Sitting of 27 January 1993

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DAWAT-E-HADIYAH (ENGLAND) BILL
  PWLLHELI HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Read the Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Housing Renovation Grants
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he is giving to local authorities to help them with the cost of housing renovation grants.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): A total of £386 million has been allocated in 1992–93 to support local authority expenditure on private sector renewal work, including house renovation grants.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware that that figure represents a cut in the value of renovation grants over previous years and that many local authorities are still struggling to meet the demand for such grants? In my constituency, 4,000 properties could benefit from renovation grants—yet my constituents are having to wait 15 months before their properties can be inspected. Is the Minister satisfied and, if not, what does he intend to do about it?
    Sir George Young: On the first point, more resources will be available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents next year for improvement grants. What really matters is the totality of expenditure, from the Government and from local authorities, and next year £1.5 million will be available to his constituents as opposed to £1.3 million this year. That is good news.
    On the second point, we recognise that a growing number of authorities face increased expenditure on mandatory grants. I have announced our intention to consult on options for change, and we hope to issue a paper by spring.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that as important as the amount of money give to local authorities is, it is also important to consider their efficiency and whether they are corrupt? Is he aware that the Evening Standard has pointed out that a third of the homeless
    1022
    families in Lambeth are fraudulent? Has he read about the incompetence of that authority, and will he compare it with its competence when he was a member?
    Sir George Young: It is, of course, an affront to any families in bed and breakfast if access to permanent accommodation is denied them because of inefficiency or corruption.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned expenditure in the current financial year on the Green House programmes to promote energy efficiency work in local authority housing; and what is the planned expenditure in each of the next two years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): A total of £45 million is being spent on this demonstration programme in 1992–93, and £5 million is available to complete the programme in 1993–94.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept that early results of the programme show that it can lead to substantial energy savings and be of direct advantage to the environment? Should not the conclusion be that, instead of running down the programme, we should develop a nationwide strategy which would be to the long-term financial advantage of the domestic energy consumer and the physical environment? Does the Minister intend to bring to the House revised building regulations to take into account the lessons already learnt from that programme?
    Mr. Baldry: The results of the demonstration programme are, indeed, exceptionally good and show that reductions in fuel costs of up to 40 per cent. and in carbon dioxide emissions of up to 50 per cent. can be achieved. However, it was a demonstration programme and now all local authorities must learn the lessons and ensure that they take them into account in their mainstream housing renovation programmes. In the coming year they will have a wonderful opportunity to do so because they will not only have the money from mainline housing investment programmes but the opportunity to invest the proceeds of their capital receipts. Their estimate—not ours or the Treasury's—is that they will this year raise £1.75 billion in capital receipts, well over £1 billion of which they can invest in housing. I hope that much of that investment will go on renovating and maintaining their stock.
    Yes, we are introducing new building regulations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced proposals that will substantially improve existing building regulations.
    Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country still lags a long way behind some of our continental friends. and that it would be a good investment if, when he introduced new building regulations, he looked ahead 10 or 15 years and introduced the energy efficiency regulations that we think might apply then, so as to avoid large capital expenditure on improvements in the future?
    Mr. Baldry: The proposals that we announced yesterday do exactly that. We estimate that the total effect

    1023
    of the whole package will be a 25 to 35 per cent. improvement on current building regulations in terms of energy performance. That is a substantial improvement.
    Ms. Short: If the Government would move in this policy area, it would benefit everyone. If we go for a big national insulation programme that will generate jobs, cut people's bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, that will be the right thing for the country. The Government are cutting the small programme that they had, and proposing new building regulations of a low standard.
    Mr. Baldry: Clearly, the hon. Lady has not listened to a word that I said. The demonstration programme proves that local authorities can make substantial savings in terms both of costs and of improved energy efficiency. I hope that local authorities will take their opportunity this year for a substantial housing investment programme, using the released capital receipts to invest in their housing stock. The hon. Lady's city of Birmingham owns about 3,500 commercial properties—I still wonder what it is doing owning those. I hope that Birmingham will consider its asset base, decide what can be realised and apply some of the capital receipts to the city's housing stock.

    Autumn Statement
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of the effect of the housing measures announced by the Chancellor in his autumn statement on the housing market since then.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): The Housing Corporation now estimates that these measures will allow housing associations to buy about 17,000 properties in England by the end of March. A further 3,500 purchases will be made possible through cash grants to tenants. Taken together with the recent substantial fall in interest rates, this package should certainly have a very positive impact on the housing market.
    Mr. Martin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider further measures to encourage rented family housing? Will he examine again the Rent Acts and Housing Acts, which, over many generations, have kept for shelter the rationing and queues which, for food and clothing, were swept away years ago by private enterprise?
    Mr. Howard: We have made substantial progress in sweeping away those restrictions that have so long impeded progress in improving and increasing the rented sector in the housing market. I confirm to my hon. Friend that I am always anxious to consider further measures.
    Mr. George Howarth: When the Secretary of State reconsiders the package, will he pay attention to the plight of people who bought former council houses, such as the "no fines" houses. Such people often now live in totally unsatisfactory, damp and inadequate properties, and have no means whereby they could afford to bring those properties up to proper standards. Will the Secretary of State consider extending the programme, perhaps to include mandatory grants?
    Mr. Howard: Of course, in certain circumstances grants are available and people in those circumstances can apply for those grants, which will help them to improve the conditions in which they live.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that welcome as the measures in the Chancellor's autumn statement are, they tend to give the greatest benefits to major contractors and large-volume house builders? What help can he offer small and medium-sized building businesses facing not only the ravages of recession but unequal competition from the legal activities of those who operate below the VAT ceiling and can charge 17.5 per cent. less on bills, and the illegal activities of the black economy where it is a case of "cash down and no questions asked"?
    Mr. Howard: I am, of course, anxious that any illegal activities such as those referred to by my hon. Friend should be brought to an end. Any information that my hon. Friend and those to whose complaints he referred possess will be carefully considered by the appropriate authorities.
    The purpose of the autumn statement package was to improve the condition of the housing market in general, and I believe that it is having a positive impact on the market.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a bit premature to talk about a housing market recovery on the day we learn that mortgage arrears have shot up by 28 per cent. and more than 147,000 families with arrears of more than 12 months are staring eviction in the face? Will he confirm that the Prime Minister is to introduce cash handouts for mortgage deposits to get the housing market going? Would it not be better for him to address the real problem? People fear that they are a pay check away from redundancy, so they dare not risk long-term commitments. Rising unemployment is undermining the housing market. Will the Secretary of State confirm that every working day since 1989 more than 600 building workers have lost their jobs? Without tackling unemployment by investment, the Government have no hope of tackling the housing crisis.
    Mr. Howard: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. He began by referring to the increasing numbers of people who are in arrears on their mortgages. Does he not understand that if we persuade the building societies not to evict people and not to go for repossession orders, the inevitable consequence is that the number of people in their properties but in arrears will increase?
    Why does the hon. Gentleman not refer to the news out today that the number of repossessions has fallen by 9 per cent. over the past year? Why does he not refer to the views of the director-general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, who has said that the worst is now over? When will the Labour party stop its deliberate campaign of obstructing recovery and driving our recovery into recession?

    Local Government (Corruption)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will launch an initiative to cut corruption in local government.
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government corruption; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I am extremely concerned about recent reports of corruption in local government. I have every

    1025
    confidence that they will be investigated thoroughly by the Audit Commission and by the police. My officials have today written to Lambeth council in respect of breaches of competition legislation. I shall consider what action to take in the light of its reply.
    Mr. Riddick: Nepotism in Monklands, a £10 million fraud in Lambeth, mismanagement in Sheffield, a £40 million fraud in Hackney and yet more probably to come out—yet the same councils for ever demand more money from the Government. Is that not a disgrace? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that grossly incompetent management by Labour authorities is not only ripping off local poll tax payers, but hitting and betraying the poorest people in society who so depend on the services provided by those local authorities?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely right. At the very time those practices were rife, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was telling the Labour party conference:
    "In Labour Local Government we are the voice and the face of the Labour Party in practice."
    Mr. Batiste: Is not the root cause of the catalogue of scandals described by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) the fact that in too many Labour councils full-time officers are being undermined by councillors trying to take over the day-to-day running of their departments, thereby undermining the officials and destroying good working practices? Is not meddlesome incompetence the reality of the face of the Labour party in power?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes a typically shrewd and important point—[Interruption.] What he says is entirely accurate. I should have thought that on this one question today we might see some signs of humility in the Labour party instead of the reaction of the past few minutes.
    Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State will be aware that our interests are those of voters, of tenants and of consumers. First, will he confirm that the allegations in the chief executive's report on Lambeth are not principally against councillors? Secondly, what on earth has the audit service been doing for the past 10 years? It was quick enough to surcharge councillors over political acts. Why on earth has not the audit service, with a growing budget, been able to deal with the matters contained in the chief executive's report? Will the Secretary of State look at the way in which the audit service has considered these matters as well as at the principal issues involved?
    Mr. Howard: I shall look at all relevant aspects of the matter. The hon. Gentleman might have done better to ask what he, as a Member of Parliament for Lambeth, was doing for the past 10 years.
    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the Secretary of State accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and I recognise that the initiative that he has taken is inevitable, and that Labour Members will not tolerate fraud and maladministration, wherever and whenever it may occur? Can he ensure that, in all inquiries which may be undertaken, full protection is afforded to the many Lambeth employees who have sought to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay in difficult circumstances? Does he recognise that the paramount
    1026
    concern is for firm and fast action by both the Government and the council in co-operation, because both agencies have allowed the matter to persist for far too long?
    Mr. Howard: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that the police will give careful consideration when protection is necessary and appropriate. As far as responsibility for such matters is concerned, it was the Labour council of the London borough of Lambeth which got into this mess, and it is that council which must get out of it.
    Sir Paul Beresford: In the light of 10 years of allegations and rumours of corruption and incompetence from members all the way down to the lowest workers at Lambeth, and in the light of a recent article about the chief executive of Lambeth saying that he has known of the problems for some three years, will my hon. Friend agree that the review set up by Lambeth council already smacks of a whitewash? In addition, will he agree greatly to strengthen the Audit Commission and to move into councils such as Lambeth to look across the board and from top to bottom, including the elected members?
    Mr. Howard: I would not want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry which Lambeth council has said that it is setting up. It is certainly of the utmost importance that the Audit Commission should have all the resources that it needs to carry out a proper investigation. I am concerned that no one should be excluded from the remit of that investigation.
    Mr. Caborn: Does the Secretary of State agree that misleading the House through early-day motions, in particular early-day motion 1242, is disgraceful, especially in terms of the allegations against Sheffield which have been raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)?
    Madam Speaker: Order. If I could give the hon. Gentleman a little guidance, the Secretary of State has very little to do with that particular early-day motion. The question should be addressed to the Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) should rephrase his question.
    Mr. Caborn: Does the Secretary of State agree that misleading the House is a serious allegation? On the subject of alleged corruption in Sheffield, the hon. Member for Hallam—one of the Secretary of State's Conservative colleagues—wrote a letter to Sheffield city council on 21 August 1987 asking for accommodation as a Member of Parliament? Would the Secretary of State like to comment on that?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly have a keen interest in, if no responsibility for, the way in which the money of community charge payers in Sheffield is spent. My understanding of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) wrote to the city council asking on what terms accommodation was made available to Members of Parliament.
    The hon. Gentleman made allegations of misleading the House with regard to the early-day motion, but he chose not to suggest the extent to which those allegations are misleading. All I can say is that I heard with great dismay the extent to which he and his hon. Friends are prepared to freeload at the expense of charge payers.
    Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the district auditor in the Southampton area is taking the local Labour-controlled council to court? The council has illegally moved £5.3 million from the housing revenue account to other accounts. I am sorry to inform the House that the chairman of housing at that time was the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who can probably give my right hon. and learned Friends more facts and figures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep an eye on the matter, because there is a smell of corruption in the air?
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will want to co-operate with the Audit Commission in its investigations to the fullest possible extent.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the housing committee of Southampton city council, with the unanimous support of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, agreed that transfers should be made between the general revenue account and the housing revenue account to enable the tenants of Southampton to benefit from the 50 per cent. reduction in the limit on capital spending applied to capital receipts, as opposed to the 25 per cent. reduction in the limit on HRA spending? Does he accept that it is appropriate for local authorities to seek to maximise their resources in the interests of local people and that members of his party supported that? Does he further accept that there is no indication as yet that the district auditor will take the city council to court?
    Mr. Howard: I confess to being mildly surprised that the hon. Gentleman made no reference to the importance of acting within the law in making those adjustments to the accounts of the housing committee in Southampton. It may not be of great significance to the hon. Gentleman, but I venture to surmise that it will be of considerable significance to the Audit Commission.
    Mr. Straw: First, may I associate myself with the remarks made to the Secretary of State by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)? I hope that the Secretary of State will applaud the fact that resolute action by the new Labour group after the expulsion of 13 former Labour councillors led to the investigation and to no action by the district auditor. When will the Secretary of State show some statesmanship and balance on this? Is he not aware that corruption knows no party boundaries, that there have been 22 examples in the past two years of serious allegations of corruption and fraud in central Government involving in total £1,400 million, and that there are endless examples in Enfield, Bromley, West Wiltshire, Rochester upon Medway, Thanet and Westminster of serious corruption in local authorities run by the Conservatives?
    On the issue of freeloading—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear all the exchanges.
    Mr. Straw: On the issue of freeloading raised by the Secretary of State, will he condemn the freeloader former members of his Cabinet who have had their hands in the till and their snouts in the trough of privatised industries?
    1028
    They privatised companies and then sought directorships without any serious distance between them—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. How can I hear what hon. Gentlemen have to say? [Interruption.] Order. I will not be shouted down by hon. Members. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Straw: Is not there one difference—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have to use the authority that is given to me by the House if hon. Members will not come to order. I am listening extremely carefully—when I am allowed to—to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am sure that he will watch his words carefully.
    Mr. Straw: As we all understand, Madam Speaker, they do not mind giving it, but they do not like taking it.
    Is not there one difference between Labour and Conservative: that while Labour has taken resolute and tough action to deal with corruption, as we have in Liverpool and Lambeth, Conservatives have been extremely reluctant ever to condemn miscreants in their own ranks? For example, 10 months after Westminster was found guilty of acting unlawfully in selling three cemeteries for 15p, its then leader, Lady Porter, ended up with a damehood.
    Mr. Howard: After that intervention, I can understand why the hon. Gentleman has taken to spending his time making speeches about the monarchy. It was a disgraceful intervention. His remarks were quite appalling. They were in no way fitting for the Front Bench of the party which was responsible for those councils at the time of those events. May I simply draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the remarks of the spokesman for the London borough of Lambeth:
    "We are dealing with potentially unlawful malpractice on a scale unprecedented in local government."
    The hon. Gentleman would have done well to bear that in mind without seeking to muddy the waters in the pathetic way he did.

    Urban Programme, Coventry
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the urban programme in Coventry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The urban programme has supported, and will continue to support, some excellent projects to improve the quality of life for those who live and work in Coventry. In addition, Coventry city council has bid for urban partnership fund resources for 1993–94 to boost the extra spending power that it will have as a result of the change in the capital receipts rules.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister realise that his statement is made against a background of diminishing resources? Did he carry out an evaluation before he announced a reduction in the urban programme over a period of years? Did he, along with his colleagues, also take into consideration the consequential effect of a reduction in the urban programme and, at the same time, the abandonment of the safer cities project? What hope can he offer people in inner cities, not only in Coventry but

    1029
    in the rest of the country, bearing in mind the serious disturbances last summer? Equally, will he take into account the effects on organisations such as community relations councils and CREDO, which do a tremendous amount of work in the inner cities, not only among the unemployed but in the black community?
    Mr. Squire: Of course, all proper consideration was given before the announcement, but programmes must evolve in response to changing circumstances. It would be quite wrong to look at the urban programme in isolation from all other resources that the Government put into inner cities. In 1993–94 the Government will spend some £90 million more over the full range of our programmes in the inner cities than we previously intended.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my hon. Friend keep a close eye on urban programmes in Coventry, some of which have been put to good use, and see to it that the accounting officers ensure that they get value for money? Will he also point out that good use has been made of the safer cities programme? When he visits Coventry next week, will he take some of the leaders of the council to one side and tell them that it might help their case if they stopped blaming the Government for all their ills and looked at the pattern of overspending for the past eight years which has led to some rather brutal decisions having to be made in recent months?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He speaks with great knowledge of Coventry. It is certainly the case that authorities throughout the country—many of which have not benefited from urban programmes and will not benefit from them next year—have been able to fund precisely the sort of projects that concerned the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) by efficient management of their resources.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the remarkable work in Coventry of the Foleshill and Hillfields task force, led by Brian Laughland? Is he aware that when the task force completes its mission shortly—as was always the intention—it will have assisted more than 800 businesses and trained more than 4,000 people and that the beneficial effects of its initiatives in Coventry, taken in partnership with the city council and local community groups, will continue?
    Mr. Squire: I commend to the House my hon. Friend's excellent words. He mentioned one task force. There are 16 and they are making significant inroads into inner city problems, creating jobs and improving training. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber know that and would applaud it in terms similar to those used by my hon. Friend.

    Sulphur Dioxide
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of sulphur dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom; and what the level was two years ago.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): In 1990, the latest year for which the
    1030
    information is available, total United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide were 3.77 million tonnes. Two years before, in 1988, the figure was 3.81 million tonnes.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister agree that while any move downwards is to be welcomed, that is not sufficient, given that German industry has installed desulphurisation plant in all its power stations, yet the United Kingdom has not? Will he confirm whether it is Government policy to move to desulphurisation by importing more low-sulphur coal from abroad to replace good British coal mined by British miners? Will he confirm that it is his intention to reduce the sulphur emissions of British manufacturing industry by continuing the Government's programme of destroying that industry?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Since 1970, our SO2, emissions have decreased by 40 per cent. and we have signed up to a further 60 per cent. reduction by the year 2003. The figures that I have just revealed show that we are well on target to meeting those reductions. All coal is high in sulphurs, but a mix of various energy sources will continue to be available to generators. I assure the House that we can adapt our plans and solutions to meet our targets, even if a slightly different mix of fuels is used.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and EC directives have added a lot to the demise of the United Kingdom coal industry, because gas-fired power stations and nuclear power stations do not emit sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere? The environmentalists cannot have it both ways—one either has a clean atmosphere or not.
    Mr. Maclean: I can certainly agree unequivocally with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. Every energy source has certain environmental benefits and disbenefits at different points in the use cycle. We have signed up to various international agreements on CO2, SO2, and NO2. I am confident that we shall be able to adjust our plans and make use of whatever technical solutions are necessary, so that we continue to honour our international commitments whatever decisions are made—but a cost is always involved.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister must accept that there was an increase in sulphur dioxide emissions in Britain in 1990, at a time of severe recession, when, in logic, such emissions should have been decreasing. He must also be aware that the most recent report shows that more than half Britain's trees have been damaged by acid rain. Is not it high time that the Government decided to have a proper programme of desulphurisation for our power stations and started arguing the case for clean coal, rather than doing down our domestic coal industry at every opportunity?
    Mr. Maclean: There were some extraordinary assertions there. The hon. Gentleman cannot look at the emission figures for one year only. We have signed up to targets on sulphur dioxide emissions to the year 2003—that will mean a 60 per cent. reduction following a 40 per cent. reduction. That is considerable by any standards. There is a programme to fit flue gas desulphurisation to three of Britain's largest power stations. Those three stations, operated by National Power and PowerGen,

    1031
    account for about 600,000 tonnes of SO2. That is between one quarter and one fifth of SO2 emitted by all power stations generating more than 300 MW of electricity.
    The programme is massive by any standards and it does not come cheaply—FGD costs £400 million a throw. Before the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends suggest that we should automatically fit FGD to every power station, they had better tell the public the cost and make it clear that we are meeting our target without that compulsory restriction.

    Water Quality, Bassenthwaite
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to visit Bassenthwaite to inspect the water quality.
    Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have no plans to visit Bassenthwaite lake officially. However, we are totally committed to preservation of the quality of the English lakes and rare species such as vendace. I therefore welcome the National Rivers Authority's detailed study of water quality in the lake to assess the impact of discharges. The NRA has full power to seek improvements in the light of the results of that study.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not it be prudent, before designating Bassenthwaite a national nature reserve, to establish the cause of the pollution indicated by the algae blooms that float on the surface of the lake? Is not it up to North West Water, recognising that the lake, which is in the heart of the Lake District, is dying, to bring forward its investment programme from 1998? Should not it invest now to end the pollution from Keswick sewage works?
    Mr. Maclean: I assure the hon. Gentleman that water flows and levels in the Derwent catchment area are being examined and that this new and very thorough examination of water quality will look for links between sewage discharges, nutrient levels and fish populations. Whether or not Bassenthwaite is designated a sensitive area, the NRA has power to order North West Water to upgrade Keswick sewage works at any time if it regards such action as justified. But it is right that we should first get the results of the study. I am sure that the NRA will explain all this to the hon. Gentleman at their meeting on 5 February and I look forward to a personal invitation from the hon. Gentleman to go fishing with him on England's second most beautiful lake, after Ullswater.

    Council Housing (Repairs)
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the right to repair scheme for local authority tenants.
    Sir George Young: Provisions for revising the right to repair for council tenants are included in the Housing and Urban Development Bill. My Department is today publishing a second consultation paper, which sets out in detail how the new scheme might work.
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that that represents a dramatic improvement in the level of service to council tenants? No doubt he, like me, speculates as to why certain councils believe that only they have the ability and the skills to provide services to
    1032
    their tenants, even though some authorities, such as Camden, can leave a tenant dead in an apartment for over a year before discovering him. What are the time scales involved here? Within what time does a local authority have to repair a council house before the tenant can take action himself? In addition, what is the position of housing associations?
    Sir George Young: On the last point, we have asked the Housing Corporation to introduce a parallel scheme for housing association tenants. We envisage that the local authority will have seven days in which to respond before a tenant is able to go to an approved contractor and have the work done. On my hon. Friend's first point, we want to carry out further improvements to the existing scheme and to work with the grain of the ambitions of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Betts: Does the Minister remember that the current right to repair scheme was introduced by the Government against the advice of every local authority association, whatever its political complexion? Bearing in mind the bureaucratic nature of this scheme, may I ask him to inform the House how many—or how few—right to repair applications have been accepted this year? Does he accept that the views and representations of local authority associations should be taken into account to ensure that he does not make the same mistake a second time?
    Sir George Young: The existing scheme has changed attitudes among tenants and local authorities and raised expectations. Often the threat to use the right to repair scheme has had a dramatic effect on local authorities. If the Government did everything that local authority associations wanted them to do, a number of improvements for tenants and ratepayers would not have occurred over the past few years. We are consulting on the details of the scheme. We believe that it will bring dramatic benefits to tenants and I hope that we have the support of all hon. Members in introducing such an important reform.

    Oil Pollution
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to meet the Government's commitment to prevent further oil pollution in the sea as stated in the paper entitled "This Common Inheritance".
    Mr. Howard: We are continuing to promote more effective international rules against marine oil pollution from all sources and to encourage co-operation in their enforcement. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has set up an inquiry into further measures that are needed to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. and learned Friend co-operate fully with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Transport when looking into the use by the marine pollution control unit of dispersant spray and its toxicological effect on the environment? Will he ensure that the long-term environmental effects of the Braer disaster are minimised? In line with the stated aims of the Command Paper "This Common Inheritance", will my

    1033
    right hon. and learned Friend encourage our international partners to uphold the provisions in annex 1 of MARPOL, the marine pollution convention, relating to oil spills at sea?
    Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend assurances on all those issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has set up an ecological steering group to examine the long-term consequences of the Braer incident. We are determined to learn all the lessons that we can from that event.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, even as we speak, a row is continuing between civil servants in Whitehall on whether the Minches constitute an internal waterway or an internationally recognised navigable channel? While that dispute is going on, tankers continue to go up and down the Minches and at some stages only four miles separate the coastlines on either side. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House that he and his colleagues in other Departments will go and bang together the heads of the civil servants in Whitehall—I can name them if necessary—to ensure that the International Maritime Organisation designation of "area to be avoided" is agreed and we can prevent the risk of further disasters affecting the west of Scotland or St. Kilda?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the decision whether waters are internationally navigable is not one to be taken by this country alone, but must be taken in accordance with international law. We have to decide on the interpretation of international law. It is not a matter of banging together the heads of civil servants in Whitehall, but of interpreting the provisions of international law on what areas should be avoided. That issue is being considered by the inquiry that has been set up by my right hon. Friend. We shall be keen to examine carefully the recommendations of that inquiry when they are available.
    Mr. Harris: Although I accept everything that my right hon. and learned Friend said, is not it a fact that the Government can take a lead in such matters and should do so when it is necessary to have an exclusion zone or a recognised route for tankers? Is he aware that I have taken up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport requests from the isles of Scilly in my constituency, which suffered from the Torrey Canyon disaster some years ago, that there should be a sensible exclusion zone for bulk tankers and ships carrying dangerous cargoes in the vicinity of the isles of Scilly?
    Mr. Howard: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents and the steps that he has taken to safeguard them. Although we can take a lead—and have done so in a number of respects—decisions on such matters have to be taken internationally, through the International Maritime Organisation. We shall be keen to pursue such issues when we receive the report of the inquiry set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

    Mandatory Repair Grant
    Ms. Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about waiting lists for mandatory repair grant.
    Sir George Young: Local authorities must deal with valid grant applications within six months of the date they are made.
    Ms. Coffey: Is the Minister aware that in Stockport, 600 householders are waiting to apply for mandatory grant? In 1989–90, before the mandatory grants system, 200 houses were improved under block schemes and 6.50 under individual grants, but in this year, to date, only 40 houses have been improved through block grant schemes and only 300 through individual grants? Does he agree that the present system is not only not achieving its objective of improving private housing stock, but has all the makings of a disaster? Will he introduce proposals under which the problems of private sector housing in Stockport and the north-west can be dealt with more effectively?
    Sir George Young: I do not agree with that analysis. For the first two years of the new scheme, there was an underspend on the provision that we made for local authorities. There is good news for Stockport in that, next year, £3.3 million will be available as against £3.1 million this year. As I said in answer to Question 1, we are looking at longer-term implications to see whether there are yet better ways to spend the improvement grant money. As to effectiveness, more and more of the money is going to the homes that are unfit and to people on lower incomes, so there has been much greater success in targeting the system on the properties and people who need it most.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend look at careful housing authorities, such as Calderdale, which wish to cap the amount of mandatory grant that may be given? The amount of money needed to repair houses in one part of the country may be different from that needed in another. Such authorities know the proper limit and such a scheme would alleviate fraud by the claimant.
    Sir George Young: There is good news for Calderdale as well, in that, from 1 April, there will be a cap of £50,000 on any individual improvement grant. We did that as a result of listening to representations such as those from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that many local authorities are unable to deal with the grant applications, not only because the £386 million to which he referred in his reply to Question I is insufficient, but because of the implications for local authorities' capital programmes arising from the portion of the grant that they have to meet? He says that he will consult on the options for change, but what is needed is a quick decision. If not, rather than being improved, the only option for some houses will be demolition.
    Sir George Young: I do not agree. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in answer to an earlier question, authorities will have much greater access to receipts over the next year. They will be able to use those receipts to make receipts to make further progress with home improvement grants. It is no good Labour Members grumbling about that. They have asked for capital receipts to be released for housing. That is what will happen—they will be used to fund home improvement grants.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be more money for people whose houses need repair if Labour councils did not waste money by throwing it away

    1035
    on firms that have not done the work or on paying firms twice for work that they have done once? Is he aware that that is one of the areas of corruption named by the chief executive of Lambeth council, of which the Pontius Pilate Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) sought to wash his hands?
    Sir George Young: The real victims of corruption and inefficiency are the people to whom my hon. Friend referred—those who look to local authorities either for good housing or for improvement grants. We are determined to root out such corruption wherever we can.

    Water Charges
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to reduce the level of water charges for low income families; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: No, legislation is not necessary. The director general of the Office of Water Services is responsible for protection of customers' interests generally, including those of low-income families. My Department, together with Ofwat, will be considering ways to alleviate the hardship difficulties experienced by a small proportion of customers who are metered.
    Mr. O'Brien: One can only describe the Minister's response and attitude as abysmal. Is he aware that water charges by the 10 water companies have increased by 9–4 per cent. on average in the past year and will increase by 10 per cent. on average in the coming year, which will mean an increase of 60 per cent. since the privatisation of water in 1989? In the five years since privatisation, standing charges have risen tremendously. Does not the Minister feel that the regulator has failed in his duty to those in lower income groups—particularly old ladies who live on their own? Given that Conservative Members have referred to poor people twice this afternoon, does the Minister agree that his answers were abysmal and that something should be done to protect such people?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I do not think that my answers were abysmal. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would know that systems exist to protect such people. Lower-income families may be entitled to social security benefits, such as income support. Last year, the cost of water services was added to the index used for uprating social security benefits, so they are taken into account now.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend examine the circumstances in which water companies compulsorily fit meters to mixed usage premises that are used both for business and domestic purposes? Where that has occurred in the north-west, firms have often been put out of business as a result of extra charges. Small firms have no comeback on water companies. Will my hon. Friend inquire into that matter?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes. I shall be happy to receive more details from my hon. Friend, which I shall naturally pass on to Ofwat and its director general to consider.
    Mr. Clelland: Will the Minister investigate the practice of connecting meters in respect of domestic water consumption? Does he agree that although meters may help to conserve water, now that water companies are in
    1036
    private hands, they will increase the unit price because they need to maintain their profits? Totally in line with Conservative party policy over the past 14 years, the consumer will end up paying more for less.
    Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to disagree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but it was absolute nonsense. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the high standards and regulations that apply to all aspects of our water supply, which are the result both of British controls and EC directives. The quality of our water is improving all the time—it was never as good in the past as it is today—but there is a cost involved in that, which is why water companies are investing £30,000 million improving our water and sewerage systems. The Director General of Water Services has a general obligation to look after customers and consumer interests and I am very content with the way in which he is doing his job.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for extending market testing to white-collar local authority services.
    Mr. Howard: My officials are discussing with local authority associations and other interested parties the implementation of my decisions on the extension of compulsory competitive tendering announced in November 1992. The new regime will be rigorous and challenging for all authorities—extending to local authority white-collar services the benefits of competition already demonstrated in respect of manual services.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Conservative-controlled Basildon district council will, over a period of time, subject all its services to market testing? Is it his judgment that that process will assist in sorting out the terrible financial legacy left by the socialists, who were thrown out of office last May—when every one of their 15 candidates was defeated?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am convinced that market testing of the sort to which he referred will make Conservative-controlled Basildon council a beacon to the rest of local government.
    Mr. Olner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Attorney-General told the Committee considering the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill that, in his opinion, there was no need to change the legislation and that local authorities should certainly enjoy a level playing field with commercial organisations? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take that into account when he extends CCT to other local authority activities?
    Mr. Howard: I made it clear that any local authority that invites tenders on the basis that the regulations do apply—which is not the view taken by my Department —will risk action by my Department.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the predecessor of market testing—compulsory competitive tendering—brought out much of the evidence that exposed corruption in local government? As the relevant legislation—on everything from the publication of information to compulsory competitive

    1037
    tendering—was opposed by Opposition Members, should not they now support market testing, to root out corruption in their own councils?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Every advance that we have made in local government has been opposed by the Opposition. But they will never learn and I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that we shall obtain their support for market testing or compulsory competitive tendering, obvious though the merits of those policies are to my hon. Friend and all dispassionate observers.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the confusion in the law to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) referred over the transfer of undertakings and the European acquired rights directive, will the Secretary of State give an assurance today to local authorities that seek
    1038
    to meet their obligations in that regard that he will now alter his guidance to those local authorities about so-called anti-competitive behaviour issued under the Local Government Act 1992? If he will not give that assurance, can the House assume that his motive for introducing market testing has nothing to do with local authority quality or efficiency and everything to do with cutting the wages of local authority employees?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will prepare his question in advance in such detail, he must be prepared to adapt it in the light of answers that have already been given. I gave a comprehensive answer on that point to the hon. Member for Nuneaton, who asked the same question just a minute or two ago. I explained to him that there is no confusion whatever about the law on this subject and I told him what advice my Department has given and will continue to give.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice and guidance on a particular matter which is for the Chair. During this afternoon's proceedings, the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), accused a Cabinet Minister of dishonesty. That disgraceful unsubstantiated allegation is wholly unworthy of a Member of the House. Do you not think that the hon. Gentleman should be made to withdraw it?
Madam Speaker: Nothing that was said this afternoon sounded to me anything like a reference to a Member of either House of Parliament. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member has asked for my guidance and advice, and I am giving it to him.
Nothing that was said sounded to me like a reference to a Member of either House of Parliament. However, I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
I hope that the entire House—
Mr. David Shaw rose
Madam Speaker: Sit down, please. I am taking no more points of order on the matter.
I hope that the entire House will take to heart the wise words of "Erskine May".
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order arises as a result of last night's debate on an order relating to a grant scheme for companies which are attempting to manufacture newsprint from recycled fibre, when the Minister for Industry suddenly announced the abolition of the scheme. Thank you for allowing those Members who were present to debate the wider issue, but would it not have been more appropriate for the Minister to announce in advance on the Order Paper his intention to abandon the scheme? That is particularly important as Gartcosh intends to apply for a grant under the scheme and last night's announcement means that it will now have only 28 days to make a final grant application. Would it not have been more appropriate if that announcement had appeared on the Order Paper, so that hon. Members who were interested could have debated the matter fully?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House might have seen what I hope were my wise words last night, when I allowed a wide debate on the motion. However, the Chair was placed at a disadvantage in so doing, as was the House, because hon. Members were not
1040
notified. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench have taken notice of what I said last night and in this exchange today.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You mentioned "Erskine May" a moment ago. Has "Erskine May" anything to say about the length of ministerial answers in Question Time? Today, we got as far as question 14. A number of us have observed that a considerable part of Question Time—perhaps an increasing proportion—is now taken up by extremely long, filibustering responses from Ministers.
Madam Speaker: I cannot remember what is on every page of "Erskine May", or refer the hon. Gentleman to an appropriate page. I doubt that "Erskine May" has any comment to make on that point, but I assure him and the House that the Speaker has.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There have been a number of references to "Erskine May", which is a very important document: it is the bible of the House of Commons. Will you protect it from Maastricht?
Madam Speaker: There are a good many documents around the House that I seek to protect, in more than one way. Some I may have to protect from the ravages of the hon. Gentleman. Now, perhaps we can move on.

