m the Library of the House. Forecasts are not yet available for the coming financial year but it is presently estimated that the net effect of the increase in sheep annual premium payments, including the less-favoured area supplement, as the result of green pound devaluations, together with HLCA payment reductions will represent an enhancement of about £10.0 million in total Welsh LFA sheep producer incomes.

  Operation Wizard
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 771, under what statutory powers the Operation Wizard consultancy exercise was authorised; if prior authorisation was agreed by his Department before each of the consultants was engaged; if the choice of consultants followed an open advertisement and competition relating to a published brief; if he will publish a full list of the consultancy companies and partnerships engaged; and on what date each of them started and completed their work.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The agency has wide-ranging powers under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 which includes powers to commission studies in relation to the discharge of its functions. Within the guidelines set out in the financial memorandum, day-to-day management, including the use of consultants, is a matter for the agency. In awarding contracts, the agency is required to have regard to best practice and value for money.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what negotiations he has had with his counterparts in the European Commission concerning the principle of and level of European regional development fund grant for the proposed Cardiff bay barrage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Welsh Council for Voluntary Action
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action concerning the grant aid for volunteering in the next financial year; what evaluation he has made of the consequences of grant aid settlement on the level and quality of volunteering activity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office officials are in regular contact with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action about many matters concerning the voluntary sector, but there has been no specific consultation concerning grant-aid for volunteering in 1993–94. The WCVA has responsibility for administering the volunteering in Wales fund and were awarded £215,000 by the Department in 1992–93 for distribution to eligible projects which promote: volunteering. Resources for the VIWF, along with all other applications from Welsh generalist intermediary bodies, including the WCVA itself, are being considered in the light of the total resources available for 1993–94. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement in February 1993.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions during each of the last five years the search and rescue helicopter squadron has been called out to deal with reported emergencies in and around the Ceredigion and Pembroke North constituency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply. Statistical data are not recorded in the form requested.

DEFENCE

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many offshore emergency incidents have been dealt with by the search and rescue helicopter squadron at RAF Brawdy in each of the last five years; and how many such incidents have involved the winching of firefighters to stricken vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table gives the number of offshore emergency incidents dealt with by the search and rescue flight at RAF Brawdy over the past five years. Statistical data are not held on the number of incidents involving the winching of firefighters.

  Year

  Callouts

  Persons Rescued

  1988

  71

  53

  1989

  66

  38

  1990

  62

  92

  1991

  69

  48

  1992

  63

  15

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the bases for search and rescue helicopter squadrons within the United Kingdom which have closed during the last 10 years, indicating the average response time to coastal and offshore emergencies(a) within a radius of 25 miles, (b) 50 miles, (c) 75 miles, (d) 100 miles and (e) 150 miles from the base both (i) prior to and (ii) following the removal of the service from the vicinity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No bases with search and rescue helicopters have closed in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been undertaken by his Department to date concerning the effect of the removal of search and rescue helicopter squadrons upon localised emergency rescue arrangements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The new basing structure for the RAF search and rescue helicopter force took into account, and will very largely meet, the established civil SAR criteria.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department had at the most recent part-session of the Assembly of Western European Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave an address to the Western European Union assembly on 1 December 1992,200
  during the second part of its 38th ordinary session. Officials from my Department attended for part of the session.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the reason for withholding papers on chemical and biological weapons, and the authority of command of nuclear weapons, beyond 30 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Those Ministry of Defence papers which are not already open continue to be withheld from the public domain under the criteria of the Public Records Acts for reasons such as national security. They will be progressively released as their sensitivity lapses.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) all measures taken by his Department in the last 12 months to prevent nuclear proliferation, (b) the number of personnel in his Department working to prevent nuclear proliferation and (c) his Department's total expenditure on control of nuclear proliferation in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is Government policy to meet all our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and our commitments under the nuclear suppliers group regime. My Department supports fully the Government's efforts to promote effective international controls on nuclear weapon-related and nuclear dual-use exports to help prevent proliferation. A wide range of personnel within my Department work on nuclear non-proliferation-related matters; the direct costs of pursuing this policy are not separately identifiable.

  AWRE Aldermaston
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects are currently under way at the atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston; what work is planned to finish within the next year; what new projects are planned for the establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are committed to maintaining the United Kingdom's minimum nuclear deterrent. The atomic weapons establishment has a complex and continuing programme of work in fulfilment of this policy, including support for in-service weapons, the Trident programme, and preliminary work towards a possible replacement for the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  Bosnia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to strengthen the rules of engagement for the British troops in Bosnia; and if he will make it his policy that they will have the means to protect themselves with all the appropriate light weapons and radar-seeking missiles being made available on HMS Ark Royal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Rules of engagement governing the use of force by the British battaliion group carrying out its humanitarian role in Bosnia already provide satisfactorily for our troops to respond in self-defence,
  201
  with the means available to them, to any attacks. In his statement on 14 January, Official Report, columns 1057–58, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that the forces which are being currently deployed to the Adriatic have been sent as a contingency, to be available to provide additional protection for the battalion group should that be required.

  RAF Pilot Training
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to review levels of RAF pilot training; whether the future viability of RAF Chivenor is contingent upon a review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While there are currently no plans to review RAF training, all aspects of my Department's activities are examined to see what scope exists for making savings on the defence budget. This is done through the annual process of re-costing the defence programme. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on what the results of this or subsequent years' examinations may be for individual capabilities or establishments.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the net effect on Exmoor farming incomes of changes he proposes to hill livestock compensatory allowances for the next year.

  Mr. Curry
  The conditions of the HLCA scheme are determined on the basis of national statistical data and it is not possible to measure the impact on different localities.

  Average net farm income on LFA livestock farms in the United Kingdom

  Severely Disadvantaged Area

  Disadvantaged Area1

  All LFA

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  Nominal terms

  Real terms

  2Year

  £ thousands per farm

  3Index

  3Index

  £ thousands per farm

  3Index

  3Index

  £ thousands per farm

  3Index

  3Index

  1982–83

  —

  112

  172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112

  172

  1983–84

  —

  98

  143

  —

  412

  595

  —

  108

  159

  1984–85

  —

  112

  157

  —

  338

  465

  —

  121

  170

  1985–86

  —

  107

  142

  —

  205

  266

  —

  112

  148

  1986–87

  —

  80

  102

  —

  113

  141

  —

  82

  104

  1987–88

  —

  118

  145

  —

  218

  263

  —

  125

  153

  1988–89

  —

  145

  168

  —

  293

  335

  —

  154

  179

  1989–90

  —

  103

  111

  —

  152

  161

  —

  106

  114

  1990–91

  8.3

  87

  86

  2.8

  58

  56

  7.1

  85

  83

  1991–92

  10.4

  110

  103

  4.3

  91

  83

  9.1

  109

  102

  1992–93

  12.2

  128

  116

  4.9

  102

  90

  10.6

  127

  114

  1 The disadvantaged area was designated only in 1984.

  2 Accounting years end on average in February.

  3 1989–90—1991–92=100. Indices in real terms have been derived by deflating the nominal indices by the Retail Price Index.

  Advisory Committees
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations represented on each of his Department's advisory committees.
  202
  I have no reason to believe conditions for farmers in Exmoor are materially different from those obtaining elsewhere in the less favoured areas in England. The HLCA reductions were taken in the light of increased incomes in the hill sheep sector and will in any case be more than offset by increases in ewe premium payments next April resulting from green pound devaluations and decisions taken at the December Agriculture Council.

  Farm Income
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the level of average net farm income at constant prices for(a) England. (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Curry
  Provisional estimates of net farm income in 1992 will be published shortly. Estimates for 1993 and 1994 income levels are not available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of farm incomes in(a) less-favoured areas, (b) disadvantaged areas and (c) severely disadvantaged areas, in cash terms and real terms in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Curry
  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 in nominal and real terms for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93 on farms in the United Kingdom's less favoured areas and estimated income levels for the latest available constant sample. The information given takes no account of the impact of the recent green pound devaluations. Sheep farmers in the less favoured areas can expect an additional total subsidy of at least £1.80 per ewe in respect of 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following table lists the organisations which have formal representation on each advisory body given in the annual "Public Bodies" publication, the latest edition of which relates to 1991 and is available from the Library of the House.

  However for the majority of the bodies' members are appointed on the basis of their personal expertise rather than because of the organisation by which they are employed.
  203

  Advisory body

  Organisations represented formally

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  —

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  (i) National Farmers Union (NFU)

  (ii) Transport and General Workers Union
  (T&GWU) (Rural Agricultural and Allied Workers Trade Group)

  Agricultural Statistics Consultative Committee

  (i) NFU

  (ii) Country Landowners Association (CLA)

  (iii) T&GWU (Agriculture and Allied Workers National Trade Group)

  Banana Trade Advisory Committee

  (i) Geest Industries Ltd. plc

  (ii) Fyffe Group Ltd.

  (iii) Jamaica Producers Marketing Co. Ltd.

  (iv) Windward Islands Banana Growers Association (WINBAN)

  (v) Jamaica Marketing Co. Ltd. (JAMCA)

  Committee of Agricultural Valuation

  —

  Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis

  (i) NFU

  (ii)CLA

  (iii) RSPCA

  (iv) Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

  (v) Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  (vi) Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  (vii) Flora and Fauna Preservation Society

  (viii) T&GWU

  (ix) British Veterinary Association

  (x) Mammal Society

  (xi) National Federation of Badger Groups

  Consumers' Committee for England and Wales under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  —

  Consumers' Committee for Great Britain under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  —

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  —

  Food Advisory Committee

  —

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern ireland

  —

  National Food Survey Committee

  —

  Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food

  —

  Regional Panels for the Farming Industry

  —

  Salmon Advisory Committee

  —

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  —

  Steering Group on Chemical Aspects of Food Surveillance

  —

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  (i) NFU

  (ii) British Sugar plc

  Veterinary Products Committee

  —

  Wild-caught Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce limits on consignment size for the importation of wild-caught birds to fewer than 100 birds into the United Kingdom, and if he will press for this limit to be applied in the new EC transport directive.
  204
  Mr. Soames
  We are pursuing proposals for limiting the size of consignments of wild birds with the International Air Transport Association, whose Live Animal Regulations are now mandatory under Community law. We are also pressing the European Commission to introduce proposals for further specific measures on wild birds under the directive on the protection of animals during transport.

  Fisheries Inspectors
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what access British fisheries inspectors have to all ships registered in Britain; and when they last inspected the British-registered fishing fleet based in La Coruna in northern Spain.

  Mr. Curry
  British sea fisheries officers have powers to inspect all United Kingdom and foreign-registered fishing vessels in British ports and at sea within British fishery limits.

  United Kingdom-registered ships that are over 10 m in length and land less than 50 per cent. of their catch in the United Kingdom are required to make at least four pre-notified visits to British ports in each six month period (January-June and July-December). Subject to other priority work, British sea fisheries officers check such vessels on these visits. In addition, they are subject to inspections at sea by the United Kingdom fisheries protection service.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions exist in the market in milk quotas across the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the EC milk quota regulations the permanent transfer of quota is linked to land transactions. Detailed rules governing the transfer of quota are contained in the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1991. Under these regulations wholesale quota which accounts for about 97 per cent. of milk produced in the United Kingdom is managed on a regional basis in the United Kingdom. This means that it may be transferred only within each of the eight regions which are defined under the regulations. England and Wales and the Scilly Isles are defined as one region; so too is Northern Ireland; and there are six regions in Scotland. Direct sales quota is required by EC rules to he managed on a national basis, so transfers are not subject to similar regional restrictions.

  New EC regulations will govern milk quota administration from 1 April 1993. We will be revising the United Kingdom DPQR once the new EC detailed rules have been agreed.

  Poultry Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether poultry meat inspection charges are levied at the same rate across the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The Fresh Meat and Poultry Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examinations for Residues) (Charges) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2494) require local authorities to charge for health inspection at poultry meat plants. Subject to compliance with the detailed provisions of the regulations, local authorities are entitled to recover the real costs incurred in carrying out the inspection.

  The Department carried out a detailed review of meat inspection charges in early 1992 which revealed that inspection charges varied considerably across the country. My right hon. Friend the Minister placed summary statistics collected during this review in the Library of the House in June 1992. (Hansard cols. 16–17, 8 June 1992.)

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific evidence he has concerning the spread of bovine TB from badgers to cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  Experimental control areas in Dorset and Gloucestershire, set up in 1975, provided evidence of the causal link between infection in badgers and cattle herds. Two independent reports, by Lord Zuckerman in 1980 and Professor Dunnet in 1986, concluded from the evidence obtained, under laboratory conditions at the central veterinary laboratory and from the field that badgers can and do harbour bovine tuberculosis and represent a potential threat to cattle. All cattle tuberculosis breakdowns are the subject of detailed epidemiological investigation by MAFF veterinary staff. These show that badgers are implicated in at least three-quarters of cattle herd tuberculosis breakdowns in the south-west of England.

  Farm Support
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers are in receipt of support in the less favoured areas, split into those in the severely disadvantaged areas and those in the disadvantaged areas; and what is the average amount of support which each receive under each form of support from public funds.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested in respect of livestock subsidies in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Type of support

  Number of claimants (thousands)

  Average payment at 1992 rates

  SDA

  DA

  SDA

  DA

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme

  51

  16

  £2,250

  £690

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  51

  £5,900

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  35

  £2,600

  The number of claimants does not equate precisely with the number of farmers receiving support because some claims are submitted by groups of farmers. For the sheep annual premium scheme and the suckler cow premium scheme information is available only for the less favoured areas: it is not possible to distinguish between payments made in relation to the severely disadvantaged areas and the disadvantaged areas.

  Myxomatosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the availability of vaccine against myxomatosis in pet arid commercially farmed rabbits.

  Mr. Soames
  In April 1992 the only United Kingdom product licence for a myxomatosis vaccine was surrendered by its holder. As a result no further supplies of vaccine were available once existing stocks held by veterinary practitioners were used up. Following informal discussions between the veterinary medicines directorate and vaccine manufacturers, and representations by rabbit keepers to the pharmaceutical industry, an application has
  207
  recently been received from Intervet (UK) Ltd to licence a replacement vaccine. The data supporting the application are being assessed as rapidly as possible against the standard Medicines Act criteria of safety, quality and efficacy.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of monetary compensatory amounts on inflation in British food prices; and what consideration has been given to phasing in the subsequent green pound devaluation.

  Mr. Curry
  The 7 per cent. devaluation of the green pound agreed at the Agriculture Council in November and three smaller automatic devaluations resulting from realignments within the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) were followed by a 4·4 per cent. devaluation of the United Kingdom green rate on 1 January 1993, to take it within two points of the prevailing market exchange rate in line with the rules of the new agrimonetary system. These green rate changes effectively phased in the adjustment to the new arrangements under which monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs) were abolished. It is estimated that these green pound devaluations may increase food prices by about 2 per cent. once the effects of the increases in common agricultural policy support prices have worked through.

  Under the rules of the new system, green rate devaluations (and revaluations) will take place automatically in order to keep green rates closely aligned with market rates. The market exchange rates of the currencies outside the narrow band of the ERM (currently the pound sterling, the lira, the peseta, the escudo and the drachma) will be monitored during three 10-day reference periods each month. A member state's green rate will be adjusted whenever there is a gap of more than two percentage points between green and market rates during the final reference period in a month. There will also be adjustments when the difference between the monetary gaps for any

  Average weekly earnings (adults)1 £

  Weekly upper earnings limit (UEL)

  UEL as a percentage of average earnings Per cent.

  Number of people3 Million

  Estimated effect on NI revenues4 £billion

  April

  1978

  78·60

  120·00

  152·7

  —

  —

  1992

  304·60

  405·00

  133·0

  1·7

  +0·5

  1993

  2320·00

  420·00

  131·3

  1·8

  +0·7

  Notes

  1 Average weekly full time earnings of all adults. Source: New Earnings Survey.

  2 Assumes a rise in average earnings of 5 per cent. rounded to the nearest £.

  3 The estimated number of people with earnings above the UEL but below the level which would have applied had the UEL been increased in line with average earnings since 1978–79.

  4 The estimated effect on NI revenue had the increases in the UEL since 1978–79 been by the level of earnings rather than prices. Includes effects on both employers' and employees' NICs.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing(a) the level of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions as a percentage of average earnings in 1978–79, 1992–93 and his projection for 1993–94, (b) the number of additional people who will pay national insurance contributions in 1992–93 and 1993–94 as a result of
  208
  two currencies exceeds four points in any of the three reference periods in a month. Finally, more frequent adjustments can be made to green rates when exchange rates are very volatile.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 18 and 19 January.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this quiet meeting of the Council which followed that in December under the United Kingdom presidency when decisions were taken on most outstanding issues.

  Discussion concentrated on detailed issues. It was agreed that officials would conduct a technical appraisal of the compatibility of common agriculture policy reform with the draft Uruguay round agreement.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing(a) the level of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions as a percentage of average earnings in 1978–79, 1992–93 and his projection for 1993–94, (b) the number of additional people with earnings above the national insurance contribution ceiling in 1992–93 and 1993–94 as a result of increases in the upper earnings limit by the level of prices rather than average earnings since 1978–79 and (c) the effect on national insurance revenues in 1992–93 and 1993–94 of increases in the upper earnings limit by the level of prices rather than average earnings since 1978–79.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  increases in the lower earnings limit by the level of prices rather than average earnings since 1978–79 and (c) the effect on national insurance revenues in 1992–93 and 1993–94 of increases in the lower earnings limit by the level of prices rather than average earnings since 1978–79.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.
  209

  1Average weekly earnings (adults) £

  Weekly lower earnings limit (LEL) £

  Lower earnings limit (LEL) as a percentage of average earnings Per cent.

  3Estimated number of additional contributors Million

  4Estimated effect on National Insurance revenues £ billion

  April

  1978

  78·60

  17·50

  22·3

  —

  —

  1992

  304·60

  54·00

  17·7

  0·6

  +0·5

  1993

  2320·00

  56·00

  17·5

  0·6

  +0·7

  1 Average weekly full-time earnings of all adults. Source: New Earnings Survey.

  2 The estimated additional number of people who pay National Insurance contributions and gain potential entitlement to contributory benefits as a result of increases in the lower earnings limit since 1978–79 by the level of prices rather than earnings.

  3 The estimated effect on National Insurance revenue as a result of increases in the lower earnings limit since 1978–79 by the level of prices rather than earnings. Includes effects on both employers' and employees' National Insurance contributions, but does not take account of the extra costs of contributory benefits which people are obtaining for as little as £1.12 a week.

  4 Assumes a rise in earnings of 5 per cent., rounded to the nearest £.

  War Pensions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider his decision to stop awards of war pension for noise-induced hearing loss resulting in under 20 per cent. disablement; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No, as announced in the reply to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), 17 December at columns 369–70, full and careful consideration was given to all representations before the decision was taken to proceed with the package of changes which included the introduction of a minimum level of disablement for noise-induced hearing loss.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the time taken by local authorities to process housing benefit applications from council and privately renting tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Regulations provide that authorities should process claims to housing benefit within 14 days of all the necessary information becoming available. If authorities are unable to do this they should make interim payments. Many authorities achieve the target in full. Nationally, in 1991–92, 71 per cent. of new claims from council tenants and 70 per cent. of claims from private tenants were processed within 14 days. For repeat claims the percentages were 83 per cent. and 73 per cent. respectively. All figures are an improvement on the overall figure of two thirds of claims processed within 14 days achieved in 1990–91.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of housing benefit to the private sector in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) to date in the current year; and what was the average level of benefit in (i) the private sector, (ii) the council sector and (iii) the housing association sector.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is set out in the table:
  210

  Amount of rent allowance paid or estimated (£ thousand)

  Rent allowance

  Average amount (£/week) of rent rebate

  1990–91

  1,757,071

  25·45

  19·80

  1991–92

  2,353,942

  32·57

  22·76

  1992–93

  2,883,389

  39·02

  26·73

  —1

  —2

  Notes: Separate information in respect of Housing Associations is not available.

  Rent allowance is Housing Benefit paid to the private sector and includes that paid to the housing association sector.

  Rent rebate is Housing Benefit paid to the council sector.

  Source:

  (1) Local Authority Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit subsidy claim forms.

  (2) 1990 and 1991, the Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System statistics annual
  1 per cent sample, taken in May of each year, for 1992 the quarterly caseload enquiry, as at August 1992.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce how housing benefit transitional payments will be treated in April.

  Mr. Burt
  We have always made it clear that housing benefit transitional payments which were introduced in 1988 will be reduced as increases in other benefits make them less necessary. We have, therefore, decided on a flat rate reduction of £1·50 per week in these payments for the year from April 1993. As a result, the vast majority of recipients will still gain overall in cash terms from the April uprating of other social security benefits.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines have been issued to deal with applicants suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis applying for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The disability handbook, which helps adjudicating authorities to assess medical evidence, provides information on the likely effects of myalgic encephalomyelitis on a person's care and/or mobility needs.

  Income Support
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by date for the last 12 months, the number of times his Benefit Agency's income support computer has malfunctioned.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will list by date for the last 12 months, the number of times his Benefits Agency's Income Support Computer system has malfunctioned.
  I am pleased to advise you that the time lost through computer malfunction is minimal. The Income Support Computer Service is available for 122,400 hours a year. Only 0.72 per cent. of computer time was lost in the year ended December 1992. This was a total of 882 hours and 57 minutes.
  I have appended, in chronological order, information on the incidents where there has been a loss of the Income Support computer service. The time lost on any date shown is a cumulative total for the number of incidents shown and may represent one or more offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Time lost

  Date

  Incidents raised

  Hours

  Minutes

  3 January 1992

  1

  —

  33

  7 July 1992

  1

  1

  35

  15 January 1992

  2

  5

  54

  16 January 1992

  2

  3

  44

  18 January 1992

  7

  7

  06

  19 January 1992

  3

  10

  56

  24 January 1992

  1

  1

  15

  26 January 1992

  2

  1

  16

  27 January 1992

  3

  2

  57

  28 January 1992

  2

  2

  02

  29 January 1992

  9

  27

  56

  2 February 1992

  2

  1

  18

  4 February 1992

  2

  2

  29

  6 February 1992

  1

  —

  16

  9 February 1992

  2

  3

  00

  17 February 1992

  4

  7

  35

  18 February 1992

  2

  —

  34

  1 March 1992

  2

  1

  20

  2 March 1992

  2

  3

  46

  3 March 1992

  1

  1

  05

  5 March 1992

  2

  4

  39

  8 March 1992

  2

  6

  06

  9 March 1992

  4

  6

  44

  12 March 1992

  1

  —

  03

  13 March 1992

  2

  2

  36

  18 March 1992

  2

  4

  31

  19 March 1992

  5

  12

  37

  23 March 1992

  2

  1

  16

  7 April 1992

  2

  4

  38

  8 April 1992

  1

  —

  40

  10 April 1992

  1

  —

  13

  15 April 1992

  2

  2

  20

  24 April 1992

  2

  —

  40

  28 April 1992

  2

  1

  28

  29 April 1992

  33

  28

  21

  30 April 1992

  5

  17

  43

  1 May 1992

  1

  —

  28

  6 May 1992

  4

  7

  32

  212

  Time lost

  Date

  Incidents raised

  Hours

  Minutes

  14 May 1992

  2

  2

  16

  26 May 1992

  1

  1

  00

  29 May 1992

  2

  4

  13

  7 June 1992

  1

  3

  20

  9 June 1992

  4

  2

  01

  10 June 1992

  1

  —

  41

  11 June 1992

  1

  —

  50

  17 June 1992

  1

  —

  14

  21 June 1992

  1

  1

  06

  23 June 1992

  4

  8

  22

  25 June 1992

  2

  4

  00

  26 June 1992

  2

  —

  20

  27 June 1992

  3

  2

  45

  1 July 1992

  5

  1

  05

  6 July 1992

  2

  2

  59

  7 July 1992

  4

  8

  43

  10 July 1992

  1

  —

  59

  13 July 1992

  2

  3

  15

  17 July 1992

  2

  1

  45

  18 July 1992

  2

  2

  00

  20 July 1992

  4

  2

  47

  22 July 1992

  2

  2

  04

  23 July 1992

  1

  —

  05

  24 July 1992

  12

  11

  45

  27 July 1992

  3

  3

  04

  28 July 1992

  2

  —

  55

  3 August 1992

  2

  1

  30

  4 August 1992

  4

  3

  55

  5 August 1992

  5

  9

  54

  6 August 1992

  1

  1

  00

  7 August 1992

  1

  —

  48

  13 August 1992

  1

  —

  50

  18 August 1992

  1

  —

  32

  20 August 1992

  1

  —

  47

  22 August 1992

  6

  6

  22

  23 August 1992

  2

  8

  34

  31 August 1992

  7

  22

  18

  1 September 1992

  10

  12

  40

  2 September 1992

  1

  3

  10

  9 September 1992

  8

  6

  48

  10 September 1992

  2

  1

  54

  11 September 1992

  1

  2

  27

  12 September 1992

  1

  1

  09

  14 September 1992

  5

  6

  41

  15 September 1992

  1

  —

  22

  18 September 1992

  4

  2

  10

  22 September 1992

  1

  —

  27

  26 September 1992

  3

  3

  56

  1 October 1992

  3

  —

  59

  2 October 1992

  1

  —

  39

  6 October 1992

  2

  2

  54

  7 October 1992

  2

  5

  11

  8 October 1992

  2

  —

  40

  13 October 1992

  2

  3

  35

  14 October 1992

  2

  3

  17

  19 October 1992

  32

  160

  00

  20 October 1992

  29

  37

  26

  21 October 1992

  23

  35

  52

  22 October 1992

  8

  8

  56

  24 October 1992

  14

  10

  08

  25 October 1992

  2

  —

  56

  29 October 1992

  2

  2

  077

  2 November 1992

  2

  2

  45

  4 November 1992

  1

  —

  23

  8 November 1992

  2

  1

  29

  10 November 1992

  2

  2

  37

  12 November 1992

  2

  3

  26

  18 November 1992

  1

  —

  31

  19 November 1992

  2

  1

  25

  30 November 1992

  1

  4

  20

  1 December 1992

  40

  82

  09

  2 December 1992

  8

  5

  07

  3 December 1992

  6

  11

  34

  4 December 1992

  5

  4

  06

  8 December 1992

  1

  —

  32

  10 December 1992

  21

  34

  28

  11 December 1992

  1

  2

  00

  213

  Time lost

  Date

  Incidents raised

  Hours

  Minutes

  21 December 1992

  13

  19

  21

  13 December 1992

  1

  1

  00

  17 December 1992

  2

  4

  04

  20 December 1992

  3

  4

  40

  23 December 1992

  2

  1

  13

  29 December 1992

  1

  2

  22

  31 December 1992

  1

  —

  32

  Totals

  352

  822

  57

  Social Fund
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was, for each social security office in the United Kingdom, the number of cases in the current financial year where an application for a community care grant met the criteria but the grant was refused because of budgetary constraints;

  (2) what was, for each social security office in the United Kingdom, the number of cases in the current financial year where an application for a social fund loan met the criteria but the loan was refused because of budgetary constraints.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Dennis Canavan, dated 18 January 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Social Fund applications refused on grounds of budgetary constraints.
  Details of loans and grants refused on grounds of insufficient priority by each Benefit Agency District are in the attached annex. The figures are for the period 1 April to 30 November 1992 and are the latest available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Numbers of Social Fund refusals on grounds of insufficient priority April to November 1992 (latest available data)

  District

  Loans

  Grants

  Bankside

  1,027

  169

  Barking and Havering

  605

  340

  Barnet

  572

  165

  Barnsley

  1,374

  510

  Bedfordshire

  1,025

  377

  Berkshire

  839

  258

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  976

  249

  Birmingham Heartlands

  1,044

  60

  Birmingham North West

  978

  487

  Birmingham South East

  569

  142

  Birmingham South West

  924

  351

  Blackburn and Accrington

  1,034

  286

  Blackpool

  462

  15

  Bolton

  1,160

  776

  Bradford

  1,514

  595

  Bristol Severnside

  1,106

  971

  Brunel

  1,121

  366

  Buckinghamshire

  579

  535

  Burnley and Rossendale

  640

  283

  Cambridgeshire

  870

  262

  Canterbury and Thanet

  430

  152

  214

  District

  Loans

  Grants

  Central Staffordshire

  712

  442

  Channel

  698

  194

  Cheshire North West and Central

  1,174

  645

  Cheshire South and West

  1,146

  352

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  602

  347

  City East

  587

  260

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  1,346

  66

  Clyde Valley

  1,722

  1,258

  Coatbridge

  2,214

  294

  Cornwall

  836

  507

  Coventry

  1,028

  158

  Cynon Merthyr and Rhymney Valley

  3,082

  258

  Derbyshire Central

  1,179

  365

  Derbyshire South

  484

  248

  Devonia

  621

  396

  Doncaster

  1,688

  16

  Dorset

  723

  792

  Durham North

  1,889

  253

  Durham South

  1,619

  18

  Ealing

  755

  241

  East Lowlands

  1,695

  342

  East Sussex

  340

  50

  Essex South East

  548

  346

  Essex South West

  760

  200

  Euston

  1,859

  662

  Fife

  2,046

  475

  Forth Valley

  1,534

  364

  Fulham

  1,337

  955

  Glamorgan South

  2,345

  253

  Glasgow City

  1,471

  447

  Glasgow East

  2,847

  1,161

  Glasgow Laurieston

  2,061

  258

  Glasgow South West

  1,375

  261

  Glasgow Springburn/Cumbernauld

  1,961

  1,023

  Glasgow West

  1,207

  432

  Gloucestershire

  1,224

  436

  Grampian/Shetland

  647

  228

  Gwent North and Brecon

  926

  203

  Gwyneddigion

  701

  74

  Hackney and Islington

  864

  354

  Halifax

  893

  363

  Hampshire North

  767

  188

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  449

  415

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  472

  174

  Highlands and Islands

  559

  273

  Hounslow and Kingston

  467

  333

  Hull

  2,961

  953

  Humberside South

  1,147

  279

  Irvine

  71,391

  135

  Kent North

  1,661

  243

  Kirklees

  1,247

  428

  Knowsley

  1,536

  596

  Lancaster and South Cumbria

  743

  218

  Lea Roding

  930

  317

  Leaside

  680

  256

  Leeds Aire and Wharfedale

  1,526

  631

  Leeds Ridings

  1,523

  397

  Leicester North

  955

  160

  Leicestershire South

  517

  337

  Lewisham and Brixton

  1,943

  814

  Lincolnshire East

  513

  354

  Liverpool Central

  888

  251

  Liverpool North

  1,179

  176

  Liverpool South

  1,582

  815

  Lomond and Argyll

  1,232

  209

  London Central

  306

  114

  Lothian Central

  1,038

  405

  Lothian West

  1,488

  253

  Manchester Central

  1,194

  120

  Manchester North

  697

  385

  Manchester South

  1,588

  797

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  823

  133

  Neasden

  770

  281

  Newcastle

  2,960

  733

  Newham

  1,129

  249

  North and East Hertfordshire

  501

  622

  North Cumbria

  930

  633

  North Essex

  778

  344

  215

  District

  Loans

  Grants

  North Staffordshire

  1,196

  635

  North Tyneside

  836

  210

  North Wales Coast

  982

  513

  North Yorkshire

  358

  205

  Northamptonshire

  1,018

  194

  Northumberland

  862

  117

  Norwich

  1,242

  338

  Nottinghamshire East

  909

  363

  Nottinghamshire North

  927

  372

  Nottinghamshire West

  968

  734

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  1,198

  44

  Oldham

  825

  522

  Oxfordshire

  705

  123

  Preston

  864

  352

  Renfrew

  1,451

  117

  Rother and Dearne

  1,260

  619

  South East Hants and Wight

  1,654

  298

  Sale and East Cheshire

  447

  156

  Salford District

  650

  177

  Sandwell

  823

  299

  Scotland South West

  1,432

  202

  Sefton

  1,181

  140

  Sheffield East

  2,036

  569

  Sheffield West

  1,133

  527

  Shropshire

  924

  1,073

  Solent and Forest

  1,117

  136

  Somerset

  380

  140

  South Devon

  1,622

  456

  South Downs

  677

  308

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  1,184

  383

  South West Lancashire

  1,127

  161

  South West Thames

  1,394

  519

  Stockport

  724

  251

  Suffolk

  1,062

  715

  Surrey Downs

  319

  22

  Surrey North

  1,006

  340

  Swansea

  1,012

  415

  Taff Rhondda

  855

  198

  Tameside

  1,061

  357

  Tayside

  2,500

  668

  Tees North

  2,619

  673

  Tees South

  2,493

  677

  Thameside

  972

  126

  Tyneside South

  2,559

  291

  Wakefield

  1,141

  525

  Wales West

  937

  250

  Walsall

  1,277

  163

  Warwickshire

  789

  221

  Wearside

  2,784

  471

  West Hertfordshire

  361

  324

  West Kent

  549

  114

  West Lincolnshire

  1,145

  335

  West Pennine

  1,219

  773

  West Sussex

  570

  245

  Wigan and Leigh

  770

  533

  Wiltshire

  917

  421

  Wirral

  2,064

  676

  Wolverhampton

  752

  249

  Worcestershire North

  830

  291

  Yorkshire East

  410

  95

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the target clearance rates for new claims and reviews of disability living allowance and attendance allowance to be met.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  216
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 January 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when we expect the target clearance rates for new claims and reviews of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) to be met.
  The most recent clearance performances during the month of December are 55 per cent. (DLA) and 54·4 per cent. (AA65+) against targets of 60 per cent. cleared in 30 and 35 days respectively. The numbers of new claims on hand is reducing month by month and we will continue to give detailed management attention to achievement of targets during the remainder of the current financial year.
  As far as DLA and AA65+ reviews are concerned, we are recruiting and deploying additional staff at Fylde and elsewhere to deal with the arrears. A profiling exercise is in progress to establish the effect of these extra staff against the backlog of work and expected intake and we will soon be able to predict a date for achievement of clearance targets. I will continue to take a close personal interest in the progress of performance.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of the training provided to(a) benefits inquiry line staff and (b) adjudication officers working on disability living allowance and attendance allowance, including the dates and duration of training courses provided on these benefits; what percentage of the annual training budget for these benefits has already been spent; and what plans he has to increase this budget in real terms in the financial year 1993–94 and in subsequent years.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 January 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security. You asked for details of training provided to (a) Benefits Inquiry Line staff and (b) adjudication officers working on Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance, including the dates and duration of training courses provided on these benefits; what percentage of the annual training budget for these benefits has already been spent; and what plans he has to increase this budget in real terms in the financial year 1993–94 and in subsequent years.
  Initial training for Benefits Inquiry Line staff is covered within a period of 6 weeks. In this time all trainees are given a basic awareness of all Social Security benefits. Further benefits training is given which enables the trainees to calculate comfortably various Social Security benefits, and how to use these calculations. I shall write to you again with details of the dates of these training courses.
  In addition to the basic benefits training the advisers training also incorporates:

  Disability awareness

  Listening in—(trainees listen to calls with an experienced adviser)

  Supervised calls—(trainees take first calls with experienced advisers)

  217

  Telephone techniques

  A visit to a District office.

  Training for Adjudication Officers based on the Fylde DLA Unit began in November 1991. There were approximately 7 courses running at any one time with 12 people on each course between November 1991 and March 1992. The duration of each course is 22 days.

  At the Fylde Attendance Allowance Unit (AAU) seven courses were held and were attended by 70 adjudication officers. Six courses of 4 weeks duration were held for existing staff and one course lasting 6 weeks for new entrants. The dates of these courses were

  6 January 1992 to 31 January 1992 (2 courses)

  17 February 1992 to 13 March 1992

  17 February 1992 to 27 March 1992

  27 April 1992 to 25 May 1992

  7 September 1992 to 2 October 1992

  5 October 1992 to 30 October 1992.

  Training for adjudication staff for both benefits in the DBCs was mainly undertaken during January, February and March 1992. The courses were held on different dates and locations but were all approximately five weeks in length.

  On the question of training budgets, for DLA 73 per cent. of the annual training budget has been spent as at the end of December. For AA this figure is 88 per cent. It is too early to say what the training budget will be for the financial year 1993–94 and subsequent years.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average number of inquiries received each day on applications for disability living allowance by(a) the hotline established to serve hon. Members and (b) other units of his Department since the benefit was introduced; what is the current backlog of applications for the allowance; what is his target date for clearing this backlog; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is (a) the target and (b) the average length of time taken to determine an application for the disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 January 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security. You asked what is the average number of enquiries received each day on applications Disability Living Allowance by (a) the hotline established to serve honourable Members and (b) other units of his Department since the benefit was introduced; what is the current backlog of applications for the allowance what is his target date for clearing this backlog. You also asked what is (a) the target and (b) the average length of time taken to determine an application for the Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  Significant numbers of individual customers have contacted offices of the Benefits Agency concerning the delay in their payments. Information is not available on the precise number of representations received but I can assure you that we endeavour to answer enquiries as quickly as possible. The average daily number of enquiries received on the hotline established for honourable Members to use is 35. This is over the period 6 July 1992 to 8 January 1993.
  On the question of target clearance times I should explain that the Benefits Agency introduced a standard performance
  218
  measure across benefits some time ago. This is expressed in terms of clearance targets by x per cent. of claims cleared in y days rather than average clearance times as was previously the case. The most recent clearance performances during the month of December are 55 per cent. for DLA and 54·4 per cent. for AA65+ against targets of 60 per cent. cleared in 30 and 35 days respectively.
  The numbers of new claims on hand is reducing month by month and we will continue to give detailed management attention to achievement of targets during the remainder of the current financial year. I have expressed my regret for the delays which occurred following the introduction of this new benefit. I am pleased to say that claim levels for Disability Living Allowance have stabilised and work on hand has now reduced to normal levels.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Fraud Investigators
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are employed by his Department specifically to investigate fraudulent claims.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The investigation of social security fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 18 January 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many people are employed by his Department specifically to investigate fraudulent claims.
  The complement for 1992–93 for staff specifically to investigate fraudulent claims is 2,853, however all staff are expected to identify fraudulent claims and may be involved in an investigation.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Hospital Closures
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the legal provisions regarding consultations by health authorities and trusts with elected representatives and members of the public on proposals to close hospitals or reduce the numbers of beds in hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities are required to consult their local community health council (CHC) or councils when substantial changes in local services are under consideration. There is no similar requirement for national health service trusts to consult CHCs. However, as a matter of course, NHS trusts discuss proposed service changes with their purchasers. If appropriate, the health authority would then consult the relevant CHC.

  Skin and Allergic Disorders
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will estimate the annual cost to the national health service for prescribed drugs in the categories(a) drugs acting on the skin and (b) drugs for allergic disorders;
  219
  (2) how many people were using national health service prescribed drugs as (a) drugs acting on the skin and (b) drugs for allergic reactions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available on the number of people using national health service prescribed drugs which act on the skin and for allergic disorders. The number of prescriptions dispensed in England in 1991 for drugs in these categories and the relevant net ingredient cost is as shown.

  Prescriptions (thousands)

  Net ingredient cost (£ thousands)

  Drugs acting on the skin

  28,255

  108,383

  Drugs for allergic disorders

  5,519

  22,637

  The figures include prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Community Supervision Orders
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people she expects to become subject to a community supervision order in 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  No decision has been taken to introduce a community supervision order for psychiatric patients. The case for this is one of the issues to be considered by the official team referred to in the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 13 January at column 731.

  Mental Illness
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the timing and costs of full implementation of the care programme policy for mentally ill people, including the costs of necessary psychiatric services.

  Mr. Yeo
  We required all district health authorities to implement fully the care programme approach from 1 April 1991 and we have received assurances from regional health authorities that this has been done. The Department and the regional health authorities are monitoring progress.

  The introduction of the care programme approach in itself imposed no new costs on either health or local authorities as it embodied existing good professional practice.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she is taking to monitor the application of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983;

  (2) how many people are subject to the provisions of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and what is the current cost of its implementation for each regional health authority.

  Mr. Yeo
  The implementation of section 117 of the Act is reviewed by the Mental Health Act Commission as part of its programme of visits to health and social services. In its fourth biennial report, published in December 1991, the commission reported that most health authorities and social services departments had completed their policies and procedures for the implementation of section 117.
  220
  The services which this section of the Act requries authorities to provide for formerly detained patients form part of the general provision of services for mentally ill people in the community and we do not collect separate figures about them. Under the care programme approach introduced in April 1991 all patients using these services, whether or not they have been detained in hospitals, are required to have an individual care programme and a named key worker.

  Blyth Valley (Patient Numbers)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of patients per general practice in Blyth Valley.

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

  Practice

  List size

  1

  12,656

  2

  12,645

  3

  12,356

  4

  8,822

  5

  6,867

  6

  5,677

  7

  4,664

  8

  4,264

  9

  4,208

  10

  4,168

  11

  924

  12

  633

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments have been undertaken of the number of patients potentially contaminated with Creutzfeldt Jakob disease as a result of surgery within the NHS.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 November 1992 at column 504.

  Mental Health Task Force
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the names, qualifications and experience of the members of the mental health task force.

  Mr. Yeo
  The membership of the mental health task force and its support group is in the process of being finalised. A copy of the full list of members of the group will be placed in the Library when it has been completed.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospital trusts had by 31 December 1992 completed their contracts for the period to 31 March for elective treatments in(a) orthopaedic surgery, (b) ENT, (c) general medicine and (d) general surgery.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be saved by expanding the selected list of drugs that cannot be prescribed under the national health service to her proposed new categories.
  221
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The savings from extending the selected list scheme will depend on the specific changes made to the list of drugs which cannot be prescribed under the national health service. These will be made only on the recommendation of the independent Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and cannot be predicted in advance.

  Supported Lodgings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) in Nottinghamshire and (b) nationally were classified as being looked after in supported lodgings by reason of being cared for by the carer in the carer's own home on (i) 1 January 1991 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally.

  Community Care
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are expected to be discharged into the community from Winterton and Kyhope Cherry Knowle hospitals in the coming year; how many were discharged in 1990, 1991 and 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Northern Regional health authority, for details.

  Doncaster Health Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and trusts in Doncaster in 1991–92; how much each received as salary and expenses; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairmen of health authorities and national health service trusts and the non-executive directors of NHS trusts in Doncaster are as follows:

  Body

  Chairman

  Non-executive directors

  Doncaster DMA

  Mr. J. G. Smith

  Doncaster FHSA

  Mr. K. Jones

  Doncaster Royal

  Mr. C. Bryant

  Mr. G. A. Brown

  Infirmary and Montagu Hospital Trust

  Mr. M. A. Mitchell

  Mr. J. H. Pickup

  Mrs. R. M. Cottrell

  Mrs. E. Sparrow

  Doncaster Healthcare Trust

  Mr. P. Horsburgh

  Mr. L. Lucas

  Mr. J. Millar

  Miss C. Fleming

  Mrs. M. Spencer

  Mr. J. Liversedge

  District health authority and family health service authority members are appointed by regional health authority chairmen.

  All health authority members and NHS trust non-executive directors receive remuneration of £5,000 per annum.

  DHA, FHSA and trust chairmen are remunerated annually according to a banding system as follows:

  1 April 1991:

  Band 1—£18,935

  222

  Band 2—£16,835

  Band 3—£14,850

  1 December 1991:

  Band 1—£19,285

  Band 2—£17,145

  Band 3—£15,125

  Health authority chairmen and members and trust chairmen and non-executive directors are entitled to have, where appropriate, expenses refunded, but details are not held centrally.

  Unemployment and Ill Health
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has made on the association between unemployment and ill health.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are fully aware of the extensive research literature about the association between unemployment and ill-health. This literature includes analysis of the respective contributions of unemployment itself and of the related variables of social class, poverty, age and pre-existing ill-health. Studies also indicate the value of preventive health care and of social support of unemployed people and their families.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned into the risks to the health of persons under the age of 18 years of the indiscriminate use of anabolic steroids.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has commissioned no research specifically into the risks to the health of persons under the age of 18 years of the use of anabolic steriods. However, in October 1991 we commissioned Professor G. V. Stimson, Director of the Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, to undertake a study into the extent of misuse of anabolic steriods. The report of this study has just been received by this Department and is currently being considered.

  Weight Training
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned into the risk to the health of persons under the age of 18 years of(a) weight lifting and (b) weight training; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Health Centres
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the Hambros bank into the funding of health centres is to be published.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The report has been received by the Department and its recommendations are now being considered. We shall announce our proposals for action in due course.

  Azapropazone
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the side effects of azapropazone; how many cases of such side effects have
  223
  come to her attention; what consideration the Committee on Safety of Medicines is giving to this matter; and what central guidance on the side effects has been given to general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The safety of all licensed medicines, including azapropazone, is constantly monitored by the Medicines Control Agency. As part of this process, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) operates a yellow card scheme for physicians to report suspected adverse reactions to drugs. Under this scheme, CSM has received 2,041 reports of adverse reactions which may be associated with azapropazone. A report of a suspected reaction in association with a drug does not necessarily mean that the drug caused the effect reported. Azapropazone belongs to a group of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used in the treatment of rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders. More reports of suspected adverse reactions are received in association with this group of drugs than any others, reflecting their wide usage.

  A number of studies are being conducted comparing the relative safety of different NSAIDs. CSM will be reviewing these studies when the results become available and, if necessary, will issue advice to prescribers. It has been recognised for some years that NSAIDs can cause serious gastrointestinal reactions such as bleeding and perforation of ulcers. This problem was drawn to the attention of doctors by the CSM in articles in the British Medical Journal in March and May 1986 and in its bulletin "Current Problems No. 16" issued in 1986. No specific guidance has been issued by CSM regarding the side effects of azapropazone. Information is available to physicians in the British National Formulary, which the Department issues free of charge to all prescribers, and in the data sheet for products, which are produced by the manufacturers and authorised by the licensing authority.

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

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what percentage of patients currently residing in special hospitals in England and Wales an assessment has shown that they could more appropriately be dealt with in gaols or other forms of accommodation.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. One hundred and fourteen special hospital patients, or 7·5 per cent. of the total, were awaiting transfer to other facilities on 31 December 1992. Six of these were awaiting transfer to prison.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 she requires to be made by local authorities and health departments for mentally disordered offenders.

  Mr. Yeo
  Section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 requires local authorities, in 224
  consultation with health authorities, to prepare and publish plans for the provision of community care. Section 47 of the Act requires local authorities to involve district health authorities in the assessment of need for those people in their areas who are identified as requiring community care services. These would include services for mentally disordered offenders who require them.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what maximum figure she intends to set for the combined total public funding available after April to individual disabled people to live in their own homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  I do not intend to set a maximum figure for the amount that health and local authorities may spend in helping people live in their own homes.

  Dentists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists went bankrupt during 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. However, the Dental Practice Board has confirmed that during 1992 it received notices of bankruptcy in respect of nine dentists.

  Health Authority Meetings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require health authorities to publish the agenda for matters to be considered in private; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. Whether and when to exclude the press and general public is a matter for the authorities themselves to decide. However, authorities are expected to conduct their business in as open a manner as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received for transfers from prisons in Scotland to Northern Ireland, from(a) loyalist prisoners, (b) republican prisoners, (c) men and (d) women; and how many of each of these applications have been accepted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is as follows:

  Number of requests (no women applied)

  Agreed

  1985

  3

  2

  1986

  1

  1

  1987

  3

  —

  1988

  2

  1

  1989

  1

  —

  1990

  15

  2

  1991

  24

  1

  1992

  5

  33

  1 One withdrawn.

  2 Two withdrawn.

  3 One still under consideration.

  225
  Prisoners in Scotland are not classified by reference to the political or other motivation of their offences.

  Revised criteria for interjurisdiction transfers were announced in the Official Report, 23 November 1992, columns 476–77.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount he expects to be saved from the current civil legal aid budget resulting from the Government's proposals for each of the next five financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The purpose of the proposed changes announced on 16 November is to ensure the continuation of reasonable access to legal aid for the most needy, while at the same time taking action to control the rate of growth in legal aid expenditure. The proposed changes are expected to reduce forecast expenditure on civil legal aid by between £2 million and £3 million in 1993–94 rising to around £5 million in 1997–98. Total expenditure on legal aid will, however, continue to increase and in financial year 1995–96 it is expected to be 40 per cent. higher than the planned expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, under the Government's new legal aid proposals, applicants will be required to make continuous contributions over the full life of the case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the Government's proposals a person granted civil legal aid in Scotland after 1 April 1993 will not be required to make continuous contributions over the full life of the case.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish detailed proposals regarding changes in civil legal aid and civil advice and assistance schemes in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Draft regulations will be laid before the House in the spring.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of contributions will be required in civil legal aid cases under the Government's new legal aid proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the Government's proposals a person receiving civil legal aid will be required to make a maximum contribution of up to one third of the amount by which his disposable income exceeds the lower free limit for civil legal aid.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the maximum income level for obtaining free advice and assistance for legal aid applicants from April 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The maximum disposable income level for obtaining free advice and assistance has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his estimate of the proportion of the adult population of Scotland which after 1 April will be eligible for(a) legal advice and assistance and (b) legal aid, for civil purposes on a nil contribution;

  (2) what is his estimate of the proportion of the adult population of Scotland which after 1 April will be eligible for (a) legal advice and assistance and (b) legal aid for civil purposes irrespective of the level of contribution;
  226
  (3) what is the proportion of the adult population of Scotland currently eligible for (a) legal advice and assistance and (b) legal aid for civil purposes on a nil contribution;

  (4) what proportion of the adult population of scotland is currently eligible for (a) legal advice and assistance and (b) legal aid, for civil purposes irrespective of the level of contribution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Given the variations over time in individuals' circumstances it is not possible to estimate with any precision the proportion of the adult population eligible for legal aid.

  Analyses of data from the family expenditure survey suggest that in Scotland the percentage of households which would be eligible for civil legal aid under the proposed changes to eligibility criteria would be in the range of 45 to 55 per cent. with between 20 and 30 per cent. free of contributions. Similar figures would apply to advice and assistance. This represents a reduction of between 5 and 10 per cent. of the households currently eligible in financial terms.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with relevant parties and bodies prior to his announcement of 16 November 1992 of reduced access to civil legal aid and legal advice and assistance in Scotland; and how many legal applicants are likely to be affected by the announced changes after 1 April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: No detailed consultations were held before the announcement on 16 November 1992, but discussions have since taken place with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland.

  Given the variations over time in individuals' circumstances it is not possible to estimate with any accuracy how many legal aid applicants are likely to be affected after 1 April by the proposed changes but I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to the questions by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last five years for which figures are available the number of civil legal cases which occurred in sheriff courts in Scotland by category of case, indicating the percentage increase over the period for each category.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Figures for the number of ordinary cause, summary cause and small claim actions disposed of in sheriff courts in Scotland are set out in the table. The percentage increase or decrease between 1987 and 1991 is also shown except for small claims where the figure relates, to the period 1989 to 1991.

  Ordinary cause

  Summary cause

  Small claims

  Total

  1987

  47,555

  121,996

  —

  169,551

  1988

  47,735

  109,745

  —

  157,480

  1989

  46,232

  51,881

  62,520

  160,633

  1990

  49,308

  41,941

  83,119

  174,368

  227

  Ordinary cause

  Summary cause

  Small claims

  Total

  1991

  54,512

  44,758

  87,769

  187,039

  Percentage Increase/ Decrease 1987–1991 (1989–1991 for Small Claims)

  +14.6%

  –63.3%

  +40.4%

  +9·7

  Civil Legal Actions in Sheriff Courts

  Subject Matter

  Average Cost Per Case to Scottish Legal Aid Fund

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Divorce 2 year separation (Pursuer)

  452·80

  450·99

  459·59

  490·13

  573·71

  Divorce 2 year separation (Defender)

  443·22

  481·89

  478·10

  461·12

  641·20

  Divorce 5 year separation (Pursuer)

  460·08

  481·90

  488·15

  512·80

  600·38

  Divorce 5 year separation (Defender)

  552·34

  784·43

  711·73

  717·31

  770·64

  Divorce Other Grounds (Pursuer)

  644·13

  638·36

  698·93

  749·27

  814·21

  Divorce Other Grounds (Defender)

  607·42

  620·85

  714·81

  724·24

  831·41

  Separation

  536·30

  661·24

  703·21

  781·59

  789·94

  Aliment

  475·46

  464·17

  472·27

  486·48

  476·98

  Husband and Wife Miscellaneous

  491·26

  459·54

  513·84

  551·07

  622·15

  Affiliation/Aliment

  501·41

  561·13

  627·91

  635·51

  664·75

  Custody

  529·35

  481·81

  606·60

  635·49

  683·25

  Adoption

  305·85

  272·64

  267·62

  354·04

  563·55

  Parent and Child Miscellaneous

  478·10

  526·26

  635·11

  575·14

  711·56

  Reparation

  673·71

  890·29

  1,058·76

  1,011·98

  1,405·83

  Diligence

  —

  102·25

  213·25

  3,010·33

  686·44

  Other

  —

  348·59

  408·50

  450·68

  502·10

  Total

  560·22

  534·50

  603·55

  636·59

  699·11

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Her Majesty's Government expects to save in civil legal aid expenditure in Scotland from 1 April as a result of the changes announced on 16 November 1992 in financial eligibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The purpose of the proposed changes announced on 16 November 1992 is to ensure the continuation of reasonable access to legal aid for the most needy, while at the same time taking action to control the rate of growth in legal aid expenditure. Depending on the detailed circumstances of the individual cases involved, the proposed changes are expected to reduce forecast expenditure on civil legal aid in future years by between £2 million and £3 million. Total expenditure on legal aid will, however, continue to increase and in financial year 1995–96 is expected to be 40 per cent. higher than the planned expenditure for the current financial year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average contribution paid by legal aid recipients in each category of civil legal action over the past five years for which figures are available.
  228
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average cost per case to the civil legal aid budget in each category of civil legal actions occurring in sheriff courts in Scotland over the past five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information is not readily available in the form requested.

  Over 80 per cent. of those receiving civil legal aid are not required to pay any contribution. The average contribution paid by recipients of civil legal aid falling within the contributory band in the financial years 1987–88 to 1991–92 is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Average contribution £

  1987–88

  486·46

  1988–89

  342·88

  1989–90

  262·50

  1990–91

  228·95

  1991–92

  321·12

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take in the light of the absence of the lodging of the geographical survey, relevant to the Skye bridge contract, with the British Geological Survey; what legal force is ascribed to the relevant section
  229
  of his Department's "Road's Directorate Invitation to Tender" document in this respect; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The arrangments for the various tenderers to undertake a joint geological investigation and ultimately to lodge the factual results of their survey with the British Geological Survey is a roads directorate contractual requirement not a legal requirement. This practice is undertaken on trunk road projects whereby the information provided by public expenditure is made available for general use. There is no prescribed time limit for the lodging of such information and it is done at an appropriate time, often at the conclusion of the construction works.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allowance he has made for the extent of public subsidy to Caledonian Macbrayne Ltd. after the loss of Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin ferry fares income to the company when the Skye bridge opens; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The company's corporate plan for 1992–95 contains assumptions on cost savings and loss of revenue which are likely to occur upon the discontinuation of the Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin ferry service. My right hon. Friend has taken these assumptions into account in making provision for deficit subsidy for the company within the planning period. My right hon. Friend does not consider it desirable to make public such commercially-sensitive information.

  Caledonian Macbrayne Ltd.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the public subsidy given in each of the last 10 financial years to Caledonian Macbrayne Ltd.; what proportion this subsidy represented of the total income of the company; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  Deficit subsidy

  Turnover

  Deficit subsidy as percentage of turnover

  1981–82

  5·800

  17·5

  33·1

  1982–83

  6·115

  17·6

  34·7

  1983–84

  6·650

  19·2

  34·6

  1984–85

  6·987

  21·0

  33·3

  1985–86

  7·500

  22·3

  33·6

  1986–87

  7·400

  23·1

  32·0

  1987–88

  6·900

  23·8

  29·0

  1988–89

  6·540

  25·4

  25·8

  1989–90

  6·280

  26·9

  23·3

  1990–91

  5·722

  28·6

  20·0

  1991–92

  5·800

  31·7

  18·3

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is made available to him by Caledonian Macbrayne Ltd as to(a) the profitability of individual ferry routes and (b) the extent to which there is cross subsidisation of fares within the network; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The scale fare system which has been operated by Caledonian MacBrayne since 230
  1975 generalises costs across the network as a whole and produces network-based information about costs, fares income and deficit subsidy requirements. The new CFARES fares setting system which the company is in process of introducing will be based upon route-specific infomation about costs, surpluses and deficits.

  As a consequence of this change from network-based information to route-specific information, Caledonian MacBrayne makes available to my right hon. Friend an increasing amount of information about costs, surpluses and deficits incurred on individual routes. Since deficit subsidy is paid to meet the operating loss incurred by the company in providing a network of approved services, there is some cross subsidisation of services within this arrangement.

  However, the overall deficit of £6,050,000 likely to be incurred by the company this year in operating the network indicates that the majority of the company's routes are unprofitable. My right hon. Friend does not consider it desirable to make public commercially-sensitive information about operating costs, surpluses or deficits incurred on individual routes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his target timespan for responding to letters received from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) on 2 December 1992 at col.183.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and addresses of justices of peace serving the district of Renfrew; and what plans he has to make further appointments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As for other commission areas, my right hon. Friend is advised on the need for new appointments as justices of the peace for the commission area of Renfrew by the Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace for that area. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible about the further information he requests.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of household units(a) making application for and (b) being awarded homeless persons status in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest complete information is published in table 1 of "The Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin 'Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland 1980/81 to 1991/92, Housing/ 1992/6'," which is available in the House Library.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the aims and objectives of the competition on measures to deal with homelessness referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing on 16 December 1992; if he will list the likely competitors; and what criteria he will apply in judging any submissions.
  231
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All local housing authorities in Scotland were invited to submit proposals by 11 December for the additional £7.5 million housing capital allocations in 1992–93 for projects to tackle homelessness which I announced in November. When proposals were invited, it was made clear that priority would be given to projects assisting homeless one-parent families and those housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Forty-eight local authorities submitted proposals and I announced the successful projects on 23 December. The extra £7.5 million will fund 59 projects in 48 local authorities to provide accommodation for over 470 homeless people.

  City Status
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are applied in determining applications by Scottish towns for city status; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  City status in Scotland, which has no statutory significance, derives from royal charters granted by the Monarch. There are no formal criteria. No such charter has been granted for over a century.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on rights of way in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any plans to make a statement on rights of way in Scotland at present.

  Scottish Natural Heritage issued on 13 January a consultation paper entitled "Enjoying the Outdoors" which considers arrangements for access to the countryside in Scotland, including rights of way. It will report the results of its consultation exercise to me in due course and I shall consider then any recommendations which it may make.

  Polling Stations (Access)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make available resources for the purchase of(a) static and (b) portable ramps to improve access to polling stations;

  (2) what resources he made available in the last financial year for (a) static and (b) portable ramps to improve access to polling stations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Finance is available from the consolidated fund to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of providing temporary ramps for polling stations to assist access by disabled voters. As elections are held only infrequently in comparison with the other uses made of buildings designated as polling stations, there is no justification for central Government to meet the full cost of providing either permanent ramps or the full cost of temporary ramps from election funds.

  The Secretary of State assumed responsibility for financing parliamentary elections in Scotland on 22 August 1991. No applications for support towards the cost of providing ramps at polling stations were made by
  232
  Scottish returning officers in the remainder of that financial year; one such application has been made, successfully, in the current financial year.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received about the future of water and sewerage services in Scotland since July 1992; how many of these were letters from(a) individuals and (b) organisations or institutions; what is his estimate of the number of signatures appended to any petitions he has so far received; how many representations were (i) for and (ii) against taking these services out of the control of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To date, a total of 6,311 representations has been received. This includes 5,154 pre-printed postcards, 142 responses to the consultation paper and 1,015 other representations. There have been 1,056 letters from individuals and 101 from organisations or institutions and 23 petitions carrying 5,372 names.

  An analysis of responses to the consultation paper will be made after the end of the consultation period.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses to representations about the future of water and sewerage services in Scotland have been issued since July 1992(a) by him, (b) by Ministers, (c) by the engineering, water and waste directorate of the Environment Department and (d) by other representatives of the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To date, 5,703 responses have been issued. Ministerial replies have been given to 112 representations; the engineerin, water and waste directorate of the Scottish Office environment Department has replied to 5,528; and 13 which dealt with matters in addition to the future of water and sewerage services have received replies from other parts of the Scottish Office.