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

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  FOOD PROTECTION (DIOXINS)
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dioxins) (England) (No. 2) (Revocation) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3188) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  COMMUNITY CARE
  That the Social Security Benefits (Amendments Consequential Upon the introduction of Community Care) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3147) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.

  GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
  That the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3217) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  That the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3280) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  That the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 15) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

Tobacco Advertising
3.35 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make illegal the advertisement of tobacco and products containing tobacco other than at the point of sale; to make illegal the promotion by other means of tobacco and products containing tobacco; and for related purposes.
The case against tobacco is easy to state. Each year, according to the Government, 111,000 people die from smoking—26,000 from lung cancer, and the rest from other diseases caused by tobacco. Smoking is by far the biggest public health hazard in Britain. The Government say in their "Health of the Nation" White Paper that, of every 1,000 smokers, one will be murdered, six will die in road accidents and 250 will die before their natural time from smoking.
For the tobacco industry, 111,000 customers are a lot to lose each year, so the industry seeks to replace them—to recruit new smokers to take the place of those who have died—by advertising. Nearly all adults who smoke started smoking before the age of 20: I was one of them. For that reason, despite the advertising code of conduct, tobacco advertising is directed at teenagers and children. Those are the only age group in which the number of smokers in the country is not falling.
For the tobacco industry, advertising itself is big business. The industry spend, £100 million a year on advertising cigarettes. It claims that it is simply promoting brand switching—persuading smokers of one brand of cigarette to switch to another. But people cannot be persuaded to switch brands if they have not already been persuaded to start smoking.
In the White Paper, the Government have set an ambitious target: to reduce the number of cigarettes sold by 40 per cent. by the end of the decade, from the 100 billion cigarettes sold in 1990 to just under 60 billion by the year 2000. The Government should be commended for the bold goal that they have set; the question is, are they going to achieve that goal? They are already using price regulation, health warnings, voluntary codes of conduct—which are frequently circumvented by the tobacco companies—and health education, and the number of smokers is indeed falling; but it is falling more slowly now than it has fallen in the past. It is falling by 1 per cent. per year among males, and by 0.5 per cent. per year among women.
The "Health of the Nation" target is to reduce the incidence of smoking by 40 per cent. by the end of the decade. It is evident that, if that target is to be reached, more needs to be done. One major step that the Government could take, but to which they are not yet committed, is the banning of tobacco advertising.
A ban has been imposed in other countries, with positive results. The chief economist at the Department of Health, Dr. Clive Smee, recorded in a recent report that, in New Zealand, an advertising ban reduced tobacco consumption by 7.5 per cent. In Canada, consumption was reduced by 6 per cent.; in Finland, by 7 per cent.; and in Norway, by 8 per cent. Dr. Smee's figures take account of the other factors, such as price changes, that would also have affected consumption in those countries.
The Select Committee on Health considered the Smee report, and took evidence from Ministers and from many
1042
other people, including representatives of the tobacco industry and lobbying organisations on the tobacco industry's side.
Having considered all the evidence, we agree with Smee's findings. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a health economist. I think that his methodology is sound. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Education Authority agree that there should be a ban on tobacco advertising. So who is on the other side of the argument? The tobacco industry itself, of course.
What are the arguments put forward by the tobacco industry? First, it points to the revenue that would be lost to the Treasury if advertising were to be banned. That suggests that the tobacco industry agrees that a ban would reduce the number of cigarettes consumed. The Government have already agreed, however, to seek a 40 per cent. cut in the number of cigarettes smoked. I presume that that policy objective has been costed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been told and that his revenue plans therefore take account of that fact.
Secondly, the people who oppose a ban argue that there should be freedom of choice. In her evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State for Health said:
"If cigarettes were introduced today, their production and sale would probably be banned."
In other words, the Secretary of State agrees that in some cases the public interest is more important than the interest of personal freedom of choice.
I am not seeking in the Bill to ban smoking. I am not even proposing, as the Minister for Health did yesterday, that smoking in public places should be restricted. Smokers must choose for themselves whether to smoke. My Bill aims only to ban the promotion of tobacco and to prevent tobacco companies from persuading more people to buy their brands. The majority of people they persuade to smoke are young people—people under the age of 20, the only age groups among whom the incidence of smoking is not falling.
There is a freedom of choice issue, but the question that the House should address is whether the freedom in question is freedom to do good or evil. Is tobacco advertising in the public interest, or against it? Tobacco is a unique product. It is the only product which, when used in moderation and as the manufacturers intend, kills people. In Britain it kills more than 100,000 people a year. It is a unique product and, as a unique product, it requires a unique response.
Among the arguments against a ban are those put forward by the Euro-sceptics—I see one sitting opposite me—who dislike the idea of yet another European Community directive. But the Euro-sceptics have a choice. If they vote for the Bill, it will mean that a British law takes the step that needs to be taken in this area.
Public opinion clearly supports a ban. Yesterday, the Health Education Authority revealed the results of a survey of 5,000 people who had been randomly selected, of whom 75 per cent. said that they supported a total ban on tobacco advertising. Most surprisingly, 64 per cent.—almost two thirds—of smokers supported a total ban on tobacco advertising.
The Bill has support in all parts of the House, from smokers and non-smokers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
3.44 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone rose
Madam Speaker: I see that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is on his feet. I take it that the hon. Gentleman opposes the Bill?
Mr. Rathbone: That is right, Madam Speaker.
I should like to make one thing clear before speaking against the Bill. I have no connection with the tobacco industry or with the advertising industry, although I have spent much of my business life in advertising and perhaps understand it a little more than the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) who introduced the Bill. I agree, however, with 75 per cent. of what he said. The Government must do more to reduce the incidence of smoking, particularly smoking among the young. They must concentrate more than they have so far on controlling the illegal sale of cigarettes to the under-18s. They must also do much more in terms of health education to persuade not only children but their parents of the harm which, as the hon. Gentleman said, naturally comes from smoking cigarettes.
However, it is self-deception and a deception of the people of this country to suggest that banning advertising will achieve the ends that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is a tempting and attractive short cut, but it is not working. The hon. Gentleman cited instances from New Zealand, Norway and Canada. He said that the gentleman in the health service who gave opinions on them drew into his assessment the fact that cigarettes had increased in cost in those countries, while at the same time advertising had been banned. A rational and careful analysis of the research there provides a direct link between the price of cigarettes and the drop in consumption. Therefore, the Bill, if correctly drafted, would call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax tobacco even more, because it would have an effect on the consumption of tobacco, especially among the young.
Another point which is seldom made but which is crucial is that, in a market such as that in the United Kingdom, where the advertising of cigarettes is the best developed and done with great creativity, we have the greatest incidence of the smoking of low tar cigarettes. If you are going to smoke—I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you are not—you would be wiser to choose low tar rather than high tar cigarettes, because they reduce the chance of getting cancer from a nauseous habit. It is only because of advertising and promotion that low tar cigarettes have penetrated the market as they have.
Therefore, banning advertising would do a disservice to the health of the nation and would work against the aims of the Bill and of the Government. For that reason, I humbly beg to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 61.

Division No. 126]

[3.47 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ainger, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Barron, Kevin

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Battle, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Bayley, Hugh

Ashton, Joe

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Austin-Walker, John

Bell, Stuart

1044

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hoon, Geoffrey

Bennett, Andrew F.

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Berry, Dr. Roger

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Betts, Clive

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Blunkett, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Boyce, Jimmy

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Bradley, Keith

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Brandreth, Gyles

Hutton, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Illsley, Eric

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Callaghan, Jim

Jamieson, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Jessel, Toby

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cann, Jamie

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Jowell, Tessa

Clapham, Michael

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clelland, David

Keen, Alan

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Coe, Sebastian

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Coffey, Ann

Khabra, Piara S.

Cohen, Harry

Kilfedder, Sir James

Connarty, Michael

Kilfoyle, Peter

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kirkwood, Archy

Corston, Ms Jean

Leighton, Ron

Cox, Tom

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Livingstone, Ken

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

Llwyd, Elfyn

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

Loyden, Eddie

Dafis, Cynog

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dalyell, Tam

McAllion, John

Darling, Alistair

McAvoy, Thomas

Davidson, Ian

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Macdonald, Calum

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

McFall, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

McMaster, Gordon

Denham, John

McNamara, Kevin

Dewar, Donald

Madden, Max

Dixon, Don

Mahon, Alice

Dobson, Frank

Mandelson, Peter

Donohoe, Brian H.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dover, Den

Martlew, Eric

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Meacher, Michael

Eagle, Ms Angela

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Eastham, Ken

Miller, Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Morgan, Rhodri

Enright, Derek

Morley, Elliot

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Fabricant, Michael

Mudie, George

Fatchett, Derek

Mullin, Chris

Faulds, Andrew

Murphy, Paul

Fisher, Mark

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Flynn, Paul

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Foster, Don (Bath)

O'Hara, Edward

Fraser, John

Olner, William

Galbraith, Sam

Patchett, Terry

Garrett, John

Pickthall, Colin

Gerrard, Neil

Pike, Peter L.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pope, Greg

Gordon, Mildred

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Graham, Thomas

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Primarolo, Dawn

Grocott, Bruce

Purchase, Ken

Gunnell, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hain, Peter

Richards, Rod

Hall, Mike

Robathan, Andrew

Hannam, Sir John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hanson, David

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Harris, David

Rooney, Terry

Henderson, Doug

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hendron, Dr Joe

Rowlands, Ted

Heppell, John

Ruddock, Joan

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Salmond, Alex

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Sheerman, Barry

Hinchliffe, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Home Robertson, John

Shersby, Michael

1045

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Tipping, Paddy

Simpson, Alan

Turner, Dennis

Sims, Roger

Tyler, Paul

Skinner, Dennis

Wallace, James

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Walley, Joan

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wareing, Robert N

Spearing, Nigel

Wigley, Dafydd

Spink, Dr Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Winnick, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Wise, Audrey

Stevenson, George

Wright, Dr Tony

Straw, Jack

Sweeney, Walter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mr. Malcolm Wicks and

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Joe Hendron, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Ms. Liz Lynne, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Roger Sims, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

Tobacco Advertising
  TOBACCO ADVERTISING
  Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make illegal the advertisement of tobacco and products containing tobacco other than at the point of sale; to make illegal the promotion by other means of tobacco and products containing tobacco; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 20 January]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Amendment proposed [20 January], No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      "(except Article 123 on page 31 of Cm 1934)".—[Dr. Cunningham.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that we are considering at the same time the following amendments: No. 127, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      "(excluding Article G D(10) on page 12 of Cm 1934).".
      No. 129, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      "(excluding Article G D(12) on page 13 of Cm 1934).".
      No. 186, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      "except Article 3(i) on page 9 of Cm 1934".
      No. 58, in page 1, line 10, after "1992", insert
      "but not the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community".
      No. 27, in page 1, line 13, after 'Community', insert
      ", with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy".
      4 pm
      Dr. Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As a new Member, I admit to being somewhat bewildered by the procedure adopted in dealing with the Bill. Having talked to other hon. Members, I am sure that I am not alone in that. I have had the benefit of a brief seminar with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). [Interruption.] I can assure the Committee that it was relatively brief. I think that I now understand the procedure being adopted and the strange reason for the order of the amendments printed on the amendment paper. I also think that I understand why we debate amendments and then vote on them some time later.
      My point of order relates to making the whole process easier for hon. Members to understand. We have a selection of amendments before us, but there is no information on the list as to where the amendments are on the amendment paper. I have asked the Library to give me that information, and it has done so. Unfortunately it gave me the information with the page numbers from last Wednesday. For example, amendment 7 was on page 1425 last Wednesday. On today's amendment paper, amendment 7 is on page 1515.
      I ask you whether a brief explanation of the procedure, and perhaps information on which pages the amendments are on the amendment paper, could be given to hon. Members to make our lives a little easier.
      The Chairman: Like the hon. Lady, I have to go through the amendment paper every morning. As I do not make the final selection until about 12 o'clock each day, I suggest that she do the same homework as I do and find

      1047
      the amendments on the amendment paper. I hope that the inclusion of subject headings, which is an innovation, will help her to find what we should be debating.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for all that you have done to date to make things as intelligible as possible. Would it be fair to say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) that it is the intention of all Community institutions that all Community legislation should be as unintelligible as possible?
      The Chairman: We are lucky that the Committee is dealing with legislation which is intelligible.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: Last Wednesday, we were discussing the social chapter. When the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) opened the debate on this group of amendments, he said that he and his hon. Friends were offering the Government an opportunity to embrace the social chapter which had overwhelming support throughout the European Community. He went on to castigate the Government for what he claims to be covering up the real impact of the provisions of the social chapter. That is an invitation which the Government should refuse, and the hon. Gentleman's description of the Government's conduct must be denied.
      It must be recognised that the other 11 member states have agreed that they wish to be bound by the provisions of the social chapter. Equally, it must be recognised that those other 11 countries, represented by responsible and accountable political leaders, have agreed that they and not the United Kingdom should be bound by the social chapter. It is not a case of Britain forcing something on its EC partners but an example of all 12 countries unanimously coming to a single agreement—the Maastricht treaty, which contains provisions that affect the contracting parties, sometimes uniformly.
      All the 12 countries have agreed that the social chapter will not apply to the United Kingdom. I am sure that it is recognised by all hon. Conservative Members that common social objectives and minimum standards should not be imposed artificially from above.
      To adopt that approach is to invite interventionism and over-regulation and to threaten the competitive edge of the European Community as a whole. There is a danger in being over-prescriptive of adopting pan-European solutions which conflict with the traditions of each domestic market or the circumstances of individual companies.
      Our decision not to be a party to the social chapter, which was taken with the assent of the 11 other countries, is not an example of our refusing to play ball and taking our bat home but the result of reasoned unwillingness to allow our country and its economy to be shackled by what we see as the dead weight of prescriptive interventionism, international employment legislation and the tendency to strengthen the role of trade unions.
      Mr. David Winnick: While the hon. Gentleman is—understandably, from his point of view—so much against the social chapter, will he bear it in mind that, if the treaty goes ahead, many employees in
      1048
      Britain will not need much encouragement to go to the European Court of Justice, despite Britain's opt-out? People may say, "If the other member countries have the provisions and facilities of the social chapter, why should we be denied them?" With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should not conclude that, because the treaty will go ahead with the British opt-out, that will be the final say. His best bet would be to vote against the treaty.
      Mr. Garnier: I never thought that I would hear a member of the Labour party encourage the creation of work for lawyers.
      The social chapter and all that flows from it would push up industrial costs, inhibit job creation and blunt industrial competitiveness. It would have been a grave dereliction of duty for the Government to sacrifice the achievements of the 1980s in freeing the individual from the trade unions, creating a climate attractive to foreign investors and increasing the efficiency and productivity of British industry, by simply swallowing the social chapter with all the collectivist policies of welfare and employee rights which other European countries will increasingly find that they cannot afford.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: As my hon. Friend has obviously studied the issue with great care and is an expert on the subject, will he give the House one example of a piece of legislation which he believes could come from the social chapter which could not come from article 100, or, indeed, from the health and safety provisions of the Single European Act? In view of what he has said, will he consider what happened only yesterday in Standing Committee F? EC-based legislation was passed which gave extra powers to the trade unions on wages, working conditions and takeovers.
      Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the matter to which he refers flows from the Single European Act.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Give me one example.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to catch the Chair's eye in due course.
      Increasingly, the standards to beat in global manufacturing are being set in the east rather than on the continent of Europe. I am talking about higher labour costs. Those productivity pressures, coupled with the decline in the dollar against the European currencies in the late 1980s, have brought into sharp focus the high cost of labour in many European countries. That reflects the high non-wage elements in labour costs, such as social security payments and holiday entitlements. Such elements amount to almost 50 per cent. of total labour costs in Germany, France and Italy. By contrast, the United Kingdom appears to be much more competitive in terms of labour costs, despite similar levels of pay for time worked.
      Two problems are highlighted by labour costs. The first is the impact on competitiveness relative to comparable industrialised economies, in particular the United States and Japan. The second is that, as the 1990s progress, EC producers are likely to face a twin competitive challenge from low-cost producers in the far east and on the eastern fringe of the EC. We all know that labour costs in the newly industrialised economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Korea are between one third and a fifth of those in EC countries.

      1049
      Similarly, low labour costs will be enjoyed by companies producing in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. An uncompetitive Europe increases the threat of protectionism which will damage the United Kingdom, with its widespread international links. If European industry as a whole is allowed to remain or become uncompetitive, Britain more than most will not be able to escape its consequences.
      Has the Labour party, which advances this attraction—that is to say, the social chapter—considered the cost of its imposition on the businesses that we seek to protect in this country? Of course they want to give back to the trade unions the powers that they gave them over the years, powers which we in the Conservative party have recoverd for the individual. They want us to return to the days of good old beer and sandwiches at No. 10.
      When blanket wage deals are giving way to locally agreed wage settlements, when commitment and productivity are being rewarded, when profit sharing, employee shareholding and personal pensions increasingly find favour with the public, when flexibility and mobility are the watchwords and when self-employment and small businesses are becoming increasingly popular, the proponents of these amendments are attempting to burden us with collectivism.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend not also confirm that it is the decentralised nature of many of the arrangements that we make in British industry which adds to the possibility of Britain making a similar move towards consultation but in a different manner from that on the continent? Given that the overall objective in the Community is for employees to have greater consultation in the firms for which they work, the main thing is to decentralise it so that each firm, not just each nation, can find the best way of achieving it.
      Mr. Garnier: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Those of us who had the opportunity of attending this morning's conference organised by the AngloJapanese parliamentary group will have learnt that lesson.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, to be competitive, working conditions and social costs in the United Kingdom should be the same as or lower than those in, say, Taiwan or Korea?
      Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to rehearse the old canards about social dumping and social tourism. I will not go into it now; it is old stuff.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point about the need for decentralisation and for variety between different countries and so on. The trouble is that the treaty before us, particularly article 2, which we discussed last week, says the opposite. It says that we must have something called social cohesion and solidarity, Community harmonisation and balanced development. They are built into the treaty. So all these wonderful arguments which my hon. Friend puts forward, and with which everyone on the Government Benches would agree, rather break down when we look at the treaty itself.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) voted for the Single European Act, out of which those very words emerged. What I am complaining about is the increase in
      1050
      bureaucracy and in centralism which would come from the adoption of the social chapter. The United Kingdom labour market is largely a decentralised one, with a strong emphasis on local cultures and traditions—my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will accept that. It neither lends itself to centralised regulation nor can such regulation readily accommodate the wide dispersion of individual practice.
      Its industrial relations structures are also atypical—especially, for example, with multi-union workplaces. Directives framed in Brussels and seeking to give new rights to unions would, if implemented, fall more heavily on establishments where many unions are involved than on single-union ones.
      We must face up to the realities of global competition. This means that a new approach to social policy in the European Community must be adopted. It will mean taking steps which allow companies flexibility to improve productivity and cost-competitiveness. It means reducing burdens on business rather than increasing them. This approach does not imply lower living standards or less protection for employees; rather, it is the only way to raise living standards and provide a sound basis for higher social welfare. On that basis alone, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
      4.15 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I should begin by thanking the hon. Member for Cunningham—
      Dr. Cunningham: Copeland.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry, for Copeland. I am relieved that I did not call him the hon. Member for Sellafield.
      I should thank the hon. Member for Copeland on behalf of the Committee for making it clear that the Opposition do not intend to press amendment No. 7 to a Division. So far, the Committee's debate has concentrated almost entirely on amendment No. 27, which, to my surprise—as I told the hon. Gentleman when he spoke —the Opposition intend to press to a Division.
      The debate has been interesting and important and I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Morris. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) moving nervously in his place. I hope that he is not going to move a closure. Although we have had a long debate, the extension that you have kindly given us, Mr. Morris, by exercising your judgment not to accede to my hon. Friend's request, will enable me to respond to some of the important arguments voiced.
      Mr. Marlow: I was not surprised when the closure motion was not granted, but I am interested to establish the circumstances under which it is likely to be. One had drawn the conclusion that most closures happen at times that are convenient to the Government, when their support is here in strength. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because he said that the debate "has" been interesting. As many of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members wish to speak, what does he mean by "has"? The debate is interesting and I presume that there is much more to be said. Will he give an undertaking to the House that, when other hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken, he will come back and refer to their remarks?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend and I came to the House together and I would not want to teach him to suck eggs. The decision on when closure motions are moved and whether they are accepted is for the Chair. I know nothing of such matters.
      As the debate has developed—it will no doubt continue, perhaps even after I have resumed my place—it has generally been a good debate and a good Committee stage. It has reinforced my view—if reinforcement were needed —of the importance of the House. Many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have aired points of view on this group of amendments and on others with which I disagree, but the House can take credit for the way in which the Committee is discussing the Bill and its implications for our country and I hope that other Parliaments in Europe will look to that example.
      Mr. Winnick: The Minister said that the debate on this group of amendments has been interesting. Perhaps he will agree that, by and large, the debate has been interesting all round. Does he understand that the reason why some hon. Members on both sides of the House are so critical about the implications of the Bill is that if the treaty becomes law many matters of great importance will be decided elsewhere? It will not matter what sort of debates occur on the Floor of the House or in Committee; they will not have much relevance because the decisions will be taken elsewhere. That is why we believe that the treaty is crucial and why so many of us are determined that we shall do whatever we can to ensure that the Bill is not passed.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I understand and respect the hon. Member's sincerity. What I shall seek to demonstrate—as I have done during debates on other groups of amendments—is that the Maastricht treaty improves the position of the United Kingdom in comparison with that which pertains under the Single European Act.
      If the Committee will allow, I shall reply to the debate in three parts. First, I shall address some brief remarks to right hon. and hon. Opposition Members. Secondly, I shall deal with the well-crafted and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) and finally I shall address some general remarks to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister said that he is replying to the debate. But the debate has not finished. Many hon. Members have waited for two days for an opportunity to take part. The Minister may intervene at this stage, but surely only a later contribution could be regarded as a reply.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have to intervene in these debates as and when I can. I have already explained—to the incredulity of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that I make a point of not seeking to discuss very carefully, with people about whom the Committee knows, what the tactics of those people may be. I simply seek to intervene when it seems to me convenient to do so. Indeed, I have intervened more than once in some debates. I also do my best to give way to hon. Members. But the hon. Gentleman knows how the Committee works. I am not directly concerned with procedure. Such matters are for your judgment, Mr. Morris.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I understand the Minister to have said a couple of minutes ago that this treaty in no way diminishes the stature of the
      1052
      British Parliament. That is at the very least arguable. Will the Minister concede that certain articles of the treaty at least strengthen to a considerable extent the role and function of the European Court of Justice in such a way that it will in every sense become a supreme court for the 13 legal systems of the 12 nation states?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall not reply directly to that question at this stage as it concerns a matter that will be the burden of my speech.
      I should like first to direct a few remarks mainly at Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Copeland indicated that the Opposition intended to press amendment No. 27 to a Division. He said that it was his wish to fold the agreement between the Eleven into the treaty. Thanks to the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way to me, I tried to make clear what Her Majesty's Government believe would be the consequences of carrying amendment No. 27. I have made our position clear and I do not want to labour the point. However, I should say to Labour Members and to other Opposition parties that, if I am right, there would be very serious consequences, not just for Britain but for the entire European Community. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) took my point.
      Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister is indulging in boring repetition. He has already replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). What is the point of replying a second time, especially as some hon. Members have not had a chance to speak once?
      The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. I did not notice any repetition.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have the greatest respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that any of us need lessons from him in boring repetition.
      As I said, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber clearly took the point that I had made. I hope that he and other Opposition parties, and, indeed, other individual hon. and right hon. Members, will take their own advice on this matter. They know where to go for advice that is independent of what I am saying to the Committee. I hope that they will take such advice and will reflect very carefully. I am content—certainly in the case of Liberal Democrat Members—that, in the light of that advice and of their reflection, I shall be able to rely on their judgment in this matter.
      Dr. Cunningham: Whatever the Liberal Democrat Members and other Members do, I hope that they do not rely on the advice of the Minister as what he is saying is complete and utter claptrap. I have just—literally, within the hour—returned from discussions with the federal German Government, including the Minister of State in the Foreign Office, a lady whom I think that the Minister knows well, Ursula Seiler-Albring, and the Minister of State in the Chancellor's office, Friedrich Böhl. They clearly said that they would be delighted for Britain to reverse its decision on the social chapter and that such a reversal would not occasion the reopening of the German ratification of the treaty. That view is held throughout the Community as a whole. It is shared by socialist colleagues in other Governments in the Community. For the Minister to raise that red herring for a second time is simply to mislead the House.

      1053
      For good measure, I also took the opportunity during my brief visit to the federal republic to speak to the leaders of the chambers of commerce—the employers. I asked them if they believed any of the nonsense that we have heard from Ministers—and have just heard repeated by a Conservative Back Bencher—about the threats to industry from the social chapter. The employers do not believe it. When I asked them if they had considered asking the federal German Government to opt out of the social chapter, they said that they had not done so for a moment.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have two observations to make. First, at the rate that we are going, there will not be any socialist Governments left in Europe. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is not telling me or the Committee anything new when he says that the 11 partners would welcome it if the protocol and the agreement did not exist and the British Government were to go back on the negotiating position that they took in Maastricht. That is not the burden of my argument. We all know that—the wretched protocol exists because we refused to go along with the social chapter.
      I am issuing an invitation to the hon. Gentleman—albeit with no hope or expectation, as we have all seen the Labour tactics on the Bill and will make our judgments, as will the country, on the party's new-found commitment to Europe and the treaty. I am not fishing for votes from the hon. Gentleman, but inviting those who take such matters seriously, and have some scruples and principles, to seek their own advice. I have described the position as we see it. It is for other right hon. and hon. Members to use their own sources. We were once given the opinion of the hon. Member for Copeland on what Mr. Cot thought. The following week, in this very country, Mr. Cot repudiated what the hon. Gentleman had said.
      Mr. Peter Mandelson rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way to the reformist wing of the Labour party.
      Mr. Mandelson: Talking of principles, I do not think that the Minister is being absolutely scrupulous when he describes the position of the other 11 member state Governments. If they were as weak in their commitment to the protocol that contains the social chapter and would find so much difficulty in making the adjustment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred, they would have caved in at the eleventh hour when the British Government were making so much fuss about the social chapter during the final moments of the Maastricht treaty negotiations. They did not cave in; they stood their ground and agreed a protocol. Surely 11 member state Governments who feel as strongly about the protocol containing the social chapter as they did at Maastricht will hardly create many obstacles to allowing the speedy adjustment that would be needed in the wake of our amendment being carried by the Committee.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to labour the point, but I shall try to cover the ground once more. I am not placing in any doubt the enthusiasm of the other 11 member states for the protocol attached to the treaty and the agreement of the eleven that flows from it.
      When talking about European negotiations, I do not like to speak in terms of cave-ins or collapses by anybody. Our 11 partners would have wished the content of the
      1054
      agreement to be included in the Maastricht treaty, but the United Kingdom resisted. That is why there is that separate agreement. One can say that they caved in or that we caved in, but the agreement is not in the treaty; it is an agreement of the Eleven which flows from the protocol.
      4.30 pm
      I suggest that hon. Members take advice about my next point. When the Irish Government sought a minor amendment, relating to abortion, to a protocol in which everybody wished to accommodate them—no one had any disagreements about that—the partners refused to allow an intergovernmental conference because of their fears of what that would open. There must be an intergovernmental conference, but even if one of 30 seconds could be arranged—that is debatable—the consequences that would flow from it under article 236 are clear.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to go any further into this, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the Committee appreciates why the Minister is desperate to make progress, having got into this quagmire. As he was kind enough to mention the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), will he address the precedent mentioned by my hon. Friend, that of Norway in 1972? When it chose not to join the Community, the alterations resulting from that were agreed not by an IGC but by a decision in Council. Is not that a more valid precedent than that of Ireland?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: That is quite a good try and I have written to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. It is not a more valid precedent because, in advance of that intergovernmental conference dealing with accessions, arrangements were pre-made to facilitate matters in the event that one of the possibly acceding countries did not accede. It is a complicated legal point, but I believe that I have written to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber about it.
      Mr. Mandelson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be in order to clarify whether the Hansard reporters correctly picked up the Minister's observation that an intergovernmental conference could be held within 30 seconds to enable our accession to the social chapter?
      The Chairman: The Hansard reporters will record what they hear. It is for the hon. Member who has made the speech to check its delivery.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am happy to confirm that, but that is not the burden of my argument. Even if I go halfway down the road with the Opposition and say that everyone will accept the social chapter and will agree and be helpful —all that is possible—hon. Members should consider the other consequences flowing from that.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No. I wish to make a little more progress.
      We have heard some excellent contributions to the debate. He is not here now, but the Committee was not

      1055
      surprised to hear a distinguished and original contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also made an excellent speech. However, those of us who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) will agree that his carefully argued speech encapsulated many of the arguments touched on by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and their anxieties. I shall try to deal with his speech in some detail and with the care that it deserves. For those who were not present, I will try to sum up my hon. Friend's argument fairly.
      Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford abhors the thrust of the agreement on social policy by the 11 member states. He believes also—and I agree—that if that agreement produced the sort of actions that are presaged within it, that would bring about a huge competitive advantage for Britain. My hon. Friend goes on to argue that if that competitive edge became acute, others would seek to undermine it by quoting the treaty objectives set out in article 2 and the new competences set out in article 3—and, in conjunction with article 5, they would seek to draw back that competitive advantage.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford fears that, on that basis, cases will come before the European Court of Justice alleging that Britain is enjoying an unfair competitive advantage and that the court would be likely to rule against Britain by importing the provisions of the agreement among the Eleven into the treaty—folding it in, as the hon. Member for Copeland would say, but by a different route. I hope that I have more or less summed up, in the form of a synopsis, my hon. Friend's speech.
      Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: For the purpose of clarification, I never made the point that such things would come in wholesale. I said that they would come in through specific areas of unfair competition.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
      It is not unknown for Ministers to dismiss from the Dispatch Box arguments with which they do not agree in a robust and even colourful way, knowing that there will be votes at particular times. As I said, I believe that the matter needs a careful exposition and I shall attempt to give one.
      Let us be clear from the start—my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford touched on this—that the argument that the existing social provisions can provide a route to unwanted legislation is one against not the Maastricht treaty but the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act as it exists today.
      Mr. William Cash rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop this argument. I shall later give way as generously as I can.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford made quite a bit of the changes that have taken place in articles 2 and 3 of the treaty, relating to the Community's objectives. He suggested that those changes in some way alter the present position and would give the European Court of Justice greater leeway in interpreting the bounds of propriety in
      1056
      the use of article 118a for measures not strictly concerned with health and safety. I pause because that is an important point.
      The Committee has already debated the point that articles 2 and 3 are not vires-conferring. They are not operational in themselves and contain no powers for the Community institutions to act. Before they can act, one must look to the appropriate and specific treaty provision that gives the power to act.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I will give way in a moment. I wish to develop this point.
      In this case, article 118a is the article to which we would look. I repeat that article 118a was included in the treaty under the Single European Act. It is even arguable—and lawyers argue this—that article 2 should have been changed at the time to reflect more accurately the objectives of article 118a.
      If article 118a does not provide for a specific action that the Community has in mind, it would have to look—right hon. and hon. Members are very familiar with this—to article 235 as the legal basis for such action. My right hon. and hon. Friends will not need reminding that article 235 is a unanimity provision and one that has existed in the treaty of Rome since not the Single European Act but the treaty's inception.
      I stress that articles 2 and 3 are not operational.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: What happened to article 4?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am coming to the court. A long passage of my speech relates to the court, which I hope my hon. Friend—
      Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If I may be allowed to finish this part of my speech, I will give way to my hon. Friends the Members for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
      Articles 2 and 3 are not—I repeat not—operational. The same is true of article 5. I shall return later to the court case to which my hon. Friend referred under article 5. Article 5 remains as it has been since it was included in the treaty of Rome in 1957. Articles 2 and 3 refer to the Community's objectives. We debated that earlier. They are general articles which inform the specific provisions elsewhere in the treaty. It is those specific provisions that give the power to act to achieve the objective. They are now amended to reflect more accurately the position in the new treaty.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is making the point that general articles, sets of objectives, general contexts in which treaties and constitutions are formed, are not serious legal territory and, therefore, should not be taken into account. He may return to that point later, but will he at least accept that Roman textual law, with which we are now dealing, is alien to Britain but it has a history of and is specifically involved in taking a view about the context in which the specific text is to be judged? One of the great differences between our form of law and that law—it has proved historically true in the past 10 years—is that the European Court takes into account those generalisations or objectives. One of the problems that British negotiators have had in the past is

      1057
      appreciating that. One of our mistakes may have been not to have taken that fully into account. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will return to that point.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall indeed return to it. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I shall return to it when I refer to the European Court because I shall be seeking to demonstrate to the Committee that the relatively minor changes in articles 2 and 3 in most instances begin to address the very point that my hon. Friend is making. We all learn as we go along in the Community and articles 2 and 3 can inform a judgment that the European Court makes. However, it is not vires-conferring and it cannot be the basis on which action is taken, which has to be a specific article in the treaty.
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend alleges that most of the troubles, as he repeatedly says, stem from the Single European Act. When we deal with the 48-hour working directive, the Government, rightly, are saying that the vires of that under the Single European Act is not justified. However, we are in the ludicrous, stupid and supine position where, instead of challenging that at the right moment, or sorting it out before the Maastricht treaty was negotiated, which was a complete failure of negotiation, we are waiting until it has all been decided in the rather absurd hope that we might be able to extract something from the Court of Justice later. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept the scale on which we let down British industry and explain his role in that.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall try to respond kindly to my hon. Friend. It was he who supported—I welcome his support—the inclusion of article 118a in the treaty under the Single European Act. I shall seek to demonstrate that some of the difficulties that have arisen—the one to which my hon. Friend refers is one—show that our position will be and is being substantially improved, not just by the Maastricht treaty but by the climate that it has created.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have given way to my hon. Friend once. I know that he wishes to move the closure motion and that he did not even wish me to speak. I must make progress.
      Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way on article 5?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I am coming to article 5 as well. I want to make progress.
      I wish to say something about the potential abuse of article 118a which lay at the heart of the concern of my hon. Friend. The Committee should remind itself of what the article says. It is by no means as vague and all encompassing as some would have us believe. It is brief. It says:
      "Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objective the harmonisation of conditions in this area, while maintaining the improvements made."
      I do not deny that, as with many other provisions of the treaty, there will always be someone who will try to make a case for interpreting the provisions of a particular article more widely than is immediately apparent from its language. That is why my hon. Friend has a good point. I
      1058
      accept that. However, I invite the Committee to consider what will happen. What is happening now under article 118a?
      First, we can and we do vigorously debate any proposal in the Council. We change it. We change its shape. We change the detail and the content. We remove defects. We are securing derogations where we need them and we have been successful in that. Of the 40 measures tabled under the social action programme, 25 have now been agreed. In all cases we have not felt the need to vote against the end result. Many have been adopted by unanimity. Where a qualified majority vote was possible, Britain has never—I repeat never—been outvoted.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I wish that my hon. Friend would calm down for a minute and listen because I am trying, to the best of my ability—my hon. Friend may judge that I have not succeeded—to answer what I thought was a thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.
      I simply put it to the Committee that that is hardly a devastating record of Britain being rolled over in any particular area. But if, having fought a proposal through the Council, we were to lose—it has never yet happened in the social field— and it was adopted against the United Kingdom's vote, we could challenge its adoption in the court as being ultra vires under article 118a. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—this point has already been made—has already referred to that possibility in relation to working time.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister clarify, for those of us who are sympathetic to the Community, what happens when a proposal on the social chapter affects 11 of our partners but not us? What is the mechanism for British abstention? Will we not be there or not have a say? We shall be voting on matters that do not have any effect in our own country.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: In the event that the 11 partners choose to use the agreement—I have no idea what their intentions will be—and choose to introduce a series of measures, the first thing that will happen is that the United Kingdom's competitive advantage will be increased daily. With regard to the mechanics of the thing—this is not the only area in the Community where this happens—the United Kingdom, if it finds itself in the chair, will move the chair on to the next person in the troika who will assume the presidency. I stand to be corrected by my officials, but I think that I am right in saying that we would not vote on or take part in any of the discussions relating to actions taken by the 11.
      I want now to make two points about the European Court of Justice. The last part of the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford was that the motive will exist, the bridge exists, and the European Court will not be favourable for us.
      First, the assumption that underlay my hon. Friend's remarks was that the court will find against us. Secondly, I want to make some general remarks about the European Court of Justice and what I believe should inform the United Kingdom's attitude to it. A substantial part of my hon. Friend's speech was based on the assumption that the

      1059
      European Court will find against the United Kingdom and that, in a centralizing sense, that will expand the competence of the Community.
      I want to test that proposition and illustrate my point with some examples of cases which are more recent than those cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. The Committee will recall that he cited two specific cases. He very fairly told the Committee their dates. The first, the Defrenne v. Sabena case, was in 1976. That is quite a long time ago—nearly 20 years. The second was the Cullet v. Centre Leclerc case in 1985. Again that predated the Single European Act. I shall refer to both those cases later.
      I understand my hon. Friend's fears, which I know are shared by many of my hon. Friends, and I do not claim for one minute that those fears are groundless. The European Court has, perhaps, traditionally been a centralising institution, expanding the powers and scope of the Community with what I might call purposive interpretations of the treaty. I contend, however, that there have recently been clear signs that the court is sensitive to the change of mood in the Community—even in advance of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, which itself sends out a clear signal through article 3b; that article concerns subsidiarity, which we shall discuss later.
      The court is showing itself to be increasingly sensitive to states' rights, and is giving increasing weight to the national arrangements. It is less inventive in its interpretation of Community law, and is demonstrating a welcome willingness to give greater scope to exceptions and derogations. I will cite three recent examples.
      In July 1992, in the national insurance contributions case—a case, the Committee will note, in the field of social policy—the court upheld the maintenance of different state pension ages for men and women in the United Kingdom. In December 1992, in the most recent batch of Sunday trading cases, the court upheld the United Kingdom's Sunday trading legislation: many hon. Members may have regretted that decision, but in acting thus the court recognised the importance of national social, cultural and ethical traditions.
      My final example concerns the environment. In the Wallonia waste disposal case, the court upheld a ban on the import of waste by the Belgian region of Wallonia. In so doing, it allowed generous derogations from article 30 of the treaty for waste, rather than adopting its traditionally restrictive approach to exceptions and derogations from the free-movement principles.
      Mr. Duncan-Smith: I cited the two cases that I cited to illustrate my theory that the real problem will occur where the market is destabilised—the market across Europe that we would destabilise by being more competitive. None of the cases that my right hon. Friend has just cited affect that. They can arguably be said to be isolated within the nation states, whereas my point was that we would now destabilise the whole market place.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: That is a fair point, but let me make two observations. First, as I believe that my three examples demonstrate, the European Court of Justice—perhaps like the Supreme Court in the United States—will go through periods when its approach is centralising, and periods when it may be slightly more centrifugal.
      Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have not finished my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.
      My hon. Friend quoted the Cullet case in connection with article 5. I believe that that case was heard in 1985. Let me make two points. First, as I have said, the principle that it presupposes is the existence of Community law. If such a rule has been adopted, article 5 operates to require member states to support it, rather than undermining it. Britain is in favour of that. Secondly, in the Cullet case, the court went on to find that the national rules in question did not prevent the operation of competition rules, and did not contravene article 5. I shall deal with that in more detail later.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: In his enthusiasm and optimism, the Minister is in danger of misleading the Committee by giving the impression that the European Court has been moving towards a more national approach. I could cite half a dozen cases, but I shall confine myself to a recent one. In 1992, the court said that a directive had
      "the object of guaranteeing the rights of employees",
      and that it applied
      "to all employees, even if it is limited under national law."
      Is it not dangerous for the Minister, by citing three cases, to give the impression that the court is moving in a certain direction when a multitude of cases might show the opposite?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am not seeking to make a sweeping, general point. I am merely saying that—especially in the light of recent European Court judgments—it is not fair to assume that the court will necessarily and at all times make centralising judgments. I do not know exactly what the case cited by my hon. Friend involved; perhaps it involved health and safety. I very much hope that, if the British Government have agreed to a directive to protect the health and safety of workers, it will be upheld both by our own courts and by the European Court.
      Mr. Michael Lord: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I wish to make a little more progress. I shall give way to my hon. Friend later.
      I put it no higher than this: I do not think that it can any longer be assumed that the court will automatically adopt a centralising or harmonising approach, even in the social field. I see clear signs of a change of emphasis, and I believe that that trend will be reinforced by the Maastricht treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is wrong to assume that the court will adopt a negative approach to the arrangements in the social protocol, which were agreed by all 12 member states.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a question of the sensitivities of members of the court? I draw the Minister's attention to the dilemma of Judge David Edward, a distinguished QC and member of the European Court of Justice, known to many of us in Edinburgh for a number of years. He expresses extreme sensitivity about having to take part in judgments in the social field. He says, "When my country is excluded from the social chapter, how can I, with full authority, take part in judgments that relate to others, and not to the country that sent me to the court?"
      Mr. Garel-Jones: That is a matter for the learned judge himself.

      1061
      My second point is about the court in general, and about Britain's general attitude to it. I believe that it is wrong to suggest that the court is Britain's enemy; we need it, and we should not fear it. That is, perhaps, more true of Britain than of any other member state. The Community is a community of law, and we look to the European Court to enforce, and make a reality of, the single market for which we in Britain have fought so hard. We look to the court to check breaches of the rules by economic operators and member states. That is why we —the British Government—pressed so strongly in the Maastricht negotiations to extend the court's power to fine those who fail to comply with the law.
      Britain plays by the rules in the Community, as all hon. Members expect it to. We have rarely been called before the European Court. In the past five years, Britain has appeared before it only nine times, compared with Germany's 34, Belgium's 47 and Italy's 87. Of course there will be judgments that we do not like—that is true of all courts but it is overwhelmingly in Britain's interest for us to have a judicially enforceable level playing field.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford cited the Defrenne equal pay case involving article 119. That case simply states that a member state that breaches a rule of the Community, or a lawfully adopted directive, should be liable to court action. We strongly support that principle. It goes without saying, however—this goes back to the 48-hour week—that if we were to believe that any directive had been unlawfully adopted or that it had been adopted on a false treaty base, we should not hesitate, in a proper case, to test that proposition.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      5 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like to make a little more progress, so I will not give way. The next person to whom I shall give way will be my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).
      It is against that background that I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the words in the protocol, which could not be clearer. The protocol says:
      "Acts adopted by the Council and any financial consequences other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
      That protocol is annexed to the treaty of Rome. It is an integral part of the treaty. It was unanimously agreed by the 12 member states. The protocol has equal status with the treaty. For the reasons that I have given, I am confident that the European Court of Justice will give it effect. The Opposition are clearly confident of that, too. That is why they have moved the amendment and want the protocol to be removed.
      I do not deny that some people will seek to challenge that, as our competitive advantage becomes more apparent. I do not underestimate for one minute the ingenuity of lawyers or, more importantly, the persistence of economic operators who believe themselves to be disadvantaged by this competitive advantage. I do not dispute that. There will be tests. But the protocol is clear. From what I have said about the European Court of Justice, it must be clear that my judgment is that we can look to it with confidence to enforce that protocol.
      Mr. Lord: One of the big advantages of this Committee stage is that we are slowly teasing out some of the truths
      1062
      that some of us have suspected for a very long time, particularly the powers of the European Court as they have influenced this country in the past and as they may influence this country in the future. My right hon. Friend now admits that in the past the European Court has interfered where it should not have done and that, in his own words, it has been too centralised. Some of us have been saying that for a long time, but it is nice to have it admitted now. My right hon. Friend says that he detects a change in the attitude of the European Court. Therefore, we are supposed to pin our faith on this supposed change of attitude.
      My right hon. Friend has also admitted in the debate today that if the Council of Ministers cannot get its way on a particular issue, it may go to the European Court and that at some time in the future the European Court may find against us. My right hon. Friend says that, so far, it has not done so, but that it may do so. In those circumstances, this country may have to put up with a rule or regulation which is very detrimental to our nation. That is what most of us are extremely worried about. My right hon. Friend asks us to pin our faith on this change of attitude that he detects in the European Court. Does he not see just how concerned many of us are, and why we are so concerned?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that I have made it clear to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, that I understand these fears, but I do not think that I am being unfair in asking my hon. Friend to recall the fact that it was our party, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that led this country into the Community.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: It was a grave mistake.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend acted in a perfectly honourable way at that time and he has continued to take that position. I respect him for it.
      It should come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, however, that in those areas where the member states, including ourselves, have given competence to the Community and to the European Court, the writ of the European Court runs. The European Community is a developing organisation. Under the terms of article 118a, attempts have been made to expand the treaty. Through the courts and by introducing article 3b, we must seek to influence the way in which the Community works, not to despair about it. Above all, we must remember that a great deal of this impetus comes from the fact that the European Court is the instrument to which we look to protect the single market that we have fought so hard to achieve.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I must make a little more progress. I do not know how long I have been on my feet, Mr. Morris —too long, I imagine, by now.
      Article 118a of the treaty is unamended from the Single European Act. That is an important point. Secondly, article 5 of the treaty is unamended from the treaty of Rome. Thirdly, articles 2 and 3, though amended, are not vires-conferring, nor operational. Fourthly, the European Court is not the enemy of the United Kingdom, but the instrument for enforcing the level playing field in the single market that we fought so hard to achieve. Finally, the

      1063
      European Court of Justice has in the past been a centralising institution and perhaps prone to purposive interpretations, but there is growing evidence—some of which I have put before the Committee today—that we are now in a new climate and that that tendency is being arrested.
      Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I am referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. When I have finished this part of my speech, I shall give way.
      The protocol is specific in excluding Britain. In my judgment, there is every reason to expect and believe that the European Court will uphold that exclusion. I understand the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. I hope that I have made that clear to the Committee. I do not dismiss them out of hand. The track record upon which my hon. Friend bases his fears is there. In this, as in so many other areas, however, the Maastricht treaty is an improvement on the position which pertained under the Single European Act. That is my judgment. That is the judgment that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government made. I hope that my hon. Friend, to whom I shall give way now, will consider that we had good grounds for making that judgment.
      Mr. Duncan-Smith: My whole argument was founded on the fact that we, and we alone, were absent from the protocol and the social chapter. What was clear, therefore, from the word go was the intention of the 11 other member states to go down this route. For the first time in the Maastricht treaty, in articles 2 and 3 we allowed clear indications of social policy to emerge as a steering route for the whole Community, yet we had absented ourselves from the social chapter. I was arguing that there was a real line from one place to another which took us, winding all these together, to an obvious point of confrontation with the 11 other member states. It must be logical that they would seek to challenge us.
      Articles 169 and 170—dealing, in the treaty of Rome, with the European Court of Justice—clearly give another route, which I assumed that everyone knew, and I am sure that they do, to the European Court of Justice for a challenge. My right hon. Friend said that article 3 was not, therefore, all that powerful. He then cited the subsidiarity clause which, as we know, is in article 3. I shall be grateful, therefore, if my right hon. Friend will answer that point.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I will try to pick up some of my hon. Friend's points. There is a strong body of opinion in the Community that article 2 should have been amended at the time of the Single European Act to reflect article 118a. In a sense, what the amendments to article 2 of the treaty are doing is reflecting the inclusion of the social chapter under the Single European Act. The essential point about that article is that it is not vires-conferring and that it is not operational. It can, of course, be prayed in aid to inform a judgment that action needs to be taken under the treaty. That is the distinction.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing irreversible about the ways in which these standards rise and fall? I met a delegation the
      1064
      other day from the Christian Social Union in Germany. The members of that delegation were exceedingly anxious about the capacity of Germany to be able to continue to maintain the standards that they had forced upon themselves over the years. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that were a number of the 11 members states to discover that they could not maintain the conditions that at present they have agreed to force upon their workers, it would be possible for them to negotiate a change in the standards to which they had previously agreed?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that that is the case, but it remains to be seen what action, if any, our 11 partners decide to take under the agreement.
      My final point is directed particularly at my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is another debate which lies underneath this perhaps rather technical debate on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and amendment No. 27. That debate is about what has motivated Conservative Members in the battle of ideas in the past two decades. It goes to the core of what our party has been about in Government for the past 14 years; it goes to the core of the ideas that have brought about a better balance in the activities of the trade union movement and have, properly, moved Britain back on to the road of economic liberalism and away from the corporatism under which we were suffering.
      We have fought that battle and won. Before I came to the House, I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and Lord Joseph stomping up and down the country preaching the virtues of economic liberalism in polytechnics and universities. They were reviled and spat upon, no doubt sometimes—[Interruption.] Yes, reviled and spat on, no doubt sometimes by friends and supporters of the Labour party. In the end, the ideas that they were propounding emerged triumphant. I urge all my hon. Friends to consider the fact that the amendment seeks to put Britain back into the corporatist world from which we have now made our escape.
      We have come a long way together in fighting that battle of ideas. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on the issues—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we have, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has been with us.
      The Chairman: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept that reprimand from the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North was with us. It may come as a surprise to the Opposition that we stood shoulder to shoulder because we believed in our ideas. They are put at stake in amendment No. 27, but I am confident that when the Question is put, we shall again stand together and throw the wretched amendment back in the face of the Opposition.
      Ms. Joyce Quin: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words at this point in the debate and to react to what the Minister has said and to the contributions made last week.
      We have expressed strong and impressive support for the social chapter; we have outlined its importance for British citizens and shown the need for us to vote together on amendment No. 27. In addition to welcoming what my hon. Friends have had to say, I also welcome what

      1065
      members of the Liberal party have said because it seems that we are all delivering the same message and have had similar assurances from other countries and our contacts within the European Commission that what we are seeking to do is feasible and desirable. I hope, therefore, that when we vote, we shall achieve victory.
      The debate has been significant because, for the first time, many Conservative Members have disagreed with the view that they previously expressed about the Prime Minister's so-called triumph in negotiating the Maastricht agreeement and the two opt-outs which were to apply to Britain. In this instance, we have been discussing the social opt-out. In the past year or so, especially during Prime Minister's Question Time, Conservative Members have repeatedly crowed about the triumph of the social chapter opt-out. However, in this debate we have heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member say that it was not a triumph, that it has all been an illusion and that, if we are not careful, we shall have the unpleasant social measures imposed on us in any case. That is a significant development, which will mean that the debate will be remembered for some time to come.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Marlow: I do not think that the hon. Lady is quite right. It was a triumph by the Prime Minister. We might have some of the disastrous measures imposed on us by other means, but if we agreed to the social chapter, we would have them imposed on us.
      Ms. Quin: Anyone who listened to the debate last week will certainly have got the impression that many Conservative Members were not at all happy about the deal obtained at Maastricht. Indeed, I can see quite a few nodding now. The argument was put most forcefully by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), but it was echoed by the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and others, who all appeared to believe that the social opt-out was not the triumph it was originally portrayed as being.
      Of course, some Conservative Members—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: In order to reassure the House and the country, will the hon. Lady make it abundantly clear that the measures in the social chapter cannot be used in any way to affect matters relating to
      "pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs."?
      Will she therefore urge all hon. Members not to excite the public, because the social chapter cannot be used to affect pay, strikes or the right to union membership? Is it not a limited matter, which is already covered by the Single European Act and article 100 of the treaty? Is it not merely a non-event?
      Ms. Quin: I do not agree that it is a non-event, but the hon. Gentleman is right about the items excluded from the social chapter. It is not a non-event because, by their refusal to implement the social chapter and their desire to be excluded from it, the Government sent a strong signal to people at home that they are not interested in working conditions and employment rights. They also sent that message to our European partners. It is a negative message which the Government will come to regret.
      Some Conservative Members—although not as many as I am sure he would have liked—supported the
      1066
      Minister's view and the official party line. Although one would have to study coded sentences to realise it, I think that some Conservative Members secretly agree with us about the social chapter. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is on record as believing that Britain should be a part of social Europe, and I have a feeling that other Conservative Members agree— perhaps they are consoling themselves with the argument of some Euro-sceptics that the social chapter will be imposed on us anyway.
      Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Lady has a strong and well established record of supporting European causes, and I am sure that she would not push the amendment if it were to disrupt the treaty of Maastricht. She and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) explained that they have had assurances from the German Government and the European Commission that the amendment to allow us to join the social chapter could be incorporated rapidly, but can she explain how she would get around the legal problem that that would pose? Either all countries must go through the ratification process or there would be a danger of a British employer being able to go to the Court of Justice and having the agreement scrapped. How would she get around the legal problem?
      Ms. Quin: I do not think that the legal problems would be nearly as great as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends are reminding me about 30-second intergovernmental conferences, and the interesting Norwegian example from 1972 has also been mentioned. If our amendment is accepted, we may save ourselves many future legal battles. Many Conservative Members are worried that, because of our so-called competitive edge, other European countries will embark on lengthy court proceedings against us. It would be simpler to accept the amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke tellingly of the Government's isolation in Europe. He said that all the other 11 countries are against our position, and that all the other political parties in the European Parliament, apart from those of the extreme right, reject the Government's view on the social chapter.
      Denmark is often looked upon as the odd one out in Europe, but it strongly supports the social chapter. I am sure that my hon. Friends would like me to say how delighted we are at the appointment of Mr. Rasmussen, who belongs to our sister party in Denmark, as Danish Prime Minister. Even the former Danish Government and Prime Minister strongly supported adherence to the social chapter.
      I was interested in a letter about the social policy priorities for the Danish presidency, sent by the former Danish Government to members of the European Parliament Committee on social affairs:
      "The main task of the Danish Presidency will be to find ways and means to tackle the problem of unemployment by giving the Community a more active role. Efforts to improve employment in the EC by—giving the Council (Ministers of Labour) a more active role in the negotiations of a long-term employment policy—giving the social partners a role in this important task."
      The letter continues also saying that the Danish presidency will attach particular importance to the attempt to
      "expand and further develop existing social dialogue, so that the social partners at Community and national level are given

      1067
      increased possibilities to take an active part in the development of future labour market policy of the Community."
      That interesting letter should give heart to the many people in Britain who wish the social chapter success, and want us to be part of it.
      There were some interesting and unusual contributions to last week's debate by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) seemed to think that the whole social chapter was the fault of "socialist Frenchmen". Sadly—from my point of view—he wildly overestimated the importance of socialist Frenchmen, and wildly underestimated the adherence to the social chapter of all the nations and parties in the European Community, apart from the British Conservatives.
      The Conservatives' Christian Democratic partners in the European Parliament were mentioned last week. I was interested to read an article by Martin Rhodes of the department of government at the university of Manchester, which said:
      "At the end of the 1986 British Presidency, employment minister"—
      the writer gives the name of the Minister responsible at that time—
      "was severely rebuked by the spokeswoman for the Christian Democrats in the European Parliament: 'we would prefer it if the UK co-operated closely in current Community programmes and stopped blocking social directives. My feeling is that you do not have much to teach us in the social field. But you do have a great deal to learn'".
      That description of the attitude of the Christian Democrats in the European Parliament still holds true today.
      It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) say that Conservative Members of the European Parliament do not follow the same line as Conservative Members of the House. Indeed, since our debate last Wednesday, I have read a speech by a Conservative Member of the European Parliament who supported the directive on working time which has attracted much criticism from Conservative Members here during the debate.
      The Government not only fail the test on the EC social chapter; they fail to live up to the Council of Europe social charter, which was adopted many years ago. To our shame, more workers in Britain than in any other EC country have wages below the Council of European decency threshold. That is a disgrace.
      Subsidiarity has been mentioned in the debate—again, in a way reminiscent of clutching at straws. I had been puzzled by the Tory Government's interpretation of subsidiarity, but during the debate it became clear that the word refers to any European directive that the Government do not like. Apparently, anything that they like can be decided at European level, but anything that they do not like must be decided here at home.
      What has been said about subsidiarity certainly contradicts the outcome of the Edinburgh summit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland explained, it was stated in Edinburgh that the Community countries do not wish to re-examine the various social directives at this stage; they want to build on them in the future. They are considering such matters not under the heading of "subsidiarity" but in the belief that the social dimension is an integral part of the treaty.
      1068
      The reason why other countries see the matter in that way was reinforced last week by the reasoning of some Conservative Members, who said that the social provisions were already in the treaty of Rome, so it was misleading for the Government to separate the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and maintain that it was entirely different from anything else that we have encountered before in the EC.
      Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out that there are many reasons why the Government should change their mind about the social chapter. Many companies in Britain will eventually change their minds on it, too. Surely it is absurdly inconsistent for us to argue for a level playing field in all other areas of the single European market yet seek to exclude from that internal market working conditions and freedom of movement for workers.
      Many Conservative Members honestly believe that inward investment may be jeopardised if we accept the social chapter. I refer them to the findings of the recent Ernst and Young survey of companies, which showed that many companies felt that inward investors would look more worriedly upon the United Kingdom in future simply because we had opted out of certain key areas of European policy. We seemed semi-detached from the European market, so we might not be such a good base from which to conduct companies' European operations.
      I should like to say a great deal more, but I know that time is short and many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall finish soon. I should have been greatly surprised if the Minister had announced a change of heart on the issue, especially in a week in which the Government are due to press again their outrageous policy of abolishing wages councils, in the Committee stage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill tomorrow.
      The Government's attitude to the matter shows indifference to the great problems of low wages, poverty and deprivation, and dependence on inadequate benefits, which are all too prevalent in Britain today. The Government are wrong; their attitude means that workers earn such low wages that they have to depend on state benefits to survive. In effect, the Government are giving massive subsidies to employers that pay very low wages. I appeal to the Government to look sympathetically on the approach to social matters of every other country in the EC. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will repent and end their foolish and damaging isolation on this important matter.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. John Biffen: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has just left the Chamber, entertained us with a courteous, lengthy and most constructive analysis of the Government's defence of their position on the social chapter in the light of the compelling analysis made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith). I shall return to that in a moment.
      I thought that my right hon. Friend's peroration did not entirely match the weightiness of the main text. It clearly showed that, in his retirement, he will become a pamphleteer for the Institute of Economic Affairs. I say that with some regret, because I do not believe that the issues under debate are essentially ideological in content.

      1069
      Of course there are different attitudes about the collective nature of social provision and about how best it can be put into effect. If one is thinking in terms of continental countries, one may have to draw on Bismarck or on the papal encyclicals to understand a tradition that is significantly different from our own. However, I do not believe that the argument is enhanced by suggestions that there is a sweatshop zone in Europe which is occupied by some of the major European countries. That is not true.
      We should be better advised to consider what has been proposed using the lack of inhibition that we apply to our own domestic legislation. What we see before us may not add up in competence and in general direction, but we must remember that it has always been a tradition of the Committee stage—I say this with great courtesy, as I do not wish to undermine the principle of Second Reading—to return the matter for further consideration. That is what the Opposition seek through amendment No. 7, and more especially through amendment No. 27.
      My remarks will be directed entirely to amendment No. 27. The first point that we must establish is how significant the issue is and how big the battle is. What is the nature of potential victory or defeat? As the arguments have proceeded—here we owe a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford—the significance of the protocol is beginning to be reassessed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford pointed out in a compelling speech last week how much could be achieved otherwise through European legislation. The challenges that would secure that state would be mounted by essentially corporate interests that were threatened by an alleged British competitive advantage. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) talked about individuals going to the court to challenge the protocol.
      I listened with great care to the erudition of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, although I, as a humble street politician, could follow his argument but indifferently. It was towards the end that the message became clearer and clearer. It was that our safety valve lay in the growing flexibility of the European Court. In our own domestic legislation, it would fill us with horror to think that the changing sentiments and instincts of the court were our safeguard. Normally in such matters, it is the resolute certainties of the judicial system which are our guarantee.
      I understand the point made persuasively by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in a week in which we have heard that the European Commission will look favourably—I am sure that the press reports are accurate —on a subsidy for coal. I remember that, when I was a humble apprentice Euro-sceptic, we used to be given little lectures by our elders and betters, who said that the great thing about the Commission, about the European Community and about its commitment to liberal economics was that the bad habits of national subsidy could not be practised. Everything moves on, and my right hon. Friend is right to remind us that the European Court also moves on.
      I ask Opposition Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends whether this is a position of which we approve. When we view the evolution of the structures for Europe, do we want to place more emphasis on a structure in which the result lies ultimately with the determinations of the European Court, which is acquiring these more flexible characteristics?
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Biffen: I will not. I hope that the hon Gentleman will forgive me.
      I reflect on that point because we must first determine whether we want a social dimension to European affairs. I am perfectly happy to conceive of a European Community whose ambit includes social affairs, but I believe that the method now being proposed is questionable, because it looks backwards. It looks backwards to the role of the Commission, to the role of the European Court and to the integrated structures which derive from the original treaty of Rome, and which are reinforced by the Single European Act 1986.
      Maastricht is intended to be a pause and a means by which to redirect our affairs to deal with a position that will be overwhelmingly influenced by the collapse of Soviet power and by the enlargement of the Community to include not only the first line of enlargement countries, such as Sweden and Austria, but the countries of eastern Europe and, as the Prime Minister said, eventually Russia itself.
      I should like the whole social dimension of European policy to be placed outside the rigidity that is now proposed, protocol or no protocol. I should far sooner that we adopted the device that was made available to the Danes at Edinburgh, although I do not suggest that particular device to the Committee. I suggest that, if we are serious and constructive in our approach to the problem —it is a problem because of the deficiencies in the protocol which have been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford—we should start to consider the intergovernmental co-operative techniques that are embodied in the treaty, especially in titles V and VI, and we should see through the intergovernmental process the opportunity for social affairs to be considered.
      What would be the advantage of that approach? First, we should have European co-operation without European uniformity. Matters would be left essentially to national Governments and national Parliaments, and there is no harm in including our Parliament in that. Secondly, the roles of the Commission and the European Court would be marginalised. That would be an immense advantage in matters of substance, such as the one under debate, in which European co-operation must turn on the ability of national institutions to strike up partnerships.
      Such a structure is very much better for the prospective enlargement of Europe, because many countries, especially in eastern and central Europe, will come with traditions in the social sphere which are very different from ours. They still have to be accommodated within the wider and looser Europe that the future beckons. We should not now be afraid of trying to establish a pattern that looks to the future rather than to the past.
      What role is there for the House? Let us suppose that we passed amendment No. 27. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said very properly that it would make for great difficulties over ratification. I have said that my right hon. Friend could be sent to the conference chamber with a reasonable negotiating brief, which I have outlined. I believe that such a position would point to a far happier European Community than that contained in the present proposals.
      The House must take its own chances and make its own decisions. My right hon. Friend has some time before the vote on amendment No. 27. The amendment raises real

      1071
      issues about the kind of European Community that we want to see proceed and, above all, about the kind of Europe in which, in political and commercial terms, the European Court would have an influence that we should like to avoid.
      Mr. Leighton: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biflen). On 24 July 1991, the Select Committee on Employment produced a unanimous report on the European Community social charter and I should like to make a brief reference to that.
      I shall preface my remarks by saying that I support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I will vote enthusiastically for his amendment. Having said that, I think that one should add a word of caution. We should have a care, we should be realistic and we should not exaggerate what is in, and what will come out of, the social chapter.
      There have been some illusions. For example, I have heard colleagues speak of harmonising conditions at the highest level, having a minimum wage Eurowide and having the right to join a trade union, for example, at GCHQ. None of those things is true. The Trades Union Congress embraced the social chapter enthusiastically, perhaps because it had had a decade of exclusion from the consultative process of British politics.
      It is not surprising that the trade unions were enthusiastic when Jacques Delors hot-footed it from Brussels looking something like a saviour and promised them the renewal, by means of the social chapter, of all that had been denied during the Thatcher years. They were won over by the goodies that were dangled in front of them. They were promised that the 1992 process would give equal emphasis to the social dimension as well as the economic dimension. Both those dimensions were to come in tandem, in a balanced way and according to the same timetable.
      The Select Committee visited Germany, Portugal, France, Spain and Greece. In each country we spoke to the trade unions, employers and the Minister of Labour. After meeting the employers and the Minister of Labour, the idea that they were falling over themselves to give extra rights to workers was not realistic.
      The Select Committee report says that both dimensions were to proceed on the same timetable, so the social dimension should now exist. The economic dimension, the single market, has been completed. We must now ask ourselves: where is the social dimension? The trade unions were led to believe that it would not be simply a business man's Europe with fierce competition, restructuring of industry, mergers, closures, redundancies and winners and losers. Many of the losers will be in the United Kingdom because of the weak state of our economy. The trade unions were led to to believe that there would he a people's Europe that benefited workers, the elderly, children, the weak and the unions. The unions were to become valuable social partners, which was an attractive idea for them. They were to have obtained all sorts of advantages. As 1992 has been and gone and the social dimension should have been achieved and put in place, we must ask: where is the social dimension?
      While the business man's Europe has raced ahead and the single market is in place, there has been little progress on the social dimension. Perhaps that is because the single
      1072
      market had a treaty, the Single European Act, which put it in place, whereas the social dimension merely had a social chapter that has no legal basis. I always value the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on such matters and I am pleased that he is paying attention to what I am saying. I shall listen avidly to what he has to say.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Stuart Randall: I always listen to my hon. Friend's speeches with great interest because of his reputation on such matters. He asked: where is the social dimension? If we were to get the amendment through tonight, would not we be able to get much of the legislation which many Labour Members want to see because we could invoke majority voting as opposed to unanimity? An example would be the protection of pregnant women at work. Legislation enabling women to receive full wages during the period of pregnancy has been blocked by Her Majesty's Government using the unanimity rule. That rule would disappear. Is not that an important part of the social dimension?
      Mr. Leighton: As is usually the case, my hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point that we must examine. The Select Committee reported on the matter.
      I shall deal with some of the matters which my hon. Friend raised because the social charter is replete with vague and grandiloquent statements and high-flying aspirations. The social charter was merely a solemn declaration; it had no legal effect. The Select Committee examined that matter. I should explain that social charters are not new. There have been many social charters. The social charter in the treaty is based on the social charter of the Council of Europe. It is similar. The Council of Europe has existed for a long time, as has its social charter. Where is its social charter? It is not there.
      If the member states which had signed the voluntary social charter wanted to implement it, they could do so. There is nothing to stop them implementing it. However, the political will is not there to implement the Council of Europe's social charter. I fear that it is the same position with the European Community's social charter.
      I shall turn directly to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. I draw his attention to the fact that the social charter went through a number of drafts during which it was very much watered down; it was emasculated. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will agree with me on that point.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland listed the headings. The first is "Fair and decent wages". Originally, fair and decent wages were to be implemented "by law". In the next draft, those words were struck out and in their stead were the words,
      "in accordance with arrangements in each member state".
      In other words, no legislation would be needed. The status quo would be maintained and there would be no change. That is the end of the naive idea that there would somehow be a Eurowide minimum wage.
      The second heading is, "Improved living and working conditions". The reference to "maximum duration of hours" was deleted, as was the reference to
      "weeekend working, night shifts and shift work".
      Instead, the formula,
      "according to arrangements in each member state"