  "Investing in our Future"
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the engineering, water and waste directorate of the Environment Department to advise where copies of the consultation paper "Investing In Our Future" may be obtained free of charge when it is responding to representations from members of the public.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The consultation paper is issued to everyone who expresses an interest in receiving it or in participating in the consultation process.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland where copies of his consultation paper "Investing In Our Future" may be obtained free of charge by members of the general public.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The consultation paper can be obtained from the Scottish Office environment department, water restructuring division, room 203A, 27 Perth street, Edinburgh EH3 5RB.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will instruct the engineering, water and waste directorate of the Environment Department to
  233
  advise where copies of the consultation paper "Investing in our Future" may be obtained free of charge when it is responding to representation from members of the public.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It is standard practice in replying to representations to draw attention to the availability of the consultation paper. The address from which copies of the consultation paper may be obtained has been given wide publicity, and all letters informing the public that the paper is available carry that address and telephone number.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1992,Official Report, column 133, when he plans to announce the appointments made to vacancies which will arise on Argyll and Clyde health board on 31 March; what consultations he is undertaking or has undertaken prior to his decisions; what plans he has to consult hon. Members representing constituencies within the health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce shortly appointments to fill vacancies arising in Argyll and Clyde health board. The consultation required by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 has been carried out and the views of the health board chairman have been taken. There are no plans to consult hon. Members representing constituencies within the health board area; it is open to hon. Members, as some indeed have done, to suggest names for possible appointment to health boards.

  Name

  Occupation

  Salary

  Estimated Time Commitment

  Sir James Mellon KCMG (Chairman)

  Former Diplomat

  £35,330

  3 days per week

  John Richards CBE, PPRIAS (Deputy Chairman)

  Architect with John Richards Associates

  £16,055

  1½ days per week

  Norman Lessels CA

  Partner in Chiene and Tait, also non-executive Chairman of Standard Life Assurance Company

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  Mrs. Frances McCall MBE

  Chairperson of the Confederation of Scottish Housing Co-operatives

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  Professor Duncan MacLennan

  Director of the Centre for Housing Research at Glasgow University

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  Tom Begg JP, BA, OBE

  Lecturer in Economics at Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  Mrs. Heather Sheerin OBE

  Co-Director of family-owned retail carpet business

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  Mrs. Daphne Sleigh

  Freelance Market Researcher

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  Cameron Parker

  Non-executive Vice-Chairman of Lithgows Ltd

  £6,140

  ½ day per week

  In addition the chief executive, Peter McKinlay, is an ex-officio member of the board. His salary is linked to civil service grade 2.

  Public Housing (Windows)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has available on the need to replace metal-framed windows in public sector housing in Scotland; what financial provision he has made for the programme in the current and future financial year: and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have received no reports specifically on the need to replace metal-framed windows.

  Local authorities and other public sector housing landlords can carry out the replacement of metal-framed windows as part of their capital programmes if they see this as a priority in comparison with other housing needs. Gross capital expenditure resources available for public sector housing in Scotland in 1992–93 are estimated to be £549 million. An equivalent estimate for 1993–94 will not be available until decisions are taken on the allocation of Scottish Homes' budget and final capital allocations to local authorities are announced in March.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the(a) name, (b) occupation, (c) honoraria, salary or allowance and (d) estimated time commitment of each member of the board of Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Paisley (City Status)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to award the burgh of Paisley city status.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no such plans.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans to consider the wheel clamping of vehicles in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Appeal Court judgment of 12 June 1992 determined that wheel-clamping a vehicle on private land and demanding money for its release is a crime. There are statutory provisions which would authorise the police and parking attendants to clamp vehicles illegally parked on public roads. The power in relation to the police is exercisable by statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State at the request of a regional or islands council. The power has not so far been exercised in Scotland. The power in respect of parking attendants will not be brought into force until the operation of similar powers in London has been evaluated.

  Health Service
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and location of intensive therapy units in Scotland; and how many organ donors have arisen in each during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Stewart
  At 30 September 1992 there were 24 NHS intensive therapy units in Scotland. These are as listed.

  NHS hospitals in Scotland with intensive therapy beds
  (by health board)

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board —

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board —

  Ayr Hospital

  Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock

  Borders Health Board —

  Borders General Hospital, Melrose

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board —

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Dumfries

  Forth Valley Health Board —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  Grampian Health Board —

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  Greater Glasgow Health Board —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  Glasgow Western General

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow

  Southern General Hospital, Glasgow

  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  Highland Health Board —

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  Lanarkshire Health Board —

  Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride

  Law Hospital, Carluke

  Monkland District General Hospital, Airdrie

  Lothian Health Board —

  St. John's Hospital, Livingston

  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  Tayside Health Board —

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  Stracathro Hospital, By Brechin

  236
  Information on the numbers of organ donors in each unit is not collected centrally.

  The number of organ donors, by region, in the period January 1992 to December 1992 was as follows:

  Number

  West of Scotland

  58

  East of Scotland

  Edinburgh

  13

  Dundee

  12

  Aberdeen

  20

  Total

  103

  Weapons Control
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation on the control of offensive and lethal weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As I indicated in my response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 16 December at columns 423–24, we shall be consulting shortly on this issue with a view to legislating at the first available opportunity.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he made available in the last financial year to enable(a) local authorities, (b) Scottish Homes, (c) housing associations, (d) housing cooperatives, (e) owner-occupiers, (f) tenants in the private-rented sector, (g) universities and colleges and (h) other housing providers to finance the installation of smoke alarms; if he will issue a circular to the providers of public housing encouraging the installation of smoke alarms; if he will introduce legislation to require smoke alarms to be fitted in all homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Resources are not earmarked to finance the installation of smoke alarms. Local authorities and other housing providers have substantial capital resources available to them which can be used for smoke alarms where they see this as a priority compared with other needs. The Scottish Office Environment Department wrote to all local housing authorities in 1991 and 1992 highlighting the contribution which smoke alarms can make to the saving of lives, and encouraging authorities which have not already completed a smoke alarm installation programme to include this in their forthcoming capital programmes.

  We intend shortly to lay before Parliament an amendment to the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 and the technical standards for compliance with these regulations which will require all new dwellings to be provided with mains-operated smoke alarms.

  Mr. Thomas Adleigh
  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish ambulance service is to hold a disciplinary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Thomas Adleigh of 27 Glencairn road, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.
  237
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: No. Disciplinary matters are for the management of the Scottish ambulance service in the first instance and thereafter by the Board of the Common Services Agency as the statutory employer. The report prepared by the general manager of the Scottish ambulance service on the ambulance response to this patient does not indicate any grounds for disciplinary action against any member of staff. I have arranged for a copy of this report to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a full public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Thomas Adleigh of 27 Glencairn road, Paisley, to include the general effectiveness of ambulance services in the Argyll and Clyde health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: Until my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has reached a decision as to whether a fatal accident inquiry into the death of Mr. Adleigh should be held, it is not appropriate to consider whether any other form of formal inquiry should be undertaken into the service within Argyll and Clyde health board area.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the emergency response time of ambulance crews is calculated by the Scottish ambulance service; what changes there have been to the method of calculation during the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: The calculation of the response time of ambulance crews is made on the basis that the time begins from the moment the 999 call is answered by the control officer until the ambulance crew arrives at the side of the patient. Previously the calculation began when the vehicle started the journey to the patient.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available for public inspection the logged, written and audio records for emergency calls and consequent responses from depots of the Scottish ambulance service controlled from within the Argyll and Clyde health board area from 1 November 1992 until 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: On request, the general manager of the Scottish ambulance service will make available all written and audio records of emergency calls and responses from ambulance stations to legitimate inquirers, subject to appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy and confidentiality of patients. If the hon. Member contacts the general manager he will make the appropriate records available.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy for the Scottish ambulance service to restore the shift patterns operating in the Argyll and Clyde health board area prior to October 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: Shift patterns are an operational matter and are the responsibility of the management team led by the general manager of the Scottish ambulance service. I understand
  238
  that these are based on historical level of demand at different times of the day and night. They are kept under review and are adjusted to take account of new patterns of demand. Revised shift arrangements were introduced in October following a careful assessment of the likely demand at various times of the day.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of ambulance staff in Scotland employed by the NHS in the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, using whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The number of ambulance staff was as follows:

  Year

  Ambulancemen/women

  Ambulance officers and control assistants

  Total

  1987

  1,751·0

  181·0

  1,932·0

  1988

  1,789·7

  188·0

  1,977·0

  1989

  1,793·2

  220·0

  2,013·2

  1990

  1,802·7

  220·0

  2,022·7

  1991

  1,963·0

  223·0

  2,186·9

  The figures exclude administrative and clerical staff and other support staff employed by the Scottish ambulance service.

  Royal Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what salary, allowance or honorarium will be paid to(a) the chairman and (b) the members of the trust board of the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley; what budget these will be drawn from; which services are covered by that budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: The chairman of the trust board of the Royal Alexandra hospital will receive remuneration of £17,145 per annum and non-executive directors will receive £5,000. In addition the chairman and members are entitled to claim travelling and subsistence allowances at rates set for members of public bodies. These costs will be met from the trust's contract income.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the reduction in turnover experienced by dental practices in Scotland as a result of the Government's recent changes in method of remuneration.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: There have been no recent changes in the method of dentists' remuneration. Since the introduction of the new dental fee scale in July 1992, turnover as reflected in gross income received by dentists in Scotland, which includes fees paid to dentists by health boards and charges collected by dentists from patients, has been at a higher level than in the comparable period for the previous year. From July to November 1992—the latest month for which figures are available—the total gross fees authorised to dentists (which include the value of charges paid by patients) were £56,379,000, compared with £56,316,000 for the same period in 1991.
  239
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount paid to dental practitioners in Scotland over the past three years at constant prices together with the planned level of expenditure for the next three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The remuneration received by dentists in Scotland for provision of NHS services as reflected in the total gross fees authorised for payment to dentists (which include the value of charges paid by patients) is shown in the table for the last three financial years. Estimates of expenditure for future years are not yet available.

  Year

  Gross payments to dentists £ million

  Gross payments to dentists at 1991–92 prices £ million

  1989–90

  94·393

  108·971

  1990–91

  111·463

  119·165

  11991–92

  132·822

  132·822

  1 Figures for 1991–92 reflect the fact that dentists' average gross earnings for NHS work were significantly higher than the target average gross income (TAGI) set for that year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the assumptions used by his Department when seeking to estimate the fixed costs of a dental practice.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: No such estimate is made by the Department. Average national health service dental practice expenses in Great Britain are estimated each year by the dental rates study group and full reimbursement of these costs to dentists on an average basis is included in dental fees.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many courses of dental treatment were undertaken in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The figures for 1991 and the preceding four years are contained in the table. The figures from 1 October 1990 are for adults only as under the new dental contract introduced from that date children are now treated under capitation arrangements to provide continuing care, and information is not recorded on individual courses of treatment. The number of children registered with a dentist under these arrangements at the end of the calendar years since October 1990 is shown separately in the table. The number of courses of dental treatment undertaken in Scotland for 1992 is not yet available. To the end of November 1992 —the latest month for which figures are available—a total of 2.357 million courses of adult treatment had been undertaken, and a total of 0.72 million children were registered with dentists.

  Million

  Number of courses of treatment

  Number of children registered (as at December)

  1987

  2·987

  n/a

  1988

  3·053

  n/a

  1989

  3·144

  n/a

  1990 January to September

  2·316

  n/a

  1990 October to December1

  0·545

  0·29

  1991

  2·485

  0·66

  1 New contract for General Dental Services introduced on 1 October 1990.

  240
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the method of arriving at payments for courses of dental treatment, materials and laboratory fees.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Dentists' remuneration for national health service work is set by a process of several stages. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) recommends a target average net income (TANI) which it considers dentists should earn from providing national health service general dental services, and the Government decide to accept or amend the recommendation and sets the TANI. The dental rates study group (DRSG) then forecasts the level of dentists' expenses (including materials and laboratory costs) for the coming year and adds this figure to the TANI to produce the target average gross income (TAGI).

  The DRSG then applies a balancing mechanism to the TAGI figure to correct for any over or underpayments to dentists in previous years as a result of differences between forecast expenses and earnings and actual figures, and produces the amount due to the average dentist. Finally the DRSG forecasts the amount of national health service work that dentists will undertake in the coming year and sets the scale of individual payments and fees at a level that, taking account of the forecast amount of work, will deliver the TAGI due to the average dentist.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from dentists in Scotland regarding the current system of remuneration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend has received a wide range of representations from dentists. The Government recognised the concern about the current system of dental remuneration and therefore commissioned Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to undertake his fundamental review of that system. Dentists were invited to contribute to the review.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental practices in each health board area have opted out of national health service dental treatment in the last 12 month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: According to information held by health boards, in the last 12 months one general dental practitioner in Fife health board area and one in Tayside health board area have left their dental lists because they no longer wish to provide national health service dental treatment.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which towns in the Borders health board area dental practices have gone private in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: According to information held by Borders health board, in the last 12 months no general dental practitioner has left the Borders health board dental list in order to provide private treatment only.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Bloomfield review committee to report on the future system of remuneration for dentists.
  241
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Ministers have now received Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report on his fundamental review of dental remuneration.

  Drugs and Alcohol
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the establishments in Scotland which provide residential facilities for(a) those with alcohol problems and (b) those with drug problems; if he will show for each establishment (i) the capital grant and (ii) the total revenue grant provided by his Department in each of the last five years; and if he will provide estimated figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information on residential facilities for alcohol misusers is contained in The Scottish Council on Alcohol publication, "Alcohol Services in Scotland" and for drug misusers is

  Table 1

  Grants awarded under section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 Residential Establishments

  Establishment

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev1 £

  Cap1 £

  Alcohol

  Albyn House, Designated Place Aberdeen

  45,909

  —

  3,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deeford House Aberdeen (also covers drug misuse)

  11,400

  —

  600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Beechwood House, Designated Place Inverness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,750

  3,349

  150,000

  97,132

  —

  101,652

  —

  Glasgow Council on Alcohol (Designated Place)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,521

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drugs

  Simpson House Edinburgh

  32,977

  —

  8,233

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Drugs Action

  47,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drugs Problems Resources Group, Kilmahew Place, Glasgow

  25,269

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Drugs Action

  —

  —

  40,370

  —

  2,485

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Red Towers Drugs Project, Helensburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Estimated.

  Note: No figures are yet available for 1993–94.

  Table 2: Grants awarded under the urban programme Residential Establishments

  Establishment

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Rev £

  Cap £

  Alcohol

  Alcohol counselling/lodging houses, Glasgow

  23,616

  —

  25,482

  —

  29,124

  —

  2,351

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anchor House, (Cyrenians), Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,608

  12,456

  22,000

  —

  58,906

  330

  61,557

  —

  West Lothian supported accommodation (residential hostel)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,669

  103,545

  37,881

  Drugs

  Brenda House extended care, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,635

  —

  106,605

  Notes: No figures are yet available for 1993–94.
  242
  contained in the Scottish Drugs Forum/Health Education Board for Scotland's "Register of Helping Agencies", copies of which I am arranging to place in the Library.

  Funding for residential establishments is provided directly and indirectly by the Scottish Office from a number of sources. Most funding for residential establishments is provided locally by local authorities and health boards either from funds specifically allocated for drug misuse or from their general allocations. Details of funding from all these sources could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  It is possible to provide information on the limited funding which is available from the Scottish Office for alcohol and drugs projects, including residential facilities, undertaken by voluntary sector organisations working in the social care field under section 10(1) of The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and of the funding which is available under the urban programme. Details of the residential establishments benefiting under these schemes are set out in the tables.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) clerical and administrative staff in the NHS in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

  September

  1989

  1990

  11991

  1 21992

  (a) Headcount Nursing and midwifery3

  74,949

  74,573

  75,068

  73,625

  Managerial4 6

  800

  1,072

  1,315

  1,659

  Administrative and clerical5

  16,617

  17,136

  17,679

  18,429

  (b) Whole time equivalent Nursing and midwifery3

  64,452·3

  63,687·2

  63,503·0

  61,658·8

  Managerial4 6

  797·6

  1,064·5

  1,301·3

  1,642·6

  Administrative and clerical5

  14,425·3

  14,859·3

  15,282·8

  15,850·7

  1 1991 and 1992 figures include staff of the State Hospital.

  2 Data for September 1992 are provisional.

  3 Nursing and midwifery includes qualified, unqualified and in-training staff. The decrease in numbers between 1991 and 1992 is largely accounted for by Project 2000 student nurses who are not included in the figures.

  4 The 1989 figure includes administrative and clerical staff on grade 18 and above; the 1990–92 figures include grade 7 and above.

  5 Includes control assistants and ambulance officers.

  6 Part of the increase in numbers in this group is accounted for by the transfer of some professional staff to senior manager grades.

  Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston Bypass
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Messrs Wimpey on the proposed Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Until such time as a public inquiry is held for a scheme, it is not the Department's practice to make public representations received by parties affected by the scheme. However, Wimpey Homes Ltd is not an objector to the published bypass proposals.

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answers of 15 December 1992,Official Report, columns 169–70, when Scottish Natural Heritage will write to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer, 18 January 1993]: Scottish Natural Heritage will write to the hon. Member by the end of January. Work related to the MV Braer incident in Shetland has delayed the collection of relevant information.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which fox and deer hunts have been issued with licences or permits to hunt live quarry on Forestry Commission land.
  244
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: The Forestry Commission has issued the following hunts with licences or permits to hunt on Forestry Commission land.

  Fox Hunts

  Ashford Valley Hunt

  Banwen Miners Hunt

  Barlow Hunt

  Barton Hunt

  Beaufort Hunt

  Belvoir Hunt

  Bewcastle Hunt

  Bicester Hunt with Wheddon Chase

  Bilsdale Hunt

  Blankney Hunt

  Blencathra Foxhounds

  Border Hunt

  Brocklesby Hunt

  Cambridgeshire Hunt

  Chiddingfold, Leaconfield and Cowdray Hunt

  Cleveland Hunt

  College Valley Hunt

  Coniston Foxhounds

  Cottesmore Hunt

  Crawley and Horsham Hunt

  Cumberland Farmers Foxhounds

  Cumberland Foxhounds

  Curre Hunt

  Derwent Hunt

  Duddon Valley and District Hunt

  East Essex Hunt

  East Kent Hunt

  East Sussex and Burstow Hunt

  Eskdale and Ennerdale Foxhounds

  Essex Hunt

  Farndale Hunt

  Fitzwilliam Hunt

  Gelligaer Farmers Hunt

  Goathland Hunt

  Grafton Hunt

  Grove and Rufford Hunt

  Hampshire Hunt

  Haydon Hunt

  Hodder Valley Foxhounds

  Hurworth Hunt

  Isle of Wight Hunt

  Liddesdale Hunt

  Llangeinor Hunt

  Llangibby Hunt

  Melbreak Hunt

  Middleton Hunt

  Milvain Hunt

  Monmouthshire Hunt

  Morpeth Hunt

  North Lonsdale Foxhounds

  North Norfolk Harriers

  North Tyne Hunt

  Oakley Hunt

  Ols Surrey and Burstow Hunt

  Pennine Foxhounds

  Pentyrch Hunt

  Percy Hunt

  Puckeridge Hunt

  Saltersgate Farmers

  Sinnington Hunt

  Southdown and Eridge Hunt

  South Notts Hunt

  South Pembrokeshire Hunt

  South Wold Hunt

  Staintondale Hunt

  Suffolk Hunt

  Surrey Union Hunt

  Talybont Hunt

  The New Forest Foxhounds

  Thurlow Hunt

  Tredegar Farmers Hunt

  Tynedale Hunt

  United Pack Shropshire

  West Norfolk Hunt

  245

  West Percy Hunt

  West Somerset Vale Foxhounds

  Woodland Pytchley Hunt

  York and Ainsty North Hunt

  Ystrad Hunt

  Deer Hunts

  Quantock Staghounds Hunt

  The New Forest Buckhounds

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when an application for a permit to hunt on Forestry Commission land was last refused.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: In November 1990 the Forestry Commission refused an application for a permit to hunt deer in Buckland wood in Devon, as this is an area where deer hunting is not a traditional activity.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when a permit to hunt on Forestry Commission land was last withdrawn.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: The Forestry Commission has no record of a permit to hunt being withdrawn.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what charge is made for a permit to hunt on Forestry Commission land.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: No charge is made for a permit to hunt on Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vehicle permit applications to the Forestry Commission to follow hunts have been(a) refused and (b) withdrawn in the latest period for which figures are available; and what are the terms and conditions of such vehicle permits.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993] The Forestry Commission only issues vehicle permits to follow three hunts in Yorkshire and two hunts in south-east England. The conditions are listed in the permits, an example of which has been placed in the Library. Some permits to hunt also give authority for a specified number of vehicles to follow the hunt. No record is kept of applications which have been refused or not renewed; the Forestry Commission has no record of a permit being withdrawn.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what charge is made for a vehicle permit from the Forestry Commission to follow a hunt.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: The Forestry Commission makes no charge for a vehicle permit to follow a hunt.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring procedures are in force to ensure the conditions of vehicle permission from the Forestry Commission to follow hunts are adhered to.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: Some hunts provide vehicle stewards who are responsible for ensuring that only authorised vehicles enter Forestry Commission land. In addition, Forestry Commission staff carry out random checks on hunt days to ensure that the conditions of the permits are being followed.

  Forestry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he is making in preparing(a) draft national or regional programmes and (b) zonal plans under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2080/92 instituting an aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: To receive Community part-financing of forestry grant-aid under Council Regulation No. 2080/92, member states have to submit national or regional programmes describing their forestry aid schemes to the European Commission, which will decide whether they comply with the objectives and conditions of the regulation. Preparation of zonal plans is entirely optional.

  The Forestry Commission is currently preparing a draft national programme for the United Kingdom, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish and Welsh Office Agriculture Departments, and this is expected to be submitted to the European Commission in the spring. We will not be producing either regional or zonal plans.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a statement clarifying the chief medical officer's statement to the Evening Times (Glasgow) on fluoridation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 17 December at column 457 to his two earlier questions on this matter.

  Heritage Coastline
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many kilometres have been designated as heritage coasts; and what proportions this represents of the total Scottish coastline.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: The designation of heritage coast is not used in Scotland. Important coastal areas are protected by other landscape and conservation designations and through development plans.

  Smokers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total number of habitual smokers in Scotland by regional and island council area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: In 1990 —the latest year for which information is available—the general household survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) indicated that 34 per cent. of the Scottish population aged 16 or over were cigarette smokers. Information broken down by region or island council is not available.

  Smoking is the single most important contributor to ill-health in Scotland. It is a high priority for health

  247
  education and last autumn the Health Education Board for Scotland launched major campaigns directed at young people and adults. My right hon. Friend also announced
  248
  a number of other steps to combat smoking in the policy statement "Scotland's Health—a Challenge To Us All" which he published last July.

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

Former Yugoslavia: Refugees
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect a refugee crisis on a scale similar to that seen in Bosnia to occur in other areas of the former Yugoslavia, particularly Kosovo and Macedonia, and if so what steps they are taking to prevent it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the possibility of unrest and of refugee crises in Kosovo and Macedonia is of major concern. Missions from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe are in both areas and a UN peacekeeping presence has already been deployed in Macedonia. The aim is to increase political stability and minimise the risk of conflict.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving us that reply. Does she agree that in the former Yugoslavia it is not so much a war but more a massive slaughter of the innocents? I do not believe that there has been anything like it in European history. The Kosovo Albanians, for example, are not allowed to have jobs, are denied the use of their own language and may be subject to ethnic cleansing. Bearing in mind that many of the crimes committed are crimes against humanity, will the Minister tell us what progress there has been towards enabling the International Law Commission create an international criminal court? Does she agree that if we had an international criminal court many of these matters could be brought to the attention of more nations than is possible at the moment, and would help to prevent this appalling situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would care to ask that same question during the next Question.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is Serbian aggression, above all, which is likely to create refugees, and that only the threat, and, if necessary, the application, of firm sanctions is likely to deter such aggression? Does she agree that it was only the threat of such firm sanctions that allowed real progress to be made at the recent Geneva talks?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question is, basically, yes; but aggression can come from many sources. In answer to his second point, UN Security Council Resolution 787 of 16th November tightens the existing sanctions regime and allows the stop and search of all suspect vessels in the Adriatic and on the
808
Danube. It also clamps down on the transhipment of strategic goods through Serbia and Montenegro and is already having a marked impact on the Serbian economy.
With regard to the last part of my noble friend's supplementary question, we welcome the acceptance by Yugoslav President Cosic and Serbian President Milosevic of the Owen/Vance proposals and their work in influencing Karadzic also to accept them. Their compliance with the peace proposals will be judged by the influence that they continue to exercise.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister regard the Asylum Bill as an adequate response to the crisis?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not believe that that has anything to do with this Question.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the Minister should read the Question. It refers specifically to a refugee crisis. The Asylum Bill deals with refugees. The question therefore seems to me to be wholly relevant.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I can give HMG's policy on refugees. Those who express a fear of returning home will continue to he sympathetically considered in line with the UNHCR call on governments to provide temporary protection to those fleeing the former Yugoslavia. No one from the conflict area in the former Yugoslavia, whether or not they apply for asylum, will be forced to return.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the debt we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Cyrus Vance for their painstaking efforts to achieve some stability in the region?
Baroness Trumpington: Gladly, my Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for this country to announce that it is willing to accept large numbers of refugees would merely play into the hands of the oppressor in Yugoslavia?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this country has a proud record as regards refugees. It would be wrong to turn away anybody wishing to leave their country, whether they applied for citizenship or merely for asylum.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the way to prevent refugees from Kosova and Macedonia is to achieve a political settlement to the problems as a whole? When do the Government expect to hear the result of the decision being taken by the so-called Serbian parliament?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the agreement was that we should hear within a week. We are awaiting that decision.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reference to peacekeeping forces does she accept that many people who have studied the situation closely are worried because there does not appear to be a great deal of coherent strategic policy behind our handling of the various crises? Does she

809
also agree that, if we are to continue to contribute to the military forces which are intervening in the various crises, we should again review our defence policy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is wide of that on the Order Paper. Foreign military action would not solve the underlying political problems. The situation in Bosnia is not comparable with an invasion by a foreign military power. It has many aspects of a civil war.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that is precisely the question I asked? There are British forces in the former Yugoslavia and my question related largely to them and to our intervention in other areas.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to the refugee crisis and whether it will spill over into other areas. It has nothing to do with military forces.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Question also contains the words:
"and if so what steps they are taking to prevent it".
Is it not true that if the firm measures, including the threat of military force, had been applied originally the tragedy in Sarajevo would have been prevented? Does the Minister agree that as a signal to the Serbs firmness of purpose is more important than anything else?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what we must do now is deal with the situation that is facing us. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Cyrus Vance are doing their best to resolve that situation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the argument about Macedonia relates merely to the name that the area will have? People are being killed over that argument. Does the Minister agree with Mr. Malcolm Rifkind that the efforts of British troops in those areas have been magnificent? May we put on record our appreciation of those fine efforts? Does the Minister agree that the Government must push ahead with the Americans to try to stop the awful slaughter and match the endeavours of British troops in order to help all the people who are suffering so abominably?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we discussed the issue of Macedonia prior to Christmas. Our policy remains as stated in the Lisbon Declaration of June 1992. It was then agreed that the signatories were ready to recognise the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under any name which did not include the word "Macedonia". I repeat that the Question does not refer to military forces. However, I am glad to be able to pay tribute to what our troops are doing in a peacemaking role.

Former Yugoslavia: War Crimes
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are now making with other governments to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and to interrogate persons accused of committing them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on 14th January 1993 the EC Foreign Affairs Council agreed to support the creation of a Yugoslav-specific international criminal court at the UN to try cases of war crimes. In the longer term the International Law Commission of the UN has been mandated by the UN General Assembly to draft a statute for an international criminal court with universal jurisdiction.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. In order for any effective action to be taken on the evidence being collected by the United Nations commission in former Yugoslavia, should not such an international court be established to try persons accused of recognised international crimes, including those in the 1949 Geneva Conventions? That is now possible because the Soviet Union no longer exists to oppose it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is exactly what we are trying to do. For instance, the abhorrent practice of ethnic cleansing constitutes a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of civilians in time of war, and ethnic cleansing contravenes that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, while the reply which my noble friend has given is wholly satisfactory can she go a little further? We have heard twice in this House that a statute is being negotiated. Does my noble friend agree that there is some urgency in setting up the international court with powers of arrest, trial and sentence? Will my noble friend elaborate on the progress of the negotiations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, United Nations Security Council Resolution 780 called for the establishment of a commission of experts to examine, analyse and investigate the information on war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia submitted under the previous United Nations Security Council Resolution 771. The perpetrators of such outrages must be left in no doubt about the fact that they will be held individually responsible for their actions. That United Nations commission of experts will report to the United Nations Secretary General at the end of this month with its findings and recommendations for further action.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a question of first catch your hare?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I asked those briefing me that very question. The answer that they gave me is that there is no guarantee that the states

811
involved in the conflict in former Yugoslavia will hand over those accused of war crimes to stand trial before a Yugoslav specific international criminal court. If that happens, it will be for the international community to bring pressure to bear through the UN on states which refuse to comply. I hope that that satisfies my noble and learned friend.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said yesterday that the findings of the Warburton mission prompted Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in setting up a criminal court to remind the perpetrators of such atrocities that they are personally responsible. What initiative do the Government have in mind apart from the one about which the noble Baroness has already told us?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Kingdom has co-ordinated arrangements for the CSCE's mission to visit Serbia to investigate charges by Bosnians that Moslem prisoners are being held there. That mission is now in Serbia. Also, the CSCE chairman in office has been drafting a statute for an ad hoc tribunal to try cases of war crimes committed in former Yugoslavia. That is being carried out in consultation with the United Nations commission of experts.
Lord Richard: My Lords, therefore, do I take it that there is no specific British initiative in mind other than that conducted through the UN about which the noble Baroness has already told us?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, because the CSCE is part of the European picture.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that one of the problems about singling out the former Yugoslavia for war crimes investigations is that one lays oneself open to a charge of selectivity given that, unfortunately, war crimes, albeit less widely publicised ones, have taken place in a great many parts of the world ever since the end of World War Two?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not to agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the suggestion in the press that the setting up of war crimes trials might be negotiated away in favour of political settlement? Does she agree that that is totally unacceptable and that it would only encourage people in other countries to commit the same sort of crimes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have not read that in the press but, as I said before, the perpetrators of outrages must be left in no doubt that they will be held individually responsible for their actions. That is the nub of the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we are given to understand that investigations are taking place in the Falkland Islands into British soldiers who are alleged to have committed war crimes in the Falkland
812
Islands. Would they be subject to trials by a United Nations commission on war crimes? I sincerely hope not.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would care to table a Question on that very subject.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, does my noble friend agree that an international court of the kind that I have advocated would deal with international war crimes in any part of the world? Since at present war crimes trials have to be held within the jurisdiction of an individual country—no longer identifiable in the case of former Yugoslavia —would not the early prospect of an international court be a deterrent to those now engaged in ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, unravelling the picture as regards the crimes has been complicated. There are two separate issues. The first is a permanent court, which is what the United Nations is looking at. Secondly, the United Nations is looking at a specific Yugoslav court. There will be a report on that soon. I hope, as my noble friend does, that action will ensue.