      1073
      was inserted. What does that give us? It maintains the status quo.
      The next heading to which my hon. Friend referred is "Social security". The original draft contained the words:
      "minimum income for those excluded from the labour market".
      Those words came out and in went
      "resources in keeping with their particular situation",
      and again, the magic words
      "according to arrangements applying in each country."
      So what will that give us? What change has been made?
      Then we come to an important section of the social chapter entitled "Freedom of association and collective bargaining". It refers to the right to join or not to join a trade union. The Labour party accepted that and that was the end of any Labour party support for the closed shop. We never advocated the closed shop. In the past we said that if employers and workers wanted a closed shop, it was not for Parliament to interfere. But now we are positively against the closed shop.
      The words
      "freedom to negotiate and conclude collective bargains",
      came out of the original document and in went the words
      "under conditions laid down by national legislation and practice."
      Mr. George Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Leighton: I hope that I have not upset my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I am happy to give way to him.
      Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend never upsets me. However, to point out the deficiencies in the social charter and give its history does not undermine the argument that there is and should be a strong social dimension to the European Community. The social action programme was the fulfilment of the social charter in legislative form. Of the 38 measures in the social action programme, 21 have been implemented. Several of them have produced considerable benefits for British workers which they would not have enjoyed under domestic British law. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to just one such measure—the transfer of undertakings provision. It is causing much trouble to Conservative Members. It has been welcomed with open arms by trade unions involved in the wholesale privatisation process. It was achieved through European law. We could not have achieved it in Britain under a Tory Government.
      Mr. Leighton: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that I intend to vote enthusiastically for his amendment. The transfer of undertakings issue goes back decades. There is nothing new about it. It is a matter of interpretation. It comes under not the social charter, but a previous measure. My hon. Friend agrees that such measures do not come under the social chapter. They are reinterpretations of legislation adopted a long time ago. I am glad to have my hon. Friend on my side because I intend to vote for his amendment.
      It would be an outrage for the Labour party to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill without the social dimension and social chapter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton that it is an important item, but I simply point out that we should exercise care and caution and be realistic and accurate. I shall come on to the social action programme.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to his hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the transfer of undertaking provisions, which were dealt with yesterday in Standing Committee under clause 26 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, were not a reconsideration by the Government? Infraction proceedings were taken against the Government by the EC Commission. It was not a voluntary change of mind, but something which we were forced to do and which we did not believe was the legal position back in 1981.
      Mr. Leighton: I think that that is right. I do not want to push my luck on this one, Dame Janet. We have said what needs to be said and I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
      Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to a strong social dimension. Does my hon. Friend agree that the treaty, with or without a social chapter, fails to do anything for the 55 million citizens of the European Community who live in poverty, 17 million of whom are unemployed? Surely a strong social dimension should have as its major aim the elimination, or at least the diminution, of the poverty suffered by so many fellow European citizens.
      Mr. Leighton: I am sure that that is right. I can only say that I have read and studied the social chapter and its adoption would not eliminate poverty. The words,
      "minimum income for those excluded from the labour market"
      in the section entitled "Social Security" in the original social charter were deleted and in their place were put the words
      "resources in keeping with their particular situation."
      I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows what that means. I do not know. That provision will not remove poverty. The social chapter has been weakened on that issue.
      Dr. Godman: It means that nothing whatever will be done for the millions of people who live in poverty. The Minister has ignored that important issue. All those who are in favour of the treaty as it is drafted choose to ignore the important point that 55 million citizens will not be helped.
      Mr. Leighton: That is right. It is now my pleasure to give way to my geographical neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Mr. Nick Raynsford.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: It is Mike Gapes, Dame Janet. It was a good try. It is the first time I have heard it suggested that south of the river and north of the river were geographically next to each other.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Trade Union Confederation, the British Trades Union Congress and many other organisations that represent working people and those who were made unemployed by Thatcherite and monetarist policies in recent years are in favour of the social chapter? Is he aware that the European employers' organisation worked out an agreement with ETUC before the Maastricht treaty was adopted and that that wording was incorporated almost entirely into the text of the Maastricht treaty?

      1075
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the concept of social partners, which is so hated by the Conservative party, is the reason why the Government opted out of the social chapter? Others recognise that that model of co-operation is the way forward for Britain and the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, the British Government want to take us back into the past. They stand up against the co-operation that is so common in other European countries.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I point out that interventions are becoming longer and longer and it is important that they should be short.
      Mr. Leighton: I was about to congratulate my hon. Friend on the brevity, succinctness and wisdom of his intervention. Representatives of ETUC appeared before the Select Committee and gave evidence. It grieves me to say that they were pretty incoherent. I hope that this meeting is in private. I do not want them to know that I said that.
      In the five or six European countries that the Select Committee visited we met the representatives of the national trade unions. They expressed great disappointment at the limited amount that they would get out of the social chapter. They were all critical of the slow progress on implementing the social charter. I am happy to be at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South because I am a great supporter of the social chapter. I shall vote for the amendment. I hope that the whole Committee will do so, including many Conservative Members.
      Mr. Winnick: Of course, Opposition Members are all in favour of the social chapter. It would be amazing if the position were otherwise. But is not the social chapter undermined by article 104c, which places a limit of 3 per cent. of GDP on the budget deficit that a Government can run? That would entail the application of even more vindictive monetarist policies than those pursued by the Tory Government in the past few years. What is the point of one gain if it is undermined by all the reverses contained in article 104c? I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made some critical remarks about that article, albeit at the meeting in Paris.
      Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is right. His point demonstrates that the Maastricht treaty is an old-fashioned and outdated document. It was conceived before the Berlin wall came down. It does nothing for eastern Europe. It did not envisage the recession with which we are now dealing. As my hon. Friend rightly says, a deficit of more than 3 per cent. of GDP would be regarded as excessive. Her Majesty's Government are running a deficit of 7 per cent. or more now. If we wanted to move to stage 2 we would have to reduce our deficit to 3 per cent. To do so, we should have to cut public expenditure by £20 billion to £25 billion. If we cut public expenditure by £25 billion, I suspect that it would lead to vastly increased unemployment and I do not think that the trade unions would be in favour of that. My hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely good point and I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has cottoned on to it in a strong way and has made a speech in Paris, saying that we cannot have
      1076
      this. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend may be leading us into the Lobby on Third Reading to vote against such a mad monetarist idea. I certainly hope so.
      I want to get back to the question of freedom of association and collective bargaining which was one of the main features of the social charter. The words
      "right to resort to collective action, including the right to strike"
      were taken out and in went these words:
      "rights … subject to obligations … under national legislation".
      6 pm
      So what does that give us? What is new? What is being added for British workers by those words? If we are talking about strikes under national legislation, they mean that there is no right to strike in this country. In most countries, if a strike is lawful the contract of employment is put on ice; in this country the contract of employment is breached and one can be sacked, as was demonstrated at Wapping. There is no right to strike in the social chapter. Perhaps I should also draw attention to the fact that the workers at GCHQ will not have their rights restored. The charter says:
      "The internal legal order of member states shall determine under which conditions the extent of rights under Articles 11–13 shall apply to the armed forces, police, and civil service"
      That means the status quo at GCHQ, although many people think that under the charter the workers would be given the right to join a union.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) referred to the protection of children and young people. The wording in the original charter was:
      "Young people … must receive equitable remuneration",
      but later the words
      "in accordance with national practice"
      were added. So what does it mean? Ah, my hon. Friend knows.
      Ms. Quin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why so many of these provisions were watered down—something which, like him, I greatly deplore—was the intervention of the United Kingdom Government, not the attitude of the other 11 countries?
      Mr. Leighton: I am not certain that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. On my travels round Europe I found that many European employers do not abide by the rules. There are no health and safety executives in the back streets of Naples. There is no health and safety executive anywhere in these countries. Nor is there a commission for racial equality. In the social charter—even the Minister is agreeing with me on this—there is nothing like the British Commission for Racial Equality. There are no paragraphs about racial equality.
      Mr. Mandelson: Should we rejoice in the fact that the people of Naples and elsewhere do not have the benefits of a health and safety executive and the advantages of a commission for racial equality? Surely under the principles of socialist solidarity we should want to export these good ideas to the rest of Europe. That is why many of us on the Opposition Benches support the social chapter and the entire treaty.
      Mr. Leighton: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I agree with him 101 per cent. He is someone whom I admire very much and I agree with him completely. All that I am saying is that we must beware, be

      1077
      cautious, be realistic and avoid exaggeration. We must not give untrue perceptions of what is in the treaty. I am trying to give hon. Members the result of the Select Committee's work. The Committee visited six countries, spending taxpayers' money and making an investigation—
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend explain to some of our hon. Friends who seem to find it hard to understand that it is difficult to export high standards if they are not written down in the first place?
      Mr. Leighton: Yes, that is true. If we want the social dimension, we must work for it and we must vote for the amendment tonight.
      After the section on the young, there was a section dealing with the elderly. No words were deleted, but new words were inserted at the beginning:
      "According to the arrangements applying in each country"—
      Mr. Randall: Before my hon. Friend deals with that, may I ask him about article 104c and deficits? Most hon. Members will be concerned about over-restrictive deficits during a period of recession, but perhaps what one must do in a period of recession, for all sorts of obvious reasons, is borrow and invest in the infrastructure. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that there may be greater flexibility in the treaty than he implied? I refer him to paragraph 3, which says that the Commission will take into account all relevant factors, and if I may just suggest —[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a sort of sub-plot going on.
      Mr. Randall: There is a question, Dame Janet, as to whether the situation is as rigid as my hon. Friend suggested. Paragraph 3 of article 104c says,
      "take into account all other relevant factors, including the medium term economic and budgetary position of the Member State."
      Surely these words mean that in a period of recession there would be flexibility.
      Mr. Leighton: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is helping my case: He is referring to a previous intervention and saying that the Commission might be gracious enough to consider—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Take account of.
      Mr. Leighton: Oh, "take account of". That is very nice of it. I take the view that the budget deficit should be decided according to the circumstances of the day—which change—by the elected Government of the day. I do not think that any of this nonsense should be enshrined in the treaty. I have heard about the end of history and I do not understand much about it. But this is the end of economics. We cannot discuss economics because it has all been decided: 3 per cent., in the treaty, unless the Commission will take something into account. It is nonsense. These things should be decided by our own democractically elected Parliament and I do not want our people stripped of their powers in favour of the Commission, with an international treaty and a court that will decide what is to be done. Who believes in that nonsense? I hope that we will vote against all this stuff.
      I turn now to implementation. Here there were references to "legislative measures", but they were taken
      1078
      out. The Commission was to present an action plan by a certain date, but the date was taken out and the words "as soon as possible" were put in.
      That is the charter. What has happened since? Sometimes when I discuss these things with my friends, I ask them if they can think of any directive that has come out of the charter since it was promulgated. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East produced a brilliant briefing for us in which she mentioned three things. One is that there should be a written contract of employment. Most workers will have one, but it is right that they should all have one. Secondly, there was an amendment—not a new directive, but an amendment to the 1985 directive on collective redundancies. Someone should tell the President of the Board of Trade about it. Thirdly, there was something for pregnant workers, but again this shows the way things are going; it was so emasculated, so watered down, that in the end the pregnant workers were given so many weeks off with sick pay, as though pregnancy were a sickness. Incidentally, the Italians—who love children and value women—voted against it because they thought that it was not enough —[Interruption.] Have I said the wrong thing?
      Apart from directives, regulations and decisions that have a binding effect, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East will find, from looking through her papers, that there are numerous opinions, communications, recommendations and resolutions. The only trouble with them is that they are all pious and meaningless because they are not binding. They have had little effect and most have disappeared without trace.
      No one can say what we have got out of European Community legislation. The Select Committee on Employment asked the Government to describe the state of play and the effect of all the legislation coming out of the charter. They sent us the "Memorandum on European Community Legislation", which I have here. I recommend anyone interested in the subject to get a copy of this document so that he can find out what has happened.
      One directive, entitled "Working Time", has been dropped. It seems unlikely that it will ever see the light of day again and if it does it will have been emasculated. There will be so many exceptions that it is likely to be meaningless.
      Another directive is entitled "Information and consultation of workers, or European Works Councils". Are not they the Vredeling proposals, which date frorn more than a decade ago? They have been blocked and nothing has happened. Once again, the Government tell us that there is no progress.
      A proposal entitled "Access to Training Decision" was opposed by employers. I think that one of my hon. Friends said that continental employers are all in favour of such training, but employers were starkly against that proposal, as were five member states. What happened? There will be only a recommendation, which has no legally binding effect and everyone will ignore it.
      Another proposal was a "Directive on part-time and atypical work". The Government tell us that the state of play on that directive is that it is "dormant". That is a word that we do not often use in the House. I looked it up in the dictionary, which said:
      "lying inactive as in sleep—in abeyance".
      The Government's definition is that
      "no progress has been made on furthering"—
      the proposal—

      1079
      "for a considerable length of time."
      I support the proposal, but I am afraid that it is dormant.
      A proposal on the equal treatment of men and women dealt with the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases. That is known to many hon. Members. The Government tell us that it is dormant and has been for several years, so we do not hold out much hope for that.
      Another directive, entitled "Parental leave", would have entitled workers to uniform conditions of parental leave, regardless of sex, in all member states. What has happened to that? It has been "dormant for several years." The Government are telling the Committee, "Forget it, you don't have to worry about that one."
      The "labour clause proposal" concerns the introduction of a labour clause into all public contracts. That is what we used to call contract compliance and it is a good idea. What happened to it? The Government memorandum tells us:
      "The Commission are now unlikely to produce a separate proposal on this subject."
      So I think that we have to forget about that.
      The only conclusion that I can draw from all that is that the expectations that marked the 1980s and found expression in the social charter are ebbing away. There is no life in the charter—it is running into the sands. The momentum has disappeared and the chance of most of the important proposals in the charter being implemented is becoming increasingly remote. Was the social charter a phantom? Was it only a slogan? Was it a smokescreen of verbiage to cover the 1992 competitive free-for-all and to keep the unions sweet and on board? Was it meant to drag the wool over their eyes?
      I enthusiastically support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. We should demand a social dimension. Everything should have such a dimension, but it is not in the Bill. The business man's Europe is there, but the workers' Europe—the Europe of the people, the unions, the young and the elderly—is not. That is not what we are being sold. We must fight for the social dimension and the social charter. It would be outrageous if the Labour party voted for a Bill that resulted in the business man's Europe, without thinking of the people who work in it.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Marlow: I have tabled two amendments in this group—Nos. 127 and 129—which deal with freedom of movement for workers, as that is obviously an important issue.
      Whereas that matter was decided by qualified majority voting, it is to be decided under the procedures of article 189b. I do not want to go on at length about my amendments but article 189b seems very complicated. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to explain its implications when he replies to the debate— [Interruption.] I am not sure what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. Does he want me to give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend moved a closure motion because he clearly thought that the debate should have come to an end last week and he tried to prevent me from intervening altogether.
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend made a very good speech today—a speech that I enjoyed. It was informative
      1080
      and held together, although I did not agree with all of it. I am sorry that he has to make that sort of debating point by way of an intervention. He knows as well as I that there are such things as probing amendments—that was a probing closure.
      When my right hon. Friend winds up the debate for a second time, can he tell the House the implications if freedom of movement of workers is decided under the procedures set down under article 189b rather than by qualified majority voting? I am sure that the House would be grateful if he could also explain, in words of one syllable and in a short time, how article 189b works, so that when we return to our constituencies we can inform our constituents.
      Amendment No. 7, tabled by the Opposition, seeks to remove the social fund from the Bill. As I understand it, the social fund is a slush fund—a means of taking money from taxpayers in my constituency and in this country and giving it to taxpayers in other countries. It is a means whereby the Commission and European institutions can gain clients in other Community countries and thus gain support in those countries. I think that it is on page 31, is it not?
      Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is the inevitable and honest logic of capitalism that if one wants to create a genuine single market one needs a mechanism to redistribute wealth from the more dynamic areas of the market to the poorest areas? Therefore, it follows, absolutely logically, that one needs some form of social chapter and fund and that that should grow inexorably year by year until Europe can replicate the situation in today's nation state, which redistributes about 40 per cent. of gross domestic product via central taxation and benefits. If that is not the logic, I should like to hear someone explain how one would create a genuine common market without redistributing wealth to relax the tensions between rich and poor areas.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman sits on the Opposition side of the House, and I sit on the Government side. We have different philosophies. The hon. Gentleman makes no bones about the fact that he is a socialist and is in favour of redistribution. I do not share his views on redistribution, although we obviously have social obligations that we are very happy to meet. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I want a single market. I want the Germans to be able to sell in our market, and the British to be able to sell in Spain. I want a level playing field in terms of the movement of goods, but each country in the European Community should be entitled to make its own decisions on social policy and, to a certain extent, on commercial policy and taxation, thereby encouraging its own prosperity so that it can deal with its own social problems.
      Mr. Livingstone: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. What I am suggesting is not being put forward as socialism. In fact, the mechanism for the redistribution of wealth began here long before there was a Labour party. Some historians estimate that about 1.5 per cent. of local wealth was redistributed under Queen Boudicca. This is not new; it has grown inevitably, Government by Government, until we are now absorbing about 40 per cent. In a genuinely common market a substantial proportion of wealth will be funnelled in this

      1081
      way by capitalists, corporations and conservative politicians across Europe. I wish this were socialism so that we could claim it.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has his view of Europe, and I have mine. The Europe that I want—by being competitive, by having competitive rates of taxation, by including countries which do not embrace the social charter and, therefore, have competitive labour forces—will generate more wealth. Wealth that is generated in individual countries enables those countries better to look after pensioners, hospitals and other social needs that all Members of this House, in their different ways, want to provide for. My view of Europe is different from the hon. Gentleman's.
      Mr. Duncan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reality lies in the difference between the two approaches? On the one hand, there is the socialist approach, which seeks, through political manoeuvring, to engineer the distribution or redistribution of wealth; on the other hand, there is the true free market capitalist philosophy, which seeks to operate in a naturally competitive environment where trade is drawn to more competitive areas, which distribute their own wealth. The question is whether one sees Europe as a nation with a national obligation to redistribute or as a collection of individual nations with no obligation to redistribute.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend made the definitive speech of this debate, and he has just made a definitive intervention. Indeed, he makes much better than I the point that I am trying to put across—that by competing within Europe we all generate wealth. That is what we must do. If we are forced into the same mould, if we are directed from the centre by the inevitably bureaucratic institutions that Europe has at present, enterprise and therefore the generation of wealth will he discouraged. In those circumstances, we shall not have the resources to do the best for the people for whom we all, including Opposition Members, want the best.
      Mr. Lord: Bearing in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), may I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that, in all of this, the basic conundrum is that we are being urged to co-operate and to compete at the same time. The two are incompatible.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend makes his point very well indeed, and I am grateful to him.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the distribution of wealth. That is what we all want; yet after 14 years of the magnificent free enterprise Tory Government there are 5,000 homeless people from Scotland sleeping on the streets of London. Does the hon. Gentleman want that situation to continue? The social charter would at least give those folk some hope.
      Mr. Marlow: No hon. Member in any part of the Committee will deny that we have social problems, but neither will any hon. Member deny that there were social problems in 1979. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks at the general level of prosperity—if he looks into people's houses, at people's cars, and so on—he will see that it is far higher than it was previously. Let him
      1082
      consider the resources that we in this country are applying to social security, hospitals and education. The amount being spent on these social services is several times greater than it was when there was last a Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks fairly at the situation, he will see that that is the case.
      The Opposition's amendment seeks to apply the social fund more widely. The new article 123 says:
      "In order to improve employment opportunities for workers in the internal market and to contribute thereby to raising the standard of living, a European Social Fund is hereby established in accordance with the provisions set out below; it shall aim to render the employment of workers easier and to increase their geographical and occupational mobility within the Community".
      That was all there already, but there are added the words:
      "and to facilitate their adaptation to industrial changes and to changes in production systems, in particular through vocational training and retraining."
      In particular, yes, but not only. It seems that ever more resources will be applied to this fund and that it will be used to facilitate adaptation to industrial change and to changes in production systems. It seems to me that that means direct investment in other people's industries and factories. How can I go to my constituents and say, "Some of the money that is being taken from you by way of tax is to be sent to Spain, Portugal, Italy or Greece so that people there may improve the productivity of their factories, produce goods more cheaply than you can and, therefore, close your factories and put you out of work"?
      Mr. John Fraser: We are recipients from the fund to a substantial extent.
      Mr. Marlow: That may be the case, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why. Under the original provisions of the Community budget and the common agricultural policy, there was such a deficiency of Community resources coming to this country that some funds have been diverted, by device through the social fund, into the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that, as things develop, with the stated need for cohesion in the Community, we shall be able to keep that share of the social fund? If he does, he is very much in the minority. As things develop, increasing amounts of that money will be moved from the United Kingdom to other parts of Europe, from my constituents to people in other European countries.
      In an intervention today, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that there was overwhelming support in Europe for the social chapter, that all the other 11 countries were in favour of it and wanted us to join. It is easy to understand why they want us to join. Recently I talked to a major business man in Northampton. He had just come back from Germany, where he had talked to business men, including someone running a company with a turnover of £300 million a year. The Northampton man asked the German how he saw himself as he would be in four years' time. The German said, "I think I'll be out of business."
      He said that, in addition to the problems caused by eastern Germany, his country suffered because wages were too high and social costs were much greater than in the United Kingdom.
      It is because of the high wages and social costs and the burden imposed on other European countries by many aspects of the social chapter that those countries want to place the same obligations on us. They realise that the

      1083
      burdens are increasingly making them less competitive, whereas the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly competitive. How can it be in our interests to have to shoulder those burdens? I am perplexed and puzzled. Why does the Labour party—which every day claims that it is concerned about unemployment, which it describes as the biggest problem confronting this country—want to impose on this country the burdens that other European countries have imposed on themselves and, through the social chapter, want to impose on us?
      I must say categorically that I and most of my colleagues deplore and dislike the Maastricht treaty, although we congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on making the best of a difficult job, but the one thing about it that we dislike above all else is the potential damage threatened by the social chapter.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 290.

      Division No. 126]

      [3.47 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Ainger, Nick

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Battle, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ashton, Joe

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Austin-Walker, John

      Bell, Stuart

      1044

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Betts, Clive

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hutton, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Jessel, Toby

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cann, Jamie

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clapham, Michael

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clelland, David

      Keen, Alan

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Coffey, Ann

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Cohen, Harry

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Connarty, Michael

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Leighton, Ron

      Cox, Tom

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Livingstone, Ken

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

      Llwyd, Elfyn

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

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dafis, Cynog

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dalyell, Tam

      McAllion, John

      Darling, Alistair

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davidson, Ian

      McCartney, Ian

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      McFall, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

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

      McMaster, Gordon

      Denham, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      Madden, Max

      Dixon, Don

      Mahon, Alice

      Dobson, Frank

      Mandelson, Peter

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dover, Den

      Martlew, Eric

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Maxton, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Meacher, Michael

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eastham, Ken

      Miller, Andrew

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Enright, Derek

      Morley, Elliot

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mudie, George

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Faulds, Andrew

      Murphy, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Flynn, Paul

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Fraser, John

      Olner, William

      Galbraith, Sam

      Patchett, Terry

      Garrett, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Pike, Peter L.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Pope, Greg

      Gordon, Mildred

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Graham, Thomas

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Grocott, Bruce

      Purchase, Ken

      Gunnell, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hain, Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Hall, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hannam, Sir John

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hanson, David

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Harris, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Henderson, Doug

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Rowlands, Ted

      Heppell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Salmond, Alex

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Home Robertson, John

      Shersby, Michael

      1045

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Simpson, Alan

      Turner, Dennis

      Sims, Roger

      Tyler, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Joan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Audrey

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Straw, Jack

      Sweeney, Walter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mr. Malcolm Wicks and

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Mills, Iain

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Cash, William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Pickles, Eric

      Colvin, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Congdon, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Couchman, James

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Duncan, Alan

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Sproat, Iain

      Dunn, Bob

      Stern, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Sykes, John

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Trend, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Trimble, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Watts, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Whitney, Ray

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Mr. Tony Marlow and

      Legg, Barry

      Mr. Ronnie Campbell.

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Division No. 127]

      [6.30 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Churchill, Mr

      Alexander, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alton, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ancram, Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Congdon, David

      Ashby, David

      Conway, Derek

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Critchley, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

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

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bates, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Day, Stephen

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bellingham, Henry

      Devlin, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dicks, Terry

      Booth, Hartley

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Duncan, Alan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowis, John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Elletson, Harold

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burns, Simon

      Evennett, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Faber, David

      Butler, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forman, Nigel

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      1084

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Madel, David

      Gale, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Merchant, Piers

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mills, Iain

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Needham, Richard

      Harris, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hendry, Charles

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hicks, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Paice, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Horam, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

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

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Richards, Rod

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robathan, Andrew

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Key, Robert

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Sims, Roger

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lidington, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sproat, Iain

      1085

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Tyler, Paul

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Viggers, Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Stephen, Michael

      Walden, George

      Stern, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Stewart, Allan

      Waller, Gary

      Streeter, Gary

      Ward, John

      Sumberg, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sykes, John

      Watts, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Whitney, Ray

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Thomason, Roy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Willetts, David

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wood, Timothy

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

      Yeo, Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Robert C. Hughes

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cox, Tom

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cran, James

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Bob

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Battle, John

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, Margaret

      Darling, Alistair

      Beggs, Roy

      Davidson, Ian

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benton, Joe

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

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Denham, John

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Dewar, Donald

      Betts, Clive

      Dixon, Don

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dobson, Frank

      Blair, Tony

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Blunkett, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Boateng, Paul

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bradley, Keith

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Eastham, Ken

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

      Enright, Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Etherington, Bill

      Butcher, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Byers, Stephen

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Caborn, Richard

      Fatchett, Derek

      Callaghan, Jim

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Fraser, John

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cash, William

      Galbraith, Sam

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Galloway, George

      Clapham, Michael

      Gapes, Mike

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Clelland, David

      Garrett, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      George, Bruce

      Coffey, Ann

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cohen, Harry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Connarty, Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      1086

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Martlew, Eric

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maxton, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Meacher, Michael

      Graham, Thomas

      Meale, Alan

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Michael, Alun

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Milburn, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hain, Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hall, Mike

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hanson, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hardy, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Henderson, Doug

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Mudie, George

      Heppell, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Murphy, Paul

      Hinchliffe, David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Olner, William

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hoyle, Doug

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hutton, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ingram, Adam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Janner, Greville

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jessel, Toby

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jowell, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keen, Alan

      Redmond, Martin

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Reid, Dr John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Knapman, Roger

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Legg, Barry

      Rogers, Allan

      Leighton, Ron

      Rooney, Terry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Salmond, Alex

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lord, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Loyden, Eddie

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McAllion, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Short, Clare

      McCartney, Ian

      Simpson, Alan

      McCrea, Rev William

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Macdonald, Calum

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

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

      McLeish, Henry

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWilliam, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Madden, Max

      Soley, Clive

      Maginnis, Ken

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mahon, Alice

      Spellar, John

      Mallon, Seamus

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Marek, Dr John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marlow, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      1087

      Stott, Roger

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Straw, Jack

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Winnick, David

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Vaz, Keith

      Wise, Audrey

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Worthington, Tony

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Walley, Joan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Tellers for the Noes

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Watson, Mike

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put and negatived.
      Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Is it the custom and practice of the House for the occupant of the Chair always to accept a closure motion put to him or her by the Government Whip? I say that because some Opposition Members were anxious to take part in the debate that was so drastically and disingenuously curtailed by Government Whips.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The decision is left to the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman has some grievance against the Chair, there are proper ways to make that known, but now is not the time.
      Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I do not want to whinge because I have sat here for two days and not been able to say anything about racial discrimination in Europe, but it would be helpful if we had some ground rules about how to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. For instance, if an hon. Member has spoken for several hours, will he, like a racehorse, carry a penalty for having spoken for so long at the expense of those who have short but relevant contributions to make? Some hon. Members are called several times, even if they have made a contribution lasting several hours, while others who have conscientiously attended for some time—I am not the only one—have no chance to speak. Is a list of such hon. Members kept in the same way as it is on important Second Reading debates and other similar debates? We are confused as to how to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, the weighting, and the degree of fairness as between one potential contributor and another.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Clearly, the Chair has a problem when many Members want to speak. All who occupy the Chair seek to maintain proper balance and fairness over time. If one considers the whole time scale, that balance and fairness becomes more evident than over a comparatively short period.
      Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 100c on page 17 of Cm 1934)'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 110, in page I, line 9, after 'II' insert
      'but in respect of paragraph 9 on page 11 of Cm 1934, Her Majesty's Government as part of their formal process of ratification shall state that so far as the definition of the single market is related to an area without internal frontiers (to be enshrined in Article 7a of the amended Treaty establishing the Community) they regard absence of such frontiers only as not
      1088
      impeding the operation of that market and without prejudice to any action related to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.'.
      Amendment No. 133, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(excluding Article 100c on page 17 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 134, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(excluding Article 100d on page 17 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 359, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 3(d) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendment No. 104, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and VI'.
      Amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 100c in Title II thereof'.
      Amendment No. 113, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
      'The above subsections shall only come into force subsequent to the laying before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government of a Command Paper concerning the implications and operation of the provisions contained in new Article 100c of the Treaty on European Union (Control of third country visas by the European Council of Ministers and related powers of Member states) and to approval of its terms by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.
      New clause 12—Application of Article 100c of the Treaty of Rome to certain provisions on co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs—
      'No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities that the United Kingdom has adopted a decision of the Council under Article K 9. (Application of Article 100c of the Treaty on European Union) of the Treaty on European Union unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.'.
      New clause 13—Adoption of conventions in the fields of justice and of home affairs—
      'No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Article K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty of European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless a draft of the proposed instrument of adoption has first been approved by Act of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I believe that this is the appropriate moment to draw your attention to amendment No. 110 and to new clauses 11 and 12, which are included in this group—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is too much noise and I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Shore: The amendments to which I refer are of a different sort from those grouped with amendment No. 8. I ask for your indulgence, Dame Janet, so that it may be possible at the end of this debate, or as you think appropriate, to have a separate Division on amendment No. 110, which deals with the right of movement under the citizenship clause, and on the two new clauses at the end—which insist on an Act of Parliament before any part of that which is looked upon as the second pillar of the treaty is brought within the trunk.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The occupant of the Chair always takes note of requests for Divisions. However, the Division that the right hon. Gentleman seeks would take place not at the end of this debate, but when the appropriate point on the selection list is reached.
      Mr. Blair: Amendment No. 8 is designed to secure a debate on extremely important issues relating to justice, home affairs and immigration. Although we will not press it to a Division, those issues are critical to this debate.
      I want to make clear the basis of the proposals in the Maastricht treaty, ask the Government for their views and