Executive Agencies
2.56 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many executive agencies will be in existence on 1st April 1993; and whether they propose to make any changes in the structure of government to take account of this development.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, there are currently 76 executive agencies in existence, together with 30 executive units of Customs and Excise and 34 executive offices of the Inland Revenue which operate fully on Next Steps lines. A further 13 agencies are expected to be launched during April 1993. The agency programme has involved significant organisational and cultural changes in the way government departments work. However, the legal position of the operations concerned is unchanged and Ministers remain fully accountable for them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. In view of the fact that such a substantial amount of work has been transferred from the day-to-day responsibility of Ministers, will there be a reduction in the number of junior Ministers in order to obtain value for money?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the question of Ministers is a matter for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. However, it is worth pointing out that in his original report Sir Robin Ibbs indicated that he thought that Ministers were overworked and overloaded. He envisaged that the creation of agencies would allow Ministers to concentrate more on strategic and longer-term issues rather than the day-to-day management issues.

813
Therefore, Sir Robin Ibbs did not envisage what the noble Lord suggests, but that is a matter for the Prime Minister.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that we are grateful for anything which means that the Government will concentrate on long-term aims and strategy? Is it right that by April of this year the number of civil servants in Next Steps agencies will amount to 60 per cent of the total strength of the Civil Service? Is he really satisfied that the rules and restrictions applicable to civil servants will continue to apply to those working in Next Steps agencies?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting that we might be able to concentrate on longer-term issues. I hope that I can have his co-operation in those matters in future months. I do not want to bandy figures. My brief says that currently nearly 300,000 civil servants—over half the total—are working in those agencies, so our figures are not very different. I am satisfied that they remain civil servants. They are covered by Civil Service long-term pay agreements. I believe that they can continue to exercise all the responsibilities of a civil servant while working in a Next Steps agency.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, in view of the fact that the agency that has Rosyth dockyard is being considered in relation to the repair and refit of the Trident nuclear submarine, will the noble Lord make sure that the Prime Minister understands that Rosyth dockyard is entitled to be and should be kept open for the refit of the Trident nuclear submarine in order to preserve that agency?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord has lost none of his ingenuity in the many years that I have known him. However, his question enables me to repeat that policy decisions are still matters for Ministers. The policy with regard to the issue, about which I know nothing at this stage, is a matter for Ministers and is not a matter for the agency.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one way in which the use of executive agencies can lead not only to greater efficiency in government but also to more democracy in government is that where possible they should be subject to a governing body of people appointed from outside who have an outside view, have lay experience and sometimes specialist experience? One of the functions of such a governing body would be constantly to consider the continued need for, relevance of and priority to be accorded to the existence of the operations of the agency.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have a deal of sympathy with what my noble friend says. I am not sure whether it is for me to be sure about the exact way in which to achieve that knowledge and experience from the outside within these agencies, but I think my noble friend will agree that the appointment of chief executives has been a good help in that way. Of 90
814
chief executive appointments to date, 58 came from within the Civil Service by open competition and 32 came from outside the Civil Service, so there is a leavening of outside experience as well as making use of the best from inside.
Lord Richard: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House reject the suggestion implicit in the question of his noble friend, which is that Next Steps agencies should be responsible to governing bodies? Will he confirm that they will continue to be responsible to Ministers, and therefore continue to be accountable in Parliament?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, they will continue to be responsible to Ministers, and Ministers will continue to be accountable to Parliament. That is absolutely true. That is not to say that there is not a considerable degree of advice and experience from the outside world which could usefully be sought and used in delivering better services to the taxpayer and to the consumers of these services.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I accept what the Leader of the House has said about the position of the Prime Minister in this matter, but would he not agree that, given the fact that many thousands of public servants have lost their jobs in the last few years in order to achieve value for money, it would seem a little odd to many that one group of people who are excluded from this particular consideration are politicians?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the object of the exercise is to get better services to the public, to make it better for the staff within the agencies, and to get benefit to the taxpayer. They are very worthwhile tasks, and I believe that it will be of great benefit to Ministers, who are better able to concentrate on longer-term issues. While it is, I repeat, in fact a matter for the Prime Minister—and I agree with the Prime Minister—I do not believe that it is inherent in the creation of these Next Steps agencies that there would be less work for Ministers.

BBC: Senior Executive Appointments
3.2 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether all the members of the BBC Board of Governors were fully consulted about the recent appointment of two senior executives of the corporation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, senior executive appointments are matters for the BBC.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, did the four governors present, out of a total of 12, ask Liz Forgan, who as programme controller of Channel 4 never hid the fact that she rejected the impartiality needs and even the codes of conduct ordained by the ITC, whether henceforward she would in her new appointment accept the rules laid down in the 1981 and 1990 Acts and also in the BBC Codes of Conduct?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a question that really ought to he addressed to the chairman of the BBC and not to the Government. I understand that all appointments to the management board are approved by the board of governors of the BBC.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the BBC, and I welcome the Minister's reply. Does he agree that it would be utterly ridiculous to have all 12 governors interviewing for appointments to senior executive positions? It has normally been the position in the BBC—and this was followed in this case—that the four governors concerned (including myself) are deputed by the board as a whole to do the interview. They did so in this case and made a formal recommendation to the full board, who endorsed it wholeheartedly.
May I also ask the noble Viscount whether he would condemn some of the more extravagant personal attacks on Liz Forgan which are utterly to be deplored? She was appointed because she is, as is recognised throughout the broadcasting industry, a first-class professional broadcaster. I hope that the noble Viscount will join me in condemning these attacks, particularly on the matter of impartiality, especially when they come from sources which, to put it mildly, are far from impartial themselves.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are grateful for the clear way that the noble Lord has explained the procedures that the BBC went through and that his explanation will help my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in understanding how the appointment was made. Of course these appointments are a matter for the BBC. They are not a matter for the Government.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, while there may be dissatisfaction at times at individual programmes, would my noble friend agree that there is a great deal to be said for the view that the less Parliament interferes with the BBC the better? Does he also agree that it would be an unfortunate precedent if a member of the board of governors of the BBC were expected to be answerable in matters of appointment before this House? It would be a precedent which I personally would greatly deplore.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was being helpful to your Lordships and not, as it were, formally answering for the BBC. My noble friend knows that we have published a Green Paper on the BBC which contains a number of possible options for the future. We look forward to receiving in due course all the comments from the viewers and the people involved in broadcasting on the future of the BBC.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that during the period that I was chairman of the IBA the two individuals concerned were highly regarded for their professionalism and integrity as broadcasters? The BBC is lucky to have persuaded them to join the corporation. Is it not time to end this witch-hunting?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, many people who have been trained and have worked in the BBC now work in commercial broadcasting; it is also important that people from the world of commercial broadcasting are able to join the BBC. We welcome these exchanges between both sectors of the broadcasting world.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is in the interests of this House to refer to a legitimate Question on a matter such as this as being an attack on somebody? Can we not as Members of this House probe such matters for fear that somebody may feel that they are being attacked? Could my noble friend put that right?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in a debate in this House on 2nd December various noble Lords were somewhat critical of Miss Forgan. The only thing that has happened so far as I can see is that it has been a dramatic boost to her career. Therefore, I would welcome criticisms that any noble Lord might make about myself.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, bearing in mind what has been made clear in the House this afternoon, that the proper appointment procedures were followed and that the two appointees are among the most experienced and distinguished in British broadcasting, would the Minister agree that this personal attack—the word "witch-hunting" has been used—is unworthy of this House and should stop? Would the Minister congratulate the BBC on continuing to attract the best people to the best broadcasting service in the world?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am delighted to say that we have confidence in the BBC, its chairman and its board of governors to fulfil their responsibilities.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, would my noble friend agree—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, we have been over 30 minutes and I think that we ought to move on.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the Charitable Trustees Incorporation Act 1872, the Charities Act 1960 and Part I of the Charities Act 1992. The need for this consolidating measure arises from the substantial amendments made to the earlier legislation by Part I of the Charities Act 1992. Indeed, it was during the passage through your Lordships' House of that Act that the desirability of an early consolidation was identified.
This Bill, which has been drafted by parliamentary counsel at the Law Commission, is pure consolidation and if your Lordships are content to give it a Second Reading it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I believe that I would be right in expressing the thanks of the House

817
to the Law Commission and the draftsmen for the detailed work required in preparing this consolidation. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I from these Benches say how much we welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is a measure that most people who were concerned with the passage of the Charities Act last year agreed was long overdue. We are delighted that it now makes its appearance and are grateful to the Law Commission for having helped this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in what he has said. All of us who were involved in consideration of the Charities Bill in the last Session felt that an early consolidation measure was highly desirable. We should like the noble and learned Lord to pass on our thanks to the Law Commission for having done this so expeditiously.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope I may add my modest congratulations on this Bill. It is necessary, timely and has been extremely well drafted. One welcomes the getting rid of spent provisions. If more of that were done on consolidation, a greater public service would be performed. This is a very good Bill.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have been involved with charity law over the years and I hope it is not presumptuous of me to add my word of welcome to this Bill and my appreciation of the work which has been put into its preparation. When we were discussing what is now the Charities Act 1992 in what I think was a rather successful Public Bill Committee we expressed the hope that charity law might be consolidated. However, I for one had no idea that it was going to be done so promptly.
I experienced a slight tinge of disappointment when I looked at the Bill and saw that a few islands were still left, as it were, in Part I of the 1992 Act and in the 1960 Act. But on looking at them in some detail I believe I can see why they have not been included in the consolidating Bill. No doubt that is something the Joint Committee will be looking at in due course.
The 1992 Act, for which this House was fully responsible, was a useful measure. It will be of enormous help to all those practising in this field to have the impact of that Act on the existing law set out in this clear and comprehensive measure. It is indeed greatly to be welcomed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the warm welcome that this Bill has received. Perhaps it is a mark of the success that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, claims for the Public Bill Committee that its desire for consolidation has been acted upon so quickly. I shall be happy to pass on to the Law Commission the views that have been expressed by your Lordships this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a short one and has two main purposes. First, it introduces a 1 per cent. additional rebate for holders of personal pensions who are aged 30 or over. This was promised in the Government's manifesto. Secondly, it provides for the availability of a Treasury grant to the National Insurance Fund as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his Statement in another place on 12th November 1992. I shall, of course, say more about the precise provisions in the Bill during the course of my speech, but first it may be helpful to the House if I say something about the background to the measures.
The present arrangements for personal pensions were established by the Social Security Act 1986 and came into force in 1988. It is fair to say that the success of the policy has surprised even its staunchest advocates. Nearly 5 million people have taken out personal pensions since 1988. It is also worth bearing in mind that despite predictions to the contrary this has not been at the expense of occupational pension schemes. The overall number of people in occupational pension schemes had been relatively static for many years. The 5 million personal pension holders are largely additional to the 11 million occupational scheme members.
The success of personal pensions has generated a committed flow of funds for investment, thus building up assets which will pay pensions in the future. This can be compared with the state scheme which is run on a pay-as-you-go basis and where this year's contributions pay for this year's benefits. There is no investment to pay for tomorrow's pensions, whereas the 5 million people who have taken out personal pensions are investing in the future and will ease the burden of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme for future generations.
Personal pensions have proved particularly attractive for younger people encouraging them to make their own provision rather than to rely solely on the state. More than half of all personal pension holders are under 30 while more than 80 per cent. are under 40. Many younger people who have taken out personal pensions will have had no access to an occupational scheme. Personal pensions have given them an alternative to the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme.
However, the flat rate nature of the current contribution rebate arrangements for contracting-out has meant that the advantages of personal pensions are greater for younger people. This is because the benefits from a personal pension depend, among other things, on the return on investment which accumulates steadily over time. The return from a flat rate rebate paid to a younger person therefore has longer to accumulate than the return from a similar rebate to an

819
older person. The current flat rate rebate system encourages individuals to contract back into SERPS as they get older. That cannot be right.
I therefore come to the precise proposals in Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1(1) provides for a 1 per cent. addition to the contribution rebate for those aged 30 and over. It does so by amending the provisions in the Social Security Act 1986 which set out the amount of the minimum contributions paid to an earner's personal pension scheme. It will apply to those who are 30 or over at the beginning of the tax year commencing this coming April and to those who are over age 30 at the beginning of any future tax year. As indicated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, the annual cost is estimated to be about £165 million from 1994/95. This cost will fall on the National Insurance Fund from 1994–95 because, in order to reduce the burden on employers, minimum contributions are paid by DSS direct to personal pension providers after the end of the tax year. We estimate that about 2 million personal pension holders will benefit.
The 1 per cent. additional rebate is a temporary measure which is intended to ensure that the majority of personal pension holders continue to find it worthwhile to maintain their pensions in the short term.
For the longer term we will be considering proposals for replacing the present flat rate rebate structure and the 1 per cent. additional rebate by an age related system which is intended to be in place from April 1996. We will be looking at the rebate structure not only for personal pensions but also for money purchase and salary related occupational schemes. As part of the review we will be consulting widely with all interested parties including industry and consumers' organisations.
I now turn to the second aspect of the Bill; a Treasury grant to the National Insurance Fund. As the House will be aware, in a pay as you go scheme, the balance in the National Insurance Fund is influenced by the state of the economic cycle. A slowdown in the economy has an adverse effect on both income and outgo; contribution income tends to fall while expenditure on benefits rises. The House may already have studied the detailed position as set out in the Government Actuary's report on the financial provisions of the Bill which was laid before the House last November. The report shows that the fund will carry forward a surplus balance of some £3.6 billion in April, but that this will be more than dissipated by the projected shortfall between income and expenditure in 1993–94. Current legislation makes no provision for the fund to go into deficit. So, without legislation of the sort now before the House it would be necessary either to curb entitlement to benefits or to increase national insurance contributions.
As the House will be aware, despite the tight financial situation, my right honourable friend was able to announce on 12th November last year that all main benefits are to be increased in line with inflation from April and that national insurance contribution rates would not be changed apart from the usual
820
adjustments for inflation. My right honourable friend's proposals have been widely welcomed but it does mean that we need to introduce measures to ensure that the fund is kept in balance. It is therefore proposed to make additional resources available to the fund by means of a new grant from the Consolidated Fund in 1993–94 and which will be available in future years if needed. As my noble kinsman Lord Russell reminded the House on 12th November, it is not a new idea to assist the fund by means of a transfer from the Consolidated Fund.
The National Insurance Fund was originally set up with income from employers, employees and the state, but the former Treasury supplement which the Government abolished in 1989 was outdated and inflexible. The fund had to take a supplement whether it needed it or not, even when it was in surplus. The grant proposed by the Bill is more suited to today's needs. It is flexible; it is not automatic; it will be called upon only when needed.
Clause 2 contains the detailed provisions for the Treasury grant. The House will note that slightly different arrangements are proposed for 1993–94 than for later years, but they are based upon the well-established principle in managing the National Insurance Fund that we should plan its finances for the year ahead with the aim of maintaining a prudential minimum balance of some two months of benefit expenditure. The Government Actuary has advised that such a figure will represent an entirely adequate safety margin if events turn out differently from forecast.
In the current year, the balance has fallen below the two month level and we expect to carry forward the equivalent of just over a month's benefit expenditure at April 1993. That is not a cause for concern. The balance is fulfilling the very purpose for which it was designed. But it does mean that in order to plan for a two month balance at April 1994 we need to recover that lost ground. That is why the maximum amount of grant proposed for 1993–94 is higher than for subsequent years.
The House will note that the maximum grant available for 1993–94 will be 20 per cent. of estimated expenditure on benefits—nearly £8 billion. In later years the maximum will be 17 per cent.
I should emphasise the flexibility of the approach. No grant will be payable unless my right honourable friend makes an order after consultation with, and with the consent of, the Treasury.
As with a re-rating order, the order will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses and will set the percentage of grant which is to be available for the year concerned. But my right honourable friend will not be obliged to draw the full amount set by the order; he may determine to draw less as the fund may require. I expect that any order would be debated by the House at the same time as the usual annual proposals for changes to national insurance contributions.
There are just two further points I should like to make. First, the grant represents a transfer of money

821
within the public sector to meet existing expenditure commitments. It therefore has no effect on overall public expenditure.
Secondly, there has been some concern that the amount of grant may prove to be insufficient to keep the fund in balance, given that my right honourable friend proposes to draw very close to the maximum available in the first year.
I have explained why the sum needed in 1993–94 is rather higher. I very much hope that we shall not need to draw anything like the maximum in later years. But whatever happens the House will recognise, I am sure, that the grant cannot be expected to guarantee the fund's solvency in all circumstances. The existing measures available to adjust the various rates, thresholds and limits in the contributions system must remain available, and it will be for consideration at the time as to which measures are most appropriate to keep the fund in balance.
In the debates in another place, my right honourable friend referred to the passage of 50 years since the Beveridge report. He noted that Beveridge considered that the state should, in establishing a national minimum, provide room and encouragement:
"for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family".
The measures that we propose on personal pensions are designed to do just that. The new grant will maintain the National Insurance Fund on a firm footing while offering greater flexibility with appropriate accountability to Parliament.
I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the Bill. As he told us, the Bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1986, which came into effect in 1988. That Act sought to downgrade the attractiveness of SERPS, for ideological rather than financial reasons as we shall see, while at the same time privileging private sector pensions by giving them a 2 per cent. incentive—or bribe—over and beyond the actuarially appropriate rebate to encourage people to switch out of SERPS into the private sector.
The 1986 Act succeeded all too well. It threw so much money at the private pension option that, as the Minister told us, far more people than expected took advantage of it. Such loss-leader arrangements have now contributed to the deficit in the National Insurance Fund.
The Bill which is before us today, far from abolishing such bribes, proposes within the private pension world to privilege private pension schemes over occupational schemes, to the disquiet of the pensions industry. To the cost of those incentives and bribes has been added the deeper problem, mentioned by the Minister, of mounting unemployment which has reduced contributions to the fund while increasing its commitments. That is no accident; it is the price of
822
government economic mismanagement, which is now reflected in the expected deficit on the National Insurance Fund which in 1993–94 will be in the red. Therefore, the Government are having to reintroduce the Treasury subvention, which they proudly abolished in 1988, in order to balance the books. That is reflected in the second part of the Bill. On this side of the House we shall not oppose the Bill, but it is a sad and sorry tale.
I should like to explore both of those points a little more fully. First, I shall deal with the privileging of private pension schemes over occupational pension schemes. The Government have always been, certainly since the 1986 Act, hostile to SERPS which would, by the year 2010 or so, have taken most elderly people off supplementary benefit, as it then was, or income support as it is now. However, because SERPS (the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme) contained an element of redistribution as well as of insurance and was based on the 20 years of best earnings and therefore aided manual workers, the partially disabled, part-time workers and women in particular; and because it was a state sector scheme, the Government were profoundly hostile to it. The 1986 Act reduced the benefits of the scheme while simultaneously bribing people to move out of SERPS into the occupational and then the personal pension world.
We on this side of the House have no objection to personal pensions. I am lucky enough to enjoy one myself. However, we did object and we continue to object to the way in which that choice was baited. The Government have always insisted that they moved away from SERPS because of its escalating costs. Now we have the sums and they give the lie to that version. The National Audit Office shows that the Government's package of incentives, rebates and bribes would have cost the taxpayer £9.3 billion in rebates and incentives to save some £3.4 billion in lower state related pensions some time in the next century. In other words, to save money on SERPS the Government have spent three times as much on bribing people to move into the private sector.
So far so bad. What we now see with this Bill is a further warping of the system. Within the private pension field good occupational pensions based on contributions are to be disadvantaged against personal pensions which are based on the much riskier principle of a return on investment rather than contributions. Occupational pensions are required to offer a guaranteed minimum pension which must at least match the return on SERPS. It is supervised by the Occupational Pensions Board, of which my noble friend Lady Turner is a distinguished member. The Occupational Pension Scheme Joint Working Group, comprising among others the Association of British Insurers and the National Association of Pension Funds, wrote to the Secretary of State in September 1992. It set out its fears that the 1 per cent. rebate proposed in the Bill for those in personal pensions and those over 30 would encourage instability in the pension industry, would encourage people to switch to and fro between schemes and might encourage people into schemes which in the long term would be

823
financially disadvantageous to them. In particular, it complained that its own contracted out money purchase schemes would be undermined.
I believe that all of us in the House accept that the Maxwell affair threw up problems even with occupational pension schemes when there is in-sufficient supervision by insufficiently independent trustees and insufficiently independent accountants and auditors. We all welcome and look forward to the Goode Committee report. Nonetheless, the occupational pension schemes are based on a contributions record which, employer theft apart, offers a more secure financial prospect for employees than the much riskier path of return on investment associated with personal pensions. It is for that reason almost every newspaper commentator is urging people not to follow the path which the Government are now baiting with their 1 per cent. rebate. It is precisely because it is such a poor buy that the Government are having to bait it. That is surely not a sound basis on which to proceed.
I accept that for many people occupational pensions are not available. That relates to about 50 per cent. of the workforce. The bait is not helpful for those with small businesses, for part-time workers, the very mobile or perhaps for women. Surely the answer is to redefine SERPS rather than sending people down he baited risky path of privileging personal pensions.
The second part of the Bill relates to the funding of the national insurance scheme. The fund was in surplus in 1988–89 by about £3 billion. The anticipated deficit for 1993–94 is nearly £5 billion even though funding of industrial injury benefit, statutory sick pay and maternity pay—worth £1.7 billion—has been transferred to the Treasury. Why? There are three crucial factors which the Minister has already indicated. First, with the recession, fewer people are paying in; and they are paying in less because of their falling incomes. Secondly, given the recession, there is an increased number of people drawing on the fund. The third factor relates to the cost of those incentives, baits and bribes to which we have referred.
According to the government actuary, contributions are likely to fall by £1118 million in 1993–94, a consequence of both rising unemployment and lower earnings of those remaining in work. With regard to payments out, the Government Actuary assumes that it will cost an additional £832 million this year due to the increased numbers of unemployed, and by almost a further £2 billion by 1993–94, partly through uprating of benefits and partly through increased numbers of pensioners, assuming that the number of unemployed remains the same.
In addition, the cost of Government incentives, bribes and rebates to persuade people to move from SERPS into the private sector is running at £2.9 billion this year. As a result, the Bill provides a grant for deficit funding of up to £8 million, or 20 per cent., next year and 17 per cent., or £7 billion, in following years.
We on this side of the House cannot quarrel with the need to balance the fund, but we can and do insist that the need to do so is a direct result of government policies: on the one hand of the management of the
824
economy and on the other of the Government's folly in pushing people into private pension schemes by baits and rebates that the insurance fund clearly could not sustain. We also query the actuarial basis on which that Treasury grant is calculated.
The need for deficit funding is quite clearly a consequence of an economic policy which has produced 1 million more unemployed people than two years ago. Over 110,000 businesses have failed since two years ago. No doubt the Minister will tell us that we can confidently look forward to recovery in the fifth quarter of the year! The deficit grant proposed assumes that unemployment will run no higher than 2.8 million. However, all the economic forecasters suggest that by spring 1994 the number of unemployed will be 300,000 to 500,000 higher, pushing an additional £750 million, at the very least, on to the deficit. The Government's accountancy figures are also based on the assumption that there will be a rise in earnings of 5 per cent. per annum when we all know that other branches of the Government are holding the public sector to a rise of just 1.5 per cent.
If either of those assumptions by the Government are flawed —if unemployment runs higher than the 2.8 million or earnings rise by less than 5 per cent. a year —we believe (and we have been supported by much commentary in the press) that the Government's figures of 20 per cent., or £8 million next year, and 17 per cent., or £7 billion the year after, will not be sufficient to balance the books and the Government will have to come back to this House with another Bill to allow them more head space in order to remedy the deficit.
We recognise that there is a real problem about a pension system based on insurance at a time when growing numbers are not in full-time work or, if they are women, are in and out of work, or, if they are semi-disabled, form part of the great reserve army within the labour force. We also accept that, as people live longer, more years of pension have to be funded from fewer years of working life. It is for that reason, among others, that the Labour Party has set up its independent commission on social justice. But by undermining SERPS since 1986 the Government have transferred the cost of supporting the poorest pensioners, mainly women, onto income support. They have not saved money. They have transferred costs.
We see those in later middle age who are unemployed but below retirement age going on to disability benefit to massage the unemployment figures, thus losing years in which to build up their pension entitlement. We see another band of contributors going on to risky portable pension plans, many of which, say financial experts, will produce a lower return than SERPS; but they will have sacrificed that gain for the temporary rebate.
Finally, we see an occupational pensions world scarred by the Maxwell affair, in part because the Government's Financial Services Act delegated regulation to whistle blowers who showed that they had no will to whistle. All those factors come from a Government who should have acted as trustee for all

825
our pensions through a national insurance fund which for most people represents their deferred wages and their key savings.
We accept that the Treasury deficit grant seeks to amend that situation. However, we insist that it is a situation of the Government's own making. It is a combination of the unemployment that they have manufactured and the warped pension provision that they have constructed since 1986. The Financial Times called the saga a pensions débâcle. It was quite right.
3.36 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it may surprise some people on the other side of the House that it is no great pleasure to those who speak from the Front Bench of the Opposition party to express shock, horror, outrage and moral indignation. It is therefore somewhat of a relief to greet a Bill about which I do not feel the need to express those emotions. It is rather restful. The Bill achieves two purposes, one of which I warmly welcome and to the other of which I make no great objection. I have one or two suggestions and one or two small points to make. I do not believe that my noble kinsman will find this one of the more critical speeches that he has heard me make.
In considering the Bill I am tempted by the hypothesis that it is now the policy of the Department of Social Security to put the minor matters into Bills and to keep the really contentious issues for regulations. Perhaps slightly wryly, I should like to congratulate my noble kinsman on the tightness with which the Long Title to the Bill is drawn. It states:
"To amend Sections 3 and 85 of the Social Security Act 1986, to provide for the making of certain payments into the National Insurance Fund, and for connected purposes".
That is a long way from the Long Titles that we used to have to amend the law relating to social security. I can understand that, from the Government's point of view, that has great advantages. On the other hand, if this House wishes—as Houses of Parliament do from day to day—to change certain matters in the law relating to social security, it may create an occasional problem. At some stage that might be worth a certain amount of thought.
The first point is the restoration of the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund. Almost the first amendment on which I spoke from this Bench in 1989 asked the Government to desist from abolishing that supplement. I argued then that there might come a rainy day when the Government would need it. That rainy day has indeed come; and it is coincidental that the front pages of today's papers are covered with photographs of floods. I am glad that the Government have restored the supplement. I wish that they had stuck with the original situation. I welcome the fact that they have done so the more warmly because it has enabled the department this year to keep up benefit levels. I am very glad indeed that it has done so.
On the subject of benefit levels, I hope in passing I may raise the point that if the exempt categories of VAT were to be abolished, particularly on food, that would create intense pressure for an increase in benefit levels. I hope therefore that the Department of Social
826
Security will, from the earliest stage, be involved in any discussions which might take place about whether that eventuality might come about. I appreciate that there are limits to the answers one can obtain to such a question, I just hope that it will be borne in mind.
Another point about which I wonder is the placing of a cap on expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. That kind of measure looks fine until there is a need. When there is a need, is it possible that we may once again have to take up the time of the House with a small Bill designed to take the cap off because it does not fit? That point should be borne in mind.
My noble kinsman pointed out that the Government are not quite going back to the situation that prevailed before 1989. At that time there was a regular contribution from the Consolidated Fund. It was paid in good years and in bad. My noble kinsman's phrase was, I think, "whether we needed it or not." I wonder whether that is quite the right approach. Is there not a case for arguing that it is precisely in the good years, when we are in surplus, when production is booming, when the balance of payments is favourable and when we are well off, that it is a good idea to put aside money for saving in case of a rainy day. If we only find the money on the rainy day, it puts an extra strain on public funds at precisely the moment when they are least able to take it. The department's argument reminds me a little of the schoolboy who was asked which was more important: the sun or the moon. He replied, "Undoubtedly the moon, because it gives light at night when we need it. The sun gives light in the day when we don't need it." Perhaps that is the argument we have here.
I am glad that the statutory instruments calling on this contribution will be under the affirmative procedure. I was a little concerned about the words in which the Secretary of State in another place made the announcement. He said that the House would be able to debate the instruments fully. At least in another place, where financial privilege is not a problem, one would have thought—if this is making law—that he might have acknowledged that the House should have the possibility of controlling as well as scrutinising what was proposed. That is an example of the increasing tendency to talk about regulations as if the Minister made them and the House merely listened. It is something we should view with misgiving.
The second part of the Bill—the personal pension rebate —enters into what I describe as the Schleswig-Holstein of pension law. Without wishing to impersonate Lord Palmerston, I do not wish to go into that hornet's nest with great confidence. The good point about personal pensions is that they are portable. They allow for changes of jobs and in an economy where at the moment firms are positively moulting labour, the possibility of taking one's pension with one when one leaves a job is extremely important. So from that aspect, the proposal is to be welcomed. The negative point is that the personal pension does not necessarily guarantee the same final pensionable income. Both points are valid. I must confess that I do not entirely see my way round the task of balancing one against the other.