      1089
      intentions in relation to those detailed and complex proposals and raise specific questions in respect of asylum policy and co-operation over policing.
      Article 100c and article K leave no doubt that co-operation across areas of immigration, asylum, policing, justice and home affairs is envisaged. Any suggestion that the treaty ignores or rejects such co-operation is patently absurd. The procedures for determining the limits and nature of that co-operation reflect the sensitivity of certain issues covered by both articles.
      Apart from visa policy, there is little chance of Britain being forced against its will or being obliged to co-operate in those areas. Equally, such co-operation is plainly contemplated and encouraged by the way in which the articles are drafted.
      Article 100c concerns a common policy on certain visa matters. It provides for a common policy on third countries whose nationals will require a visa, certain procedures for developing a common visa format, and for emergency situations created by a flow of people across national frontiers.
      It is important to understand that the policies proposed in article 100c will come into existence only following multi-stage consultation. Before 1996, the list of third countries requiring visas will be drawn up only following a proposal from the Commission, consultation with the European Parliament and a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers—at least in respect of visa third countries.
      If, on the contrary, there is a desire after 1996 to have a common list of countries where visas are required., that can be done by qualified majority. The imposition of emergency visas will result from a recommendation of the Commission and from a qualified majority in the Council. Extension of the six-month emergency period will require the same procedure as that which is required for drawing up the original list.
      The format of the visa itself requires a proposal from the Commission, a qualified majority in the Council and consultation with the European Parliament. If a qualified majority applies, it will apply to third countries where visas are required. After 1996, it will apply to the emergency provisions and the format. The ratification process is not clear—although it is clear in dealing with article K.
      Quite apart from understanding the procedures for visa co-ordination, it is important that any visa regime—domestic or European—is not used as a back-door method of denying asylum to those genuinely seeking asylum in Britain or elsewhere in the Community.
      At present, if entry from a country requires a visa—as is the case with many countries—and as applications can be made only at the British port of entry, in practice asylum applications are often disbarred. A few months ago, visas were required for Bosnia, but no consulate existed to grant them.
      It is important that article 100c is understood in that context. It provides for a common visa policy, but also for unanimous decisions where they clearly matter. Whether or not that common visa policy is developed, it should not be a regime of the lowest common denominator but one that attempts to guard the civil liberties of those seeking asylum in particular.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend says that the policy followed will not necessarily adopt the
      1090
      lowest common denominator. Why does he believe that? Hon. Members in Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill became acutely aware that the whole thrust of western European thinking is to reduce all immigration and visa policies to the lowest common denominator—including the more important area of refugees.
      Mr. Blair: I did not say that it would be the lowest common denominator. There is no such provision in relation to article 100c, which provides for a procedure for determining a common visa policy. I was arguing that it should not be based on the lowest common denominator. As my hon. Friend knows, we strongly made the point in respect of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill that it is erroneous to think—although my hon. Friend is not saying this—that, outside Maastricht, nothing is happening in relation to asylum and immigration matters. Agreements are currently being reached that will operate according to a much looser formula than that set out in the treaty.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but will he tell the Committee whether he is for or against article 100c?
      7 pm
      Mr. Blair: As I hope I made clear, article 100c, by providing for a procedure whereby a common visa policy can be determined, is entirely acceptable. Whether one decides to agree such a policy depends on the type of policy that is to be agreed. It is a procedure, a process. Whether in the end we decide to accept that process depends on what can be negotiated and what is on offer. On behalf of the Opposition, I am making it clear—no doubt the Secretary of State will make his own position clear—that we shall not agree to procedures that are based on the lowest common denominator. We want procedures that fully accord with the civil liberties of those applying.
      Mr. Shore: Is not it the case from what my hon. Friend said a moment ago that, from 31 December 1996, decisions will be made by a qualified majority vote? Therefore, it will not be a case of our deciding on the merits of each case on which we could exercise a veto.
      Mr. Blair: As my right hon. Friend will understand, at present the Council acts unanimously. Decisions made after 1 January 1996, with regard to countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of member states, can be made by qualified majority. It does not follow that the immigration rules will be decided by qualified majority. As I shall show when we come to article K, dealing with substantive matters in relation to immigration, justice and home affairs, there is, almost throughout, a requirement of unanimity.
      Mr. Bernie Grant: I do not wish to misunderstand my hon. Friend. I understand that he agrees with the procedure, but does he agree with the. principle of a common visa? As I understand it, a person prevented from obtaining a visa to enter any one European country cannot enter any of the other countries.
      Mr. Blair: With respect, the issue is the determination of those third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa. As I understand it, that decision must

      1091
      be made unanimously up to 1 January 1996. After that the list of those countries can be determined on a qualified majority basis, but we are still in charge, through article K, as I shall show in a moment, of basic immigration policy. It is important to realise that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Mr. Blair: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I shall develop my argument, but the article is clear.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked the hon. Gentleman whether he was in favour of article 100c, which says that after 1 January 1996 those countries to which a visa should be applied from the European Community could be decided by qualified majority voting. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of article 100c?
      Mr. Blair: I have made it clear that I am in favour of the procedure for determining those countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa. However, it is clear from article K that that is not the same as saying that immigration policy is to be decided by qualified majority. It is not. When one looks at article K, which we should now do, it is clear that unanimity is required in its main elements. I see nothing wrong in the principle of co-operating in those areas provided that the co-operation is on a proper basis.
      Mr. Livingstone: Am I right in assuming that, although my hon. Friend accepts the structure of the treaty, he expects it to be operated in a progressive fashion and is not worried about the lowest common denominator? How then does he explain the terminology of the treaty which talks about a threat of a sudden influx? The treaty seems to perceive a horde of Arabs and black and brown peoples threatening to come. That does not encourage me or my constituents to believe that we will not end up with the lowest common denominator in practice. What guarantee do we have?
      Mr. Blair: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend is being a little unreasonable. Article 100c, paragraph 2, says:
      "in the event of an emergency situation in a third country posing a threat of a sudden inflow of nationals … the Council, acting by a qualified majority … may introduce, for a period not exceeding six months, a visa requirement".
      That is to contemplate a situation that must be within the serious contemplation of anyone. It does not follow that the tone of the treaty is designed on some racist basis, or on the lowest common denominator. It is a procedure.
      The immigration policy applied by the Conservative party during the past 10 or 15 years should hardly be held up as a model of decent immigration policy. If we look at the matter with an open mind, we will see that a procedure is set out for determining those countries from which a visa is required. Article K is the main part that deals with immigration policy.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend will agree that it is good to get the position clear before we move to article K. Does he also agree that the provision of article 100c is that, after agreement on the common visa policy, any one of the 12 nations of the Community in relation to any third country, A to X, can make
      1092
      arrangements for anyone from country A to X to come to any country 1 to 12? Once that administrative arrangement is made, the person with a visa for the Community can travel freely inside the Community on the administrative arrangements made under the aegis of one of its members. If that is the situation, we should proceed on something like that understanding, because that is the heart of article 100c, whatever we may believe about the co-ordinating machinery for visas.
      Mr. Blair: I do not think that that is right. As I understand it, the agreement is made by the Community as a whole with regard to countries that will either be on the list of countries whose nationals require a visa or not. That degree of agreement depends on the country concerned and the negotiation around it. But I cannot for the life of me see anything repugnant about co-operating on the basis of that procedure. The content of that decision is another matter. That is precisely what is negotiated between the member states. However, I see nothing inherently bad about nation states co-operating when we operate as a European Community. I should have thought that that was good.
      Mr. Corbyn: Along with many other hon. Members, I am deeply concerned about the concept. We are moving to a position where, by majority voting, there will be a removal of rights that are ordained to people under the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees. If a country admits an asylum seeker who has previously been refused a visa by any member state and that person seeks asylum in that country, he would have entered the country illegally because he had been denied a visa. European law would then force us to expel someone who was seeking political asylum, be it from former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka or any other place. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully about the serious step that is being taken which I believe will be against the interests of those seeking asylum.
      Mr. Blair: Again, I do not think that that is right. Under the treaty the position of refugees is protected, as is the position of people under the United Nations convention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In article K.2, paragraph 1, for a start.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I do not often rise in support of the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that I am rising in my own defence as well because I am sure that I shall get caught up in the same debate. First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—I realise that he has less support than myself —who has so far impeccably and correctly stated the position under the treaty. Article 100c brings within Community competence decisions on the list of countries from which visas are to be required by the member states. After 1996 that can be subject to majority voting. But that in no way affects the admission of any individual, the criteria upon which we would issue visas, or anything of that kind, which would be solely within our competence. As the hon. Gentleman correctly says, anyone who reaches these shores and applies for asylum will be treated by us as an applicant for asylum, and be entitled to have his application dealt with in the ordinary way. I have no doubt that the debate will broaden out into immigration and asylum policy generally, but the operation of immigration policy and our visa policy remain within our competence,

      1093
      subject to the House, because the Government will determine them in the immigration rules. The Bill merely brings a narrow area into Community competence.
      Mr. Blair: I am not sure whether I should thank the Home Secretary; it might have suited me better had he attacked me vigorously. However, I shall accept his support, for what it is worth. I shall deal more fully with the position of refugees in a moment, but I believe that it is covered specifically by the treaty.
      Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend said that he was confident that it would not be a question of the lowest common denominator. Has he seen the minutes of the Trevi committee and those of the ad hoc committee on immigration? Other hon. Members have not seen them —the Government have kept them secret—but they are crucial to whether we accept that my hon. Friend's interpretation of the treaty is correct.
      Mr. Blair: That is a point in my favour, rather than that of my hon. Friend. We have criticised the Trevi group, and the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers, for operating outside the proper procedures. A careful reading of the Maastricht treaty will show that its purpose is to bring such operations within those procedures.
      Mr. Cohen: The treaty has not yet been ratified.
      Mr. Blair: I will deal with the issue of ratification in a moment. My hon. Friend will probably find that the treaty will give us a better opportunity to debate some of the critical issues than we have now. At present things are done in secret and we are not given an opportunity to debate them properly. It is for precisely that reason that there must be sense in trying to impose some form on what is now happening.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the Trevi group. Decisions made there are arrived at unanimously and a Minister then has to justify them in the House. Under article 100c and article K, it is possible that a series of issues—not just visa issues, but issues of general immigration policy—could be decided by qualified majority vote, without coming back to the House. The United Kingdom and the House of Commons would be excluded from the process and we could do nothing about It. It is as serious as that.
      Mr. Blair: I hope that, once I finally get on to article K, I shall be able to show that that simply is not true. As for the Trevi group being a wonderful example of the openness of government, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can exchange views with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen); certainly, that is not my experience.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has obviously studied the matter very carefully, but hon. Members who have not done so would appreciate his advice. According to his reading of article 100c, would there be a common arrangement for the style of visas and on which countries will require visas? Does he believe that a person with a visa valid for entry to, say, Italy or Greece would thereby have the right to enter this country? Article 100c does not make that clear. Will everyone have the same kind of document? A Minister has been unable to clarify that; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to.
      Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman expresses a vain hope. It is a question of more than the form of the visa, but
      1094
      article K—with which I will now deal, irrespective of requests for interventions—makes it clear that immigration policy is still a matter for unanimity. That, at any rate, is my view.
      The co-ordination procedures in article K are complex, but there are broad areas of common interest, including asylum, immigration, justice—both civil and criminal—and customs and police co-operation. The procedural dimension of the article divides into two parts. First, there is the co-ordination envisaged by paragraphs 2 to 6 and paragraph 9. A common policy derived in the first way requires an initiative of a member state, or the Commission, and a unanimous decision in Council. That, I take it, will be the effect of article K.4(3).
      Furthermore, any conventions drawn up unanimously by the Council shall be adopted in accordance with the "respective constitutional requirements" of member states. That is the point involving ratification to which I shall turn shortly.
      The measures implementing joint action may be decided on a qualified majority basis if the Council unanimously so decides. There is, as it were, a trigger of unanimity before qualified majority voting operates. Measures implementing conventions shall be adopted by a majority of two thirds of high contracting parties, unless such conventions state otherwise. Obviously, they will often state otherwise, because they will be drawn up on the basis of unanimity.
      7.15 pm
      In addition to the requirements laid down explicitly in articles K.3 and K.4, there are other, more general safeguards. There are supplementary requirements, consisting of compliance with two international conventions, which are mentioned in article K.2. One of those conventions is that relating to the status of refugees, so that point is specifically covered. Then there is the consultation with the co-ordinating committee of senior officials, mentioned in article K.4, and the consultation with the European Parliament and the Commission referred to in article K.6. Perhaps most crucially, article K.2(2) refers to the responsibility of member states to maintain law and order and to safeguard internal security. Those matters are clearly set out and remain unaffected.
      Article K.9 provides for the importation of the procedures relevant to article 100c into the areas covered by paragraphs (1) to (6) of article K.1. Perhaps the Home Secretary will confirm that the importation of the procedures in article 100c will, in a sense, involve the Commission in a way in which it otherwise would not be involved. Such an incorporation involves—indeed, requires—an initiative on the part of the Commission or a member state, a unanimous decision by the Council, successful completion of the voting according to whatever voting conditions are then imposed by the Council and the recommendation that the decision be adopted in accordance with those "respective constitutional requirements".
      I want the Home Secretary to explain clearly what is meant by the words "respective constitutional requirements". I understand them to mean that ratification, or debate in the House, would be required.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The meaning of article K.9 is certainly important. There is, in effect, what the Government tend to describe as a double lock if it comes

      1095
      to any suggestion of extending Community competence beyond article 100c. Such extension would require a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers, followed by constitutional endorsement in each member state. That, in effect, means a vote in this Parliament. Community competence, under article 100c, could not be extended without all 12 member states voting in favour of it and the House of Commons supporting that extension.
      Mr. Blair: That is certainly my understanding and I think that it is made fairly clear in article K.9. At the Edinburgh summit, the Danes declared that the agreement to use article 100c would require the same constitutional procedures as governed the ratification of the treaties, which would mean a five sixths majority in their Parliament or a referendum.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: To what extent will the European Court of Justice function and what will its role be?
      Mr. Blair: According to article K.3, the conventions that may be agreed—obviously, they will be agreed by the full European Community—may stipulate that the court shall have jurisdiction to interpret their provisions and to rule on any disputes; but that will be decided in relation to the specific conventions involved.
      To obtain action or agreement in relation to the areas of policy in article K, there must in each case be a figure of unanimity before procedures—some of which may involve qualified majority voting—can be implemented. There is a ratification process before Community competence is extended. Both of those are there and seem to be fairly clear.
      Mr. Spearing: I hope that I can make myself clearer than I did on the previous occasion. My hon. Friend asked the Home Secretary what the Government thought was the correct constitutional procedure for ratification of what is, in effect, an expansion of the powers of the Community in the treaty under article K.9. My hon. Friend may have noticed that in new clauses 12 and 13, which apply to a similar and even riskier procedure under 2.(c) of article K.3, some of my hon. Friends and I have said that the lock, when it comes to this country, should not be a vote of the House of Commons alone but a specific Act of Parliament. I remind my hon. Friend and the Committee that by means of a simple vote on a statutory instrument it is possible to ratify something as being a Community treaty. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that a statutory instrument, or even a resolution of the House of Commons, should not be able to extend the powers of the Community—by, in effect, ratifying a Community treaty —and that it should be done by nothing less than an Act of Parliament.
      Mr. Blair: I understand my hon. Friend's point and his concern about the fact that there is a difference between the procedure for ratifying something and an Act of Parliament. The most important point is that the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to express its view. That is the vital aspect. Provided that that is done, the precise form in which it is done is less important. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I take the point that my hon. Friend has made, but the most important point is that there should be a chance for us to express our view.
      Mr. Shore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Blair: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to answer this point before I give way to him.
      It is clear from reading article K.9, in conjunction with the other articles in article K, that in only a small number of cases is it possible for that situation to arise. It is also absolutely clear from article K.9 that the procedures in article 100c—in other words, the extension of Community competence—cannot happen at all except unanimously and after measures have been taken in accordance with constitutional procedures.
      Mr. Shore: This is a very complex matter and difficult to get right. One accepts the fact that unanimity is needed in the first instance. That is absolutely clear. However, once unanimity is gained, there is no possibility of clawing it back. The importance of that first step is crucial. The second step is also crucial. The second step appears to be, through the operation of articles K.9 and K.1(3), that the whole of our immigration policy may conceivably be shifted into the European Community domain, under article 100c, under which matters can be decided by a qualified majority vote. We need something very much stronger than a simple resolution of the House of Commons, or a vote in the House of Commons. We need an Act of Parliament before any such act could be authorised.
      Mr. Blair: There are a number of different steps within article K.9. It is important to understand the differences between each of those steps. Article K.9 will not apply at all unless there is a unanimous decision of the Council. At the same time, the Council determines not merely whether European Community competence is to be extended, but the relevant voting conditions that relate to it. That is a fairly significant safeguard. Article K.9 also recommends
      "the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
      I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friends have made, which is that the procedure for an Act of Parliament is very much bigger than it is for a resolution of the House of Commons. Even before one reaches that point, however, the Council must unanimously decide it. It can also lay down—this can be part of the negotiations upon which unanimity is founded—the relevant voting conditions relating to it. We should have to be extraordinarily negligent in the conduct of our business if we were unable to construct sufficient safeguards within article K.9 in order properly to protect our position.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman opposes this Government. This Government may be in favour of policies which his hon. Friends look upon as racist and deplorable policies. On the basis of those policies, my right hon. and learned Friend might be unanimous with other European Governments. He might then come back here and, on the basis of one debate and one vote, and with the support of the Patronage Secretary, drive us all through the Lobby. And that would be it. The hon. Gentleman's party—the Labour party—would be able to do no more about it. That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying to his colleagues. He says: "Trust this Government. We are very impressed. We are delighted."
      Mr. Blair: I am saying nothing of the sort This Government can provide poor legislation. The co-operation at the moment, outside the Maastricht treaty, has resulted in decisions with which we powerfully disagree, but it seems to me that, as a matter of principle, it cannot possibly be said that it is wrong to seek the prospect of co-operation. Whether we then grant that co-operation depends upon us. I do not believe that the safeguards are inadequate.
      When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, I should be obliged if he would give us his views relating to the situation in which he may be prepared to activate article K.9 and his views on ratification. It must not be thought, however, that the alternative to what is in the Bill now is that there should be no discussion of these issues. It is absolutely clear that since 1975 intergovernmental meetings have been taking place under the auspices of the Trevi group. Various policy groups have been meeting to co-ordinate policy. At the last ministerial meeting of Immigration Ministers in London on 30 November, issues relating to harmonisation, asylum and safe third countries were discussed. Some Parliaments—for example, the Dutch Parliament—gave their people the opportunity to debate these matters. The papers were laid before those Parliaments before decisions were taken. None of those steps is at present open to this Parliament. It is extremely important, therefore, that we do not believe that the choice at the moment is between nothing happening in this area and what is happening under the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Corbyn: This is an extremely important point. If the Government were to come to some agreement at Trevi on changing the immigration rules in some way, they would he put to the House of Commons in a one and a half hour debate on a statutory instrument, on a negative prayer. And that would be it. The Opposition have always complained that that is a totally unsatisfactory way of deciding immigration law and immigration policy. That, too, apparently, is all that we shall get under the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Blair: It is not. If one looks at the treaty carefully, one sees that that is not what is happening. The safeguards there are greater than the existing safeguards. The point is that none of these things exists or comes into being unless effect is given to the procedures that I have delineated a number of times and that are set out in article K.9. It is important to take account of that fact when deciding our attitude to the procedures that are before us now.
      Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Blair: Very well.
      Mr. Trimble: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman when he obviously wished to continue his speech. However, a thought has occurred to me and I should be interested in his reaction to it. The hon. Gentleman obviously considers the safeguards in the Maastricht treaty on this point to be adequate. Perhaps they would be adequate for member states that have a proper ratification procedure, but because of the nature of our constitution we do not have a proper ratification procedure. If we were to change our constitutional requirements and introduce a proper ratification procedure so that anything that had to be ratified came back properly to the House of Commons to be embodied in
      1098
      legislation, that might be all right, within the context of those agreements. The problem lies perhaps not so much in the terms of the Maastricht agreement but in the fact that our constitution must now be fitted underneath the new written constitution for the European union. Our constitution was evolved for a different purpose and we may have to think more deeply, but a proper ratification procedure in the House would solve some of the difficulties that have been raised.
      Mr. Blair: I understand and have some sympathy with that point. However, in a sense, it is a matter for us to determine. Within the context of the Maastricht treaty, the procedures are plain as they apply to all member states.
      I deal with two particular issues arising from the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I apologise for intervening. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise references, but if he reads certain volumes of Hansard from the late 1970s, he will see that his party's Callaghan Government accepted a demand by the then shadow Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, that any such development—any such ratification—must be by Bill, not by Order in Council or any other form of statutory instrument. His Government accepted that willingly.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Blair: I am always delighted to be reminded of the time when my party was in government. I understand the point about the process of ratification and, as I said, I have some sympathy with it. However, in the end, it is something for us to determine outside the provisions of the Maastricht treaty.
      I deal now with two particular issues arising out of article K of the Maastricht treaty. The first has to do with asylum policy. Much of what has been said by some of my hon. Friends who oppose the treaty is based on a belief that our asylum policy has worked extremely unfairly for those seeking asylum. However, if we can get the right basis for agreement, there is a strong argument for co-operation on asylum policy, a co-operation that genuinely solves the problems and is not based on the lowest common denominator.
      I submit that there have been two striking changes in the European asylum situation in the past 20 years. The first is a huge rise in the number of asylum applications from about 13,000 throughout Europe in 1972 to more than 600,000 today. The second is the dramatic fall in the proportion of asylum seekers being granted asylum. Virtually all were granted refuge in 1972 whereas today the figure is only about 20 per cent.
      Those changes are the result not only of a change in procedure but of the changing nature of refugees away from those subject to individual persecution at the hands of various totalitarian regimes towards the position today when most refugees are fleeing from ethnic conflict or civil war but are not themselves subject to individual persecution. The second type of refugee is not explicitly covered by the 1951 Geneva convention and Yugoslavia is a classic example of the problem.
      Inevitably, many of those seeking asylum are not asylum seekers in the strict sense of the word because they are not subject to individual persecution, but, nevertheless,

      1099
      they are in a desperate situation. Countries acting on their own, merely pulling up their drawbridges as fast as they can, is not the answer to the problem. It requires to be managed on the basis of shared goals and responsibilities. Indeed, if some of the energy presently being expended on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill was directed towards helping those displaced by the conflict on the basis of a proper policy of co-operation, it would provide a much better solution than those that we have recently debated in the House.
      Contrary to some of the more lurid headlines, the vast majority of refugees did not want to leave their homeland and are desperately keen to return. A policy of co-operation and joint action is surely the only intelligent response.
      I have one or two points to make on international policing.
      Mr. Max Madden: Before my hon. Friend moves on to the issue of policing, will he agree that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which we have recently considered and which is now in another place, is the basis and blueprint for a future European policy? Is it not true that Britain's role in the past year in dealing with Bosnia and the former Yugoslav states is quite shameful and that the number of refugees whom we have so far received in this country is minimal and derisory? Is that not a matter of absolute shame, not only for the Home Secretary but for the entire Government?
      Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend will know that colleagues from the Front and Back Benches have constantly raised the plight of the refugees and have strongly criticised the Government's asylum and immigration policy. I do not believe that the Bill should be the basis of co-operation between member states, although that is what is happening, irrespective of Maastricht. It is important for us to raise these issues, whether we are debating Maastricht or asylum and immigration policy in general.
      The system for international policing would be affected if some of the provisions in article K.1 were to come into effect. The growing levels of international crime demand a more concerted international response. However, the procedures give some cause for concern and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would respond specifically to this point. The problem is not that there are too few avenues for information exchange, but, at the moment, there is a danger that there are so many systems that they may at best cause unnecessary duplication and, at worst, conflict with each other.
      The Trevi group, outside of Maastricht, has long had working groups dealing with anti-terrorism, police technology and organised crime and has set up its own European information system. In addition, the countries that are party to the Schengen agreement, which does not include this country, are attempting their own common information systems, backed by agreements on cross-border chases and similar matters.
      Most crucially, Interpol, which obviously has a long history of international police co-ordination, has recently become considerably more efficient and more able to provide computerised records of fingerprints and other information that will be of some assistance in tracking down international crime. The important task is not to add
      1100
      another European body for information exchange, but to concentrate our efforts on focusing and enhancing the existing co-operation. It is far from clear which of those tasks Europol is primarily meant to undertake.
      It would be right for the Home Secretary at this stage to say a word or two about Europol. It must be said that its beginnings have been rather inauspicious. There were disagreements over its location and when it was to become operational. Interpol has proposed to incorporate it within its own European secretariat, as a part of Interpol which will have separate functions. It will, in some senses, be a separate bureau but it will nevertheless still be under the aegis of Interpol. As that is specifically contemplated in the Maastricht treaty, I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would say something about it.
      In his speech on the Maastricht treaty on 4 November last year, the Prime Minister was constantly at pains to point out how little co-operation was obligatory under the treaty. As with so much else in the treaty, the Government define their position not by the parts of the treaty which they embrace but by those which they think they can avoid. Provided that the right basis for co-operation can be found—I agree that that is the issue that must be determined—immigration and home affairs matters are not issues on which intelligent co-operation should be regarded as alien as long as there are proper safeguards to ensure that countries can continue to protect their own distinct interests where they wish to do so.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: How?
      Mr. Blair: I think that that has been adequately set out earlier in my speech. The hon. Gentleman may shout, but some people will oppose co-operation on any basis. We do not. We believe that co-operation is entirely sensible provided that the basis of it is clear and it will work in our national interest. That implies not a wholesale destruction of sovereignty, but a process of co-ordination. If used reasonably, to further clear objectives, it will yield a far greater benefit to our country and to the people who live in it than would perverse isolation.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made what I regard as a well informed and accurate speech. When speaking about article 100c(6) the hon. Gentleman suggested that other matters could be considered, but that that matter would be determined by the trigger article, K.9. Two conditions must apply. There must be a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. That is acceptedc, but unanimity does not last long in Europe. By article 100c we have already found out that the unanimity rule will be downgraded by 1996. The Single European Act was passed seven years ago, and unanimity has already gone in many areas. Over the course of time, decisions were made by majority voting.
      Ratification by national Parliaments is the other side of the double lock. I appreciate that the law must be sound, but changes could be in prospect. A resolution of the House after one and a half hours' debate would not have a serious impact. It is unlikely that an Act of Parliament, which would be much more substantial, would be conceded.
      In dealing with some of the points that have been made I shall refer to amendment No. 113 and new clauses 12 and 13.
      Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should deal with the so-called double lock straight away? Some hon. Members, especially Front-Bench spokesmen, present it as a guarantee, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, whether it be over the arranging of the rules —that is important—or over the method of voting, once there has been a unanimous agreement the door back in the other direction is locked? The Home Secretary looks surprised—but once the agreement on the structure for decision making and voting procedures was concluded, unless there were a new treaty or a new Edinburgh summit or something else to change it all, any successor Government would be doubly locked into those procedures.
      7.45 pm
      Sir Trevor Skeet: There is a lot of sense in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The lock is a Bank of England lock, and when it closes, it closes. That does not mean that there will be no changes in future. As I have said, majority voting has gone in many quarters; there is no reason why it should not be modified here. I envisage that in future the provisions in articles J and K will be taken over as additional machinery required for the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
      The Prime Minister has said that he is not prepared to allow a referendum—although we shall be able to argue about the possibility. The Prime Minister will not have a referendum because he does not consider it purposeful. In that case there should be full parliamentary control over any matter in which we can see great danger. The participation of the European Parliament is distinctly limited. Considerable powers could be taken away from a democratically elected Government here and surrendered to bodies in which representation is not so clear.
      Another matter of grave concern to me is the fact that we are still supposed to be responsible for a large segment of Commonwealth countries. If we support the measures before us, surely we shall still have responsibilities not only in Europe but beyond which give cause for concern.
      I am troubled by another significant matter. We are told that the treaty must go through without amendment. If that is so, there will be no satisfactory arrangement for the House to deal with any Act which becomes necessary to rectify article K.9.
      The use of article 100c in conjunction with the citizenship provisions under article 8, and in alliance with the pillars under article K, has given the Council of Ministers and the Commission a stake in both camps. In this case, immigration policy is likely to follow.
      The implications of some of the original arguments on visas are broad. I have considered some of the countries where visas are required. The United Kingdom lists 81 different states whose nationals require visas; France does things another way, and, rather than stating a requirement for visas, says that 40 nations do not require visas; Germany cites as many as 70 countries.
      We could find ourselves in difficulty. Centralising within the EC could mean that, even if pressure were brought to bear, Britain would have to admit people whom it considers undesirable. For example, there are problems with the Algerians in France and with the Indonesians in the Netherlands. Once such people enter any country in the Community they can flow to any other part of it.
      1102
      Furthermore, visas are often granted capriciously. To give a simple example, about two years ago I wanted to go to France and I had to obtain a visa. That was because a ship had been tied ashore in New Zealand, so the French decided there would have to be repercussions for the New Zealand Government, and made visas an essential requirement. I am glad to say that the requirement has since been removed.
      We have noticed that the point of the treaty of Rome and of the Single European Act is free movement of people, services and capital, which is provided by articles 48 to 73. But that does not seem to apply to that big stretch of territory for part of which we are accountable—the British Commonwealth. What happens to the arrangements under the Hong Kong settlement? Will they be counterbalanced by certain people in the Community? After further upsets in South Africa, will people be permitted to return to the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Member aware that under article 100c it is perfectly possible for EC member states to get together and decide, for example, that visa requirements should be introduced for visitors to this country from the Caribbean? That would be opposed by the British Government, who have already given a commitment not to introduce such visas, especially for people from Jamaica, but the requirement would be imposed on this country and then it would be illegal under European law for Britain to admit Jamaican visitors without a visa, even though the stated policy of the British Government was that they did not want to introduce visas.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Those anomalies must be ironed out, although it is quite possible that they could go through.
      Has the matter been looked at carefully by the Commission, by the British Government and by others? I know that the Italians and Greeks have no effective administration for visa control. In that event, people may leak into these countries and then come across to the United Kingdom. They will have a right to be here for some time or they may be illegal immigrants. Once in the United Kingdom, they cannot be removed because they cannot be detected.
      There is another anomaly. The French define the people of Guadeloupe and of Martinique as European Community citizens. Would we be able to define many of the people of our former colonies as citizens of the United Kingdom who should have free entry? Why has a special privilege been conceded to the French? I understand that the Portuguese have taken similar action with Macao. I dare say that those special matters have been arranged.
      Mr. David Lidington: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that the freedom of movement between EC member states derives from the treaty of Rome and from the Single European Act 1986. It has nothing to do with the Maastricht treaty. British citizens given full British nationality under the Hong Kong citizenship scheme would be as entitled to freedom of movement as the citizens of Macao whom my hon. Friend mentioned.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not certain that my hon. Friend is right about that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend tell his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the difference is that a limited number of people in Hong Kong, who have worked hard for this country and who

      1103
      have been good friends, will be able to come to this country? Every citizen of Macao is a Portuguese citizen and would be entitled to enter this country. That is the big difference. To suggest that we are giving preference to Hong Kong may be misleading.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: It is inevitable that many suggestions will be made in a matter such as this, in which there are no certainties.
      I have sat through most of the debates on Maastricht and I am amazed that no Law Officers are present. We are lucky today in having here an experienced Queen's Counsel in the form of the Home Secretary, who can make his own contribution, but the Law Officers should be present at all our debates because many legalities arise.
      The Prime Minister said on 9 October that certain matters were outside the jurisdiction of the European Court and outside the competence of the European Commission. He said:
      "We have wanted this principle established for years."
      My right hon. Friend was referring to the pillars. Having looked at the pillars carefully—the Opposition have rightly suggested that the pillars should be encompassed by the treaty itself because that is what it will come to in the end—I have tried to work out precisely the role of the Commission.
      The Commission's role is not so innocent as it would seem. On the initiative of the Commission or of a member state, the Council of Ministers will be able to adopt common positions under paragraphs 1 and 6. A co-ordinating committee will be set up. Who will participate in that co-ordinating committee but the European Commission which will be fully associated with all its activities? That provision is in article K.4.2. Under article 152 of the treaty of Rome,
      "The Council may request the Commission to undertake any studies the Council considers desirable for the attainment of the common objectives, and to submit to it any appropriate proposals."
      In other words, studies can be undertaken. The Commission has the right to draft and propose legislation on immigration policy, on drug addiction and on other matters alluded to.
      I wonder whether the Government consider that they have been resourceful enough to insulate us against the revisions that are likely to be made to the treaty in 1996. We have had a treaty of Rome since 1975 and we have had the Community now for only 36 years. The House of Commons has operated for more than 700 years. We shall find that we may become a national council at the end of the day. We should consider the matter far more carefully and we should consider how our position as a national Parliament should be secured.
      I note that article 100c falls within the provisions on the approximation of laws. It seeks to approximate the laws not merely on other matters, but on immigration policy and the like. I have said that article 100c deals with visa controls and presupposes broader immigration controls. There are three important articles in the treaty of Rome to which I draw the Committee's attention.
      Article 5 says that member states shall take all appropriate measures to fulfil their obligations and they shall do nothing that is detrimental to the obligations
      1104
      being attained. Article 235 says that if the Community does not have sufficient powers, it can damn well take them. Article F should also be remembered. It says
      "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
      When one realises the significance of all this, when one realises what the Commission can do, when one realises what it has achieved in 36 years and when one compares that with what we have attained over 700 years, one wonders what will be left for this Chamber to do. Concessions are being made and rights are being lost, probably without even a referendum. The public may lose all their rights of representation in this Chamber and the great issues will be decided in Brussels.
      The Home Secretary will probably refer to the new Minister, Mr. Flynn, who is a full-time appointee. My right hon. and learned Friend will probably say that as these matters are outside the competence of the Commission for the moment, Mr. Flynn will have nothing to do. I dare say that he can find a lot going on and I dare say that he will continue co-operation and negotiation as far as he can.
      My final point deals with subsidiarity under article 3b. We have two choices. We can have pure international collaboration between states, which would suffice. After all, in previous years we have collaborated and we have been able to find satisfactory solutions. Alternatively, we could adopt the philosophy that the Government advocate of supporting the pillar arrangements of intergovernmental arrangements mixed with the Council of Ministers and with the European Court.
      In the United Kingdom, we have learnt to live with immigrants, and our policies have been successful. We have long experience of racial issues because we have been a major colonial power. We have legislation on the statute book, such as the Immigration Acts of 1971 and 1988, and the British Nationality Act 1981.
      It is worth remembering—we are primarily concerned with Europe—that there are 30 different ethnic groupings in the whole area. All these people could flood into other corners, and because of the free movement of people it would be difficult to resist them, provided that they had the means by which to support themselves and provided that they complied with certain regulations in the treaty.
      In the Bedford area, we have more than 70 nationalities. If people felt that all their applications would ultimately be decided in Brussels, they would probably be shocked by the arrangements. I will not say that the British law on that matter is perfect, but it is much more tolerant than many of the arrangements which are likely to come out of Europe. Such arrangements resort to more absolutist methods.
      We have gone a long way on this important clause. I am not sure where the articles will lead us. Eventually, it will be the foothold that the Council of Ministers and the Commission will use to secure their final entry, which could be extremely disastrous for the United Kingdom.
      8 pm
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The provisions in article K, which are being considered in this group of amendments, go some way to improve the prospects of co-operation in Europe on matters of great pressing and immediate concern. The impact of matters such as immigration, combating drug addiction, terrorism and fraud on the member countries of the Community is