827
In passing, I wish to utter a small word of warning. We shall shortly reach a situation in which considerable numbers of people retire, having perhaps in some cases not worked for 20 years. While I have great sympathy with the growth of occupational and personal pensions, they create problems for people who have for a large part of their working lives had no employer. Those problems should be borne very much in mind in any shift towards personal or occupational pensions. The problems of financing pensions for people who in many cases may not have worked since the age of 40 will be quite serious. It is yet another reason for doing what has often been requested in this House—making it easier for people above 50 to be taken into new employment. That is in the public interest for a great many reasons; I have given one of them.
We should bear in mind, if we are considering private provision, the situation that the Americans have run into with health care. A good many million people in America have no health care at all and the provision is not always adequate. So it is worth sounding a certain note of caution.
I shall not go deeply into the whole issue of SERPS. I have not forgotten the cartoon of the 1970s in which the Minister appeared as Laocoön, with SERPS encoiling him. It is an extremely complicated subject. The costs of this change are actuarially extremely difficult to calculate.
It is also fair to say that the word "bribe" means, "An incentive to do what I do not think should be done." I am not nearly as certain as some others about exactly what is the right thing to do here. I do not believe that the issue is quite as simple as it seems on either side of the House. I am anxious about the cost of SERPS. I have no objection to considering costs; I always ask for the costs to be got round. In this area I am not certain of what would be right: so much depends on the method of calculation.
There is one point on which I should welcome my noble kinsman's explanation. Clause 5(3) states:
"Section 1(3) of this Act shall be deemed always to have had effect".
I do not believe that retroactive legislation is always wrong, but it should never go through on the nod. Where we find it, we should ask for an explanation. We should listen carefully to that explanation and I hope that my noble kinsman will give it.
Finally, I must offer my apologies to the House for the fact that I shall not be attending the Committee stage of the Bill because I shall be delivering a lecture at the University of St. Andrews. However, I am sure that others on these Benches will contribute vigorously to any debate that may arise.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, although my name does not appear on the list of speakers, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on the Bill since it is a subject with which, as some of your Lordships may recall, I have been connected for a great many years. I find it extremely interesting that the Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund is to be revived. In the days when I was
828
responsible for the national insurance scheme, there was a standard Exchequer contribution which was one of the three elements for financing the fund. The other two were the individual contributions of the employers and the employed. There was a great deal to be said for that system.
I am inclined to share the doubts of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as to whether it was sensible, six or seven years ago, to abolish the Exchequer contribution. There is a good deal of force in the point which he very well made to the effect that when trade is good, when contributions are flowing in well, then is the time to build up the fund. It is a pity not to enable it to be built up with the aid of at any rate a modest Exchequer contribution. I very much hope that when my noble friend comes to reply, he will not slam the door on the continuation of an Exchequer contribution for a good many years.
I appreciate, because I know that my noble friend operates under, let us say, certain sanctions or pressures from his right honourable friends, that he will not be able to give any commitment to that effect. But there is a difference between slamming the door on a concept and appearing at least quietly to acquiesce in it. My noble friend is extremely good at that particularly adroit exercise, which I hope he will continue to follow.
I am sure that in the present situation the Bill is right to maintain the fund with the aid of an Exchequer contribution. I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in her general attack on the whole economic policy of the Government which, she claims, is responsible for the situation and makes it necessary to revive the Exchequer contribution. It seems to me a rather unnecessary exercise in normal economic and financial controversy. Perhaps she has not had much chance lately to indulge herself in that way and is seizing in a very human manner the opportunity which she feels this Bill gives her. I do not consider it very relevant. Frankly, I much prefer the line taken by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in discussing the two points: the 1 per cent. improvement for the over-30s and the matter to which I have been referring, namely, the Exchequer contribution.
Before I sit down I would like to make one small drafting point. Clause 5(1) says:
"This Act may be cited as the Social Security Act 1992".
As it is not yet law, I do not see how it can be so cited.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's remarks about Clause 5(1) regarding the possible Title of the Bill. No doubt my noble friend, or I, on his behalf, may amend it at a later stage in the Bill. I welcome the general support from my noble friend and my noble kinsman for the substance of the Bill. We shall miss the presence of my noble kinsman Lord Russell at Committee stage, just as we shall all regret not being present at his lecture in St. Andrews. Perhaps he will send us a copy of what he has to say, just as he will no doubt be reading in Hansard what we have to say.

829
My noble kinsman too complained, I believe, that the Long Title of the Bill is somewhat too narrow and did not allow him or the noble Baroness scope to amend the Bill as they might wish to do on wider aspects of social security. I note his point, but it is, I am advised, essentially the contents of the Bill which determine the range of amendments which can be offered; the Long Title merely describes what the Bill contains.
I now turn briefly to the question of the 1 per cent. addition and our personal pensions initiative that has now been continuing since the 1986 Act and its coming into force in 1988. I do not accept the allegation of the noble Baroness that these have been at the expense of occupational schemes. There is simply no evidence of that. As I said in my opening remarks, the number of members of occupational schemes has been static for some years and continues to be static, while we have seen the growth of an extra 5 million personal pensions since 1988. Nor do I accept the noble Baroness's arguments that we are ideologically opposed to SERPS in every form. We merely wish to make sure that we have something affordable for the people, the taxpayers and the national insurance contributors over the next years when demographic changes will certainly have altered the overall cost in terms of the balance between those paying and those receiving such pensions.
We are certainly proud of our record on safeguarding the interests of pensioners during the years while this Conservative Government have been in office. Through our policies we have seen the growth of a wide variety of choice in pension provision, in personal and occupational schemes as well as the state scheme. Their success is shown in the 34 per cent. real growth in the value of pensioners' average net income since 1979. That is an average increase of roughly 3 per cent. a year over and above inflation compared with the record under the last Labour Government of a mere 3 per cent. during the entire five years that they were in office.
I must also stress that the 1 per cent. addition for the over-30s in personal pensions is not a final measure. It is merely designed to ensure that the majority of current personal pension holders continue to find it worthwhile to maintain their pensions in the interim. We intend to consider proposals for a new age-related rebate structure which is expected to be implemented in April 1996. As I stressed in my opening remarks, and also as my right honourable friend has announced, we will be consulting all interested parties about this very important issue in due course.
I should like to turn now to the National Insurance Fund and the provision which we have debated for a Treasury grant to be made available. This is a quite separate issue from that of personal pensions, though they are linked in some ways, as the noble Baroness attempted to show. She complained that the 1986 Act was largely an ideological attack on SERPS, that the success of that personal pensions initiative had largely contributed to a deficit, and that any deficit in the fund
830
would be solely the result of money, as I believe the noble Baroness would put it, squandered on the personal pensions initiative.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not say "solely". I emphasised that there were three reasons for the deficit: the falling contributions; the increasing number of claimants; and the carry-on deficit due to the cost of the rebates.
Lord Henley: I withdraw the word "solely" but I think the noble Baroness put very large emphasis on the success of the personal pensions initiative, which I would argue the noble Baroness is ideologically opposed to, as opposed to the claims that we are ideologically opposed to SERPS.
I accept that the cost of rebates and incentives is a factor in the level of the fund. However, the recent reports by the Government Actuary have suggested that the main factor has been the state of the economy. Increasing unemployment has meant fewer employees and thus a reduction in contribution income. On the other side, the cost of unemployment benefit has increased considerably. More people are becoming unemployed who have good work, and therefore good national insurance records and who therefore qualify for unemployment benefit. But I do not accept that some £6 billion, as has been alleged, has been squandered on personal pensions. As we have said repeatedly, the personal pensions initiative has been an enormous success. It is about time that the party opposite admitted that. As I have said before, some 5 million people, mainly young people, have taken them out and as a result are now taking some personal interest in their own pensions arrangements rather than simply inertly relying on the state, as I am sure the noble Baroness would prefer.
I accept what the noble Baroness said about the National Audit Office report, and that that was true. But that is only part of the picture. Unlike the party opposite, whose sole desire is to make quite unachievable promises in terms of what it is offering on SERPS in the vague hope that something will turn up, we wish to create a sustainable pensions structure for the next century, when, as the noble Baroness will realise, the demographic pressures will be much greater. That is what the creation of personal pensions and the reforms to SERPS of the mid-1980s was all about. Together, the reforms to SERPS and the creation of personal pensions will by the year 2010 reduce the cost of SERPS by some £3 billion a year at 1993 prices, rising to some £20 billion a year by the year 2035. That is a pretty good deal.
I do not accept the description of the noble Baroness that the previous 2 per cent. incentive was a bribe. The noble Baroness suggested that the incentive would be paid to those taking out appropriate personal pensions for the years to 1993; that it was a bribe and bad value for money. I believe it is reasonable to provide an incentive to launch a new approach to pensions, just as the previous Labour Government did when they launched changes during 1974–75. As I tried to argue, the Government are attempting to build a sound and sustainable pensions policy for the next century.

831
The personal pension addition of 1 per cent. will not be a major element of the National Insurance Fund's commitments. The 1 per cent. will cost only £165 million in 1994–95. The vast majority of expenditure, as the noble Baroness is aware, is on retirement pensions and it is largely due to the world recession that income from national insurance contributions is not keeping pace with the increase in expenditure. In that respect I do not need to remind the House that my right honourable friend proposed to raise benefit levels as usual in his uprating Statement last November.
Both the noble Baroness and my noble kinsman asked what would happen should unemployment be higher than was assumed and earnings lower, and whether the 20 per cent. Treasury grant would be sufficient to maintain the balance in the fund at 17 per cent. throughout the year. The noble Baroness suggested that the assumptions adopted in regard to unemployment and earnings may prove to have been optimistic and in such an event the balance in the fund may during 1993–94 fall below the Government Actuary's recommended level of two months' benefit expenditure.
That is not a cause for concern. The Government Actuary recommends planning for a balance in the fund of two months' benefit expenditure, for the reasons about which your Lordships expressed anxiety—that is, that outturn will prove different from the forecast. It is not a balance to be maintained at all costs and at all times. It is simply a cushion of finance sufficient against variations in the demands on the fund; thus the balance in the fund may well be less than two months' benefit expenditure by the time we reach April 1994. Equally, it may be more. However, one thing is certain; it will not under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances be exhausted.
I should perhaps repeat again what I said in opening the debate, that whatever happens the House will recognise that the grant cannot be expected to guarantee the fund's solvency in all circumstances. The existing measures available to adjust the various rates, thresholds and limits in the contribution system must remain available. It will be for consideration at the appropriate time which measures are the most appropriate to keep the fund in balance. This Bill is just one of them.
My noble kinsman, quite rightly, referred the House to clause 5(3) of the Bill and demanded to know why retrospective legislation is necessary. It has been a long established principle that the National Insurance Fund should be responsible for any administrative expenses incurred in meeting its commitments. Provision for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in administering the contracted-out rebate for occupational schemes is included in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. A similar provision for personal pensions introduced in the Social Security Act 1986 should have been included in the legislation at the time; it was not. That was quite simply an oversight.
The Consolidated Fund has been reimbursed from the National Insurance Fund in accordance with standard practice since the provisions of the 1986 Act
832
came into force. Now the Government are quite rightly taking advantage of the first appropriate opportunity to correct the legislative position. No additional costs have arisen as a result of the provision, which simply covers an accounting adjustment between the National Insurance Fund and the Consolidated Fund.
In seeking to balance the books in the National Insurance Fund, my right honourable friend does not seek to reduce expenditure, nor to introduce measures which take more out of individual contributors' pockets in the form of national insurance contributions. Instead we are seeking the availability of a contribution to the National Insurance Fund from the Consolidated Fund. I accept and give my noble kinsman his due that I can certainly remember the amendment that he moved and the speech he made at Second Reading of the 1989 Act. I believe that was his first appearance on the Front Bench as social security spokesman as it was certainly my own first such experience.
I accept also that there are analogies with the old Treasury supplement. But I do not accept that it was the same as what we are now introducing. It was a rigid and outdated mechanism which did not sit well with the scheme of earnings-related contributions that we have today. I do not accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and by the noble Earl that it would be appropriate to have the rigid Treasury supplement contributing in the good years so as to boost the fund to cover the bad years. I do not accept that it would be appropriate to boost the fund higher than is needed to maintain benefit expenditure with a balance against all contingencies. We believe that our approach in introducing the new grant from the Consolidated Fund is a better way to pursue those matters. Nor is there anything wrong in principle with the contribution from the state. It was a cornerstone of Beveridge that it should not be taken unnecessarily. The grant that we propose is both flexible and in keeping with the needs of the day.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a great privilege to introduce such an historic Bill as this, although it is with a small sense of humility that I do so. For one who finds immense difficulty in conversing in any language other than English, and sufficient difficulty in that, I find it somewhat ironic that it should fall to me to introduce a Bill on the Welsh language. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and other noble Lords from that delightful Principality will not take advantage of my linguistic limitations. I shall rest upon your Lordships' indulgence should I inadvertently slip into error.

833
When one looks at the list of speakers in this afternoon's debate and realises that each one, except one, has had and still has distinguished connections with the Principality, one cannot help feeling that the list has a haunting resemblance to a centipede with a wooden leg.
In their normal helpful manner the Government have produced a version of the Bill not just in English but also in Welsh. I hope that your Lordships will understand a personal reluctance on my part to get too involved with that version, and you may find it convenient if we adhere, at any rate for the purpose of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, to the English version—the "second" official language in Wales.
I can assure your Lordships that the Bill is a pretty historic measure. It will give effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice in Wales the Welsh and the English languages should be treated on an equal basis and the Bill will ensure that action is taken to achieve that.
The Welsh language is an essential feature of the inheritance of these islands. It is a direct descendant of the Brythonic language which once was spoken throughout mainland Britain. It is one of the oldest European languages, and it enjoys a literary heritage which continues to this day, though, mercifully, it is not the subject of frequent legislation.
In presenting this Bill to your Lordships I am conscious of the fact that there are a number of noble Lords on all sides of the House who have had direct experience of the threats and the challenges which have faced the Welsh language as well as the opportunities for it. I shall be particularly interested in hearing what your Lordships have to say. I look forward to the agreeable prospect of the furtherance of my education as the Bill becomes subject to the detailed scrutiny that your Lordships customarily give to Bills that come before the House.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is anxious to encourage a detailed debate on this Bill. We want to see that, when the Bill is passed into law, it is as effective as it can be in support of the Welsh language.
The Government's policy towards the Welsh language is based on the good will which surrounds the language in every part of the community in Wales. The Bill builds on that good will and it will benefit from as wide a degree of consensus as it is possible for us to achieve.
The Bill is the latest in the series of measures that have been introduced over the past 30 years to safeguard the language and promote its use. These measures include the last Welsh Language Act, which found its way on to the statute book in 1967—an event which was helped in no small part by the contributions which were made to the passage of the Bill through Parliament by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, both of whom I am glad to see are in their places and will be participating today. The 1967 Act was based on the principle that in providing public services the aim should be to give
834
Welsh speakers the opportunity to speak Welsh irrespective of whether they also spoke English. This was essential if the two languages were both to have a place in the conduct of public affairs in 1967. It is no less essential today.
The creation of the Welsh fourth television channel, S4C, gave another boost to the Welsh language. Television is an important factor in sustaining any language. I remember those happy but somewhat controversial days of the passage of the Broadcasting Act in 1990 in which I was privileged to have played a modest part. That Act established a new financial framework for S4C. I am glad to see that that channel continues to go from strength to strength and has just celebrated its 10th anniversary.
Government support has also played an important part in strengthening the other main Welsh language organisations. The National Eisteddfod remains at the heart of Welsh culture. The Welsh Books Council over the past decade has also been instrumental in securing a sea-change in the range and quality of Welsh books. More than 200 new titles are now produced every year. A whole host of other voluntary groups around Wales form an integral of the Welsh-speaking community. Probably the most important fact of all is that over the past 25 years there has been a considerable growth in Welsh medium education. I am particularly surprised to learn that 22 per cent. of primary school children and 15 per cent. of secondary school children in Wales now receive their education in schools where some or all of their instruction is in the medium of Welsh. All other children are provided with the opportunity to learn Welsh now that it is a foundation subject under the national curriculum.
The cumulative effect of all of these policies is illustrated in the census figures which were published recently. After a century of near constant decline the figures show that the fall in the number of Welsh speakers has been halted. It now stands at 508,000. Many outside the Principality are not aware that Welsh remains a language which is spoken by almost one in five of the population.
I think that the most significant feature of the recent census figures is the growth in the number of young people who speak the language. The percentage of those who can speak the Welsh language between the ages of three and 15 (a very important age group) has increased from 18 to 24 in the last decade. It is developments such as these which form the basis of the Government's desire to build on what has been so successfully achieved over the past few years.
I hope that the Bill will achieve this by confirming the official status of the Welsh language across the public sector as a whole. At the heart of these proposals lies the principle that the Welsh and the English languages should be treated on a basis of equality. The Bill concentrates on the practical measures which are needed to ensure that this becomes a reality.
The body that will shoulder the heaviest burden in ensuring the success of these policies will be the Welsh Language Board. Part I of the Bill places the present non-statutory board on a statutory basis. My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Welsh

835
Office has paid particular tribute to the work of the board under its present chairman, John Elfed Jones. I should like to reiterate that tribute. The board has already achieved much, not the least of which is the report that gave rise to the Bill which is in front of your Lordships today. The board will be at the centre of the changes which the Bill is intended to bring about.
What is not in Part I of the Bill is a long list of the specific tasks which the board is expected to perform. There is good reason for this. The function of the board will be to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language, but it will be for the board to determine how best this can be achieved. The board's wide remit reflects our view that there is no single policy or set of policies which will ensure the future of the Welsh language as part and parcel of daily life in Wales. Experience has shown that policies in support of the language must be as many and varied as are the circumstances in which the language is used.
The board's advisory powers therefore ensure, for example, that the board can advise the Secretary of State on the situation of the language and do so in the widest possible sense.
I should also draw to your Lordships' attention the board's role in relation to private sector organisations. The Government do not believe that it would be right for a Bill such as this to place burdens on the private sector, though a growing number of companies have seen that there are commercial benefits to be gained from the sensitive use of the Welsh language in their businesses and have acted accordingly.
The voluntary guidelines that have been produced by the existing Welsh Language Board for the private sector have played an important part in promoting the use of the language. Although the Bill will not place any obligations on private businesses, the board will be able to offer advice to those companies that want it. The Government hope that this will lead to a continuation of the present encouraging trend.
The Government's intention is that the Welsh Language Board should over time assume responsibility for the programme of Welsh language grants which is at present administered by the Secretary of State. The power to pay grants is deliberately made flexible in order to ensure that the board can provide assistance for a wide variety of projects. It is intended that the board should assume responsibility as soon as possible for the payment of grants to the smaller-scale projects. Responsibility for funding the main Welsh language institutions such as the National Eisteddfod and the Welsh Books Council will, for the foreseeable future at any rate, remain with the Secretary of State. This division reflects our view that the board's immediate priority should be to establish Welsh language policies throughout the public sector in Wales.
The objectives of the Bill are much wider than simply the establishment of a statutory board. If the language is to prosper—which we all hope it will—Welsh speakers must feel able to use it in all aspect of their lives. It is just as important that those who are learning the language should also benefit from seeing it in use as widely as possible in their communities.
836
Welsh has a great literary tradition and remains the language of poetry and of song. It is the oldest language in the British Isles. Even more important than that is the fact that it is the living everyday language of more than half a million people. The public sector must therefore recognise and reflect what is a reality. Part II of the Bill establishes a framework which will ensure that it does this.
It will extend Welsh language services but in a way which will be sensitive to local circumstances. It will cover all public bodies in Wales as well as many public bodies from outside Wales whose services nevertheless extend to cover Wales. All these bodies will be required to produce Welsh language schemes. Schemes will also extend to the new forms of service in the public sector, including those which are contracted out, and to private organisations such as the training and enterprise councils which are funded by government.
The Bill does not specify the particular ways in which the Welsh language should be used in providing public services. The Bill will extend to them all—but it will be for the board's guidelines to show how in practical terms this can be done. All public bodies will have to have regard to the guidelines in preparing their schemes. The board will, therefore, be required to consult widely during the preparation of the guidelines, which will require the approval of the Secretary of State—and indeed of Parliament.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State expects the guidelines to build upon the achievements of the board's existing voluntary guidelines. First of all, before making a scheme, bodies will he required to consult their Welsh-speaking customers. The Welsh Language Board will be able to issue directions about the form in which this consultation should be undertaken. Secondly, schemes will have to comply with the purpose which is defined in the Bill —and that is giving effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the Welsh and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality.
The Bill provides for the implementation of this principle by public bodies in ways which are,
"appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
This consideration will need to be made in an objective manner in every case. It will not allow bodies, therefore, to adopt a highly subjective and restricted view of what is appropriate in their circumstances, and every public body will be required to have regard to the board's guidelines.
Once schemes are in place it will be important that Welsh speakers should be made aware of the range of Welsh language services which is available. Schemes will be publicised, and it will be for the board to ensure that the proposed publicity arrangements are satisfactory.
If the Bill is to succeed in achieving the aim of extending best practice in providing Welsh language services across the whole of the public sector, then it also has to be flexible—in order to reflect the wide variety of different bodies which it will encompass. The definition of the purpose of schemes enables the

837
schemes to be tailored to the circumstances under which the body in question operates. But the underlying principle—that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality—will be common to all schemes.
Although many public bodies already have comprehensive Welsh language policies, there are others for which this goal is yet some way off. Schemes will, therefore, contain timetables depicting when the various measures will be introduced. The board will ensure that all this happens as quickly as possible.
Schemes will not be cast in tablets of stone. The framework which is proposed in the Bill should be able to respond as the use of the language evolves by enabling the board to update its guidelines periodically and to require that schemes should also be updated. The Bill—rightly, I think—places emphasis on schemes being agreed between the Welsh Language Board and the public body. This is by far the best way of ensuring that the practical obstacles are identified and are then removed.
The process of negotiation will be assisted by the knowledge that the Secretary of State will have powers, if necessary, to intervene and to direct. But it would be a mistake to see these powers of direction as playing too prominent a role. We hope that they will be used only as a last resort, but they will be there.
Recent years have shown that there is a considerable reservoir of good will towards the language throughout the public sector—not to mention considerable innovative skills—which this legislation should help to release. There was, for instance, no requirement placed upon the Benefits Agency to extend its range of services to Welsh speakers. Yet it did so, and its existing policy is seen as a model of its kind.
Inevitably there will be occasions when a member of the public does not receive the level of services which a public body has undertaken to provide via the scheme. The board will then have the task of investigating any complaint which may arise as a result. We think that the board's priority in doing this should be to use its good offices to find quick and practical solutions.
The principles in this Bill apply in practice to government departments just as they will to all other public bodies. Government departments will also submit schemes to the Welsh Language Board just as if the legislation placed them under an obligation to do so. These schemes will have regard to the same guidelines as those which will apply to all other public bodies.
It would though be nonsensical to provide in the Bill that the powers of direction of the Secretary of State should be directed against himself as well. We can achieve what we want without that legislative peculiarity.
I know that Welsh medium education, in particular, is a matter of great interest to many of your Lordships and to many people in Wales, and the Bill also has an impact on education in Wales. The Government do not think that the concerns about education in Welsh are due to the legislation under
838
which education is provided. There has been a spectacular growth in Welsh medium education under the arrangements which were created by the Education Act of 1944 and it would be unwise to interfere with them.
The educational reforms which are at present being considered in another place would establish new educational institutions in Wales which will have Welsh language education, including Welsh medium education, at their heart.
Where the Government think that the Bill has a contribution to make is in ensuring that the reasonable wishes of those who use the education service—that is, the parents and the children—should be fully considered. This should be so whether the education is provided by a local education authority or by a funding council. The requirement for Welsh medium education policies to be included in schemes will help to secure this improvement. It will ensure that parents are fully consulted. The board will then have an important role in ensuring that the views which they have expressed are reflected in the services which result.
Part III of the Bill repeals or amends legislation which interferes with the principle that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on the basis of equality. One example of this is, in particular, the repeal of the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542. I know that many see those Acts as having undermined the status of the language in Wales over the centuries. Although the provisions of both Acts are now spent, the patronising and, some believe, offensive references to the Welsh language remain. We thought it appropriate that once the Bill is enacted all this should be removed.
Another provision which is to be repealed is that part of the Welsh Language Act 1967 which provided for the English version of a document to take precedence over the Welsh version where there was a case which was in dispute. In future such differences will need to be resolved by reference to both versions of the document.
There are other changes which the Bill introduces which will further the principle that the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. We intend to introduce an amendment to provide that the use of Welsh in the courts should be extended to include the written as well as the spoken Welsh. We also intend to extend the use of Welsh in the titles of statutory bodies.
I hope that in my exposition of this Bill I have been able to show that the Government believe that the Welsh language belongs to the entire population of Wales and that it enriches the cultural life of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government are not in the business of requiring people to speak the language against their will but they want to give every encouragement to those who wish to do so and to those who want to learn. These people can exercise their choice of language and so will enable the Welsh language to prosper and to flourish.
I very much hope that in this and subsequent debates on the Bill your Lordships will agree that the Bill represents a real advance for those who speak the

839
Welsh language and for those who are learning it. It seeks to support and to sustain the Welsh language, not just in the short term but for generations to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the background to the Bill and for his exposition of its main provisions. I also very much welcome his approach to his task. I hope that we can build on the basis of the Bill in Committee. Perhaps I may say at the outset that there are clauses in the Bill which we are glad to welcome. But we deprecate the inadequacy of many of its key provisions and are saddened by the gaps that we see in it. So in general we are concerned and disappointed by the weakness of the Bill.
I look forward very much to the delivery of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I also look forward with great interest to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn as he was the Secretary of State for Wales who overcame the resistance to legislation in the 1960s and brought forward the Welsh Language Act 1967.
The Minister could have said, and probably did say, that the Welsh language is a subject of fundamental importance for Welsh speakers who live in Wales. It is currently the language in which half a million or more people in Wales (that is, a fifth of the population) live their daily lives to the greatest possible extent. That is why in 1985 a departmental committee chaired by Lord Swann acknowledged in its report Education for All that, unlike ethnic minority languages, Welsh is the national language of Wales. Indeed the noble Earl acknowledged that within the islands of Britain historically the Welsh language has primacy of title. It has been spoken here since before the poetry of Y Gododdin, the earliest surviving literary work in Welsh, which was composed in the sixth century. That great literary tradition is not just part of antiquity; it is very much alive today.
The Minister referred to the Acts of Union. Indeed he could have taken as his text the first few lines of the second schedule to the Bill which repeals the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542. These of course are the laws of the Acts of Union. It has to be said that the policy of the Acts of Union was to strangle the Welsh language and to give it no place in public life in Wales. In the result, Ellis Wynne, one of Wales's most distinguished writers, could write with sadness in 1701 when he translated into Welsh Jeremy Taylor's The Rule and Exercise of Holy Living that there was no point in his translating the chapters dealing with the duties of kings, judges and governors as they,
"are unfortunately irrelevant to the Welsh language".
So the Acts of Union had actually slammed shut the doors that would in a normal society be open to the native tongue, and they were to remain closed for centuries.
Allied to that policy the early education Acts debarred Welsh from the schools of Wales. But I am happy and glad to acknowledge that throughout the
840
past 60 years or so Welsh people have been striving, with a considerable degree of success, to reverse the linguistic policy of the Acts of Union. I accept that London has been comparatively benign towards the Welsh language during the past 40 years.
But this Bill at long last formally confirms that the provisions of the Acts of Union are repealed. That is greatly welcomed. It is on that basis that the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, and the noble Earl this afternoon, can describe the Bill as being historic. So I believe that we are entitled to ask whether the policy of the state towards the Welsh language, as expressed in the Acts of Union, has now been completely reversed and that the Government accept that it is in the national interest of Wales that the Welsh language be restored to its former position; in other words, it should be restored to be an official language in Wales, a status which it lost 450 years ago.
Like the Minister, I am immensely impressed and encouraged by the ever-growing demand during the past 20 years in south-east Wales in particular and in Wales in general by non-Welsh speaking parents who themselves were deprived of the Welsh language but who are determined that their children should speak Welsh and have access to the cultural heritage that is so distinctive, indeed singular. That is reflected in the statistics that the noble Earl quoted in his speech which show that the decline in the number of Welsh speakers over the past century has now been stopped. However, that should not make us complacent. Access to Welsh language education is still not fully guaranteed. There is indeed much talk and anxiety in Wales that the new new governance of schools makes it more difficult to develop a coherent system of Welsh language education. I have looked with great care at the Bill and I fail to see that it addresses this issue, notwithstanding the reassuring words used on 18th December last by the Minister of State at the Welsh Office. That is one of the issues that we shall seek to raise in Committee.
Many Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that for the past 10 years there has been a powerful campaign in Wales in support of a new Welsh language Act. I have been glad to give it my support. I should like to pay tribute to the people, drawn from all walks of life in Wales, who have striven over the past 10 years to reform the law. At last the Government have been convinced of the need to bring forward legislative reform. It is against that background that we now have the Second Reading of this Bill.
The present Welsh Language Board reviewed the current legal position of the language. It is to the board's credit that it reported in 1989 that new legislation was necessary. Paragraph 7 of its final report states:
"The Welsh language lost its official status not through neglect or misuse but by an Act of Parliament. Only an Act of Parliament can restore it".
We are greatly indebted to the Welsh Language Board for that recommendation. What we now want is a Bill that will in fact achieve that aim. As I understand the board's position, it does not fully approve of the Bill. The Bill has been heavily criticised by many organisations on the ground that it fails to confer

841
upon the language the status of an official language. We shall return to that key point in Committee. We shall develop arguments in support of the historical argument that Welsh should henceforth be an official language in Wales.
Clearly we welcome what is good and beneficial in the Bill. It can be commended upon four main counts. First, I am glad that it places a long overdue statutory duty on public bodies in Wales to produce and implement an agreed language scheme, although we have worries about the definition of "public body"—but the principle is sound. Secondly, it provides for a compliance mechanism, even though it is applied in strictly limited circumstances only. Thirdly, it provides for the issue of statutory guidelines. It would be helpful when the Minister replies to the debate if he could give an indication of what type of matters the Welsh Secretary contemplates will be addressed by the statutory guidelines. Fourthly, I am heartened by the fact that the Bill sets up a statutory board having the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the language.
Those are the principal benefits of the Bill. Although they do not involve additional money, they represent an advance which we can welcome. However, there is a strong body of opinion in Wales that is highly critical of the Bill. I touched upon that point earlier. It has even been rubbished by some organisations with a special interest in promoting the use of the Welsh language.
I shall now turn to those provisions or omissions which are the cause of anxiety and which sadden many people. There are seven such areas. The first is that nowhere in the Bill, regrettably, is there a clear governing proposition about the status henceforth of the Welsh language in Wales. It would have been of immense value if a governing principle had been spelled out and put in the forefront of the Bill. What should that governing principle be? There is a growing consensus in Wales that the principle should be that in Wales the Welsh language should henceforth be restored to be an official language, enjoying a status of equality with English. That was, and remains today, the clear advice of the present Welsh Language Board.
Information from the Minister when he replies on the meaning of the phrase "a basis of equality" that he has quoted a number of times will be welcome. It appears in the Bill's preamble and in Clause 4(2). What does it mean? Why did the draftsman not simply say that henceforth both languages should be treated equally; or is it intended that English should still be more equal than Welsh? There is then the interesting change of terminology. Ever since my noble friend Lord Cledwyn brought forward the Welsh Language Act 1967—to give effect to the recommendation of the Hughes Parry Report—the fundamental concept in that area has been expressed in terms of equal validity; but the term "equal validity" is not used in the Bill. The significance of the change in terminology is unexplained. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the Government, or the draftsman, are getting at.
A second cause for concern is that the Bill's provisions will be fully applicable only to the public
842
bodies as defined in the Bill. Clause 5 contains a restricted list of such bodies. The shopping list excludes the private sector in its entirety from the board's remit. Why on earth should it be excluded? Why does the Bill not apply to those privatised utilities which were formerly in the public sector? It is always revealing to trace ideas back to their source. I believe that the source of the clause is pretty obvious. Despite what has been said by Ministers and by the noble Earl this afternoon in defence of that decision, we believe that it is thoroughly misguided. Given the vital and ever-growing importance of the private sector, that is a clause which we shall seek to amend in Committee.
The third cause of anxiety is that the Bill's scope is further considerably restricted by Clause 20 which puts Crown bodies in a class apart from public bodies. The noble Earl spent some time over Clause 20. The fact remains that the statutory board will have no power to serve a Clause 6 notice—the triggering mechanism—on a Crown body. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, I have not seen in the Bill a duty placed on a Crown body to prepare a language scheme and send it to the board. It may do so, but to the best of my knowledge there is no duty to do so. Clause 20 has been received with disbelief.
The Prime Minister has encouraged us to believe that he is the author of the doctrine of subsidiarity. We make the point that the doctrine should mean that government departments and agencies should in Wales communicate both in Welsh and in English as part of the process of bringing decision-making closer to the people of Wales. The Welsh Office, Ministers and the noble Earl this afternoon have explained that the clause is necessary as there are technical difficulties which prevent the Secretary of State taking mandamus proceedings against himself or another Secretary of State. Of course, given the Bill's structure, the technical difficulties exist, but that argument is not convincing. A solution is to change the Bill's structure.
If the Government really want to ensure that departments of state and the important executive agencies such as the five social security agencies communicate in Welsh with Welsh speakers, then a coherent and practical way to proceed is to give the compliance powers to the language board rather than to the Secretary of State. The technical problems would not then arise. We shall therefore put down an amendment to consider the Bill's structure.
Fifthly, it is a matter of concern that the board's efforts will, in practice, be restrained by the key tests to be found in the important Clause 4(2) which are worrying. Your Lordships will recall that the subsection provides that the principle of equality applies only so far as it is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable. Those are critical tests. Many Welsh speakers find them offensive. It is also something of a mystery how an official is to decide, there and then, whether the conditions have been satisfied. Moreover, they are so discretionary that we fear that in practice they will usually work—with one possible exception that comes to mind, from which I shall not elaborate—to the detriment of the Welsh speaker. Only if those conditions are met will a Welsh speaker have an

843
implied statutory right to use his own language in the public domain in Wales. Therefore, the thresholds in Clause 4(2) are offensive to a growing body of Welsh public opinion. They are based on a profound misconception of the mood among Welsh speakers in Wales today. In Committee we shall open up Clause 4(2) for rigorous investigation.
Sixthly, it is a cause of considerable disappointment that the Bill fails to give any statutory linguistic rights to the Welsh speaker; that is, apart from the express right to make a complaint to the board and the implied right to use the Welsh language where he has successfully negotiated the obstacle course. I have looked in vain through the Bill for other individual rights. That is odd because we have always understood that the individual's rights are much cherished by the Prime Minister. Thus we now have in Wales a Parent's Charter, a Patient's Charter, an Environmental Chapter, a Tenant's Charter, a Customer's Charter, a Taxpayer's Charter and a Citizen's Charter. There is no Welsh-speaker's charter. Of the charters that I have named only in the Tenant's Charter have I seen a single reference to the wishes of Welsh speakers and that is couched in bland terms.
That failure has been heavily criticised by many organisations which have commented on the Bill. Those organisations which represent consumers are the Welsh Consumers' Council, the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action, the Women's Institute, the Merched y Wawr and Cefn. We shall endeavour to rectify that failure.
Finally, I turn to the composition and powers of the board. We have read that the Minister of State at the Welsh Office has expressed the view that:
"a strong statutory hoard lies at the heart of the changes which this Bill in intended to secure".
I fear that that is not a correct description of the board which is set up by the Bill. It is not a strong board; it is a weak board. Therefore, there are warranted anxieties about its lack of powers and its membership. As the Bill is structured the board's powers are vested in the Secretary of State. All its members will be appointed by him. The nature of its membership is nowhere spelt out. Where will the 15 members come from? Will any of them be Welsh-speaking? More important still is the question of whether they will be in sympathy with the objective of working for the equality of the two languages.
Our fears about lack of independence of the board are reinforced by the third clause which makes it obvious that it will be subordinate to the general and specific directions of the Secretary of State. The basic role of the board is to make recommendations. I believe that it has been given only one unconditional power; that is, the power in Clause 12 to give directions as to the consultations which the public body must carry out when preparing its language scheme. The Minister might have gone further and said that the Bill is silent as to what will happen if the directions are ignored. We believe that a fundamental question arises as to whether such a board can ever command the confidence and respect of Welsh-speakers. Another equally important question for the Government to ponder is whether such a board is
844
likely to become dissatisfied with its role and be a source of genuine grievance and discontent. The board's constitution merits thorough investigation in Committee.
I have taken 23 minutes in making my speech. I do not apologise to the House because I believe that the Bill is important to Wales. I conclude by assuring the Minister that our efforts in Committee will be constructive. The Bill is important because it will provide the legislative framework for the Welsh language for years to come. We want to do our best to improve the Bill so that the status of equality of the two languages will be achieved. We therefore hope that the Government for their part will have second thoughts about those clauses which are the cause of so much anxiety. If the Government are unwilling to meet the deep concerns which have been voiced, the Bill will represent a missed opportunity.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. His is one of the liveliest minds on the Welsh political scene. I do not know how he planned it, but it is interesting that he is able to make his maiden speech on a Bill as appropriate as this one.
While having lunch today one of my English colleagues asked me what the Welsh Language Bill was about. I told him that it was to provide officially for equality in Wales of the Welsh language with the English language. He said, "Good heavens, have you had to wait until 1993 for that?". I echoed that reaction. Clearly, I welcome the Bill. In his introduction the noble Earl rightly said that this is an historic Bill. It has the makings of an historic Bill. It is of great importance to Wales. However, I believe that its provisions are capable of being immeasurably improved and strengthened during its passage through this House and another place by relatively few but important amendments. I welcome the indications that the Government will have an open and receptive mind to constructive, reasoned amendments.
This is not a party issue and it is of great importance to noble Lords in all parts of the House to see on the statute book a worthwhile Act which will provide an acceptable framework for the future. If we achieve that the Bill will be truly historic. I believe that the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. David Hunt, and in particular the Minister of State for Wales, Sir Wyn Roberts, deserve thanks and congratulations for bringing the Bill before Parliament. For years Sir Wyn has pursued a persistent and dogged path on this issue. Often he has been subjected to what has appeared to me to be totally non-constructive criticism from those who understandably but impatiently seek the ideal rather than the possible. One cannot put right in one Act the public neglect of centuries. One can, however, seek to create the conditions and the framework for repairing the wrong.
During the Christmas Recess I read with interest and pleasure the autobiography of Mr. Dafydd Wigley, the leader of Plaid Cymru, whose presence I feel here today. Although I know his constituency well

845
I was surprised by what I read because I had not fully appreciated that his electorate is 85 per cent. Welsh-speaking. To provide Welsh with proper status, and to promote and develop its use there, is a different problem from providing the same in, say, Montgomery, New Radnor or Chepstow, all of which are parts of Wales. Therefore, one must have an Act which is far-seeing but practicable in its working provisions and unlikely to prove counter-productive in its impact.
It must have been with such considerations in mind that in July 1988 the noble Lord, Lord Walker, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, set up the Welsh Language Board with the following terms of reference:
"To promote and develop the Welsh language and advise on matters requiring legislative action".
It was then clearly contemplated that an Act of this kind would come before Parliament. The board has done extremely valuable work and in its report has advised the Secretary of State as required on recommendations for a new Welsh Language Act. I am sure that your Lordships will refer to that report and to the draft Bill which is included in it. That is greatly different from the Bill now before Parliament.
I believe that the Bill is well worth supporting if only for one reason, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although I find other considerable merits in it. The reason is that it repeals what is left of the old Tudor Acts of 1536 and 1543, which was when they became law. They are generally described together as the Act of Union of England and Wales. However, as the distinguished historian, Professor Glanmor Williams, rightly pointed out in his contribution to the four-volume history of Wales, they are more accurately to be regarded as Acts for the assimilation of the Government of England and Wales. Wales had been conquered in 1282 by Edward I but thereafter it was ruled under a hotchpotch arrangement; partly through direct rule by the Crown in places and then through a myriad of marcher lordships in others. However undesirable and, indeed, brutally objectionable some of the arrangements proved to be, under them Welsh social and cultural life survived well. Moreover, Welsh courts administering traditional Welsh law flourished into the first half of the 16th century.
However, the Welsh as a people had suffered severe legal disadvantages as a result of punitive pre-Tudor legislation. One school of Welsh historians has always regarded the so-called Acts of Union as liberating measures which were necessary and totally welcome at the time of their enactment. Another school of Welsh historians, particularly in this century, have argued that the purpose of the legislation was to destroy deliberately the distinctiveness of Wales by launching an attack on its language and the culture based on it.
In their contrasting assessments, much has depended on the political viewpoint of the historians. Suffice it to say that there is merit in both assessments. On reflection—and it is something which your Lordships can remember today —when re-reading some of those viewpoints it has tended to demonstrate
846
to me that politicians are nothing like as far seeing, as calculating or as knowing as subsequent historians, whatever their political viewpoint, think thereafter.
Much legislation has completely uncalculated effects and unforeseen consequences. I do not subscribe to the view that in a calculated way the Tudors set out to destroy the Welsh language. Had that been so, they would hardly have allowed through Parliament, without any opposition, the Elizabethan Act of 1563 which commanded that the Bible and the Prayer Book should be translated into Welsh and should always be available thereafter in every church in Wales. It was a consequence of that Act, with the great Bible of Bishop William Morgan, which proved over the centuries to be the great saviour of the Welsh language.
However, the part of the 1536 Act which understandably sticks in the modern gullet and which became the most controversial provision was that which laid down that,
"all administration and judicial proceedings were to be conducted in English",
and that no one using,
"the Welsh language or speech … shall have or enjoy any manner of office … unless he or they use the English speech or language".
Professor Glanmor Williams said that the conesquence of that was:
"Until the 1530s, it is argued, the gentry took a pride in their language, were enthusiastic patrons of literature and the guardians of national awareness in Wales. The terms of Henry's legislation were deliberately calculated to offer them the lure of status and power in return for their willingness to sacrifice their language and their sense of nationality of which it was the chief ingredient".
Having swallowed the bait, they ceased to patronise Welsh culture and we had a great schism in Welsh life for centuries. It was totally regrettable in its social, cultural and, indeed, economic consequences.
This Bill removes from the statute book the remnants of the Acts of 1536 and 1543 and, therefore, symbolically ends the totally unjustified discrimination in public life. The Long Title to the Bill rightly recites the principle that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. That does not appear to me to disturb the principle of equal validity which we have accepted so far.
That provision puts to rest the ghost of 1536 but, even bearing in mind the great importance of carrying public opinion with one and being practical in one's approach, I believe that there are certain glaring weaknesses in the Bill which can be put right by sensible amendment. I give a fairly obvious example. My present thought is that it is a grave mistake to include in Clause 4(2) the words:
"as is … appropriate in the circumstances".
It seems to me that the principle that it is appropriate in Wales is decided already and is referred to in Clause 4(2) which sets out the principle that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. To deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I should have thought that that sets out the basic principle within the body of the Bill.

847
Surely it is a sufficient safeguard to use the words "reasonably practicable". Those words have been interpreted many times in our courts and the words to which I object are quite unnecessary. It seems to me that they may also be a source of future problems. For example, who should decide whether it is appropriate in the circumstances? That is a different consideration from reasonable practicability. However, I am open to persuasion that the words to which I object may be a necessary safeguard in certain circumstances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out, there is a glaring omission in that government departments and public utilities are excluded. I see no justification whatever for excluding either of those two categories. It seems to me that if I am right in the view that they can be included in Clause 5, that would render Clause 20 of the existing Bill totally unnecessary. Incidentally, it is astonishing that in Clause 20 a person can come forward with a scheme before the Act comes into effect and can avoid any obligation to put forward an "acceptable" scheme and, indeed, can resolve not to have a scheme at all provided that a resolution is taken on the subject. It will be necessary in Committee to give careful consideration to the position of government departments and public utilities. I see no reason whatever for excluding the latter. After all, only a year or two ago they were public bodies and they have now recently become privatised.
In introducing the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put my mind at rest as regards one matter. I thought that there was a drafting error in Clause 21 where it refers to the fact that the Welsh language may be spoken by any party when the précis of the provision in the margin has the heading:
"Use of Welsh in legal proceedings".
It seems to me that the substitution of the words,
"The Welsh language may be used by any party"
would deal with that matter extremely simply. That will ensure that the use of Welsh will not be confined to the spoken word.
The scheme of the present Bill is very different from the scheme of the Bill drafted by the Welsh Language Board and we must consider the differences extremely carefully. It seems to me that under the present Bill an obligation is being placed on public and other bodies whereas the scheme of the Welsh Language Board's Bill gives rights to individuals so that those people have the remedy in their hands to take an action for judicial review if those rights are not accorded. It seems to me that a different scheme could have been brought in by any government and it is impossible to combine both schemes. Therefore, we must seek to amend the Bill on the basis of its own scheme.
I very much liked Clause 2(1–3) of the original Bill as drafted by the board just as I liked the general provision in its Clause 3. I mention this matter at this stage to indicate that in my judgment a few crucial strengthening amendments are needed which go to the heart of the matter. The Government are probably right to leave out the private sector. Private enterprise should be encouraged by the Welsh Language Board to use bilingual signs, and so on. I am a non-executive director of a public company in Wales. Some years
848
ago I asked why there were no bilingual signs in all shops and factories in Wales. That was agreed to immediately and carried out within one week. It was not a very costly process. It so happened that the whole board immediately agreed to it. It is a small matter to get up shop signs in the Welsh language and have bilingual signs in factories, and so on, but this should be done more by example and encouragement by the board than by trying to force private industry to do it.
One of the best provisions within the Bill, which could in the long run prove to be the most practical and effective, is to charge the proposed board with the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language and to empower it to receive moneys and to give financial assistance by way of grants, loans, or guarantees to that end. That could be the most effective agency, depending of course—as everything does in such circumstances—on the calibre of the people who are appointed to that board.
Let me conclude by saying that I think a provision that every child in Wales should be entitled as of right to a bilingual education is of greater importance to Wales, so far as the survival of the language is concerned, than anything else. It is the day-to-day use of the Welsh language and an appreciation of the wealth that is to be discovered in its great body of poetry and other literature that will ensure its survival.
Recently I saw a distinguished young Welsh rugby international—in fact, Mr. Scott Gibbs—interviewed in Welsh and in English on television. He disclosed that none of his family spoke Welsh but that he had learned Welsh at the bilingual village school he had attended. That was about the best bit of PR that I have heard for the Welsh language for quite a long time, for all of us in Wales realise that the bilingual schools in Wales have been extremely successful, not only in turning out bilingual pupils but also in their general educational achievements. That is important.
So far as the survival of the language is concerned, the provision of effective bilingual education, particularly at an early age, could well prove to be in this modern age the equivalent to the translation of the Bible and the placing of it in each parish in Wales in Elizabethan days. If it is true that the Tudors sought to destroy the language by means of the provisions of the Act of Union, then we must remember that they singularly failed.
Likewise, I do not believe that the Welsh language can be saved merely by enacting this Bill. However, what this Bill does—and this is its importance—is to give the modern generation in Wales the framework for setting about the task of ensuring that the Welsh language continues as a rich cultural heritage. It will be up to the modern generation to prove that this Bill has not come 100 years too late. I do not think that it has.
In the past two decades we have become used to a multi-language Europe. Judges in the European courts, for example, normally read in their own language the submissions of parties that have been translated from their original language. It works perfectly well, and no wonder that the judicial side in

849
this country has changed its mind somewhat on whether one language or the other should dominate in the interpretation of documents.
We shall no doubt end up in Europe with a dominant economic and business language, which may well be English. It may be Spanish, or it may be French, but whatever language it is, it will be the general population who decide. It will be decided on the basis of utility. But the other European languages, with their vast wealth of background culture, literature and so on, will continue to survive, and will be safeguarded and nurtured. Likewise, so it should be with the Welsh language.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to be able to thank colleagues who have already spoken and who have made some kind references to me. I feel a little more relaxed in making my first speech in this noble House in that I am sandwiched between my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Thomas of Gwydir. They escorted me on the day of my introduction and looked after me, and I am grateful for that.
On that day of introduction I took advantage of the opportunity afforded in this place to take the oath of allegiance in Welsh as well as in English. It was the sixth time—and this is also probably true of my noble friend Lord Geraint—that I have taken the oath of allegiance. Of course, being bilingual, I have taken it 12 times, which probably makes me twice as loyal as some others.
Twenty years ago it would not have been possible in this House to use the Welsh language officially. Ond does dim hawl gen i i siarad. Gymraeg mewn dadl yn y Ty hwn. Before I am accused of being controversial in my maiden speech I shall translate and say that it is still not within the rules of order here to speak the Welsh language in debate, although I look forward to the day when simultaneous translation from Welsh to English will be as available as it is these days in many of the local authorities and most of the county authorities and the courts in Wales, and of course in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, although perhaps I would not get away with speaking Welsh there either.
That is what this Bill is all about. It is about extending the use of a language whose domain, as the linguists call it, is restricted. I am grateful to colleagues who have given an historical analysis. I do not need to repeat that except to say that it is a particular pleasure for me to be present here, for the first time, celebrating the end of the Act of Union. I am a nationalist with a lower case "n", but I can still rise to that one.
I do not use the word "minority" language, because for those who speak it it is of course not a minority exercise. There is a lovely story about two young daughters of a friend of mine who were on a boat travelling to Sweden. His partner speaks Danish. The young girls were speaking together in Danish when along came another Scandinavian lady who asked them, "What language are you speaking in?" They
850
said, "We are speaking Danish." Clearly, they did not want to be involved in debate with this lady and so they started speaking Welsh.
The lady asked them, "What language are you speaking now?" They said, "Welsh." The lady said, "Why do you speak two small languages?" The young girls said, "They are not small when we speak them." For the speakers of the smaller languages, they are the world view. They are the means of communication, but they are also the sign of identity. That is why, when we are dealing with issues of language, we are not just dealing with communication. We are also dealing with vehicles of culture and with a sense of identity.
This is where conflict arises. There are more senses of identity than perhaps one imagines in the present world. There are some 4,000 languages that are used officially in various levels of government throughout the world. There are tens of thousands of languages which are not so officially recognised. Because languages are vehicles of identity and culture as well as means of communication, where you have more than one language crossing a linguistic frontier in any aspect of life, particularly in official life, then there is a recipe for conflict.
It would be wrong of me and the "constituency" that I represent in this House as a Cross-Bencher, albeit from Wales, not to refer to the fact that we have had for many years in Wales a long-running campaign where many young people, and indeed older people, have taken part in all kinds of protest and direct action in support of the language. We must create circumstances—it is our responsibility in this Chamber to do so—where this kind of campaigning and suffering for many people is no longer necessary.
I want to see a climate where young Welsh men and women can feel that the Welsh language is as secure in the United Kingdom as the English language. That may be a rather rhetorical statement, but we have the beginnings in this legislation for that kind of context. We have the beginnings of establishing a principle of equality. It is not the concept of equal validity that we are used to, but it could be argued that treating the two languages on a basis of equality might well be stronger—I would be interested to hear what the noble Earl says—than the principle of equal validity.
But we must also see this Bill in the context of other legislation introduced by this Government and by previous governments, which have brought about an increase in the status and use of the Welsh language. I am particularly concerned to mention both the broadcasting legislation and the education legislation. I was pleased to serve in another place on the Committees involved with both those aspects of legislation.
I have seen the transformation of the status of the Welsh language. I have seen the creation of substantial numbers of jobs in economically difficult areas of Wales through the culture industry and the media industry. I declare an interest here as a chair of Screen Wales, a promotional organisation for the Welsh media. I have seen a cultural transformation occurring.

851
I have a second and final anecdote. Visiting a certain valley in south Wales when I was involved in a certain by-election campaign—I have put all that behind me now, of course—a middle aged lady accompanied by her daughter ran up to me. She said, pointing to her daughter, "You must speak Welsh to her." I agreed and spoke Welsh to the daughter. After about two minutes, the mother asked, "Was it all right?" I said it was excellent. The mother then said, "I hope so because she has been going to the Welsh school now for three years and I want her to get a job with S4C."
That gives one an idea of the cultural and economic value people place upon a small language. That perception would never have been possible if it were not for the creation and maintenance of the Welsh fourth channel.
I have been pleasantly surprised to note that it is now widely recognised throughout Wales, even in some border areas where it had been unexpected, that the reintroduction of Welsh in the national curriculum has been accepted and has been seen as a positive gesture. It is now regarded as normal in the European context for people to become bilingual and to have their own identity rooted in a smaller language in terms of its numbers of speakers but also to have another one that enables its speakers to participate in wider cultures. That gives a sense of security to people in a multi-cultural and pluralistic Europe.
Those changes in education have become possible through the role of the Government and the partnership between central government and local education authorities, the governors of schools and the teaching unions. This Bill points to the new partnership we have to establish through the statutory board. As we have heard, the role of the statutory board is central to the Bill. There is always a problem when legislating for linguistic rights. Do we base the legislation on the rights of individuals, who may be bilingual or who may be Welsh speakers and demand those rights in a particular context, or, do we place the rights with an institution? That in a sense is what much of our debate in Committee on the Bill, both here and in another place, will be about. I know others will wish to insist that we need to increase the element of statutory rights in the Bill. I support that, as I support many of the arguments heard today.
However, I wish to emphasise the importance not just of statutory rights but of viewing the board as a dynamic cultural development agency, which acts in partnership with other agencies in public life. I have referred already to what the Welsh Language Board is doing with Menter Cwm Gwendraeth. That partnership between a cultural, linguistic organisation and the Welsh Language Board has created an opportunity for restructuring and reinvigorating an economically relatively depressed area. I see the opportunity for the new board to be able to work in partnership with the other development agencies within Wales. That already occurs through Menter a busnes, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency's rural initiative. This is not just a statutory board concerned with language and culture. It is concerned with what we might call
852
cultural ecology in the broader sense. It is also concerned with maintaining not just an ancient language and culture but also maintaining the identity of Welsh and developing that identity.
I believe that we have turned the corner as regards the Welsh language. Social linguists talk about language shift. We have made that shift with Welsh. We have turned the language around. When I say "we" I mean not just the campaigners such as myself and people outside the Chamber but also the Government, agencies, providers and people in all parties who have come together, as we have today, in support of the language and in support of this kind of legislation. We have turned the corner and we have enabled a language to extend its domain. It is a small language in terms of numbers of speakers but it has managed to become a language of mass communication culture at the end of the 20th century. That is a significant achievement, and I congratulate this Government on their part in that achievement.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I know the House will wish me, on behalf of everyone present here, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, warmly and sincerely on an admirable maiden speech. I am delighted to do so because I can say—I believe without any fear of contradiction—that I have known him longer than anyone else in this House, and possibly longer than anyone else in the other place.
Many noble Lords in this House have been born with advantages and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is one of them. I can think of two advantages in particular which give him an air of distinction. The first is that he was born in the market town of Llanrwst. Those of us who were also born there know full well that it is the best town in Wales. The second advantage I can think of is that his educated and intelligent parents had Welsh as their first language. That was their home language and their living language. I was privileged to know those two people. That is an inheritance that the noble Lord has not squandered, for today Welsh is still his first language and the living everyday language of his life.
Having heard the noble Lord's speech today, the House will be able to judge the supreme quality of his Welsh when I say that he speaks it just as well as he speaks English. In the other House the noble Lord was highly respected for the quality of his debating skills. I know that those of us who have heard him today look forward to hearing him again and often.
In the course of this debate so far we have heard —I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies —say that there are about 500,000 people in Wales who speak Welsh with varying degrees of fluency. That, of course, means that one in five is a Welsh speaker. One therefore has to face the fact that the language is used by a minority. However, I wish to stress the following important point. The language may be used by a minority, but most Welshmen have a possessory pride in the language and it receives, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the good will and support of the majority of the people in Wales.