      1105
      growing. Some of the criminal problems which are dealt with in diferent countries by justice and home affairs departments know no national boundaries. Clearly, international co-operation is necessary if those threats to civil society are to be combated effectively.
      The treaty marks an important step forward in establishing a framework of co-operation, improving co-ordination and opening up procedures which have been conducted to some extent in an unsatisfactory ad hoc way. There has been much criticism, especially from some of the quarters which criticise title VI of the treaty, about the lack of transparency in the procedures for tackling crime and in the activities of the ad hoc committee on immigration, the Trevi group, the Schengen group and so on.
      Title VI marks a valuable step forward. It does not go much beyond recognising that the member countries of the Community would wish to co-operate on such matters for reasons of self-interest. It provides continuing servicing of that co-operation by establishing the co-ordinating committee and by specifying that decisions shall be arrived at unanimously, for the most part.
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does not title VI go a good way beyond that? We have already discussed how unanimity should be extended to qualified majority. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the conventions set out in paragraph 2(c) in article K.3, which we have not yet mentioned but which will guide the co-operation to which he referred, could be made subject to the judicial decisions of the European court? Does not that mark a great deal of change from what we have at present, which is rather more than the hon. Gentleman is suggesting?
      Mr. Maclennan: It is an inherent characteristic of the sovereignty of the member countries of the Community that they may freely decide to draw up conventions which, as a result of the operation of their domestic constitutional laws, become binding in their own countries. That does not seem to go greatly beyond what is already the case. The provision that the European Court of Justice may have jurisdiction to interpret provisions is a step beyond the law as it prevails in the Community at present. I accept that it is a step forward. It is an extremely sensible step to take, because, if member countries seek to act in accordance with an agreement which has the force of the treaty, it is clearly desirable that they should all have the same understanding of what the treaty provides.
      What more authoritative way of interpreting provisions could there be than submitting any doubts or differences to the arbitrament of the court, which would undoubtedly give the necessary steer? If it proved to be unsatisfactory to a member country, it remains open to that country to follow the normal proceedings for derogation of the provisions of the treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hear a chorus of disagreement—I am not quite sure why. It is a normal principle of international law that derogation provisions are incorporated in any treaty. Provisions for denouncing treaties are incorporated in such conventions. That remains especially true for a convention which is drawn up under article K.2—for example, the European convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
      At least once in the memory of many hon. Members, the Government have seen fit to announce derogation from the provisions. That seems to be the way in which we
      1106
      will proceed. There is nothing novel about that. It is a novel step to allow the European Court of Justice to have a specific role in interpreting provisions and to rule on disputes involving applications. It is a welcome step forward in the development of international law.
      Mr. Spearing: I concede that the hon. Gentleman knows more about the matter than many of us present. The proper role and vires of the European Court of Justice is important. It is part of the so-called trunk and arises from the treaty of Rome, and the normal role of international courts and international law with regard to a possible derogation which could subsequently be arranged or may possibly be arranged under existing law.
      If the European Court of Justice is to adjudicate on matters relating to those conventions, it will operate under the rules which stem from the treaty of Rome and the rest which follows. Therefore, the strength of the Community in its trunk sense is extending into those pillars, and it is no longer international in the United Kingdom: it is part of the Community structure.
      Mr. Maclennan: It is international as between the member countries of the European Comunity. If 12 countries, or however many countries there may be in the Community, decide that they want to agree to a convention, there is everything to be said for having a common interpretation of what has been decided. To rely on the normal method of resolving disputes about conventional agreements in the European Community is to rely on the European Court of Justice to give an authoritative judgment in the matter. I acknowledge that there is no such comparable international court of justice outside the Hague framework. The international Court of Justice in the Hague is relied on to interpret, for example, the 1951 European convention on refugees.
      Title VI is definitely a step forwad and a means of minimising disputes among member countries, rather than maximising them. The matter of greatest uncertainty in my mind is the adequacy of article K to deal with some of the pressing problems which member countries of the Community face. I question whether the Governments which drafted the Maastricht treaty were too timorous in facing up to the need to reach legislative agreement or agreement on a mode of legislating which could tackle some of the problems. It is desirable not only to co-ordinate the responses of Governments by intergovernmental agreement but to have common standards across the Community.
      One example is combating drug addiction. There are different views within the European Community about how to deal with the problem of drugs. Some countries are regarded as more permissive than others. As a result, some countries may think that other countries offer a loophole or channel for the importation of drugs into the Community—the weak underbelly, if you like. I do not see how that type of problem can be dealt with by intergovernmental co-operation. It must be tackled by the adoption of a common Community response, for without boundaries such matters will become pressing and practical problems.
      By denying themselves the ability to legislate quickly and adopt common provisions on home affairs matters, the 12 member Governments will limit their capacity to respond to problems which affect every member country. Article K.9 appears to adumbrate the possibility of some

      1107
      form of legislation on such matters under the provisions of article 100c. It is so tentative a step that it is scarcely adequate to the circumstances.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is important. Will he make it clear—I am not a lawyer—whether he is suggesting that the Community should have the right to impose legislation on member states, including those to which he refers as the soft underbelly? Presumably it would be policed and could be imposed by a central authority.
      If that is not what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I find it difficult to follow his line of argument. If we are asking for the agreement of the soft underbelly states, whomsoever they may be, how can we proceed to legislate if those countries are not prepared to accept stronger policing and stronger methods?
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady has not misunderstood me. I suggest that it may prove difficult to make effective co-operation between Governments and the police in matters such as drug addiction if there is no legislative competence to back up that co-operation. If we had different laws about drugs in Scotland and England, our capacity as a united kingdom to tackle the problem of drug trafficking would be seriously damaged.
      We must recognise that, in moving towards a Community without frontiers, we are moving towards the United Kingdom position. There is no policing of the frontier between Scotland and England. That has certain practical consequences. It makes it sensible to have common law on some matters. It does not mean that common law is necessary on everything: it means that it is necessary to have the competence to decide where it makes practical sense to have common law.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am carefully following what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Of course, if a common law is introduced, all countries will have to accept that law as it is. If it is the common view that Europe should have much less severe restrictions than we enjoy in the United Kingdom at present, the effect could be the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman says. We could find ourselves having law imposed on us which is far more relaxed than we would want.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: That is true. That is a consequence of living in a democracy. It is always possible to move one way or the other. The balance of opinion on drugs within the European Community is not on the side of the Dutch. It is fairly clear where the balance of opinion would fall.
      I chose the example of drugs as a matter on which it struck me as clear that not to have legislative competence in home affairs could defeat the purposes of co-operation. Article K.9 provides a mechanism, if I read that rather obscure article aright, whereby
      "The council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission … decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty
      … to action in areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6)".
      That is a peculiar reference, because article 100c deals with the one specific matter of the issuance of visas to third countries. As a matter of interpretation, I find it hard to understand.
      1108
      Perhaps the Secretary of State will be kind enough in his reply or in an intervention to explain what he understands by the tie-in to article 100c. Does it say that all that is required when a step is taken unanimously by the Council is that the Council will, in an area covered by K1(1) to (6), act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission after consulting the European Parliament? That does not seem to provide a legislative mechanism. I find it difficult to understand.
      I suspect that something is intended which is far-reaching and may have the ratchet effect other hon. Members have suggested. If that is so, we should be clear about it. Certainly, when the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was asked whether the ratchet effect was in place, he did not deny it. I believe that he was right not to do so.
      My party is content that this part of the treaty marks a valuable step forward in improving co-operation in Home Office matters between European countries, but we remain somewhat dubious about whether it goes far enough in giving the Commission and the Community the role that we believe that they should have in legislating on such matters.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I regard as the most positive achievement of the Maastricht negotiations and treaty the agreement to extend the areas of policy in which member states of the European Community would co-operate by the so-called pillared approach. That was the most significant decision taken by the 12 member states of the Community when they gathered at Maastricht. It was a position for which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister argued strongly on behalf of the Government. It marks a significant and desirable turning point in the way in which we shall develop what is described as the European union.
      Today we are talking about the so-called third pillar of justice and home affairs. It covers a range of policies on which the British Government and all parties in the House wish to co-operate with other member states. We regard it as desirable to do so. We have been moving ever closer towards our partners on the key matters listed in article K. Certainly we have had the Trevi meetings to discuss peace and security matters and the ad hoc meetings of Immigration Ministers for many years, and I do not recall anybody ever challenging the position of the British Government who wished to discuss these matters and move, by a process of co-operation, ever closer to common policies in some of those areas, as we have been doing.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Clarke: If I may just continue for the present, I am resigned to the fact that I shall no doubt give way as often as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has done.
      In developing that co-operation, the Maastricht treaty provides a framework which will put the whole thing on a more coherent basis. Insofar as it affects the relationship between Ministers and the House on discussions about European co-operation in these areas, it will almost certainly enhance the role of the House, increase the amount of information that comes back to the House and, no doubt, expose Ministers, quite properly, to more debate and discussion about the kind of things that we discuss in Trevi and in the ad hoc group.
      Mr. Madden: Will the Home Secretary confirm that there has been constant criticism by hon. Members of the failure of the Government and successive Home Secretaries to make statements to the House following meetings of Trevi and other groups? There has been no parliamentary accountability and no opportunity for hon. Members to challenge the Executive about decisions taken or discussions conducted. It has been a disgraceful abuse of our parliamentary procedures and it gives us no confidence that things will improve if and when the treaty is ratified.
      Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on, as usual in his interventions, sailing into a wild extravagance of language and grotesquely overstating his case, as he does on each and every feature of asylum and immigration policy.
      My practice, which I think has been the practice of my predecessors, has been to report back to the House by way of parliamentary question on proceedings at Trevi and immigration councils. I do not recall that the pressure for oral statements about those proceedings has been altogether overwhelming. There have been no deafening demands on the Floor of the House. There have been demands that more of the papers should be available beforehand, however, and I anticipate that the Government will respond to that. I put in the Library a document that we were considering—the draft European external frontiers convention which, I was originally surprised to discover, it was Whitehall practice not to put in the Library. In due course we must come forward with proposals for reforming parliamentary procedures in this area. I quite accept and would argue strongly myself that we cannot have the House less well informed about the proceedings in the third pillar of the European union than it expects to be in the other two pillars.
      Insofar as in the meetings that we have had in Trevi or in the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers we might have reached the stage where we were agreeing to policy proposals that would require a change in British law for us to implement them, however, then as Ministers I and my successors would remain subject to our own parliamentary constitution and would have to come back here to get the legislative authority to make the changes in legislation on which we had committed ourselves to other Governments. That broadly remains the position here. A more coherent framework is proposed—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a second.
      The reason why we have had these ad hoc groups before is that there has always been difficulty in moving the existing institutions of the European Community, the existing fabric of the treaty of Rome, into the areas of justice and home affairs. As an enthusiastic supporter of European union and of the European Community, I have always had reservations about extending Community competence under the treaty of Rome into areas of this kind. I am always described as a Euro-enthusiast, a description that I never resist, but I have found over the years that the method of determining policy in the European Community is frequently far from perfect.
      Proceeding on what is described as intergovernmental co-operation, rather than bringing things within Community competence, seems to me to offer considerable advantage. The first is that the Commission does not have
      1110
      the sole right of initiating policy. The Commission is involved in the proceedings. It has in certain areas a right to propose initiatives. It is excluded from making initiatives in certain limited areas under article K, but it does not have the sole right. Member states may initiate proposals as well, and nothing would proceed except by unanimity so far as the member states are concerned.
      This area of the third pillar is not subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice except in one tiny respect where, by unanimity, the member states may refer things to the European Court of Justice. The European Parliament has the right to be consulted and to give opinions, but the third pillar is not subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court.
      This third pillar, therefore, is about European intergovernmental co-operation in the areas of justice and home affairs, which means that it requires the consent of the British Government and, insofar as the consent of the British Government might change either immigration rules, matters of criminal justice or anything of that kind, this Parliament would remain sovereign. We would have to come back here and seek Parliament's consent to any changes in legislation to which our European policy might commit us.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), with whose speech I agreed in large part, the hon. Member for Sedgefield and I are in almost total agreement on this subject—no doubt to the rage and wrath of members of our respective parties who are refusing to attend these debates—but when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland says that co-operation is not enough and that we should have common policies, of course in some areas it makes sense in the 12 member states to move towards the area of common policy. In recent discussions I have talked about harmonising our immigration policies, which plainly makes sense, given our geography and the pressures upon us. I would like to move much closer to common policies on drug abuse, and so on. There is no reason why intergovernmental discussions should not lead to common policies, if all 12 member states consent by unanimous resolution and then if all 12 Ministers, including the British Home Secretary, can come back to their Parliaments and seek their consent to such policies. It is a way of proceeding which merely carries forward what we have been doing so far but in a more coherent way and one which is more likely to deliver results—results for which we are accountable to this Parliament.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way and also for his recognition of the extent of agreement, but I was trying to suggest going a little further than common policy to a situation in which we would have common law, decided on a European basis. That does not seem to be something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is advocating.
      Mr. Clarke: No, we are all having difficulty in advocating the step that we are taking in the treaty. It is true that it does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman suggested, which should be some small consolation to some of my hon. Friends.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: May I just back-track on what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, to the point at which he said that there was an area here for improved parliamentary scrutiny? We clearly do not have

      1111
      powers, or have not been using whatever powers of scrutiny have existed in this Parliament hitherto, but the third pillar presents the possibility that the Select Committee on Home Affairs might be the body of continuing scrutiny of those matters. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us the Government's thinking about a process of continuing parliamentary scrutiny through the Home Affairs Select Committee examining these matters as they arise, so that Parliament may be better advised of what is intended by Government before they take their decisions rather than afterwards as has been the case hitherto?
      Mr. Clarke: Discussions are going on about that within the Government at the moment. I will undertake very shortly to write to my hon. and learned Friend with our proposals for parliamentary scrutiny under the third pillar. He has raised one or two issues on which it is possible to come to more than one conclusion—for instance, whether it should be the Select Committee on Home Affairs or the European Scrutiny Committee which looks at matters under the third pillar—but I undertake to write to him, giving details of the Government's proposals by way of parliamentary accountability, and such proposals will of course be made more widely available to the House as well.
      I wholly accept that the House will want some clarity about the way in which it is informed of proceedings under the third pillar, and has the chance to consider them before matters are determined and how, in effect, it gives or withholds approval to what is decided. I do not remotely expect that the House would consent to more restrictive procedures for matters dealt with under the treaty of Rome than those it has been accustomed to in that area. We simply have to ensure that the procedures of the House are well attuned to intergovernmental co-operation under the third pillar.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once more and then move on to article 100c.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Nothing should put the fear of God into the House of Commons more than the sight of three Front Bench spokesmen—all of whom are lawyers—in total agreement on a policy. May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the wording of article K.9? When giving his interpretation of that article, he made tremendously reassuring remarks, but its wording is very revealing. It states:
      "The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty."
      If he will forgive my saying so, that is not quite on all fours with what he has told the House.
      Mr. Clarke: I believe that it is, unless I made a slip of the tongue. I said that the third pillar does not contemplate the Commission having the sole right of initiative. As someone who has attended countless Councils of Ministers, I have frequently been irked by the fact that, under the treaty of Rome, the exclusive right of initiative
      1112
      lies with the Commission, which is frequently persuaded by one, or a group of, member states to bring things forward, but legally has the sole right of initiative.
      Under the third pillar, the Commission can make proposals to the Council, but it has no monopoly of that right. Member states can also do so, and any initiative requires the unanimous consent of all member states before it has any effect—with the exception of article 100c, which brings an extremely narrow area within Community competence and therefore makes it subject to treaty of Rome type procedures.
      The article contemplates bringing within Community competence the list of countries for whose nationals visas are required for visits and also establishes a common format for the visa. We accepted those proposals in the Maastricht negotiations for reasons of efficiency. The amount brought within Community competence under article 100c is very limited. It contemplates that eventually all member states will have a common list of countries whose nationals require a visa. After 1996, if people wished, the question of a common list could be decided by majority voting. The article also requires a common format. It does not extend beyond that, nor does it in any way reduce this country's right to determine for itself to whom we give visas and the criteria upon which we award them. That will remain a matter for our immigration rules, subject to continual debate and controversy in this House.
      Several of my hon. Friends have asked what will happen if another country gives a visa to someone who then wishes to come here. That is a serious question. Someone who is granted a visa, say by the Federal Republic of Germany, would not require a further document to come to this country and would present a visa in a format of a kind to be established. However, that would not automatically mean that they would be able to enter this country as they would still be subject to the immigration controls over third country nationals upon which we are insisting under article 8a of the existing treaty, which will become article 7a.
      Persons presenting themselves with visas would still be interviewed by our immigration officers and would have to satisfy the entry clearance officer that they were entitled within our immigration rules to enter this country for the purpose that they had stated. The mere production of an EC visa would not enable someone to get past our immigration controls, although it would have considerable evidentiary value.
      The more progress that we make in harmonising immigration policy, the more likely it will be that someone presenting an Italian, French or German visa will be likely to satisfy our immigration requirements. However, a British entry clearance officer will still be able to say that although someone has a visa, from his interview it was plain that it was obtained by deception and on grounds that do not satisfy our immigration rules. He could then refuse entry and turn the person away.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Outrageous.
      Mr. Clarke: It is not outrageous. I shall allow my hon. Friend to try to explain why he believes that it is. I am trying to explain that this does not affect the right of a third country national to enter this country. They remain subject to our immigration rules.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, instead of expecting every immigration officer to look at

      1113
      everyone coming into this country with a visa from Italy and the rest, the only powers reserved will be for the officer to ask, "Are you a drug addict or a terrorist?" If one has reasonable grounds for believing that they are, one can stop them. Is he saying that we would be able to decide that only 50 per cent. of such people could come in? Surely, under article 100c, we will not have that legal right, as it allows us to refuse entry only if we have reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone is something like a drug addict or a terrorist. Is that true?
      Mr. Clarke: It is not true. Article 100c does not take away our right to apply our immigration rules. It only governs the list of countries from which member states require visas and the format—the colour, size, shape and content—of the visa. The British Government's interpretation of article 8a of the Single European Act, which is not before us today, is that we remain entitled to apply our immigration controls and that article 100c does not extend any further.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) asked how far that extremely restrictive area of Community competence would be extended to other areas under article K.9.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Yes.
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has anticipated my question.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Before the Home Secretary gets there, does he suggest that existing United Kingdom immigration controls can be safeguarded in their entirety by article 100c(5) which states that it will not prejudice member states' responsibilities
      "with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security"?
      Mr. Clarke: We do not need that. There is nothing to safeguard. Under article 100c we are giving away two things to Community competence—if that is the language that my hon. Friend likes to use—first, the list of countries from which we require visas and, secondly, what the visa will look like. Article 100c concedes nothing else and unless we move the procedures under K.9 nothing else will be conceded to competence.
      There is a great deal of excitement about whether article K.9 will bring into Community competence all the questions of asylum, and immigration law and rules. As I shall seek to demonstrate, it most certainly does not.
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: On fabrication, if someone from outside the European Community, holding an EC visa, but not one issued by the United Kingdom, were turned away from the United Kingdom, would he be able to turn to the European Court to seek to show that the United Kingdom authorities had not turned them away legitimately?
      Mr. Clarke: In my opinion, no. Someone coming to this country from France and refused entry could not, in my opinion, go to the European Court and complain that that refusal was contrary to his Community rights. If someone presents himself with a European visa in the common format, in my opinion, no directly applicable law would enable him to go to the European Court. Whether we go in that direction entirely depends on where we go on article 8a—7a as it will be—which is outside this debate. So far as this treaty is concerned, anyone with a European visa who
      1114
      was turned away might have certain rights of appeal here but would have no redress through the European Court. It is feared that article K.9 will extend this very restrictive application of article 100c into other areas. Article K.9 opens up the possibility that eventually everything in article K might, as everyone wants, affect European competence.
      One of the things in the Maastricht agreement on which we insisted—largely because of the sensitivities of members of my party and of those who were observing the Maastricht negotiations closely—was that there should be a double lock before any such extension of competence could take place. Going beyond the list and appearance of visas would require unanimous voting in the Council by the 12 member states, and each member state would have to ratify the agreement which, in effect, would be a new treaty. This country has a long-standing process for the ratification of every kind of treaty—something that was criticised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The sovereignty of Parliament is what concerns a large number of hon. Members. It remains our position that in this country treaties are ratified by changing the law if changes in domestic legislation are required and, otherwise, in accordance with the Ponsonby rules. That has always been the case, and is currently the position.
      This Bill does not go along with the entire Maastricht treaty, and it was never likely to do so. It changes those parts of domestic law which have to be changed before we can ratify the treaty and comply with our treaty obligations. This is all extremely fanciful. The current Government oppose any extension of competence in this field, and we shall not make possible the necessary unanimity. I am not clear about the Opposition's position, but I believe that they, too, oppose any extension of European competence in this field. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the risk of achieving a unanimous vote is slight. It may be of further consolation to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that the Danes are even more insistent than we that there should be no extension of European competence in this area. It is one of the matters that they expressly raised at Edinburgh.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend's approach, and I am very glad that he has been emphasising the big "C"s of co-operation, convention and consultation. In that regard, I am fully in sympathy with what he is trying to do. However, I have a limited tactical question about article 100c. If my right hon. and learned Friend is not able to answer it now, I shall be happy to have a response at a later stage—if necessary, in writing. Article 100c(1) refers to a unanimous decision to adopt the visa list. Paragraph (3) says:
      "the Council shall adopt the decisions referred to in paragraph (1)".
      Does that mean that the Council, by the majority voting system referred to in paragraph (3), would adopt only that visa list which had been predetermined by unanimous voting? It seems to me that there need no longer be unscrambling by majority voting if there has already been unanimity. One is left with a curious paradox. Apparently. in paragraph (2), there is a remaining unanimity requirement for extending the special emergency list adopted by majority voting. Will this unanimous extension procedure remain in place even after paragraph (3) has come into operation?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Clarke: I shall state my opinion now and, if I should prove to be wrongly informed, I shall write to my right hon. Friend or seek to intervene later.
      I think that the list of member states whose nationals will require visas will be determined unanimously before 1 January 1996 but, thereafter, by qualified majority voting. It seems to me that that overtakes paragraph (2). Straight away, there can be qualified majority voting in the case of an emergency. If there were a huge exodus of people from another country, there could be a qualified majority to determine whether it was necessary to add that country straight away to the visa list. Six months thereafter, extension could be only by unanimity. However, I contemplate that when we get to 1 January 1996 that will be pretty well unnecessary as a country can be put on the list permanently by the ordinary qualified majority. As I look in a certain direction, I get the impression that I have that broadly correct.
      Mr. Spearing: On the Ponsonby rules, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I are absolutely at one, as we are on the question of the purpose of the Bill, whose limited objective is to give us a link and thus enable legislative obligations to be put into British law. This is a matter about which there has been a good deal of discussion. In this respect, article K of title VI is a little ambiguous. This is a very important matter, so I want to deal with it very carefully. Article 100c(6) says:
      "This Article shall apply to other areas if so decided pursuant to Article K.9."
      Thus, it is out of the area of visas, which until now we have been associating with paragraph (6). I see that the Home Secretary agrees.
      Article K.9 says:
      "The Council, acting unanimously"—
      there is a lock there, up to a point—
      "on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to action in areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6)".
      Article K.1(1) to (6) contains a whole range of matters: asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation—the lot. Does not the Home Secretary agree that, by that mechanism —initially, I admit, by unanimity—it will be possible to deal with all the matters in article K.1? Very important to article 100c are the words
      "subject to voting conditions determined at the same time".
      Although there may be an initial lock, article K.1(1) to (6) is brought into the purview of article K.9. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is correct?
      Mr. Clarke: It is what I have just said. Paragraph (6) is the mirror reflection of K.9. They repeat each other. Article 100c has the very restricted application that I have described exhaustively. It can be extended only by the process referred to in article K.9, which requires a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers, followed by ratification by each of the 12 member states under their own constitutional procedures. The current political reality is that there is not a snowball's chance in Hades that either the British Parliament or the Danish Parliament will agree to any such extension—assuming, for the moment, that the British and Danish Governments stand on their heads and suddenly decide that they wish competence to be enlarged.
      1116
      The provision is even more restrictive than the hon. Gentleman has indicated. Even by the process provided for in article K.9, one could not bring in everything that is set out in article K.1. One can go down only to paragraph (6). So far as I can see, there is absolutely no procedure for bringing into competence, by any process whatsoever, judicial co-operation in criminal matters, customs co-operation or police co-operation.
      Mr. Spearing: Why not?
      Mr. Clarke: Because it would require another treaty —if we ever finish debating the Maastricht treaty and anybody contemplates another one. The next treaty revision is due in 1996.
      We co-operate on a totally intergovernmental basis over the issue of policing, and have done for a long time. The Trevi meetings have been conducted for a long time. The most important part of the Trevi process is the operational level and the co-operation that must develop between 12 police services in a community such as the European Community.
      I was asked about the process of developing Europol. There have been some active politics on the issue. The British Government are in favour of establishing Europol. We were in favour of establishing a drugs information unit to have effect from 1 January 1993. During our presidency, when I presided over the Council meetings, I did my best to achieve its establishment on 1 January 1993.
      I assure the hon. Member for Sedgefield that there is no question of Europol cutting across Interpol. That is the plain view of the vast majority of European Community members. However, we see a case for a criminal intelligence gathering operation between the 12 member states, aimed at international organised crime, primarily drug trafficking.
      Progress on Europol is still proving irritably slow for all 12 member states. The delay illustrates the dangers of proceeding by unanimity. All 12 member states want Europol, all want to begin with a drug information unit and all want Europol to start on 1 January 1993. We managed to reach agreement on the nationality of the director-general, but we failed to reach a unanimous conclusion about where the headquarters should be located. So scrupulous are the protections built into the procedure to satisfy sensitive Members of Parliament here and in other Parliaments who are concerned that sovereignty might be given away that until all 12 member states agree on where the extremely important organisation should be located and until all 12 Ministers have given their consent, returned to their Parliaments and received approval, the organisation cannot be set up. If that process does not underline the extent of the security to protect our sovereignty and reassure those concerned about Community competence, few other factors will.
      My position, adopted on behalf of Britain, was that I could not care less where the headquarters were located. I made it clear that the British would vote for whatever location might command unanimity among the other member states. Unfortunately, there were other sensitivities involved, and the matter remains to be resolved. I hope that the problem will be resolved during the Danish presidency.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary is giving us a most fascinating account, and I am grateful to him for underlining some of the points that I was trying to make

      1117
      about the difficulty of progressing by unanimity. However, I am still unclear about the last part of article K.9. Is it envisaged that Community competence—which he said could be extended under that article—will extend to matters of Community legislation such as binding directives that have passed through the normal Community processes? Article 100c does not appear to provide for that. It appears to provide for common decisions on policy such as setting up the headquarters for Europol. That seems to be a restrictive provision—even more restrictive than that suggested by the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Clarke: I think that we are talking about the difference between having Community competence and not having it. When a list of countries requiring visas, such as that under article 100c, is drawn up, it will be a matter of Community legislation. It will be dealt with as Community legislation when it is subjected to the scrutiny of the House. There is no provision for Community legislation on intergovernmental co-operation—the third pillar activities—so we would proceed with such measures by politically binding agreements, by resolutions. If their Parliaments approved them, the 12 member states would then make the necessary changes to their immigration laws and rules in order to comply with the Community policy.
      The effect of bringing a policy into Community competence would be to move from the sphere of intergovernmental co-operation into the treaty of Rome as amended, opening up the way for such matters to proceed by way of European legislation. For the reasons that I have given, I do not think that that is likely at present.
      I hope that I have satisfied the Committee, with the co-operation of the official spokesmen of the two other parties, that the amount that we are ceding under the third pillar is slight. I should like to believe that I have persuaded the Committee that a positive advantage of the Maastricht treaty is that it opens up a far more sensible procedure than we have hitherto had for the co-operation that we desire on justice and interior matters. I think that we have dealt with most of the fears expressed. I understand why people have fears over such important matters, but there is no question of Community competence over the issues that I have described.
      I shall not enter into the other arguments of policy. They have been a feature of discussions on the Maastricht treaty throughout most of western Europe. Some people believe that a flood of immigrants will be let in by Community activity outside Government control; on the other side of the argument, others believe that we are setting up a fortress Europe and that many people will be kept out who should be let in. The key issues of immigration rules and asylum will remain a matter for the Government, the House and British immigration rules, subject to our continuing commitment to the Geneva convention and the European convention on human rights.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: What are the implications of the continuing disagreement with the Commission—according to the Home Secretary's letter—on the interpretation of article 8a?
      Mr. Clarke: That is a small footnote matter to raise at this stage in the debate. It remains the Government view —repeatedly asserted to the Commission—that we have committed ourselves, under article 8a of the Single
      1118
      European Act, to the free movement of European Community nationals within the Community. We believe that we are entitled to retain our immigration controls on third country nationals. That remains our position. The Single European Act was entered into by a Government of which I was a member under my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher. That issue will be discussed in one quarter or another, but is not a matter for the Maastricht treaty or for today.
      Mr. Cohen: I very much oppose article 100c, and I have not been convinced by the speeches of either Front-Bench spokesman. Therefore, I support amendment No. 8, which would exclude article 100c. That is why I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who moved the amendment, whether he was for or against it. I am for it, but it appears that he is against it, in principle. However, I know that my hon. Friend, who has a good record on those matters, would not touch with a bargepole any similar measure, outside the context of the European treaty, that would transfer asylum or immigration policy to faceless bureaucrats.
      The Government will allow no amendment of the Maastricht treaty. It has to be passed as it is. The role of the House of Commons is to scrutinise Bills and get rid of bad aspects, but that goes to the wall if no amendments are allowed. The logic is that, however appalling an article In a treaty, it has to be driven through the House. We know that that is the view of the Government, but I am sad to note that it is also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield.
      I do not agree with my hon. Friend that we shall not get to the lowest common denominator. I believe that the whole process has been set up so that we can go to the lowest common denominator in immigration and asylum policy among European countries. Where are there any commitments to racial equality or to family reunification as a right?
      Mr. Bernie Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the debates that took place in the Committee considering the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill on the removal of visitors' right of appeal? When we did a trawl of practice in European countries, we found that Britain was the only country that had the right of visitors to appeal enshrined in law. In other countries, that right was on an ad hoc basis and in some did not exist at all. The Trevi group brought British standards down to the level of Belgium and other similar countries. That is an example of the lowest common denominator being applied, and if it can happen here, it can happen with other aspects of the Bill.
      9 pm
      Mr. Cohen: That is a good example. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend and others on the Committee in drawing out those matters. He is right to point out that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will get rid of the right of appeal, thereby bringing us down to the level of other European countries and introducing, the principles of article 100c.
      Tied up with the lowest common denominator argument is the point about immigration and asylum policy being conducted in secret. That is abhorrent. Already, officials in Ministers' private offices can interpret rules as they like, and Members of Parliament do not have

      1119
      much influence on that process. How much worse will that be if the decisions are taken by bureaucrats in Europe in secret?
      Ministers will also make secret deals. Every now and then, when there are negotiations, perhaps over a subject that has nothing to do with immigration or asylum, deals will be struck in secret. One Minister will say to another, "You support us over an agricultural tariff and we will support you over the countries to go on visa lists." There is a grave risk that that will happen, although it would be scandalous if it did, because people's lives and rights—for example, to visits from their families, fiancees, husbands or wives—are at stake.
      The argument of my Front-Bench spokesman and those in favour of Maastricht is that immigration and asylum procedures are so bad that we must get some change, and the change that is on offer comes from Europe. That is not the right approach. The procedures may be bad now, but I do not see why we should have to accept them as bad for ever, and enshrined in article 100c. Faceless European bureaucrats would have control over many of the principles in our asylum and immigration policy.
      The treaty moves on from one clause to another—from article 100c, which refers to article K.9, which in turn refers to articles K.1(1) to (6). Let us look at those latter articles. What do they say that the bureaucrats will have control over? It is said that:
      "Member Mates shall regard the following areas as matters of common interests:

      1. asylum policy;

      2. rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the Member States and the exercise of controls thereon;

      3. immigration policy and policy regarding nationals of third countries".