853
There is, of course, good reason for that. I remind the House of what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said. Welsh is a living survival of the Brythonic language, the dialects of which were used in Britain long before the Romans arrived. Next to the Greeks and the Romans the Welsh have the oldest extant literature in Europe. They have an unbroken literary tradition, particularly in poetry, that dates from the 6th century to the present day. Therefore, it is a language which commands widespread pride and respect in Wales. I mention that because I wish to see that majority of support remain. I want to see the growth of the Welsh language fostered in a way that is acceptable to all Welshmen in the Principality.
If an Act of Parliament designed to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in Wales is divisive and thought by the 81.3 per cent. non-Welsh speaking majority to be unfair or antagonistic, it will be the 18.7 per cent. Welsh speaking minority and the Welsh language that will suffer. Therefore, it is on the basis of that concern that I approach the Bill.
Having heard the excellent opening speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers and having studied the Bill I have come to the conclusion that it is just about right, and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government. As was mentioned by my right honourable friend Sir Wyn Roberts, as a Bill in support of and for the promotion of the Welsh language it is an historic constitutional development. It has enormous potential and, just as important, it provides adequate safeguards to command majority support. That is of great importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who used words such as "inadequacy" when he referred to the Bill, nevertheless welcomed certain aspects of it. He must do so, because in the basic areas covered by the Bill one finds that it enshrines in law for the first time the principle that in public business and justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality; it gives statutory authority to a Welsh Language Board to promote and facilitate the use of Welsh with powers to secure its use in the public sector; it confirms that there is no restriction on the use of Welsh in legal proceedings; and it gives powers to prescribe Welsh statutory forms.
The House must agree that those are immense steps forward, giving the opportunity for an unparalleled advance in the use of and fostering of the Welsh language. As I see it, the Bill as drafted is designed to take those steps forward with broad support throughout Wales. I therefore give it my full support and commend it to the House.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to join the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on his first speech in this House. The noble Lord showed his knowledge of the Welsh language and its history and his great attachment to it. He impressed us all with his speech. The noble Lord's late father was an old and valued friend of mine and
854
he would be very proud of his son today. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was born in Llanrwst but he omitted to point out that, like the Tudors, his roots are in Anglesey.
I must also extend a welcome to this Bill as a further step in the process of preserving and strengthening the Welsh language. It follows the report of the Welsh Language Board although it does not reflect all of the recommendations of that board. I should like to congratulate the chairman, Mr John Elfed Jones, and his colleagues on the Board on their work over a period of more than two years. That has been extremely helpful to the Government and to all of us who are concerned about the language. I should add that governments over the past 10 years or more have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling in Wales on this issue, and organisations and public bodies in the Principality have been making their views about the Bill known to all of us.
Twenty-six years have passed since I introduced the Welsh Language Act. Our late friend Lord Elwyn-Jones was responsible for the Bill in this House. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for his generous words about my association with the 1967 Act. I must admit that I am proud that I was responsible for a Bill which gave the Welsh language a legislative status after five centuries of what I can only describe as neglect and insult.
My noble friend referred to the use of the term "equal validity" in the 1967 Act. I, too, should be grateful to the Minister if he would explain why that is not referred to in this Bill. Is there any significance in this omission?
We are grateful to the noble Earl for his sympathetic opening speech. I am sure that he will be receptive to the suggestions which have already been made in the debate and which we shall repeat in amendments when we come to the Committee stage.
We are also appreciative of the constructive and, in parts, moving speech of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. No one has a greater love for the language or has worked harder to defend it than my noble friend. His own draft Bill, as well as that produced by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, has been of considerable help during the debates of the past two years.
There are many questions to be asked as we contemplate this measure. For example, how does it compare with the language board's own draft Bill? We must accept that it is not as strong in language and objective and we shall need to go into detail on that issue in Committee in a fortnight or so. I must, however, in fairness welcome the proposal to establish a permanent Welsh Language Board with the functions set out in Clause 2. I note that it abolishes the requirement that the records of the courts in Wales be kept in English, and that brings to an end the existing anomaly. I, too, want to see a dynamic and imaginative body and not another dull quango operating in Wales.
The words of Clause 2(2) (b) are of interest because they say that:

855
"in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the Welsh and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
That certainly seems to establish a precise statutory status for the Welsh language in law and in public life and I believe that that is a foundation on which we can build.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies dealt ably and in detail with what he sees as the shortcomings of the board while welcoming the fact that it is established by statute. However, he believes strongly that its functions should be wider than those in Clause 2. We should at least consider the list of functions proposed in the language board's draft Bill when we give this Bill further consideration.
There are omissions in the Bill, which I shall mention very briefly. First, there is an absence in the Bill of any provision requiring public authorities to make reasonable provision either for equality of status of both languages or for the day-to-day task of communicating with those who wish to speak to them in the language of their choice whether it be Welsh or English. The absence of service in Welsh on a par with the service in English is a major source of resentment.
As my noble friend said in his speech, Clause 4 is of the first importance. It must be amended to avoid the possibility of uncertainty and injustice. However, I believe that that can be done without breaching the general intentions recited in the Preamble to the Bill.
I must also draw attention to the anomalies which must inevitably arise as between the public bodies listed in Clause 5 and the private sector. I support the preparation of schemes by public bodies but I regret to say that I fail to see why comparable bodies in the private sector are excluded. I consider that Clause 4 schemes in the private sector could be as important to Wales as "public body" schemes. I should think that private bodies such as Welsh Water, for example, would be glad of the opportunity to become involved.
Furthermore, the omission of government departments and agencies from Clause 5 is difficult to defend. Noble Lords will no doubt wish to return to that point also in Committee. I note what my noble friend said about criteria and the need for amendment, and I support him in that.
Another area for discussion lies in Clauses 21, 22 and 23, which deal with the courts and which were covered in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. The Bill makes no provision for Welsh speaking juries to be empanelled. I understand that the Home Office objects because it would open the gates to a flood of requests for "ethnically composed" juries. I seek now to control my temper! But we are dealing with the use of our own language in our own country. As the noble Earl said in his opening speech, we are talking about the oldest spoken language in this country, and one of the two oldest in Europe. The basic purpose of the Bill is to ensure that it should not be treated in this fashion. Is the Minister able to assure us that the Bill confers equality of status on the Welsh language and that it will be one of the two official languages in Wales?
We appreciate the opportunity given us by the Bill to have a full discussion about the state of the Welsh language at this critical moment and about the steps
856
which are necessary to ensure its survival. I feel sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will regard the problem with sympathy. We want the Welsh speaker to enjoy the same linguistic rights in his own country as the English speaker; and those rights should be enshrined in the Bill. As my noble friend said, there is considerable feeling in Wales about it.
The House knows that I could deliver this speech as freely in Welsh as I have done in English. I wish to be sure that in 100 years from now there will be Members in this Parliament who could do likewise. The Bill, suitably amended, can help to that end. As all noble Lords and noble Baronesses in this House know, the final words of the Welsh national anthem are:
"O bydded i'r hen faith barhau".
May the old language live on. That is our hope and expectation; and we hope that this Bill will help us to achieve it.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it gives me, too, great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas on an outstanding maiden speech. For many years we sat together in another place and engaged in vigorous debate, always with goodwill, and he always spoke with courtesy. I greatly appreciated that at a time when I had heavy responsibilities. Like my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, I look forward to hearing him speak on many occasions in this House.
In 1979, the manifesto of the Conservative Party in Wales, which I played some part in preparing, contained the words,
"We shall continue to give active Government support to the maintenance of the Welsh language as a living tongue. We are anxious, however, to avoid raising excessive expectations of what can be achieved by Government action, much more depends on the wishes and goodwill of the Welsh people".
I quote those words because it seems to me that the Welsh Language Board, chaired by my old friend and colleague, John Elfed Jones, went perhaps a little too far when it suggested that the Act that it proposed in its 1991 report,
"would provide an indestructible infrastructure upon which to build for the future of the language".
Legislation has an important part to play but it is still true that much more depends on the wishes and goodwill of the Welsh people.
In that manifesto we went on to say that,
"our objective must be to ensure that Welsh and English speakers live side by side in harmony and we reject those who disrupt and destroy, just as we reject the suggestion that participation in Welsh public life or employment should be the exclusive prerogative of those who speak the Welsh language".
I make those points again because it is right firmly to condemn violence in this or any other cause, and because we must be careful to get the balance right, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said, on the one hand by removing what the Welsh Language Board describes as,
"the inferiority of the Welsh language",
created by Act of Parliament, without on the other,
"reducing the rights of non-Welsh speaking citizens".
I represented in Parliament a constituency partly Welsh-speaking and partly English-speaking, divided down a line that has existed unaltered since soon after

857
the Norman Conquest. I live in a part of Wales in which today Welsh is seldom heard. I am the grandson of a Welsh speaking Welshman who regrets that he does not speak the language. However, with that background, I understand just how important it is to protect the Welsh language without making the English-speaking Welsh, whose goodwill is so crucial, feel that their job opportunities and rights are threatened.
On becoming Secretary of State in 1979, and recognising the sensitivity and importance of the issues, one of the first things that I did was to ask Wyn Roberts (now Sir Wyn) to undertake a widespread consultation about realistic and practical ways in which Government might lend support to the language. That consultation led to my delivering in April 1980 near Llanrwst, a town that has been referred to several times already in today's debate, a speech which was the first in which any government had set out in comprehensive terms their policy for the language. I believe that most of the principles enunciated in that speech are valid today.
In a statement issued in December, the Welsh Language Board tells us that,
"indigenous linguistic rights are fundamental and universal".
That is the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made in his speech. Great statements of principle are all very fine. But legislation is about definition and the translation of principle into practice. In the Llanwrst speech I started from the assumption that it was,
"impossible to believe that this language, which is recognised as a priceless heritage, not just of Britain but indeed of Europe, could be allowed to die".
I further stated:
"The people will want to speak Welsh, and it is therefore up to the Government to make this a practical possibility for those who make that choice".
The emphasis that I put on choice is crucial. I committed the Government to support the language by substantial increases in public expenditure, through education policy, by giving support to the national institutions in Wales, and to the voluntary organisations. However, I said that there could be no question of compulsion and that there was an element of unreality about a blanket policy directed towards universal bilingualism.
My own judgment is that both CEFN and the Welsh Consumer Council—two organisations which have made representations to this House—make a mistake in seeking to achieve through this Bill full bilingualism in all situations where the language is used, including shops and businesses. I hope that many shops will put up signs in Welsh and will use the language, but I do not wish to go down that route by legislative direction. In my view, the Gwynedd County Council is wiser and more restrained in pressing for an amendment that will require the Welsh Language Board to,
"publish guidelines for the use of Welsh in commerce and other fields of activity".
The Welsh Language Board and many others believe that, despite the growing public goodwill, the support of government, the success of bilingual education policies and the beneficial effect of Welsh
858
language television and broadcasting, the Welsh Language Act 1967 has not achieved equality of status for Welsh with English. Many have explained why that is so. For those reasons the board, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, prepared Bills which included clauses declaring that the Welsh language should have equality of status with the English language. However, the Bill before us does not contain such a clause. The question that Parliament will have to decide is whether such a clause would add anything to what we are offered. That is the central point in almost all the representations that we have received. The Welsh Language Board in its statement on 19th December stated that it,
"welcomes the Secretary of State's personal commitment to the removal of all legislative prohibitions on the use of Welsh, and the raising of the status of Welsh to one of equality with the English language in Wales".
It stated that that,
"would amount to the most radical reshaping of the rights of the language and the people who use it since those rights were removed in the 16th century, but the Government's Bill clearly failed to achieve that objective".
However, the argument for general declarations is not quite as powerful as perhaps the board has made out. I have voiced my reservations about such declarations. In my view, good legislation is not the result of declarations of principle, but of clear statutory definitions of what it means in practice, what one may or may not do, when, and in what circumstances.
It is undoubtedly a fact that a declaration of the kind proposed by the board could only be enforced by the courts and I am doubtful that that is the best way of helping the language. The Bill comes pretty close to giving us a general principle in the Long Title and in the frequent references to the principle that Welsh and English should be treated on a basis of equality. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that the Bill,
"will give effect to this principle".
Clauses 24 and 25 will ensure that we are no longer to be in the situation where, in cases of discrepancy between the Welsh and English texts, the English text shall prevail. The Bill also provides for oaths and affirmations not just to be permitted in Welsh, but to ensure that they are just as effective as in English, while in any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be spoken by any party. I understand that the Government are committed to the tabling of amendments to ensure that written evidence may be submitted to the courts in Welsh.
The Bill, as we have also heard, sets up the Welsh Language Board, which, among other tasks, is to advise those exercising public functions about the way in which to give effect to the principle. Public bodies are required to prepare Welsh language schemes wherever appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practical for the purposes of giving effect to the same principle.
Indeed, the principle is referred to so frequently that there can be no doubt about the intention of the Bill. Therefore, my first thoughts were that a general declaration would not give us much more. A Bill that sets out to turn general principles into practical effects is clearly to be welcomed and I welcome it. But, if not all that much will be gained by a general declaration,

859
I am forced to ask myself whether very much is lost either. It is not enough for the Government to say that there is nothing in law that states that English is an official language. That ignores Henry VIII's statute of 1535 or 1536 and everything that has followed from it. We are reversing and finally bringing to an end a process which in effect made English the official language and disqualified Welsh.
The board's draft clause does not seek to force anyone to use the language. It does not aim at full bilingualism, it seeks:
"equal validity for the purposes of the administration of justice and the conduct of administrative business".
To me, the crucial issue is whether it will create legal complications of which I am unaware, or so many court cases that it would be a hindrance rather than a help to the Welsh language. I am intrigued as to what it is that has persuaded the Government to reject this apparently innocuous clause, because they have not yet made that clear. It would create much goodwill and would reinforce and underpin the practical steps which I so strongly welcome.
Therefore at this moment I have an open mind but hope that, if during the course of the parliamentary examination it becomes clear that amendments are desirable and would strengthen the Bill without changing its fundamental objectives, the Government will listen to the case with an equally open mind.
The Bill gives us a statutory Welsh Language Board. I believe that it is of fundamental importance that the distinction should clearly be made between specifically defined duties, advice given and schemes proposed on the one hand, and the acceptance of advice and the formal approval of schemes on the other. I have no doubt at all that Ministers answerable to Parliament must have the ultimate responsibility. That is in fact the position that applies to my own organisation, the National Rivers Authority, where water quality objectives are proposed by the authority but approved by the Secretary of State and where the conditions set by the authority can be appealed against to the Secretary of State.
I think that one has only to turn to the Bill and see the nature of the powers contained in it to realise that this must also be the basis of the arrangement that applies in this instance. The schemes that are to be implemented will have very profound consequences for the organisations involved. It is not inconceivable that the board will put forward proposals or make requirements that in practice cause great difficulties to the organisations concerned. I therefore strongly support Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, which give the final authority to the Minister and to Parliament.
I did not really follow the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to put powers of enforcement in the hands of the board as a way of seeking to resolve a difficulty about Crown bodies. I do not see how the board could act as an authority superior to the Crown. The Welsh Language Board itself points out that, in our system of government, to have a statutory body which is not accountable in one way or another to a Minister of the Crown and through him to Parliament is not possible. It is perfectly practical for an organisation that is accountable to Ministers
860
and Parliament to be robustly independent in the advice that it gives. I believe that the demand for a strong and independent board can be adequately met by the Bill.
Clause 5 defines the meaning of a public body and lists a number of organisations. It then sweeps up the remainder in a general but pretty obscure definition. I suppose that my own organisation, the National Rivers Authority, is swept up in that way and I welcome the assurance given by the Government that the requirements of the Act will apply equally to government departments and other Crown bodies.
The Bill, as we have heard, is intended not to cover the private sector and again, as a general principle, I am sure that that is correct. There would be huge hostility to the Bill if it attempted to impose on private businesses a whole range of new duties and particularly the duty to prepare schemes.
However, there are questions to be answered about the position of the utilities. The Welsh Language Board was quite clear about this. It argued that the utilities should be included on the grounds that they remain to all intents and purposes monopoly suppliers of key services and consequently have regular and widespread contact with the community at large.
The board gives British Gas plc, Wales, as an example of an organisation that has a positive attitude towards the Welsh language and which already fulfils many of the requirements likely to result from the present legislation. I think it is right to exclude the private sector and a real difficulty arises if we then start making exceptions. Yet the Government are confronted by what will be an increasing problem. It would be somewhat bizarre if, for example, the National Rivers Authority had to provide bilingual material, respond to correspondence and answer telephone calls in Welsh, as we do already, but not Dwr Cymru, Welsh Water.
Privatisation is also a process that is going far beyond the transfer of whole industries or sectors of industry into the private sector. Many of us responsible for the management of public sector bodies are engaged in the process of privatising parts of our activities. While no doubt the contract conditions can lay down the Welsh language obligations of these privatised sectors, a good deal of thought will have to be given to the practicality of such arrangements.
I believe my noble friend said that the Bill would extend to bodies contracted out and bodies dependent on public funds. But that statement itself raises difficult and complex questions to which we shall have to return. The Welsh Language Board itself saw the difficulty of dealing with the genuinely private sectors of the utilities such as the shops of British Gas. It argued that they were not executive functions and should be excluded. So that is an area which we shall have to return to and examine very closely.
I think that on balance the Government have got it right. It may well be that a sensible way to proceed with the utilities would be to urge them to initiate private schemes. It seems almost inconceivable to me that they will not do so and that they will not be anxious to conform to the general standard

861
established in the public sector. I am interested to note that on this point the Welsh Consumer Council suggests that the way to proceed with privatised bodies and public utilities is by encouragement and not compulsion.
However, I believe that the Welsh Consumer Council and others are wrong, for the reasons cogently advanced by the Welsh Language Board itself, to urge that the words about compulsion in the relevant clause, the words about choice and being "reasonably practical" (I believe that is the phrase I am looking for) should be removed. It is very important that we approach these things in a very sensitive way that meets all the varied requirements of different parts of Wales. That is particularly true of our approach to the role of education. A flexible approach responsive to local circumstances has produced a remarkable expansion of Welsh-medium education in the past 20 or 30 years. Local education authority policies on Welsh-medium schools are to be included in the schemes provided for in this Bill and will therefore become the subject of comment and examination by the Welsh Language Board.
I am alarmed, however, by the tone adopted by the Welsh Language Education Development Committee in its recent communication to Members of this House. In particular I am alarmed by its apparent desire to impose all-Welsh schools in place of bilingual schools, apparently almost regardless of circumstances, and its insistence that Welsh should be the only language used on the premises, even in the playground. Equally unrealistic is the demand that any group of parents should be able, almost regardless of the circumstances, to demand a Welsh language school.
Genuine bilingual schools have a very important part to play. One of the very best schools in my former constituency was the comprehensive school at Crymych. During my time, the outstandingly able headmaster and I resisted pressure to make it an all-Welsh school. It would have divided a community that was united; it would have involved many children being bussed quite long distances to a separate school; and it would have halted the process by which the Welsh of the primarily English-speaking pupils was helped and strengthened by their intimate contact with those primarily Welsh-speaking. In my view it would have hindered and not helped the Welsh language in that part of North Pembrokeshire.
In other circumstances, perhaps in a large centre of population, a wholly Welsh school may be appropriate. But these are things that should not be imposed by means of legislation.
I turn to the general issues. It needs to be made clear that the reason why public bodies should be prepared to do business in Welsh is quite simply because it is reasonable that people whose first language is Welsh should be able to do business with the public sector in their own language. I do not think that we should take the argument very much further than that and suggest that those public bodies have themselves a duty to help the language. People will speak the language because they will want to speak it.
862
The Welsh Language Board is wrong to suggest that it will be confined, if they are not supported by these bodies, to churches and colleges. That is a view that could only be advanced by churchmen and academics. It is much more likely to be spoken in the home, in the pub and in the club. It will be heard in the markets, on the farms and in local workplaces. That is where I hear it. The Government have a duty to assist in arresting the decline of the Welsh language.
I believe that the Bill gets the balance about right. There is a huge fund of goodwill for the language. Do not let us undermine it. As I said at the very end of my Llanrwst speech, the language is the inheritance of all Welsh people. We should all work together for it. Together we can do great things for the Welsh language.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, the Bill before us is by no means, as we all realise, the first enactment to deal with the Welsh language. I am very glad to have heard from the Minister some welcome and far more positive statements than are included in the Bill itself. Undoubtedly the most cheerful and popular part of the Bill is Schedule 2, which eliminates what is left of King Henry VIII's very heavy-handed language decrees. If one reads one's history one recognises that Henry VIII had some quite understandable reasons, from his own point of view, but they are not our reasons. I think we all rejoice in Schedule 2 even if we may disagree with some of the other provisions in the Bill.
It was the Welsh Courts Act of 1942 which repealed the most offensive section, Section 17 of the statute of 1536. Thirty years later, in 1972, the resulting situation was officially examined by the late Lord Edmund-Davies, whose passing will be lamented, but with gratitude, at a service next week in Llandaff Cathedral. It was he who proposed for the courts of law the system of simultaneous translation. This experiment has proved on the whole successful. Incidentally, it is interesting that he was co-operatively sustained in that suggestion by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.
It is only suitable to mention today that the necessary references for following all these various historical procedures are provided in the excellent notes on the Welsh Language Bill, available in the Library of this House, which were drawn up by our Welsh-speaking Librarian, Mr. David Jones.
What is plain is that it has taken an extraordinarily long time to change anything. Contrary to the views of some people, the Welsh have for far too long been an exceptionally patient as well as a long-suffering people.
My particular concern is not mentioned in the Bill at all. I was extremely glad to hear from the Minister that education is intended to be a major concern. There is not a word about that in the Bill. It is surely obvious that the proposals which are in the Bill cannot be successfully carried out unless adequate provision is made for Welsh language teaching for adults as well as in the schools. After all, it will be some years before

863
the present school pupils who have much improved opportunities of learning Welsh will be old enough to attain positions of power and importance. Meanwhile, it is essential that there should be further continuing education available for those who will have to operate the proposals in the Bill, or the much wider proposals which we may expect from the new Welsh Language Board.
Welsh is not an easy language to learn. That fact is not fully appreciated by those who have grown up in a Welsh-speaking family or area. It is not only an ancient language but a sophisticated one—although I admit that I occasionally cringe at the simplistic phonetic transliterations from English which some lazy-minded Welshmen are willing to adopt.
There have been admirable voluntary efforts to secure Welsh-speaking nursery schools and playgroups—not to mention the Welsh School in London —and long may they be sustained. But early familiarity, as I know from my personal experience, is simply not enough. To ensure reality for the schemes which are to be set up under the Bill and to maintain standards of administration in the public services which are to use more Welsh in their transactions, there should undoubtedly be continuing education schemes for adults. Such a provision cannot simply be left to the initiative of local education authorities. In present circumstances they do not appear able to cope with their existing obligations, let alone assuming new ones.
It would be helpful to know what is the Welsh Office opinion on that and what its intentions are. On the other hand, an increasingly significant factor must surely be the rapid advances in information technology. If British Telecom can employ directory inquiry staff who work from home, no doubt Welsh-speaking staff in other spheres can be successfully deployed—a move which could meet many problems, particularly in low populated rural areas. I hope that those opportunities will be followed through.
One assumed that the Secretary of State would accept the main recommendation of the existing Welsh Language Board—Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg. He has done so, though not accepting the proposed change of name for the new body. But under what conditions is the proposed new board to be expected to work? I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into any detail. However, when one progresses from Part I through Part II of the Bill one gathers that the Welsh Office will be engaged in continuous second-guessing and that a good deal of the work of the board may seem to be time-consuming rather than inspiring.
From what the Minister said today, that impression may be mistaken. I was glad to hear his affirmative suggestions. However, one would not necessarily gather that from the Bill. I was glad to hear the assurances and hope that they will be fully carried out. Otherwise one cannot but think how many months or years may pass before one reaches mandamus, should that ever be necessary.
I cannot help believing that the ideal solution to the language problem is genuine bilingualism. If the Swiss
864
can do it, why cannot we? The dragon should have two tongues. That ideal has been in sight at least since the 1886 Royal Commission on the Education Acts. It surfaced again in 1953 in a major report by the Central Advisory Council for Education. In the present state of our schools and colleges it would be optimistic to hope for its realisation, although I believe that the public attitude today is considerably more favourably disposed than in either 1886 or 1953. A serious negative factor is the decline in the numerical strength of the churches and chapels in Wales, on which so much of the Welsh usage has depended. Pop songs and TV programmes do not quite compensate.
Finally, I wish to say a word in regard to the Welsh Language Act 1967. Although I became Minister of State at the Welsh Office during that year, I was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of the Welsh Language Bill. That fell to my noble friend, now Lord Cledwyn, and the late Ifor Davies, our Parliamentary Secretary. It was they who were dedicated to what in its time was an extremely important innovative measure. The present Welsh Language Board is critical of the 1967 Act, I believe unduly so. Nevertheless, on page 18 of its 1991 February report, which most Welsh Members have received, it records,
"Shortly after its passing there was positive activity on the part of the Government to improve the use of the Welsh language in the public sector, but this was not sustained".
Perhaps I might respectfully suggest that that may have been influenced by a change in the Secretaries of State in 1968 and by the distance between Penrhos and Tonypandy.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is an opportunity which will not recur over these next 25 years. We need to get it right. Why does it matter? The essence of the United Kingdom is and ought to be tolerant diversity and a generous willing acceptance of difference. The Bill in its present constitution limps towards those objectives. If it is not amended in the ways suggested in specific detail by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and others, we shall be back in our usual familiar terminus—too little, too grudging, too late.
A central point of the difference of Wales is language. Unless that is grasped and understood we shall get nowhere. But the Welsh language is a stubborn, mulish beast. It declines to die; it resents attempts to circumscribe its value and its use; it insists on being heard. As my noble friend Lady White observed, historically the life of the language has been hand-in-hand with the life of organised religion, as some years ago the English language used to be nourished and nurtured by the Bible and the authorised Book of Common Prayer. In these new times the Welsh language needs—I respectfully say requires, and, before your Lordships, demands—recognition in terms that it is an official language.
In introducing the Bill the noble Earl used a phrase which I jotted down so that my mind would not overlook it: that there would be a "second" official language. We ask that those words—which, if they mean anything, mean no more than what we

865
legitimately ask—be contained in the Bill. I want to put this carefully: that we cannot and shall not move on that.
A few weeks ago, as a connoisseur of the unusual, I took the opportunity and pleasure of listening to the debate in your Lordships' House on the Bill to allow the descent of a hereditary peerage to pass to a female child if she were first born. I heard the pride expressed in regard to ancient lineage; and indeed as an outsider I enjoyed it. When recently reading the Bill I reflected, I hope not ungraciously, that several centuries before the creation of any of those ancient peerages the Welsh language was alive, active and extremely vigorous.
My late father was a schoolmaster in North Wales. I believe that he had the first state school in Wales officially teaching in the Welsh language. It was regarded as quite extraordinary in the late 1940s that small children should be taught mathematics, history, geography and even English through the medium of Welsh.
Perhaps I may interrupt myself, as none of your Lordships are ungracious enough to do so, by repeating the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I imagine that he and I shared the same experience in the hot summer evenings as the darkness fell, whispering quietly upstairs in the English language to our brother or sister and hearing father downstairs shouting, "Siaradwch Cymraeg" —"Speak Welsh!"
Nowadays education in the Welsh language is a commonplace—and increasingly wanted by monoglot English parents in areas which were formerly regarded as unutterably, irredeemably, Anglicised—Glamorgan and Gwent. As the noble Baroness points out, there is not a dot or a syllable about education in the Bill. If there is no development by way of free right to bilingual education, there will be no future for the language. The importance of the everyday use of Welsh in official documents, on television and radio, in the ordinary transactions of commercial business and in the ordinary business we all do in our modest ways cannot be overstated. If the language is one only for academics and clergymen, or (if the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will forgive me) those who live in the remoter fastnesses, the language will die, not soon but inexorably.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, pointed out that a Welsh-speaking person in Wales had no right to be tried by a jury that spoke Welsh; that is to say, in the nature of things, a jury that was bilingual. There is nothing in the Bill that will right that wrong.
Perhaps I may indulge in a rhetorical question and then offer an answer to it. I hardly need to offer an answer, and perhaps I shall not do so. The question is this: what would we have said if that situation had obtained in Bosnia, Hertcegovina or Iraq? What an outcry there would be if a defendant could not have a trial by a jury that understood his language. I would respectfully suggest that any language is an extraordinary creation. It is among the noblest of human achievements. Just a few months ago part of Windsor Castle was attacked by fire. Immediately the
866
Secretary of State offered £60 million of public funds for its repair. I do not quarrel with that. I simply suggest that the language we are attending to this evening is of infinitely more subtlety, virtue and value as an item of human creation than something produced as a high-Gothic creation in Victorian times.
I recognise that the Bill is well meaning, but being well meaning is not enough. Clause 1 does not even require that a majority on the new board should be able to speak the language that it is to oversee. I think that to achieve that would require a significant exercise of human perversity. It does not even require that any proportion of the board should have a connection with organisations that are even barely representative of Welsh speakers.
Clause 5 will not attend to the question of public utilities that was touched upon earlier. This is a wholly unacceptable omission. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, the recently privatised utilities are of extreme importance in any community. First, their everyday influence is enormous and cannot be overstated. Secondly, the brutal, bald fact is that one cannot go elsewhere for one's electricity, water or gas.
In mentioning the utilities I reiterate respectfully the tributes paid to Mr. John Elfed Jones, chairman of the Welsh Language Board. He is a doughty campaigner for the Welsh language. We should not forget that he is also chairman of Dwr Cymru—Welsh Water PLC—and anticipates no problem about a regime that will apply to his commercial organisation the rules that we are presently considering.
To paraphrase Clause 4(2), it is indicated that Welsh language protection must be given effect to only where it is appropriate in the circumstances. That is wholly unacceptable. It will not be accepted.
Clause 20 excludes the Crown and its agents from any obligation to conform. That simply will not do either. I have touched briefly on various defects of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has undertaken and engaged, we shall return to the specifics at the appropriate time.
I have read the Bill with some care and the literature produced in particular by Gwynedd County Council, which I believe among the local authorities in Wales has the best and most honourable record. They are powerful documents. But I wanted to give a fair assessment of the Bill. I invoked the shade of my late father (once a school teacher, always a school teacher) and wondered how to mark the effort so far. I was going to give five out of 10 but was seduced by the charm and generosity of the Minister's introduction. I concluded, "Six out of 10. Must try harder".
6.25 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, there is an astonishing pelmanism in communications in this House, which is particularly rife and right today, because my opening phrase has just been used as the sitting-down phrase of my noble friend. To be part of this debate is a particular pleasure. It is a pleasure too to pay tribute to all those who have taken part. The noble Earl on the Front Bench, with his disarming introduction, stands as much among us as anyone who has spoken. There is no-one here who has not made a contribution

867
to Welsh life and, in that way, to the preservation of the Welsh language. It is a further pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. The contribution he has made both this side of the barrier and the other is well understood in this House. His maiden speech contained some memorable phrases, one of which I wrote down. He saw the language as the expression of the community and the culture and identity of the individual within the community. He wished to see the language board as a cultural development agency.
If we start from the premise that the Bill is a very good beginning, congratulate all those who have played a part in its development and look at it critically in Committee, we can make it a very much better Bill. I will not go through the history nor use any of the phrases already mentioned. I wish to emphasise education and bilingualism. The importance of bilingualism was given an effective introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and was referred to also by my former leader (sitting more comfortably today) and by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Mention has been made of the total heritage. I particularly welcome the expression of the noble Earl who told us that he saw the Welsh language as part of his heritage as an Englishman and stressed its contribution to British life. It is part of the total heritage of the British Isles and as such is worthy of preservation. Those who have helped to preserve it will long be remembered in the history of Wales.
But why at this point in our history should we be particularly interested in ensuring that this noble, lilting, lovely, lyrical language of the Welsh should stay alive? I speak as an educator, having spent all of my time in the classroom and most of it in Wales. I do not know how old I was before I realised that I was a particular type of Welshman. I knew from my home that I was Welsh. My mother was Welsh speaking; my father was not. When my father became more fluent they used the language to communicate things that the children should not necessarily hear at the table. I was in a sense insulated early in my life against the acquisition of Welsh. Then I discovered that I was described by the Welshman who had both languages as a cymru di cymraeg, a Welshman without Welsh. Yet I came to realise that my heritage was not totally available because I did not have the fluency and did not have the understanding. I could not read the literature of my own land simply because my mother's tongue had denied me my mother tongue in the early days.
I fall then into the category dismissed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, as lazy Welshmen. It is a difficult language to learn. It could have been a priority that I set myself, but my life has been exciting and interesting and I did not get around to it. I do though feel the nuances of Welsh when I hear people speaking it more quickly than I can follow, and, in speaking English, I communicate my Welshness. No one has ever been at a loss to understand where I come from.
Let us get back to the significance of bilingualism and to the importance of it now in education in the 20th century, particularly at a time when the world power blocs and the ancient prejudices are breaking
868
down and we are not too certain as to what will replace them culturally, politically, socially or indeed militarily. The importance that I attach to bilingualism is that the learning of language is the key to all learning. Those who really do understand how languages are acquired are more able to communicate teaching. I once met an Italian barrister who said to me that the man who has one language is one man but the man who has two languages is many men. I believe that if a man, a person or an individual is bilingual it gives a new dimension to the mind.
In their anxiety to communicate the need to keep the language alive one of the failures of those who perhaps cared most was that they limited the use of the Welsh language simply to Wales and to communication within Wales rather than seeing it as a key to international understanding and using it in that way. I believe too that we neglected a reservoir which could in itself have attracted to Wales considerably greater interest than has hitherto been the case. My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who went back to his sources and actually acquired Welsh to a standard which even the Western Mail considers to be surprisingly good, was the principal of a university in Wales which, because of its experience in the teaching of language and in turning the use of the mother tongue into the acquisition of a second and a third language, has attracted to itself an astonishing interest. My noble friend may have time to say something about that when he comes to speak. It is not simply a priceless heritage in the rhetorical sense of paying extravagant tributes to something which we do not wholly understand. It is part of our heritage which has an effective use in education and in communication. I return again to wishing the statutory body to become a cultural development agency and to help in the exchange of such ideas.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies spoke of the difficulty of providing a full and coherent pattern of Welsh within Wales and pointed out that it is perhaps aggravated by changes taking place in education in Wales. Throughout my life it has always been a patchy business. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who was Secretary of State for Wales and represented a constituency in Wales, knows, as I know, that on either side of that ancient division high quality English, interesting Shakespearian English, is spoken while north of the Haven there is an equally beautiful idiosyncratic Welsh.
One of the problems that we face in providing a full pattern of education at primary level in our schools is that teachers who have Welsh, who are essentially full Welshmen speaking both languages, do not normally wish to become missionaries in areas that do not speak Welsh. There is no reason, other than a missionary zeal for the language, why a young person should want to move a couple of hundred miles from the area in which he has grown up in order to take part in an education scheme. Therefore areas like Pembrokeshire find it difficult to provide at primary school level teachers adequate in their own language to teach their own language to their fellows in Wales.
There are problems. This statutory board must be freed at the beginning from any handicaps that might

869
be inadvertently placed upon it. If we are saying, "Six out of 10" and "Must try harder", then the area on which we will have to concentrate is freeing the new statutory body to do the work that we are all agreed should be done. There has been no dissenting voice in the debate. There have been differences in emphasis, correcting this or that particular thrust, but we are all agreed that the language is vital to the Welsh who speak it, that it is vital to the Welsh who do not speak it, and that it should be understood by those who are associated with and interested in Wales so that they too can make a contribution to its preservation, as indeed the Minister said in his introductory remarks.
In Committee let us strike out from the Bill those little things which are really only a government department trying to retain authority. Under the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I was head of a statutory body, the Wales Tourist Board. It was a good body and had a great deal of strength. I was conscious, when I went to see the Secretary of State for Wales, of the strength of the body. Why is it that we conceive a statutory body for the language that does not have that sense of confidence? Should that sense of confidence be limited because someone might have told the Secretary of State for Wales that the department must be careful that these chaps did not become too big for their boots? We have a consensus. It is the art of chairmanship to go for consensus. With the agreement that we have, let us take it a little further.
We have been briefed for this debate by important contributors to Wales. I refer to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and CEFN, whose representations we have all received. They take the view that the statutory body, within the normal constraints of democracy and taking away none of the responsibility of Parliament and without weakening the Minister in any sense, should be given the right to stand for the things which many of us agree so closely about. There are gaps in the Bill. I am concerned that it does not set out the linguistic rights of Welsh speakers in Wales. A great deal will be said about that. There are other gaps, many of which have been noted, but I am sure that those can be closed in Committee. Why do we not resolve the difficulties experienced by the county councils. They require a knowledge of Welsh because their employees come into contact with Welsh speakers in the course of their employment. I see no threat to me as a Welsh speaker who does not have a command of the language. It is extremely important to people who are handicapped and people who are cut off from communication with the general public that Welsh should be the language in areas where Welsh is the language. I would wish the Bill to be strengthened in that regard.
I want the Government to improve the Bill in the light of the discussion that takes place in Committee. I do not think they will fail to respond to the suggestions made by so many powerful individuals here today. If they do, they will regret their decision because they will have missed a great opportunity.
I was a little startled, as someone who has lived in Wales all his life, to receive a pamphlet which says,
870
"One of these labels is illegal in Wales". The pamphlet has product advertisements in a number of languages, chiefly products which my father as a campaigner for total abstinence would not have advertised. The leaflet states that one of the products is illegal. It is a label from a wine bottle. I did not know which one it was, but it is in my own language —the same mother-tongue which I spoke about earlier. The only item which is illegal is the one that carries the Welsh language. That is a nonsense.
In getting the Bill off the ground and making it an Act, and in carrying these people with us, let us see that we wipe out all these nonsenses once and for all, so that the Welsh people can say, "This Bill was the beginning of our being given the opportunity to express ourselves in the courts and for our children to learn the language which is so much a part of the common heritage of the whole of the British Isles."
6.40 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for Wales and all his predecessors who are here this afternoon in the Chamber. I pay tribute to every one of them for their helpful hand over the past 30 years to promote, aid and give financial assistance to the Welsh language in Wales. That help has been very useful indeed in keeping our language alive.
I have listened with great interest to noble Lords on both sides of the House. I was very impressed by the opening speech of the Minister. Perhaps I may also name my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. We both went to the other place at the same time and we came here on the same day. On the occasion when we took the Oath in this place we both took it in Welsh. History was made with two noble Lords, on taking their seats, taking the Oath in Welsh. I was also delighted to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It may be that many noble Lords are not aware that his father taught me. He was headmaster at Ponterwyd village school many years ago. I remember him vividly. He was a very strict disciplinarian and did his job very well. Perhaps that is the reason why I am here, but I do not know.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to say a few words about the proposals. I am bitterly disappointed with the proposals in the Bill. In my view they do not go far enough. Seven generations of my family have lived in Ponterwyd which is a small village in the heart of the Plynlimon mountain range in Cardiganshire in West Wales. During the lifetime of the seven generations each one of the family was a fluent Welsh speaker. I hold the view in 1993 that I am entitled to have equal status for my native language like my English friend next door.
Until fairly recently, Ponterwyd has maintained its Welsh character. In its own special way it has made a valuable contribution to the preservation of the Welsh language and culture. But now there are many English families living about me with different traditions and, as yet, with little knowledge of the Welsh language. The whole essence of the village is changing. In those circumstances it should not he regarded as surprising that I should be asking—no, demanding—that I

871
should be given the same rights as regards the use of my native language as my English neighbour has for his. The surprise is that it should be necessary for me to do so.
Tonight many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the chequered history of the Welsh language and the way in which it has survived over the centuries against almost impossible odds. The language has survived because we have willed it to survive. But in this modern world the erosion of our traditions and way of life, together with our language, is increasing at a quicker pace. Legislation is now more necessary than ever to stem that decline.
For over 400 years we have been thrown crumbs in the form of some small measure or other by successive British governments. But why is no one willing to give us the whole loaf and let us have an effective Welsh language Act for once and for all? Perhaps I may be told why we cannot have that kind of Welsh language Act. What we have before us today is nothing of the kind. My generation had, I believe, the right to expect that at last due recognition would be given to one of Europe's oldest surviving languages.
At one stage I, like many others, was optimistic, particularly when the Welsh Language Board was set up to look into the possibilities of bringing forward a new Welsh language Act. The members of the board, under the chairmanship of John Elfed Jones, worked diligently to obtain the views of interested bodies and draft a suitable Bill that seemed a step in the right direction. But, alas, our hopes were dashed.
What we have before us today is a travesty. In its preamble the Bill holds out the promise of great things, but when one examines the details disappointment is inevitable. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of State, who is, after all, a Welsh-speaking Welshman, had a golden opportunity to present the gift of right to the Welsh people. Instead, they have chosen the half-hearted approach that goes no way towards meeting the aspirations of those who have the interests of Wales and its language at heart.
Why, after appointing the Welsh Language Board, did they then choose to ignore its recommendations? Why is the Welsh Office more willing to listen to its special advisers, who obviously have no idea of what goes on in Wales, than to the experienced and knowledgeable people that it appointed to the board? That is the great mystery. Perhaps the Minister will answer that when he replies to the debate.
My whole instinct is to oppose this Bill in its entirety, but bitter experience has taught me that once again a Bill will be imposed by this Government on the Welsh people against their will, like many other Bills. Therefore, my aim is to urge this House to agree to amendments that can at least improve some aspects of the Bill. I can assure the House that I am not alone in my distaste for this Bill. Bodies ranging from the Welsh Consumer Council to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, the WI and the Welsh Language Education Development Committee, and countless others, have expressed grave doubts about the Bill's effectiveness. They realise that it seems to depend more on good will than the rule of law. It is agreed that
872
to function properly the proposed board must be independent of the Welsh Office in the same way that the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality are independent of the Home Office.
Perhaps I may quote from a letter sent to me by the President of the Court of the Royal National Eisteddfod of Wales, which has long been the guardian of the language. It encapsulates the whole thrust of my argument. Professor Derec Llwyd Morgan says in a letter written to me in Welsh, which I have tried to translate to the best of my ability:
"Although the opening passage of the Bill proclaims that it is intended to 'promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language on a basis of equality with English', yet the measures proposed are hardly those that put Welsh on a par with English. True equality means that Welsh should be acknowledged as one of two official languages in Wales—and that by virtue of law. It is difficult to accept that the present Bill has been designed to achieve this aim, because it is a Bill that puts the emphasis—not on the strength of legislation—but on the exercise of good will. It is no use having a law that comprises a series of good intentions that some—and only some—public bodies are expected to follow. Rather, we demand a Bill that gives the right to every citizen of this realm who lives in Wales the statutory right to use the Welsh language, if he or she wishes, in dealings with every public authority, including corporations or private companies that have statutory duties in Wales; and in addition, a Bill that gives the Welsh Language Board the necessary powers to ensure that its requirements are complied with".
I shall approach succeeding stages of the Bill with those principles in mind. In addition, I support the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Hooson, who made an excellent speech and put forward many proposals. I am sure that the Minister and the Government will heed what he said about the importance of education in the preservation and development of the Welsh language. I shall argue for the right of children to be taught in Welsh in every school in Wales. I also agree with the argument that defendants should have the right to be tried by jurors who can at least understand Welsh.
Now is not the time to argue in detail the radical changes that I wish to see in the Bill, but I want to make it clear that, as it stands, it comes nowhere near what I had hoped for or what the people of Wales deserve.
To those noble Lords who are possibly English but who have stayed to listen to us tonight out of interest, perhaps I may say, "Put yourselves in our place. What if the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare had been demeaned over the centuries to the same extent that Welsh had been demeaned, and denied any right in law? Would you not stand up and shout, 'enough is enough'?"
Language, after all, expresses the soul of a nation, and that is why I earnestly seek your Lordships' understanding of the importance of achieving justice, after many long centuries, for the language of Wales.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in 1725, in a letter to Fortescue, it was the English poet, Alexander Pope, who added a ninth beatitude to the other eight when he wrote:
"Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed".

873
It seems that many in Wales expected too much because, as the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said, the general response to the Bill of responsible opinion in Wales has been one of disappointment—disappointment especially in the climate of hope and optimism about the future of the language now prevalent throughout Wales itself; disappointment ranging across the whole spectrum of disillusion that they feel in Ponterwyd to simple regret at yet another example of missed opportunities and labour in vain. As my noble friend Lady White said, Wales has been very patient. Yet it must be said that at a recent meeting of Forwm yr Iaith (the National Language Forum) 26 out of the 28 representatives of organisations interested in the Welsh language said that they were hostile to the Bill in its present form. That is a sad state of affairs.
Their "vote" was more in sorrow than in anger, as was a letter I received from a senior local government official which said:
"As you are aware, although certain aspects of the proposed legislation, in particular the proposal to establish a statutory Welsh Language Board, have been welcomed, the Bill generally has been branded as 'deficicient and completely inadequate by a wide range of organisations and individuals in Wales and these sentiments are in no way confined to the Welsh-speaking community".
Equally moderate in its tone is the response of the Welsh Consumer Council, which might be expected to be sympathetic to the Government's philosophy. It says:
"As a consumer organisation we believe that the Bill as published is seriously flawed in many areas and will cause quite unnecessary dissent and confusion. Our main concerns centre on the effect the Bill will have on the use of Welsh in the high street and the failure to establish clear rights, choices and means of redress for the individual language user".
For all its politeness, that is fairly devastating, suggesting, as it does, that the whole matter has been approached from entirely the wrong end—the cart is before the horse—and that it is likely to confuse and alienate the ordinary people of Wales. That was clearly not the Government's intention.
Less expected, and therefore more disappointing, must have been response of the Government's own creation—their ewe lamb—the Welsh Language Board. In its press release on the Bill the board states:
"The Government's Bill clearly fails to achieve the objectives set out by the Secretary of State in his statement to the House in February 1992 and falls well short of the Board's own proposals published in February 1991".
It is not that the Bill does things that it ought not to have done but that it has left undone those things which it ought to have done; and there is no health in it.
Many organisations and individuals made comparisons, often reprovingly, between provisions made in the Welsh Language Board's Bill, Recommendations for a New Welsh Language Act, February 1991, and the Government's Bill. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, drew attention to that. I am sure that the whole House would find it most helpful if when he comes to reply the Minister could explain to us why so many of the board's recommendations were ignored.
The board's Bill began with a statement that Welsh
874
shall be an official language in Wales and shall be of equal validity to the English language. My noble friends Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Cledwyn, and Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked some shrewd questions on that. We have all been concerned to obtain greater clarity on the issue. There is no corresponding provision in the Government's Bill, although in the Long Title and in Clauses 2 and 4 there are references to the principle that,
"The English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
But that principle is immediately hedged around with conditions which breach it, like the words,
"So far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
in Clause 4. Why such caution?
The Welsh Language Board clearly believed that every citizen has the right to expect that every public body should comply with his requirements as to whether he wishes to be communicated with in Welsh or English. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn drew attention to that fact. The board's Bill imposed a duty on government departments and public bodies to try to act accordingly. Again, there is no corresponding provision in the Government's Bill and Clause 4(2) is unlikely to achieve the same end unless it is developed and spelt out far more carefully, a point made gently but firmly by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
On the matter of Clause 5 and the meaning to be attached to the words "public body", the board's proposals were applicable to government departments and privatised companies as well as to local authorities, health authorities and the like. The Government's Bill seems not to include them. But surely public utilities, whether privatised or not, must be required to provide a bilingual service and to prepare schemes to that end. Clause 5 leaves so many questions unanswered. British Telecom is partly privatised but where does it fit? British Rail as it stands would have to prepare a scheme but when it is privatised it will not. A public service is a public service whether it is provided by the local authority, a government department or a private utility. Surely all of them should be required to prepare schemes to provide their service to the general public bilingually. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, the private sector and Crown bodies are excluded. Why is that? Why does the Bill divide the field in that confusing way?
Clause 4 of the board's Bill made provision for the implementation over a period of years of a rolling programme for the preparation of bilingual forms and documents. There is nothing in the Government's Bill to correspond to that and on the whole matter of true bilingualism the Government's Bill has nothing to say. My noble friend Lady White mentioned that. The Bill gives no aims, no objectives and no timetables for the achievement of bilingualism. Once again may we ask why not?
On the question of language qualifications and employment, the Government's Bill has nothing to offer. Yet that has been a contentious and litigious matter in Wales for many years. Gwynedd County Council has been challenged for requiring the ability

875
to speak Welsh in appointments to posts in residential homes for elderly people, most of whom are normally Welsh speakers. The board's Bill included a clause to amend Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 so that the requirement of an ability to speak Welsh would be justifiable where the person concerned would be regularly dealing with people who usually speak Welsh. There is no such clause in the Government's Bill. It would be helpful to know why the Government decided to reject that clear recommendation of their language board.
There has been real disappointment in Wales that the Government have not seen fit to take the board's advice on the matter of Welsh-speaking juries. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn only just managed to restrain his righteous fury on that matter. The board's Bill included a clause which would amend Section 10 of the Juries Act 1974 so as to discharge from jury service persons found to have an insufficient knowledge of Welsh where a trial was to be held in Welsh. I can assure the House that even the very finest simultaneous translation service is not an acceptable substitute for understanding at first hand what is being said by defendants and witnesses in criminal prosecutions. The choice of words, the tone of voice and the credibility of utterance are vital matters when a member of a jury is trying to assess the veracity or otherwise of what is being offered in evidence; and natural justice alone surely requires that the whole jury is at least reasonably fluent in the language of the proceedings in its case. What reason can there be for rejecting that proposal contained in the Bill drafted by the Welsh Language Board?
Although there was no specific provision in the board's Bill for developments in education, the board's report referred to the invitation to the Welsh Language Education Development Committee to submit legislative proposals to be included in the new Welsh Language Act and the WLEDC made some suggestions. The Government's Bill does not refer to education or training except for a reference to educational bodies in Clause 5. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn drew attention to that point most forcefully. Yet the right to education through the medium of Welsh for people from the age of five to 16 has been demanded by one body after another for the past decade and more. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his most inspiring maiden speech, spoke so vividly about the centrality of education to the health of the Welsh language. So did my noble friend Parry yr athro; that is, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, the teacher.
Similarly, in the field of training, the National Language Forum has long argued for statutory rights for the staff of statutory organisations to claim a set number of working days each year to attend courses in reading, writing and speaking Welsh. Just in case any of your Lordships might think that such courses are an easy and pleasant alternative to work, I can assure you that the WLPAN courses run by the University of Wales work on principles and practice which make an SAS assault course feel like a stroll down a country lane.
876
It is quite unreasonable for the Government to claim to be working for Welsh fluency throughout public administration unless they give clear rights to employees to undergo the necessary training. They should also provide financial rewards as an inducement to achieving fluency in Welsh in public sector jobs. That principle is already applied in Europe to proficiency in many other languages, but it is almost unknown in Wales. As the Welsh Consumer Council stated:
"The 'British' are notorious within Europe for their reluctance in handling and responding to other people's languages".
The Welsh have suffered from this—the attitude that somehow speaking a language other than English is unnatural or unnecessary. But, as the Welsh Consumer Council noted in 1990:
"Government is becoming increasingly used to dealing with multiple ethnic minority languages within Britain as well as with multiple languages within the wider context of the European Community. There should, therefore, be no problem in its also dealing with the needs of an indigenous language".
That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
The Government's Bill has no proposals and no suggestions for the whole area of teaching, learning and training. One wonders why not. One also wonders why the Government are not signing the Convention of European Regional Minority Languages which was opened for signature last October.
The Welsh Consumer Council, in its advice to us, made much of the virtual silence of the Government's Bill on the question of arbitration. Both the Welsh Language Board and the National Language Forum recognise in their proposals that the promotion of the Welsh language must envisage some mechanisms to arbitrate and provide conciliation where disputes arise; and the Welsh Consumer Council recognises that at the very heart of consumerism lies the necessity for choice and the means for redress of grievance. In our present climate the Citizen's Charter is equally adamant on the provision of prompt and proper redress.
There is no unanimity of opinion in Wales on what exactly is required in the arbitration of language matters. The Welsh Language Board thought that its statutory successor would be the right body. The Welsh Consumer Council favoured the establishment of an independent ombudsman service for Welsh language matters. The National Language Forum argued for a Bwrdd Cymodi Ieithyddol, or a Language Reconciliation Board. But all were agreed that some mechanism for considering complaints was vital. However, the Government's Bill offers only referral to the Secretary of State if the bodies in conflict cannot agree between themselves. It is a well-known fact that all Secretaries of State for Wales are endowed with the wisdom of King Solomon immediately upon assuming office. But that is too much to ask either of them or of the complainants. Why have the Government rejected every idea for an independent arbitrator?
In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum the only financial effect of the Bill which is identified in figures is the increase of £82,000 for next year in the

877
budget of the new Welsh Language Board. Yet promoting and facilitating the use of Welsh is bound to have financial and manpower implications both for implementing schemes and for retraining personnel. As the librarian for the National Library has pointed out to me in a letter:
"If no additional funding is to be made for implementing bilingual schemes—if that is what is meant by accommodating additional costs within mainstream budgets—then inevitably the use of Welsh will be said to be in competition with effective management. There should be some reference to a positive commitment to promote the objects of the Bill".
It is that lack of positive commitment in the Bill which seems to have saddened so many people in Wales.
One person writing to me regretted what he described as "the somewhat grudging tone"—a word picked up quite independently by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn—of the Bill which seemed to him,
"designed to have as little effect as possible on the status quo".
This Bill is a heavyweight in bureaucracy but a flyweight in citizens' rights.
On these Benches we welcome warmly a few provisions in the Bill and mourn the absence of many others. Weak as it is, we shall try to make it stronger by proposing positive and constructive amendments in Committee. Sadly, it is widely seen in Wales as yet another chapter in the long saga of missed opportunities. Let us together try to make six out of 10 into at least eight out of 10 and turn "Must try harder" into "Has made great strides in recent weeks".
7.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with so many educationalists among your Lordships, it is not surprising that the examination results should be much to the fore. We have heard a number of important and knowledgable speeches. I knew that we should and that this would be a fascinating debate. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot answer every point which has been made and, indeed, that would be a most disagreeable prospect for your Lordships. However, I am grateful to your Lordships for pointing out those matters of anxiety with which your Lordships wish to deal in Committee.
At the outset, I join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on his maiden speech. I found making my maiden speech the most terrifying experience that I have ever had. I am still greatly apprehensive about making a speech in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoke without a note in his hand and he spoke fluently and engagingly with a degree of wit which made it a most agreeable experience for those who were listening. I am sure that the noble Lord will make many stimulating speeches of that nature in future. His reputation has come before him and even those of us who were not in another place knew the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. We shall look forward to hearing from him again in this House.
The noble Lord was very clever in that he spoke briefly, wittily and with no notes and yet did not contravene the practice of your Lordships' House. I thought that he was going to do so when he started to
878
speak in Welsh but he soon got himself back on the rails and explained what he was saying. The only reason that speaking in Welsh might be considered against the practice of the House is because the idea of debate is that people can understand what you are saying. Therefore, speaking in Welsh may have had a rather inhibiting effect.
I am grateful for the courteous and measured way in which noble Lords have spoken on the Bill. We must return later to the detail of it. One cannot introduce a Bill on a language and expect it to meet with everyone's approval. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that the language is the soul of the nation. This Bill aims to encourage the use of the Welsh language. Of course, some will say that it does not go far enough and should go further; I understand that. However, I was disappointed because the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that he would oppose the Bill in its entirety. I am sure that that was a piece of Welsh rhetoric which he did not really mean. He described his distaste for the Bill. It is difficult for the Government to do anything right. We have introduced a Bill to encourage use of the Welsh language. As a mere layman I thought it would be greeted with great approbation, only to be told that it will be opposed in its entirety by an extremely impressive and influential Welshman. I hope that as time goes by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, will mellow his views somewhat.
I must try to walk with great delicacy. To be the only Englishman surrounded by Welshmen is a most formidable experience and I do not wish to say anything which may be considered to be inappropriate. Throughout the passage of the Bill I shall listen and take careful note of what your Lordships say and I shall do my best to allay the genuine anxieties expressed. It is right that those anxieties should be addressed, because the Government wish to try to ensure that the Bill which reaches the statute book is as good as it reasonably can be. It will not meet everyone's requirements by the very nature of things. It cannot. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he said that we must show tolerance and understanding. The noble Lord was referring to the Bill but perhaps I may transfer that suggestion to your Lordships. We should show tolerance and understanding for the views of all as we approach the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that the Bill limped in the right direction. At least it is going in the right direction, which apparently is not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Geraint. However, that was not a particularly generous description.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and others said that Welsh should be an official language. It is an official language. It has equal status with the English language. I referred to it as a second language and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, picked me up on that. I was merely referring to the numerical order rather than pecking order. Of course, the two languages are equal.
I was extremely pleased when both the noble Lords, Lord William of Mostyn and Lord Parry, said that I should get five out of 10 and they then increased that

879
to six out of 10. As I never achieved anything like five out of 10 when I was at school, I was greatly pleased by that. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was going to say that when I started my speech I was trying and by the end of it I was very trying but he missed the opportunity to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and others compared this Bill with the Welsh Language Board's Bill. It is important to realise that the board agreed that a number of the proposals could be pursued by non-legislative means. The remainder are addressed by the Bill in a different way. The noble Lord was anxious about the response of the Welsh organisations and I understand that. However, I hope that as we go through the later stages of the Bill your Lordships may feel that some of those anxieties may have been unfounded.
The Bill seeks to change the law. Understandably, if the law is changed, the alterations must sometimes be couched in dry and legal language. I hope that we shall be able to explain some of the points which give rise to anxiety and show that they are unfounded.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was anxious as regards whether Welsh should be a qualification for employment. Any uncertainty which may have arisen about the law in that area can be clarified by non-legislative means.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, was anxious about continuing the Welsh language. He made an important speech. If that difficulty is to be overcome, people who move to rural Wales must see the language as an opportunity and not as a threat. It underlines the importance of the Government's policy and dependence on goodwill, and that will remain at the heart of all that we do.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made a remarkable speech full of questions. I shall not be able to address all of them tonight. It was a deeply thoughtful speech, and he asked why there was no Welsh speaker's charter. The Bill applies the principles of the Citizen's Charter and is fully in accordance with the Citizen's Charter. If the noble Lord wishes to call it a Welsh speaker's charter, then he is entitled to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was concerned about extending the domain where Welsh is spoken. There is a great deal in this concept. The Bill will allow for this in response to the demands of Welsh speakers. The flexible framework in which it is drawn up will be such that the domain can be extended. It may be a small language in numerical terms, but this is not the Government's view. The Government's view is that it is an important language that we wish to see continued and enabled to prosper.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the role of legislation. Legislation obviously has a contribution to make, but I agree that it depends on far more than that: people must want to speak it. Our role is to try to create an environment where they wish to do so. We have done this by making a statutory board. Then of course the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, felt that the board should be dynamic and not a dull quango. This reflects the Government's view. That is why we have made it in the way that we have.
880
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was concerned about the membership of the board. The composition of the existing board is an indication that the Government will expect Welsh speakers to be prominent among the board's members, though I hope that your Lordships could agree that non-Welsh speakers also have a contribution to make. The membership of the board was something that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was concerned about. We will certainly be concerned to see that membership of the board is representative of a spread of opinion in Wales about the language. He was also concerned about the content of the guidelines. It will be for the board to decide, but the board's existing voluntary guidelines will provide an illustration of the sort of thing that can be expected, covering as they do matters such as correspondence, personal enquiries, and the provision of information.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, then came to the matter of government departments. This concerned a number of noble Lords. I gave a commitment to your Lordships that government departments and Crown bodies will produce schemes. I explained why it was not put in the Bill, because there is a certain absurdity of a Secretary of State being able to penalise himself. Both government departments and Crown bodies will produce schemes, and their schemes will be prepared in exactly the same way and to the same standards as those of other public bodies. Crown bodies will behave in practice just as if the Bill placed formal obligations upon them.
Some of your Lordships were concerned about the private sector and why it was not brought into this. I can confirm to your Lordships that the board will be able to advise the private sector. That is what it is entitled to do. Many of your Lordships referred to private utilities, which is a not dissimilar point. The privatised utilities have been at the forefront of those who have been developing Welsh language policies, and all of them on a voluntary basis. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who is chairman of the National Rivers Authority, a distinguished position for a distinguished person to hold, was concerned about private practices and services that were contracted out. That is a matter to which I will be happy to return. The Bill contains sufficient flexibility to extend to these people new forms of delivering services. I can assure my noble friend that I will be expecting a scheme from the National Rivers Authority in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Parry, as I expected, referred to the importance of education. I agree with what they said. It is central to the Government's policies. Welsh is now a foundation subject in the national curriculum. The Bill will strengthen this by ensuring that parents' wishes are complied with. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, again on education, asked why the Bill did not refer to it. Of course the Bill did not mention education particularly, but neither does it mention any other service. The Bill is intended to apply to all services. The whole point of the way the Bill is constructed is

881
that it should not be specific but should produce a general remit that will cover a wide spectrum of organisations in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, talked about taking education into new areas. He mentioned the encouraging growth in the Welsh medium education. It is notable that even in Gwent there is now a Welsh medium secondary school. There is a trend towards taking Welsh into new areas, and this Bill will continue this. It will apply throughout Wales, whatever areas' linguistic character may be. The noble Lord was also concerned about the plight of non-Welsh speaking Welshmen. We hope that particularly in the world of education our policies will be aimed at ensuring that in future there will be fewer non-Welsh speaking Welshmen.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to Welsh classes for adults. That is another aspect of what might be called the Government's wider policy. It will be strengthened by arrangements that are currently being established to transfer the responsibility for these classes to the further education funding councils for Wales.
There were three similar matters that concerned the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and others. They were equality, the basis of equality, and equal validity. I have no doubt that we shall refer to these nuances, if I can so express it, at Committee stage. The Bill puts the two languages on a basis of equality. There is nothing sinister about that. It is almost as far as one can go.
If there were to be just equality—if I may use this as an example—it would mean that a person who spoke to somebody in Welsh in a public place could, though that person did not speak Welsh, expect to receive a reply in Welsh. That would obviously be absurd. The requirements must be reasonable and practicable. Equality is directed to the practical issues surrounding the delivery of service as well as to the legal issues. Equal validity is a strictly legal concept. It is not defined in practical terms. That is a matter that would have to be determined by the courts. The Bill confirms the equal status of the Welsh and English languages. It recognises in Clause 4 that each public body reflects this in practice. Of course it must be
882
dependent on their particular circumstances how they do it. I assure your Lordships there is nothing more sinister than that.
Then there was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Geraint: why cannot we have Welsh-speaking jurors? I can understand those concerns, but I ask your Lordships to consider the issue of interference with the random selection of jurors that might arise if you could only draw your jurors from Welsh speaking people. That might well have a restrictive effect on the courts. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the noble and learned Lord, as he was, Lord Edmund-Davies. I was glad to hear her tribute to him because he devoted a major part of his report to the practical issues surrounding the use of Welsh in the courts. His report continues to inform government policy. He was a great man. I have certain responsibilities for the police service and his name is enshrined there with a great depth and warmth of feeling. I knew him personally and had the greatest admiration for him, not least for the time he spent as chairman of the Cheshire Foundation.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said he wanted this to be an effective Act. We all want that. We believe—the noble Lord would not expect me to say anything else—that this Bill has all the makings of being an effective Act because it addresses itself to the practical issues and it provides for them to be addressed wherever they arise throughout the public sector. The Bill combines both good will and the rule of law.
In the end, one cannot force anyone to speak a language but one can try to nurture it, encourage it and make it grow. One can try to give it all the warmth one can, as one does with a plant. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said the language—these are not his words but a paraphrase—has been allowed to wither over the past generations. The whole idea of this Bill is to try to stop that process; to try to encourage the use of the Welsh language and keep it going. I am grateful to noble Lords for the partial welcome, in some cases, that they have given to the Bill. I shall look forward to being further educated in the next stages of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.] Unibank Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: REPLENISHMENT
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: REPLENISHMENT
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  BETTING OFFICES: EVENING OPENING
  BETTING OFFICES: EVENING OPENING
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION OPERATION REVIEW: SUBMISSIONS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION OPERATION REVIEW: SUBMISSIONS
  INCOME SUPPORT: BOARDER PREMIUM PROPOSAL
  INCOME SUPPORT: BOARDER PREMIUM PROPOSAL
  COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS: REDUCTION OF NOXIOUS EMISSIONS
  COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS: REDUCTION OF NOXIOUS EMISSIONS
  EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS: PRE-APPOINTMENT CHECKS ON STAFF
  EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS: PRE-APPOINTMENT CHECKS ON STAFF
  RECYCLED PAPER USED IN NEWSPRINT
  RECYCLED PAPER USED IN NEWSPRINT