      The whole list will come under European control. The linking of article 100c with articles K.1 to K.6 and K.9 will give the Community the power to take responsibility for asylum and immigration policy, which I regard as offensive and highly dangerous.
      The deliberations by the ad hoc Trevi group on immigration were secret. My hon. Friends and I asked detailed questions, seeking to establish the decisions that were made, but Ministers repeatedly refused to answer.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): No, we did not.
      Mr. Cohen: Yes, they did. Ministers answered only sanitised questions tabled by Conservative Back Benchers, which allowed them to paint in broad-brush strokes a picture of the Trevi talks. We have never received detailed information on the decisions of that group. That abhorrent secrecy will continue, and the kind of procedure established by Trevi will be institutionalised by article 100c.
      The Minister said that the House might be able to debate a statutory instrument if there was a legislative change—but if the interpretation or reinterpretation is that no legislative change will occur but only an administrative change, there will be no such debate. Some so-called administrative changes would be deemed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me as fundamental—but no debate would be permitted in those circumstances.
      1120
      It may be that certain powers are lying dormant in that provision—particularly in article 100c(2), which states that a visa requirement may be introduced
      "in the event of an emergency situation in a third country posing a threat of a sudden inflow of nationals".
      Who is to interpret that—a bureaucrat, as an administrative matter? He could make all the changes he liked without a debate in the House, which would be quite wrong.
      If there were a debate on a statutory instrument, it is likely that it would last only one and a half hours, and would take place early in the morning, when most right hon. and hon. Members would have gone home.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would oppose the measure—as he has many others, with great honesty—because people would be thrown to the lions and be denied a proper asylum policy, and families would not be allowed to visit their relatives. The Minister would stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "We're not in the same situation as before. All the members of the EC have approved this policy—so even if we agreed with you, we could not go along with you." It would be goodbye to any realistic opposition to such measures.
      Mr. Derek Enright: Can my hon. Friend explain why I heard an equally impassioned speech against articles 100c and K.9 during the French referendum, given by Jean-Marie Le Pen?
      Mr. Cohen: I reject my hon. Friend's implication. I have no association with Le Pen and do not agree with him at all. I am totally opposed to his views.
      Mr. Enright rose—
      Mr. Cohen: No. I must tell my hon. Friend that many right-wing movements are building up in Europe, and they could end up having an important voice in the European Parliament. They might even take over some European Governments and have a say in British asylum and immigration policy. More dangerous than Le Pen's speeches now would be for him to be in a position to act because of the institutional changes that the treaty will make.
      Mr. Spearing: We occasionally hear such questions during these debates and outside. Le Pen is anathema to me, as he is to my hon. Friend, both as a person and in his politics. But is it not conceivable that his reading of the treaty on this matter might coincide with that of the European Court?
      Mr. Cohen: Everything that Le Pen stands for is anathema to me. I do not want to go into what he reads into the treaty. I need not go as far as France to find such people. There are people in this House who may vote in the same way, but for different reasons. Le Pen's racism is abhorrent to me.
      We have heard some strange things about the European Court of Justice. Both Front-Bench spokesmen have been keen to say that it will not have a role in implementing human rights and giving rights to individuals. What an amazing thing for them to say.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said that it may be involved in injustices. That was crushed by the Secretary of State, who said that it would not. He said that there would have to be unanimity before even member states could refer matters to the European Court. Certainly individuals will not be able to use the court if

      1121
      their families have been denied visits. That is disgraceful. For both Front-Bench spokesmen to suggest that that is an asset is appalling.
      Article 100c introduces majority voting from 1 January 1996. The United Kingdom's present asylum and immigration policy is appalling. I have tabled an early-day motion on that. It is anti-human rights. But at least that policy could be changed by a future Labour Government. That would not be possible under article 100c. A future Labour Government could be out-voted by the other European Governments, and we would not be able to change the policy that is set in stone by this treaty.
      A Labour Government with good humanitarian intentions could well be shackled by article 100c, unable to adopt a humane asylum policy. That is an amazing situation. I would have great sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield as Home Secretary in those circumstances. He would have to apologise to the House for being unable to implement the policy he wanted in order to save lives, because he was prevented by article 100c. I would not want to see my hon. Friend or any Labour Home Secretary in that position.
      We have talked about a Bosnia-type situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said that any one country could pull up the drawbridge. That is right, but under article 100c the whole of the EC could pull up the drawbridge. That could be done without any debate in the House. It could be done by the bureaucrats in the European Commission. None of the EC countries would let people in despite the life-threatening situations that they might face.
      We would be stuck with institutions and procedures, shifting power to the EC, which have been set up by the Tories for their own narrow interests and view of immigration and asylum policy. I consider many of the Government's policies openly racist: some of the cases with which I have had to deal are clear examples of that. I do not want a future Labour Government to be stuck with quasi-racist policies with which they could not dispense because those policies had become a European institution.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a good point about majority voting. He said that, although policy could be adopted under article 100c, it would be immensely difficult to change it if it proved to be wrong. He is entirely right. It might be impossible, or almost impossible, to alter a decision that had been made for the wrong reason —perhaps in panic.
      9.15 pm
      Our nation has certain long-standing commitments to other countries in the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned Jamaica; others have referred to Hong Kong citizens. Those commitments could be cast aside by a majority vote. Certainly the Home Secretary gave no assurances about people's rights to enter this country, and to travel to other countries. The Commission could wipe out those commitments. Surely we should not allow that to happen without even a statement in the House.
      Article 100c is obnoxious, and it should be opposed. It shifts immigration and asylum policy to faceless bureaucrats in the EC. Its ratification would make it doubly difficult—indeed, virtually impossible—for my constituents to be visited by members of their families who
      1122
      live abroad. The Secretary of State made that clear. Relatives will have to meet all the visa requirements set up by the Commission; even if they manage that, they will still have to face the problems of an immigration policy that —if the Government are given the free hand to which the Secretary of State referred—is likely to become even worse.
      Especially obnoxious is the way in which asylum policy may put lives at risk. If the EC adopts the policy that we are discussing, along with a set of principles that cannot easily be challenged in Parliament, people will be forced to return to their own countries and face torture or death. They will be kept out of safe havens.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman speaks regularly about human rights, and no one doubts his integrity. I have often wondered what would happen if South Africa were suddenly to find itself in economic chaos, and to experience the problems that can arise at times of change. Many people might want to come to the United Kingdom, where their roots lie because of the origins of their parents and grandparents. What would happen to them if the Community decided that they could not come here?
      Mr. Livingstone: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who has just asked that question systematically voted for the Asylum Bill, which strikes out the right to be an economic migrant? As there is economic chaos in South Africa, the hon. Gentleman has provided a legal basis for keeping those people out of this country. We congratulate him.
      Mr. Cohen: I shall not respond to that last intervention, except to say that many of those powers will be taken away from the British Parliament and given to the Community.
      I believe that lives will be put at risk by such a shift in asylum policy.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: I do not propose to delay the Committee for more than 10 or 15 minutes. I thought that the last exchange was particularly interesting. Until now it has been this sovereign Parliament that has been able to make decisions about immigration and nationality. While the Opposition may not agree with current policies, nevertheless they must hope that the time will come when they are more to their liking. One thing, however, is certain. When the Maastricht Bill goes through, there is nothing that the House of Commons will be able to do about it. It will be unable to determine policy.
      Until now it has been very much, with respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, a lawyers' debate.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I declined to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who waxed ever more lyrical about all this, but at some stage we should bring back the debate a little nearer to reality. My hon. Friend's opening proposition was startling. There is absolutely nothing either in the Maastricht treaty or in the Bill that takes away from this Government and this Parliament the right to determine our immigration policy and our immigration rules, except regarding certain vital matters that a few people get very excited about—the list of countries in respect of which we require visas and what the visa looks like. Otherwise, we are being treated to ever-wilder flights of fancy. I hope that during his 10 or 15 minutes my hon. Friend will not sail out on the same folly as that upon which the hon. Member for Leyton waxed lyrical.
      Mr. Knapman: If we soon reach the position where there will no longer be internal barriers or boundaries, I do not see how our future policies will be anything like what they have been in the past. It is very much our fear that this Parliament will be unable directly to influence future policy. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to exercise some influence from time to time, but the House of Commons will be a very ineffective check on any future Executive.
      If a nation state cannot decide who its peoples are, it cannot, by definition, be a nation state. We know, from the make-up of the treaty, that the combination of Euro-citizenship and a European union without boundaries comes very close to what many of us believe to be a federal state. It may be that somebody can tell me the difference between an ever-closer union and a single institutional framework and how that is different from federalism, but I have not yet heard anyone do so. All that I know, having a 21-year-old daughter, is that if she told me that she had met a young man and that she was in ever-closer union within a single institutional framework, I should have to tell her that in all conscience I doubted whether that was a particularly decentralising remark.
      If anybody in this country believes that the Bill is decentralising, I shall have to disagree. They certainly do not believe that on the continent. They certainly do not believe it in the continental press. Occasionally we have the benefit of the advice of Chancellor Kohl. In the Financial Times of 4 January, Chancellor Kohl was certainly under no illusions about what the Bill means.
      This is potentially the most lethal part of the Bill. We are talking about the mass movement of people. I agree that the debate is all about article 3(c), article 8a, article 100c, article K.1 and article K.9. One needs, I believe, to say K.9 rather carefully. The mass movement of people, however, is the precursor to turmoil.
      It is ironic that we should be proceeding with the Maastricht treaty just as the newspapers are telling us what really happens to those countries when they suddenly decide that they want free movement of peoples, capital and all the rest. Are we learning nothing from Yugoslavia? Have we learnt nothing from the USSR? What is the difference between what we are doing here and what they did there? It does not take too many decades to reap the harvest of that.
      When the United States of America, Mexico and Canada were considering how to proceed, they were wise to study what we were doing; they took one look and said, "No, not for us, thank you very much."
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Their unemployment is going down, too.
      Mr. Knapman: This is almost a takeover bid.
      The root cause of the problem with the Maastricht treaty is that it is for a small group of rich nations—it does not go wider, only deeper. Adjoining the rich nations are untold millions and tens of millions of very poor and often destitute people.
      If anything brought down the evil empire in the east, it was the arrival of television. Years ago, the communist system could easily tell people that they were well off because it could jam the airwaves. Suddenly, it could no longer jam the airwaves—television arrived and the news travelled that the people were not well off. One cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
      1124
      We are talking not only of Russia and other Commonwealth states adjoining it, although all are in desperate trouble—Romania, Albania, the Czech republic to a certain extent, or Slovak republic as it is now, Bulgaria and many more. The problem will not be restricted to the eastern boundary. Around the Mediterranean, Spain, Portugal and Italy will have problems of mass immigration —legal and illegal, although probably illegal—from north Africa and other small countries in Africa which have been racked by famine, disease and war.
      There are so many thousands of miles of boundaries to the east and so many thousands of miles of coastline—do we really think that articles 3(c) or 8a and the rest will somehow control the mass migration of tens of millions of people? That may be our intention—I fear that it is—but it is doomed to failure.
      Mr. Garnier: Could not the problem that my hon. Friend is apparently attempting to outline apply to any legislation? It is not special to the treaty or to the laws that follow. The problems of illegal immigration flow from the problems pertaining to population movements. It does not matter what the law is; illegal immigration will occur.
      Mr. Knapman: I have already said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and, no doubt, all lawyers, look at it that way. My concern and, I believe, that of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends is still that as long as our sovereign Parliament can decide what policies are for the benefit of the British people, we can at least be free to make our own mistakes. As an island, we have certain advantages in that respect.
      Mr. Marlow: Is not the basic point that if we agree article 100c, article K or whatever, a Government—with whom we might or might not agree—can, through a short process and what is called unanimity, agree an immigration policy in Europe, put it to the House between 10 pm and 11.30 pm and have a vote, and that will be it? Instead of having a United Kingdom immigration policy, we shall have a European immigration policy. I might take a view different from that of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). He might want an open door, or at least more of an open door than I might want—and that is his privilege. I might want a restrictive policy.
      None the less, after that fateful vote with the pressure of the Whips upon us, there would no longer be a United Kingdom immigration policy but a European immigration policy. Thenceforth this House would be powerless to do anything about it.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend puts the problem well. There we shall be, under pressure from our hon. Friend the Whip, being told to vote in a certain way. Those of us who do not do that will suddenly be revealed as men with no particularly secret sex lives—as overweight, with double chins, mousy brown hair and spectacles. We shall have nothing to hide; we shall no longer be the objects of our constituents' admiration. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is right in all that he says.
      Problems, such as the mass movement of peoples, are already happening. One million immigrants entered Germany this year. It is all very well for us to say, "It is shocking. Some of them are rioting and killing immigrants." But before we get on our high horse, let us

      1125
      ask ourselves what the reaction of the people of this country would be if we were asked to take in 1 million immigrants? Under the Bill, that is what we could face before long, whether those people came here legally or illegally.
      Of course, Germany will be the magnet, because Germany has the economic power. People in general will look for prosperity. Germany has huge wealth; no doubt that has been much increased by the flirtation with the exchange rate mechanism. If people are looking for wealth they will go to Germany. A recent article about the Bundesbank said:
      "'the Bank that rules Europe' … almost doubled its currency reserves between August and December (from DM98.2 billion to approx DM 170 billion). Several nations in Europe are now having to beg for their repayment deadlines to be extended."
      We know where the economic power lies and from economic power other power is derived. We should not be surprised at that. The centre of Europe will be parts of France and Germany and the Benelux countries. Power and wealth tend to move towards the centre.
      People are beginning to talk about all that. The other day I was surprised to read an article which reported General Carlos Coll, a commander in the Spanish air force, as saying that there were
      "clear indications of German intentions 'to become the leader of Europe' … Germany is whipping up a situation, he says, 'which could almost be described as the prelude to war'."
      There is much more of that. The general is entitled to his opinion—but if that is what the Spanish air force is up to, we should examine his future pronouncements carefully.
      Not all the immigrants are escaping from persecution. A large proportion of them are, but a large proportion merely want to better themselves. Some of the countries will be our partners in the EC. Others may hope to become partners. I wonder if we thought seriously about the effects on immigration implied by the present rate of wages in the Skoda factory. I believe that Skoda manages its body plant in the Czech republic and its engine plant in Slovakia—and that is just one of its problems.
      Another problem is that for performing a 42-hour week a qualified Skoda worker earns about £120 a month For somone earning that amount, what a temptation it must be to hear on one's television set that one could do the same work in Germany, probably much more easily and with more modern machinery and other equipment, and earn many times more. Of course, Volkswagen does not have plants only in Germany. It has plants in Spain where wages are considerably lower. The free movement of people will enable workers to go from the Spanish car plants to the German car plants where they can earn a great deal more. What is wrong with that? At a time of mass unemployment, the local people in Germany will not tolerate that.
      We can pass laws here thinking that we shall somehow control the mass migration of tens of millions of people. We shall find out that we are no cleverer than our forefathers were. We are selling our birthright for a mess of pottage and for future troubles which are difficult to describe.
      Mr. Shore: The contributions by Front-Bench speakers have not entirely allayed the anxieties about article 100c. The argument boils down to this. The Government say that there is a double lock on the door before responsibility for immigration policy, for asylum policy and for all
      1126
      associated questions is moved from the national Parliaments and Governments to the institutions of the European Community.
      It is said that two locks stand in the way. The first is the trigger of the unanimity vote, which we have identified already in article K. The second is the further agreement within the ambit of article 100c to devise the rules for the future control of immigration and of asylum policy.
      The Home Secretary, who unfortunately is not here, said that there was not a snowball's chance in hell of any Home Secretary or Minister agreeing to give up the fundamental and important rights that now belong to the British Government and the British Parliament.
      I am not impressed by that reassurance. It is simply an assurance by a Minister that he will not give up those powers. In the whole history of the EC, we see the progressive surrender of the powers of national Governments to the EC, for one reason or another. I assure the House that we shall not have long to wait before 1996 brings the Commission, the Europeans and all the enthusiasts banging on the door and kicking down the pillars that have been established under articles K and J which separate, for the time being, these major areas of policy from the normal procedures of the treaty of Rome and the European legislative process, including the Court of Justice.
      I am not impressed and I point to the dangers. If there had been real concern that we should not face those dangers in the future, the connections between articles 100c and K would never have been made. The Home Secretary and the British Government, if they had been determined to safeguard our rights in this area, would never have conceded that these matters should have been brought into article K of the Maastricht treaty.
      I now focus on a matter that has not been discussed in the Committee today. There is not just one movement of people coming from third countries—about which I shall say a good deal later, because there is the danger of all that being brought under a new regime and new controls; there is a different movement within Europe itself. If we are concerned about fortress Europe with regard to the rest of the world, what do we make of the total freedom of movement of 300 million Europeans within the fortress?
      Under the treaty we are saying, "You are free to come in any time. Bring your families with you. There is no constraint on the movement of people provided that you are European nationals. Provided that you are a national of one of the 12 European states, you can come in and enjoy the great privilege and advantage of going out if you wish to do so." The treaty of Rome did not give anything like that freedom. I shall remind hon. Members of the provisions in articles 48 and 49 of that treaty, but I will not go into detail:
      "Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community … Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality … It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health: (a) to accept offers of employment actually made;"
      That is a reasonable provision.
      If there are job shortages in a Community country and a shortage of labour services in another part of the Community, it makes sense to allow people to come and take those jobs. Indeed, if there is a shortage of specific skills, countries may wish to bring in people with those valued skills. That makes good sense. The freedom of movement is related to jobs.

      1127
      A sensible immigration policy, for us at any rate, is based on three major considerations: first, to allow people in to deal with identified labour shortages. In the 1950s and 1960s, many people came to Britain from Commonwealth countries and from the colonies, as they were at that time, to deal with identified labour shortages. Secondly, we have a right, a duty and a great tradition of keeping our doors open for people who need asylum. That should be maintained. The next source of a continuing immigration policy relates to the first one. It relates to the dependants, the people who have a family connection. Thirdly, there is the right of families to come together, to join their menfolk if they are the first to arrive in the United Kingdom. Those are the three clear principles that have activated all post-war immigration and asylum policies in Britain.
      We are now covered by the Single European Act, which says that we will have a Europe without frontiers. Article 8a, which relates to citizens of the union, says:
      "Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move freely and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect."
      I do not know what those limitations and conditions are and I would certainly like a response from the Government about them.
      Article 8f provides that, because we have all become citizens of the union, we have the right not merely to look for work in other member states but to reside in those states, regardless of almost every other consideration. The right of citizens to reside is an important and fundamental shift and change. A nation and a state is defined by its right to decide who shall come to its land, who shall dwell there and under what conditions. As has been rightly said, there are differences between hon. Members in each political party and on both sides of the House about how generous or restrictive we are in allowing people to enter Britain.
      It is a power of the British state to make such decisions. As long as we are a state, we must retain that power. We cannot possibly accept the transfer of that power to the European Community.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is developing an important, interesting and fundamental point. He has talked about the right of a nation. I shall bring the matter down to the local government level. I shall deal with some of the fundamental issues that might result from the treaty and the opportunity for people to be able to move freely to any country in the Community. Where would the opportunity for people to move freely put local authorities with regard to their function in allocating housing in a local government area? Would a citizen of an EC country merit equal treatment in the allocation of points, or in whatever system a local authority used to allocate its housing fairly?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Shore: I do not know the answer to that. I should like to know what restrictions are placed on people exercising their right of free entry to Britain. Will they have that right regardless of whether they would be a burden on the state? Would the same requirement be placed on them as on so many of our constituents when they seek to bring their relatives into Britain—that they should have
      1128
      adequate accommodation? Will all those requirements be dropped for European citizens? If so, we are erecting two entirely different frameworks of law and systems of entry control which clearly discriminate in favour of the citizens of the nation states of the European Community who are now to become citizens of the European union.
      Mr. Cash: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Dover there is already a channel through which people are expected to drive or walk which specifically states in bold letters that it is for European citizens, even before we have completed the proceedings on the Bill?
      Mr. Shore: It is disgraceful that officials in Dover should anticipate what the House of Commons will do.
      My amendment deals precisely with the needs of public security and law and order. Clearly, we cannot accept arrangements under which anyone has the right to enter Britain without proper checks and reside here. The major check, especially on people who bring drugs with them or are planning outrages or terrorist activities, is the check at the border of Britain. The only effective check at the border is the passport. I want some additional assurance from the Home Secretary about passports.
      The Home Secretary is well aware that it is the view of Mr. Bangemann, the Commissioner who deals with these matters, that we have a legal obligation enforceable in the European Court of Justice to allow European citizens to come into our country without showing their passport. That is the contention of Mr. Bangemann and the European Commission.
      The Home Secretary has tried to hold Mr. Bangemann at bay and has not allowed the matter to go to the European Court of Justice, although he could still do so. Shall we continue to inspect the passports of people from the European Community countries? If we accept the Commission fudge that all that people need to do is wave a piece of magnetic cardboard and say that they are citizens of the European Community, we shall reduce passport control to a farce.
      In any case, how can one tell without looking at the passport whether the person is a citizen of a European member state? As the Home Secretary knows, there are at least 8 million residents in Europe who are not citizens of European states. Will there be a differential between citizens and residents? How can the one be detected from the other without passport checks? I suggest that we are in grave danger of going much too far in our treatment of our fellow members of the European Community. By allowing European citizens to enter Britain with so little control, we are making tough and severe the discrimination between that category and other United Kingdom immigrants and their families as well as people resident in Europe who are not citizens of another European country.
      Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is fishing for me to intervene. First, his question about the free movement of European Community citizens arises, as he well knows, from article 8a of the treaty of Rome, as amended, and is not affected in any way by the Maastricht treaty or by the Bill. Commissioner Bangemann asserts that under article 8a we are obliged to abandon what the Community would call internal frontier controls, which means checks at our ports and airports into European movements, but that is not a position that has ever been accepted by the British Government. It remains our view that the obligations that we entered into under the Single European Act, which was

      1129
      approved by the House, commit us to free movement of persons within the Community as far as EC citizens are concerned. It is relevant to the Bill that there are certain rights of residence for EC citizens who choose to come here, but that does not mean that we have in any way abandoned our right to retain frontier controls on third country nationals who wish to come here.
      I have had discussions with Commissioner Bangemann on ways in which EC citizens can be distinguished from third country citizens so that we can just let them pass through and concentrate on the immigration controls on third country nationals which it is, in our opinion, our undoubted right to continue to exercise. But that is not remotely affected by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment rightly probes this area, but it is not necessary; it is not an amendment which has any consequential effect on this important problem.
      Mr. Shore: The Secretary of State has not said how one can distinguish those immigrants or those people moving across our frontiers who have no right to come in from those who are European Community citizens. How, without inspecting passports, can one category be distinguished from the other?
      Mr. Clarke: It is an administrative question whether we exercise sufficient control to identify EC nationals. For some time we have been loosening, so far as is practicable, controls on EC nationals crossing our frontiers and it is in our interest to do so. British people are as irritated by inconvenience in passing through frontiers as other EC nationals are. But we must ensure that our entry clearance officers have sufficient evidence of identification of EC nationals to be able to sift them out from the rest and to run the full immigration check on the rest.
      I have had some discussion with the Commission on whether production of documents will be sufficient. I will not agree to anything proposed by the Commission or by anyone else unless, having consulted my own immigration and nationality division, I am satisfied that those officials whose duty it is to exercise immigration control into this country believe that whatever is being shown is sufficient for the purpose.
      If one goes to Dover now, one will see coachloads of people going through. If the immigration officer has no reason to doubt that the coaches are full of British nationals or EC nationals, we do not insist that the officer holds everyone up for half an hour, clambering about the coach and opening everyone's passports. It is a question of common sense and practicality in each case.
      Mr. Shore: All that I can say to the Home Secretary is that I do not see how any passport control officer can have sufficient evidence unless he is able to look at the passport, see whose it is and pass on. We have all done this many times. It is not particularly hazardous or difficult.
      Mr. Bernie Grant: Surely the only way in which immigration officers can exercise some control at the ports of entry is by looking at the colour of a person and stopping all those who do not look white—stopping people like me—and asking them to produce a passport. That is the only way in which they can do it.
      Mr. Shore: That is a high-profile way to do it. It is very obvious and conspicious. How does the Home Secretary think that the millions of people who are not of European origin, living in the rest of the Community and in this
      1130
      country, will feel when they experience at first hand the operation of the procedures? How will they feel when one lot of people is simply let through and the other lot is stopped, interrogated and examined?
      The Home Secretary said in his intervention that the Maastricht treaty adds nothing to what is contained in the Single European Act or articles 48 and 49 of the Rome treaty. Are we really to understand that the resounding declaration in the article on citizenship of the union—
      "Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move freely and reside freely within the territory of the Member States"—
      does not mean anything and has not added anything? Are we to understand that it is all guff, wind, noise and words?
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall have to look up the quotation. The right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the citizenship provisions, which we shall debate in due course. New rights are given to European citizens, such as the right to vote in certain municipal and European elections and to stand as candidates. The other rights are to consular protection and so forth. I am content to discuss that.
      The free movement of persons is not affected by the Maastricht treaty and by the Bill, except to the extent that, as a sovereign Government subject to the rule of a sovereign Parliament, we choose to co-operate in some changes. No one will reduce the free movement within the Community which has already been agreed for EC nationals. The important issue that the right hon. Gentleman is debating is how far we have already committed ourselves to that free movement under article 8a of the treaty of Rome which, for some reason, is soon to be called article 7a. The obligations imposed by article 8a are not affected by the Bill or by the Maastricht treaty. He has raised an important matter, but it is completely outside the ambit of our discussions.
      Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling us that the basic rights of free movement and of residence were already conceded under the Single European Act. They certainly were not conceded under the treaty of Rome.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—as he, I and the Home Secretary were all here—that when debating the Single European Act we were not told that it could lead to the removal of internal frontiers? In fact, we were told exactly the reverse. Such things will now be decided by the European Court, not by the Home Secretary. If it decides that internal frontiers should go, there is nothing that the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman or Parliament can do about it.
      Mr. Shore: We shall need a searching examination of what the Government are committed to and what regulations and directives seek to implement clauses 48 and 49 of the Rome treaty and the relevant part of the Single European Act. It could be the case—I am not saying that it is, but I should like to know—that people can come into this country without any income. They might not be particularly attracted to this country, but some people might do that. They might have no intention of working here, be unable to look after themselves and thus become a burden on the state. Is that the case? I suspect that it is not, but I want to know. I want to know what we have entered into and what rights we have reserved.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: If the right hon. Gentleman's new-found concern about illegal immigrants—which comes as a big surprise to the rest of us—is so genuine, is he aware that the majority of them come here with valid papers and visas and overstay their welcome? Would he not support, at least in part, my view that we might deploy our immigration officers far more intelligently by sending them to the east end of London and to Leicester and Derby? That is how we will find the illegal immigrants and send them home.
      Mr. Shore: I do not think that the hon. Lady followed clearly my remarks or my concern. I am worried about the fact that two standards are being created and I am conscious of that fact because many of my constituents are conscious of it. All that I know is that when I try to help to bring together families in my constituency they first have to cross the hurdle of the primary purpose rule. Secondly, they have to show that they will not be a burden on the state. Thirdly, they have to show that they have adequate accommodation. The relatives who may be brought in are limited to a very narrow range of people
      1132
      and they may enter only in very special circumstances. There is no such constraint in the case of people moving from continental Europe into the United Kingdom. It seems to me that this is discrimination, which will be resented greatly by immigrant communities in this country.
      In addition, there are the approximately 8 million residents in continental Europe who are non-EC citizens. They will be stopped in the same way. They will not enjoy the free movement to which the Home Secretary referred. This is ridiculous. I am in favour of letting people come in to find jobs and of giving them reasonable rights, but I am not in favour of treating the rest of Europe as if its people were my fellow citizens.
      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.

      ADJOURNMENT
      Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
      Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, columns 853–54, what consultations he had with the United Nations prior to allowing the visas to be issued; and what opinion they gave as to whether these discussions contravened agreed sanctions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 19 January, 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 them that we were not therefore ready to put an application to the United Nations Sanctions Committee. There was therefore no need for discussions with the United Nations prior to granting visas.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, columns 853–54, what investigations he has made as to the military ranks or civil positions held by D. Jallo, M. Abdul Razak, B. Sabae, D. Yasin, A. Saad Gismail, M. Saddin, M. Abdul Sadar and C. Stefanou.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Seven of the eight applicants sponsored by GPT were described as engineers. The eighth was a merchant. All applications were fully investigated by relevant FCO departments and inquiries made of other Government Departments which have an interest.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the full text of his and his United States counterpart's letter to President Yeltsin on the Russian biological weapons research programme; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has been a series of exchanges over the last two years between the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) about the Russian biological weapons programme. These exchanges took place on a confidential basis. We have no plans to publish them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the sum paid out in legal aid in the six most expensive fraud cases in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Currently, interim payments cannot all be linked on the computer to the individual cases in which they are made. However, the position with regard to the most prominent fraud cases in recent times is as follows:

  Guinness trials

  Total costs have yet to be determined. Around £1·7 million has been paid to date in respect of the first and second trials.

  Barlow Clowes

  Total costs were £5·3 million.

  Blue Arrow

  Not all claims have been determined. £9·7 million has been paid out to date.

  Britannia Park

  Total cost yet to be determined.

  Marconi Defence

  Total cost yet to be determined.

  The above costs include payments made from central funds in addition to payments from the legal aid fund.

  Housing Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many actions for possession for 1992 were initiated by(a) building societies, (b) banks and (c) other lenders in each county court area.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in this form. The only available breakdown of possession actions taken by county court is between those taken by local authorities and those initiated by private lenders. The latter includes banks, building societies and other private lenders.

  Trial Delays
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current delay for trials in the commercial court, other courts of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, civil and criminal divisions, and as regards the latter, distinguishing between cases involving custody and non-custodial cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For longer cases the current waiting time in the commercial court is 10 to 11 months though urgent cases may be expedited. Shorter cases can be listed for hearing within three months. Cases are generally fixtures and a date for hearing is supplied to the parties, taking account of the time they need to prepare.

  In the Queens Bench Division waiting times vary between one month for warned list cases and 13 months for fixtures likely to last over two months.

  In the Family Division the average waiting time for cases likely to last between a half day and one day is six weeks in the High Court list. Cases of five days or more in duration can be heard within 20 weeks.

  In the Chancery Division the waiting times vary between eight months for cases under three days in duration and 23 months for long cases in the part I list.

  In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) the average waiting time between set down and disposal is 7·7 months.

  703
  At present there are no figures available to show the time between receipt of a case within the Criminal Appeal Office and final disposal in that court. However, from receipt in the list office to final disposal, the approximate waiting times for appellants in custody were, at the end of December 1992, 4·3 months for appeals against conviction and 2·3 months for appeals against sentence. For those not in custody, the waiting times were 6·6 months and 3·9 months respectively.

  In the crown office the waiting times are available only from the date of entry into the warned list to the date of hearing. They are, for the divisional court list 8·3 months, for the single judge list 16·5 months and for the planning court list 9·3 months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rail Services
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards implementation of the recommendation contained in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of December 1990 on rail services in Northern Ireland provided by Northern Ireland Railways Limited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The initial response, announced to the House on 3 July 1991, indicated that there had been a positive reaction to the Commission's recommendations and that none of them had been rejected. The follow-up response, which I have today placed in the Library of the House, confirms that 22 of the 34 recommendations have already been implemented and that the remaining 12 are in the process of implementation. The response was produced in consultation with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and Northern Ireland Railways.

  There have been several important developments since the initial response. Northern Ireland Railways appointed a new managing director in August 1992. A total of 22 salaried posts have now been abolished. To fulfil the commitment in the Northern Ireland citizens charter, the Government have commissioned a study into the scope for introducing a private element into the management and operation of Northern Ireland Railways. Substantial progress has been made by management and the trade unions as regards industrial relations. Northern Ireland Railways published a more challenging passengers charter in November 1992. Together, these, and the other matters dealt with in the response, should result in a significant improvement of services to the public and the management of the company.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will continue in dialogue with the Transport Holding Company and Northern Ireland Railways about the implementation of the recommendations and I shall report on progress to the House in due course.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will establish a review of the procedures for ensuring that the Crown prosecution service handles race attack cases without racial prejudice.

  The Solicitor-General
  In all its actions the Crown prosecution service is committed to avoiding discrimination on the ground of race. A system is currently being established to monitor the implementation of its policy guidance on racial attack cases.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases involving allegations of criminal offences have been considered in each of the past three years by the Crown prosecution service; and how many of these resulted in prosecutions being brought.

  The Solicitor-General
  Statistics at present available relate to cases handled in the 31 areas of the service but do not include the numbers of cases of specialist work undertaken at Crown prosecution service headquarters. The table sets out in respect of each of the past three years the number of cases received (column 1), the number of cases which were proceeded with (column 2), and the number of cases not proceeded with (column 3). The figures for 1992 are for the first nine months only.

  Column 1 Case received

  Column 2 proceeded with

  Column 3 Not proceeded with

  1990

  1,638,751

  1,298,158

  301,048

  1991

  1,575,021

  1,241,434

  351,090

  1992

  1,193,294

  895,582

  285,181

  The number of cases received in a particular period does not equal the number of cases finalised in that period (column 2 and 3) because incomplete cases are carried forward from period to period. The term "not proceeded with" includes cases discontinued, cases in which no evidence was offered, cases adjourned sine die and those not concluded because the defendant could not be traced. The figures also include cases submitted for advice only and some non-criminal proceedings (eg forfeiture under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959).

  Mr. Bashir Uddin
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what examination he has made of the accuracy of the statements concerning witnesses in the case made by the Crown prosecution service to lawyers representing Mr. Bashir Uddin in connection with a case heard at Inner London crown court in mid-January.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has received a full report on the case concerning Mr. Bashir Uddin and a letter explaining statements made by the Crown prosecution service concerning witnesses has been sent to his solicitors. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.

  Miss Lindi St. Clair
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration is being given to the prosecution of Miss Lindi St. Clair for wasting police time.

  The Solicitor-General
  I understand that the Sussex police are conducting an investigation into certain matters relating to Miss Lindi St. Clair. The question of prosecution will be considered at the conclusion of that investigation. At this stage I cannot predict whether any prosecution will be initiated.

  UDR Four
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the date of the Appeal Court hearing in Northern Ireland at which three of the UDR Four were released; what were the recommendations of the court about prosecutions of persons involved in the case; and what action is being taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

  The Attorney-General
  The Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland delivered its judgment in the appeal of Rv. Neil Fraser Latimer, James Irwin Hegan, Noel Richmond Bell and Alfred Winston Allen on 29 July 1992.

  The court made no recommendations in respect of prosecutions. The court directed that its judgment be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland so that he may consider the bringing of prosecutions against officers who he considers committed criminal offences in connection with the trial of the appellants.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland issued an interim direction on 5 August 1992 to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary requesting that certain reports and information be obtained. When these matters have been received and considered the director will take decisions as to whether or not to institute proceedings. I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 11 November 1992 at columns 835–36.

TRANSPORT

  Passenger Rolling Stock
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the provision of passenger rolling stock after the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The private sector must ultimately take the lead in providing rolling stock. Using its financing and management skills is the best way to ensure the right rolling stock is available at the right time for the best possible price.

  The Government recognise that there may be some uncertainty in the market until the railway is established in the private sector. In a consultation document "Railway Privatisation: Passenger Rolling Stock" published today, we indicate that we are considering a number of measures which will help to get a rolling stock market up and running. There must be no hiatus in railway investment during the transition to a franchised railway.

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to decide a timetable for proposals for an M1-M62 link road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The results of the public consultation for this complex scheme are being assessed. An announcement about the scheme will be made after the completion of the assessment.

  Community Transport
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budgets were available, for each passenger transport authority, for community transport provision in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Passenger Transport Executives. The PTE's three-year plans indicate that 1991–92 expenditure was:

  £ million

  Greater Manchester

  2.900

  Merseyside

  0.676

  South Yorkshire

  1.300

  Tyne and Wear

  1.460

  West Midlands

  1.782

  West Yorkshire

  0.764

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of direct grant funding for community transport is provided, by region, in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for local authorities. Separated details are not available.

  Roads, Manchester
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy that public consultation on the three separate stages of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road will be undertaken together.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Public consultation on stage 2 of the relief road (M56-M62) is underway. It is hoped to follow with consultation on route options for stage 3 (M62 Eccles to Whitefield) in late spring.

  Consultation on stage 1 (M6-M56) took place during 1989. Statutory orders for this section have now been published.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the period of public consultation on the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road (M56-M62 link) so as to allow consultation with residents of Irlam and Cadishead.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider all comments made—including those received after the close of consultation—before deciding whether to proceed with a scheme.

  M3 Extension
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate at current prices the total amount of separately identifiable expenditure by Her
  707
  Majesty's Government over the last 25 years relating to all aspects of the proposed M3 extension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is not readily available for the period prior to the financial year 1981–82. The total amount of expenditure since that date to end December 1992 on all aspects of the proposed M3 extension between Bar End and Compton at current prices is as follows:

  £ million

  Design and supervision

  10·6

  Works

  6·2

  Land

  0·3

  Total

  17·1

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding the status and use in other European Community and European Economic Area nations of the oil dispersants(a) Dispolene 34S, (b) Dasic Slickgone LTSW and (c) BP Enersperse 1037; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not hold information on the status of particular dispersants in other countries. During the Braer incident it was established that Dispolene 34S was approved for use in Norway but, as in the United Kingdom, this dispersant expired from the list of approved products in September 1990 when it was re-submitted for testing by the manufacturer who had changed the proportions of the constituents and designated its dispersant Dispolene 36S—which is currently approved. It has not been necessary to withdraw previously approved stocks, which still meet current standards. The contracting parties to the Bonn agreement—United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Belgium,

  From

  'L' test

  Motorcycle test

  Vocational tests

  (£)

  Accompanied (£)

  Part I (£)

  Lorry (£)

  Bus (£)

  1 March 1982

  13·00

  —

  12·60

  159·50

  236·00

  12 December 1983

  14·40

  —

  15·60 + VAT

  365·00

  36·00

  1 July 1986

  14·40

  —

  15·60 + VAT

  40·00

  27 April 1987

  15·00

  —

  15·60 + VAT

  40·00

  27 June 1988

  16·50

  —

  15·60 + VAT

  42·00

  5 June 1989

  18·00

  424·00

  15·60 + VAT

  42·00

  18 June 1990

  19·50

  26·00

  15·60 + VAT

  45·00

  3 June 1991

  21·50

  28·50

  15·60 + VAT

  48·00

  14 August 1992

  23·50

  34·00

  5—

  55·50

  1 This fee came into effect on 27 September 1982.

  2 This fee came into effect on 1 September 1982.

  3 This fee came into effect on 12 March 1984;

  4 The accompanied motorcycle test was introduced on 2 October 1989· Prior to that the fee for the part II motorcycle test was the same as for the 'L' test.

  5 The part I motorcycle test was phased out after the introduction of compulsory basic training in December 1990 with a six month overlap period ending on 31 May 1991.

  Shipping
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he makes of the risk to the shore and to marine life in the North sea of cargoes carried
  708
  Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and the EEC—share a common approach for the selection and approval of the particular dispersants which may be used. They have also agreed in principle on a mutual acceptance of individually approved dispersants in the case of an emergency.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the amount of oil spilled off the Kent coast in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  There were no major oil pollution incidents off the Kent coast during the last six months. Motor tanker Perfecto spilled some 200 gallons of gasoil during an incident at Shellhaven on 20 July 1992, and the fishing vessel Our Sarah Jane spilled 600 gallons of diesel at Whitstable on 18 July 1992. Both these incidents were dealt with by the appropriate port authorities who also investigated them with a view to prosecution. The marine pollution control unit monitored these and 21 reports of possible minor pollution by ships in the United Kingdom waters off the Kent coast. The majority concerned the sighting of oil-like sheens in the wakes of suspect ships and almost all were reported by other vessels or aircraft. It is impossible to quantify reliably the small amounts of oil discharged in the wakes of ships. As a result of MPCU action, four vessels were given port state control inspections at their next ports of call and two, bound for remote parts of the world, were put on the European register for inspection should they return to north European waters.

  Driving Test Costs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of a driving test in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The cost for each type of driving test over the last ten years is given in the following table:

  by ships lost by accident; what steps he is taking to implement regulations to reduce the risks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: The risk to the shore and marine life resulting from the loss of ships' cargoes is taken into account when developing international regulations for the design of ships and their

  709
  equipment and national procedures for dealing with pollution incidents. International convention requirements are implemented in the United Kingdom through merchant shipping legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offences Against Business
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total value of(a) business frauds, (b) cheque, credit and cash card frauds, (c) thefts from companies, (d) thefts from employees, (e) offences of shoplifting and (f) offences of vandalism against business in the most recent year for which information is available and for each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The only available Home Office statistics on value are for certain types of theft offences, as recorded by the police. Figures for 1981–1990 have been published annually in chapter 2 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—copies of which are available in the Library. For 1991, the total value of property stolen in offences of theft by an employee was £29,848,000. The corresponding figure for offences of theft from shops was £20,902,000.

  The Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) estimates credit card, cheque and cash card fraud losses by major retail banks at over £165 million in 1991. Corresponding figures for 1988–90 were published in crime prevention unit paper 26 entitled "The Prevention of Cheque and Credit Card Fraud" (also available in the Library). In addition, we have not received detailed accounts of losses to building societies, to finance houses who manage storecards, from fraudulent purchase of goods by phone, and from unguaranteed cheques in excess of the guarantee limit.

  However, the British Retail Consortium has estimated that internal and external crime costs the retail industry in the region of £2.5 billion each year.

  Safer Cities Projects
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the budget of the safer cities programme at a constant price basis for each year since its inception, together with a forecast for 1993–94.

  Mr. Jack
  The expenditure on the safer cities programme for each year since it began in 1988 is as follows:

  Cash £

  1993–94 prices £

  1988–89

  211,000

  278,000

  1989–90

  3,295,000

  4,074,000

  1990–91

  6,349,000

  7,270,000

  1991–92

  7,217,000

  7,730,000

  1992–93

  17,358,000

  7,560,000

  1993–94

  25,785,000

  5,785,000

  1 estimated.

  2 planned.

  In 1993–94 expenditure is reduced while existing projects are winding down. It is expected to rise in later years as new projects come on stream.
  710
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation has been made of the current safer cities projects; what external consultants are involved in this process; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Jack
  Evaluation is being carried out at three levels: of individual crime prevention schemes, of each project and of the programme as a whole. Project co-ordinators monitor the individual schemes promoted by their projects and assess effectiveness as work progresses. Thematic reviews drawing on this information are planned, the first of which, on the use of closed circuit television in car parks, is to be published shortly and will be placed in the Library. At project level, a study of the progress of projects in promoting local community safety strategies was published in December 1992 ("Safer Cities and Community Safety Strategies", crime prevention unit paper No. 38), a copy of which is in the Library. For the programme as a whole, an evaluation by the Home Office research and statistics department is in progress, focusing primarily on the impact of safer cities on crime rates and the fear of crime.

  The report "Safer Cities and Community Safety Strategies" was written by Mr. Nicholas Tilley of Nottingham Polytechnic. Professor K. Pease (Manchester university), Professor Murray Stewart (Bristol university) act as external academic consultants to the programme level evaluation. Dr. R. Wiggins (City university) provides advice on data analysis.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the current safer cities projects, indicating when they commenced and their planned completion dates.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is as follows:

  Safer Cities Programme

  Project

  Date established

  Date of planned completion of HO funding1

  Birmingham

  August 1989

  March 1994

  Bradford

  November 1988

  March 1994

  Bristol

  January 1990

  March 1994

  Coventry

  October 1989

  March 1994

  Derby

  October 1991

  September 1995

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  December 1991

  September 1995

  Hartlepool

  September 1989

  March 1994

  Hull

  October 1989

  March 1994

  Islington

  January 1990

  March 1994

  Leicester

  October 1991

  September 1995

  Lewisham

  July 1989

  March 1994

  Middlesbrough

  October 1991

  September 1995

  Nottingham

  April 1989

  March 1994

  Rochdale

  August 1989

  March 1994

  Salford

  February 1990

  March 1994

  Sunderland

  August 1989

  March 1994

  Tower Hamlets

  December 1989

  March 1994

  Wandsworth

  January 1990

  March 1994

  Wirral

  September 1989

  March 1994

  Wolverhampton

  February 1989

  March 1994

  1 This is the date by which, on present planning, Home Office funding is due to cease. Projects may continue beyond this date if other resources can be secured locally to support them.

  Metropolitan Police Overtime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated expenditure on overtime for the Metropolitan police for 1992–93.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A total of £71.2 million.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the costs incurred by prison establishments and prison headquarters in mounting the exercise "competing for quality" in connection with competitive tendering in prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The need for competitive tendering for the future provision of education services in prison establishments is consequent upon the changes in the responsibilities of local education authorities under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The exercise is also wholly consistent with the Government's policy on competition.

  Information on the staffing and other costs that have been incurred in establishments is not held centrally. In establishments and at prison service headquarters for the most part existing resources have been re-deployed to undertake the exercise. The current estimate of those additional costs which can be identified is £96,000. This comprises consultancy costs, legal costs, staff and travel and subsistence costs, the hire of accommodation, photocopying and postage.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision was made for prison education in 1992–93; what are the forecast costs for 1993–94; which vote will bear the costs of the 1993–94 provision; and what forecast he has made of the change in the number of hours of education provided in 1993–94 over 1992–93.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provision for prison education in England and Wales is as shown:

  Budget 1992–93 £ million

  Provisional budget 1993–94 £ million

  33·3

  35·5

  The 1993–94 costs will be borne on the prisons, England and Wales vote, class VIII, vote 2. The provisional budget for 1993–94 is based on maintaining the existing volume of education provision.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which organisations will be contracted to provide education in prisons between 1 April and 30 September;

  (2) which organisations will be contracted to provide education in Her Majesty's prison Maidstone between 1 April and 30 September; for how many prisoners classes will be provided; and what will be the average number of hours education per prisoner per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not yet available. Existing providers of education in prison establishments 712
  have been asked to let the prison service know by 29 January whether or not they are willing to continue with present arrangements until 31 August 1993.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a tribunal system for mandatory life sentence prisoners along the lines of the tribunals for discretionary life sentence prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans at present to introduce a tribunal system for mandatory life sentence prisoners.

  Drug Misuse Services
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if partnership arrangements between the probation service and community services will apply to all drug services(a) generally or (b) where a health service-managed drug misuse service is the only local specialist provision.

  Mr. Jack
  We envisage that each probation service will be responsible for developing plans with the voluntary and private sector to ensure that there is a wide and effective range of schemes in the area for dealing with offenders in the community, and funding them accordingly. Guidance on the implementation of these partnership arrangements is still be prepared in consultation with the relevant representative bodies. It is not the intention that statutory services should be funded by these arrangements. Voluntary and private sector schemes directed at the needs of drug misusing offenders will however be within their scope.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to fund probation orders with conditions of residence for drug misusers from 1 April.

  Mr. Jack
  A probation order may include a requirement to receive treatment for drug or alcohol misuse only if the court is satisfied that arrangements have been made for such treatment to be given. A wide variety of possible treatments may be covered by such a requirement, with funding from different sources. Where treatment is to be provided under community care arrangements, which come into effect on 1 April 1993, the probation service will need to liaise with the appropriate local authority over the provision of resources to meet the offender's social care costs. Alcohol and drug misusers who are receiving treatment prior to 1 April and are eligible for income support will generally have preserved rights after 1 April to their existing level of benefit.

  When an additional requirement of a probation order is that an offender should reside at an approved probation hostel, a weekly charge for the accommodation will be payable by the person concerned, for which benefits may be available in the usual way.

  Prisoner Escorts
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions to guarantee security he requires when he invites tenders from private contractors to contract for work escorting prisoners being transported; and if he will make a statement.
  713
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A copy of the operational specification for the court escort service in the east midlands and Humberside area has been placed in the Library of the House. It outlines general principles which cover all aspects of running a secure service. Once appointed, a contractor is obliged to submit his detailed operating procedures for approval by the Home Office. The standards required of contractors are no less than those applicable to the escorting of prisoners by police and prison officers. In addition, the extensive use of custom built cellular vehicles will give an improved level of security.

  Yugoslav Entrants
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people from the former Yugoslavia seeking to enter the United Kingdom as dependent relatives have been refused entry since January 1992; how many have lodged appeals against such refusal; what representations he has received concerning policy matters affecting the definition of dependency; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recommendations he has made regarding policy in defining dependency with particular regard to those from the former Yugoslavia seeking to obtain visas to join relatives in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many dependent relatives originating from the former Yugoslavia have been permitted to enter or join other relatives in the United Kingdom since January 1992; how he defines the categories of dependents permitted to enter the United Kingdom, within or outside the immigration rules, to join relatives in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: In the period 1 January to 30 November 1992 a total of 1,160 dependants accompanied principal asylum applicants from the former Yugoslavia who applied at the ports, and about 400 dependants were associated with applicants who were already in the United Kingdom at the time of their applications. Except for cases refused on safe third-country grounds, all these principal applicants and dependants are being allowed to stay while their applications are considered.

  There is no entitlement under the immigration rules for a person to come to the United Kingdom, whether from former Yugoslavia or elsewhere, as the dependent relative of a person who is here as a visitor or as any asylum applicant. Dependent relatives are not normally permitted to join an asylum applicant until either he or she has been recognised as a refugee under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees or has completed a period of four years' residence in the United Kingdom with exceptional leave to remain.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has, however, decided that close dependants of the 1,000 former detainees will be allowed to join them for the duration of their stay. Generally, close dependants are regarded as the spouse and children under 18. However, in respect of the former detainees we are also prepared to consider applications for visas from fully dependent and unmarried daughters over 18 and under 21; from elderly or sick parents; and from other relatives living in the most exceptional compelling compassionate circumstances.
  714
  The available information on other dependants of asylum applicants is that since the introduction of the visa requirement for nationals of certain parts of the former Yugoslavia on 6 November 1992 about 20 people from the former Yugoslavia have been granted entry clearance to join relatives in asylum-related cases.

  In addition, under the arrangements I announced to the House on 30 November 1992, 130 close dependants of former detainees have so far been granted clearance to come to the United Kingdom. Sixty-five applications by more distant relatives have been refused.

  Applications from other people from the former Yugoslavia for a visa to join a relative in the United Kingdom will be decided in accordance with the immigration rules.

  Available information on other people from the former Yugoslavia admitted to the United Kingdom as spouses or dependants is given in the following table. Information on refusals and appeals is not identifiable separately in the statistics.

  Persons1 from the former Yugoslavia admitted2
  to the United Kingdom as spouses and dependants
  in non-asylum related cases by certain3 categories January to July4 1992

  Numbers

  Spouses admitted for probationary year prior to settlement

  Wives

  20

  Husbands

  15

  Children

  5

  Fiancé(e)s

  15

  Elderly relatives

  —

  Dependants accompanying work permit holders

  70

  Dependants accompanying students

  25

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5.

  2 Including also those accepted for settlement on arrival.

  3 Information for other categories is not separately identifiable.

  4 Information since July 1992 is not yet available.

  Squatting
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secreatry of State for the Home Department (1) what steps have been taken to reduce squatting by increasing housing provision;

  (2) what consideration has been given to providing alternative accommodation for squatters if squatting is criminalised;

  (3) what study he has made of the measures taken by local authorities to secure homes and otherwise deter squatting through damaging their properties.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  We do not accept that there are valid arguments in favour of squatting; it is wrong that legitimate occupants should be deprived of the use of their property by squatters. If squatters meet the criteria of priority need under the homelessness legislation, they will be entitled to be found accommodation by the local authority in the same way as any other homeless applicant. There are no plans to change this. No study has been made of measures taken by local authorities to discourage squatters.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will visit the Stanley wholesale meat market, Prescot road, Liverpool, in order to discuss the impact of EC food hygiene legislation.

  Mr. Soames
  No. The Department is currently considering an application from the Stanley wholesale market for a licence under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 and I shall write to the hon. Member about it.

  CAP Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how CAP prices are affected by a realignment of currencies in the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the previous agrimonetary system, large monetary gaps between green rates and market exchange rates could build up in the period between two realignments within the exchange rate mechanism and these were automatically eliminated by green rate devaluations over a period of up to four years. Under the new agrimonetary arrangements which came into force on 1 January, green rates are kept broadly in line with market rates, so monetary gaps are limited in size. Any gaps that are created by an ERM realignment will be reduced according to the rules of the new system: these are different for currencies within the narrow-band of the ERM and for other currencies but in both cases are designed to prevent the retention of monetary gaps in excess of two percentage points. The resulting green rate devaluations will increase CAP support prices.

  Salmon
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many salmon were caught in England, Scotland and Wales during the season 1991 and the season 1992, by(a) rod and line, (b) commercial nets and (c) north-east coast drift net fishing.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of reported salmon catches in 1991 are given in the table. Comparable data for 1992 are not yet available.

  Reported Catches of Salmon in England, Scotland and Wales in 1991 by Method of Capture

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Rod and line

  9,452

  45,136

  4,522

  Commercial nets1

  34,631

  20,057

  3,044

  (of which N.E. coast drift nets)

  (22.463)

  Total

  44,083

  65,193

  7,566

  1 Includes reported catches of salmon by all methods other than by rod and line.

  Common Agricultural Policy Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the fall in the rate of exchange since the pound sterling left the European monetary system has had on common agricultural policy 716
  prices in terms of the pound sterling; and if he will publish a table showing for each CAP commodity the sterling price (i) immediately prior to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EMS and (ii) currently.

  Mr. Curry
  The devaluations of the green pound since the pound sterling left the exchange rate mechanism have increased CAP support prices by 18 per cent. The information requested on the sterling prices of CAP commodities is given in the table:

  to 16 September 1992

  from 1 January 1993

  Common Wheat (buying-in price per tonne)

  122·24

  1148·54

  Feed Wheat/Barley (buying in price per tonne)

  116·14

  1141·34

  Beef (intervention price per 100 kg)

  272·83

  322·09

  Beef Special Premium Scheme (per head)

  31·82

  256·34

  Butter (intervention price per 100kg)

  232·88

  274·94

  Target price for milk (pence per litre)

  21·96

  25·93

  Sheep Basic Price3 (per 100 kg)

  336·42

  4392·97

  White Sugar Intervention Price (per tonne)

  431·28

  509·15

  Basic Sugar Beet Price (per tonne)

  31·82

  37·56

  'A' Quota Minimum Sugar Beet Price (per tonne)

  32·43

  38·29

  'B' Quota Minimum Sugar Beet Price (per tonne)

  20·50

  24·20

  1These buying-in prices reflect monthly variations as well as green rate changes.

  2The increase in the Beef Special Premium reflects an increase in the amount of the premium in ECU as well as the changes in the green rate.

  3The final rate of annual ewe premium payable for 1992, calculated according to the basic price in effect on 3 January 1993, will be decided on in March. The basic price for 1–3 January 1993 was £397.17 per 100/kg.

  4Price wef 4 January 1993.

  Scottish Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give details of the methodology used to determine how much of the £25 million decommissioning package announced for the United Kingdom fishing fleet is to be allocated to the Scottish fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of how the £11.25 million of the decommissioning package allocated to the Scottish fleet is to be divided between sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish the basis of the calculations on which the proportion of the £25 million decommissioning fund to be allocated was decided as between English and Scottish allocations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how the proportion of his decommissioning package allocated to the English fleet is to be divided (a) between sectors and (b) between ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government will shortly be laying a statutory instrument before Parliament setting out the rules for the decommissioning scheme. It is proposed that,
  717
  in order to secure the best value for money, vessel owners should be invited to submit tenders, and funds will be allocated accordingly irrespective of port of registration. It follows that there will be no sub-division of the funds on a territorial basis.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average farm income in each of the last three years in England and Wales.

  Mr. Curry
  There are a number of measures of farm incomes which are published on a regular basis in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom". "Net farm income" is the measure for which there is the longest series. This is a measure which represents the returns to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial input and a return on tenant type capital. It is not comparable with the cash income from employment. The following table shows estimates of the average level of net farm income for all farm types derived from survey results. It should be borne in mind that there is considerable variation around these averages.

  Average Net farm income for all farm types

  £'000

  England

  Wales

  1989–90

  17·2

  12·3

  1990–91

  16·3

  10·5

  1991–92

  17·3

  14·0

  Milk Quota Transfers
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set a final date for the notification of milk quota transfers in England and Wales in 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  Following consultations with the industry and in exercise of powers provided by the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations I have decided that transfers of unused milk quota notified after 16 April will have no effect on the calculation of supplementary levy liability for 1992–93, even if they are notified as having occurred during that year.

  Similar deadlines have operated for the past four years. These have encouraged producers to notify quota transfers in good time and have thus assisted in the smooth running of the quota system.

HEALTH

  National Health Service Staff
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of national health service staff in London are women.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available centrally is given in the table.
  718

  National Health Service directly employed staff in Thames Regions as at 30 September 1991

  Total number

  Female number

  Female per cent.

  Professional staff

  186,866

  151,582

  81.1

  Whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents

  Non-professional staff

  76,394

  49,825

  65.2

  Notes:

  1. Excludes agency staff and locums.

  2. Includes National Health Service trusts.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of maternal deaths following abortion since 1968, together with the causes of death.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the period 1968 to 1987 a total of 98 maternal deaths related to legal abortion were recorded in England and Wales by the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths. Of these, 27 were due to embolism, 12 were due to haemorrhage and related conditions, 14 were associated with the use of anaesthetic, and the remaining 45 were attributed to various other causes. Full details are given in the reports of the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease for 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available data are of new cases of pelvic infection and epididymitis reported by genitourinary medicine clinics. In England in 1990–91 there were 5,700 cases. Data for 1987 and earlier years are not available.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been de-registered by their dentists for NHS treatment in Leeds to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  During the period 3 July 1992 to 15 January 1993, 2,484 adult patients and 59 child patients were deregistered by their dentist in Leeds. In the period 30 June 1992 to 30 November 1992, the total number of adults and children registered with a national health service dentist in Leeds increased by over 12,000 to 451,268. Anyone who needs help in obtaining NHS dental treatment should contact Leeds family health services authority, who have been able to arrange NHS dental treatment for anyone who has approached them.

  Remand Prisoners (Escorts)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost to the health service in the latest year for which information is available of hiring police or other security personnel to escort remand prisoners from hospital to court;
  719
  (2) on how many occasions in the latest year for which information is available remand prisoners were escorted from hospital to court by nurses without any police presence.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Drug Addicts
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population were notified drug addicts in(a) Riverside, (b) Parkside, (c) Bloomsbury, (d) Islington, (e) City and Hackney, (f) Newham, (g)

  Number of Notifications to the Home Office; England and selected District Health Authorities1, January to December 1991; and rate per million population

  District Health Authority

  All notifications

  Mid 1991 population

  Rate per million population

  Riverside

  621

  290,500

  2,138

  Parkside

  821

  432,600

  1,898

  Bloomsbury and Islington2

  862

  242,400

  3,556

  The City and Hackney

  358

  187,700

  1,907

  Newham

  36

  217,000

  166

  Tower Hamlets

  280

  165,000

  1,697

  West Lambeth

  542

  161,800

  3,350

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  273

  327,900

  833

  England

  18,827

  48,068,400

  392

  Source: Addicts Index 1991

  Home Office

  Department of Health (SD2C)

  1 Note that an addict included under a particular district may not actually live there as the district quoted refers to the address of the notifying doctor.

  2 Bloomsbury and Islington merged in September 1990.

  Nursery and Child Care
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the impact of the Children Act 1989 on private sector nursery and child care provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 11 January at columns 604–05. In 1992 we replied to over 300 representations from hon. Members about the impact of the Children Act on private and voluntary providers of day nurseries, playgroups, out of school clubs and holiday schemes and on childminders.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will list(a) which psychiatric hospitals and units have been sold since April 1990, (b) the value of the sales and (c) the purchasers of each hospital or unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  The management of the national health service estate and the disposal of surplus assets has been delegated to health authorities and trusts. The information requested is therefore not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obligation is laid on each newly-established NHS trust to establish an inventory of physical assets; and if she will make a statement.
  720
  Tower Hamlets, (h) West Lambeth, (i) Lewisham and North Southwark and (j) England at the latest available date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table shows the number of notifications received to the addicts index by the Home Office from doctors during 1991 (the latest year for which figures for district health authorities are available centrally), and the number expressed as a rate per million population.

  The addicts index includes only those drug addicts who are notifiable under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs (Notification and Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1973. This covers 14 controlled drugs, mainly opiates and cocaine, which are specified in the regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no specific obligation but trusts have to draw up inventories for two practical reasons, one as part of the system of transferring assets from a health authority to a national health service trust and the other for valuation purposes to facilitate the assessment of the trusts' originating capital debt.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the general practices which are fund holding in the Leeds area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management of the general practitioner fund holding scheme in Leeds is the responsibility of the Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Sir Bryan Askew, for details.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from hypothermia took place in each region in 1992 among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested will not be available before the end of April 1993.

  Hospital Deaths
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the procedure for the issuing of a death certificate to bereaved families in cases when the death occurs in hospital; and if she will make a statement.
  721
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The medical certificate of cause of death is issued by the doctor who attended the patient whilst in hospital or, if this is not possible, by Her Majesty's coroner. Departmental guidance suggests that hospitals should provide written local instructions, and appropriate training, to help staff advise bereaved families on such issues as collection of death and cremation certificates, registration of death and cases which require referral to the coroner.

  Joint Consultative Committees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been issued to joint consultative committees in respect of implementing community care policies;

  (2) what roles joint consultative committees will fulfil in the future operation of health and community care management;

  (3) what guidance has been issued governing the make up of the joint consultative committees in areas where opt out hospitals, purchasing authorities and health authorities co-exist;

  (4) what steps she plans to improve joint planning and joint working arrangements between local authorities and health care providers;

  (5) if joint consultative committees' rules and responsibility are uniform throughout England and Wales; and if she will make a statement;

  (6) what steps she proposes to avoid duplication of
  722
  function between health provider and local authority joint consultative committee arrangements and other management mechanisms for health and community care delivery.

  Mr. Yeo
  The community care reforms introduce new incentives and requirements for joint planning and working between health and local authorities both for purchasers and providers. Detailed guidance has been issued to authorities to enable them to develop their arrangements.

  The policy guidance issued in 1990, which followed up the White Paper "Caring for People", made it clear that authorities should find the framework for developing joint planning and joint working which best suited them. Joint consultative committees will continue to advise health authorities and local authorities on the planning and operation of services which are of common concern to both. Their functions include making recommendations for payments by health authorities in connection with community care and other projects promoted by local authorities and other bodies.

  The statutory provisions relating to joint consultative committees including their composition are set out in Sections 22 and 28A of the National Health Service Act 1977 and in the Joint Consultative Committees Order 1985 (SI 1985 No. 305) which have effect in England and Wales. Recent guidance concerning joint consultative committees and their functions has been issued in circulars HSG(92)43 and LAC(92)17. Copies of all these documents are available in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when officials from English Heritage last inspected Battersea power station.

  Mr. Brooke
  An inspection took place on 7 October. A further inspection is being arranged and is likely to take place next month.

  B Sky B
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he has anything to add to his oral answer of 7 December 1992 regarding the market share of B Sky B,Official Report, columns 584–85.

  Mr. Brooke
  No.

  Concessionary TV Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what recent representations have been received by his Department from local authorities and others regarding the concessionary television licence fee;

  (2) what representations have been received regarding the disparity of treatment for concessionary television licences for pensioners who moved into accommodation before and after May 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received 108 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, 12 from local authorities and 174 from members of the public about the concessionary television

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A painting, 'Landscape with Ruth and Boaz', by Joseph Anton Koch

  343,000.00

  Export licence granted

  An illustrated book of carbon prints, 'Foochow and the River Min', by John Thomson (1873)

  26,200.00

  Purchased by the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television

  A drawing, 'A bearded man seated at a table', by Baccio Bandinelli

  50,000.00

  Export licence granted

  An ormolu and ivory mounted bureau cabinet, with marquetry of kingwood, by Pietro Piffetti, c.1770

  899,980.00

  Export licence granted

  A drawing, 'A peasant family going to market', by Thomas Gainsborough (late 1760s-early 1770s)

  357,600.00

  Purchased by Gainsborough's House

  Three albums of photographs by Bourne, Shepherd and Robertson, c.1870

  32,407.50

  Export licence refused

  An English 13th Century gold and sapphire mounted clasp

  45,000.00

  Decision deferred until after 22 February 1993

  Details of the items on which decisions were deferred were given in press notices issued at the time the reviewing committee's recommendations were accepted.

  Windsor Castle (Fire)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what criteria Sir Alan Bailey has been appointed to head the inquiry into the fire at Windsor castle; what are his qualifications; and what will be the scale and basis of his remuneration and expenses.
  724
  licence scheme. Some of these will have raised the effect of the preserved rights provisions of the 1988 regulations but separate figures are not readily available.

  Cable Franchise (Stockport)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take steps to ensure the cable franchise for Stockport is proceeded with rapidly.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for monitoring and, if appropriate, enforcing compliance with the build obligations contained in a cable operator's licence issued under the Telecommunications Act 1984 is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the Reviewing Commitee on the Export of Works of Art during the half year ended 31 December 1992, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; whether he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit; and if a press notice will be issued by his Department covering the information given in his reply, including that relating to the outcome in individual cases.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: Sir Alan Bailey has been appointed to chair the inquiry into the adequacy of fire protection measures at all the royal palaces for which the Department of National Heritage has financial responsibility. His professional experience as a senior civil servant fits appropriately with the requirement for this inquiry, as others, to bring together, analyse, assess, and advise on, the variety of issues involved. In particular, Sir Alan, as Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport, was closely involved in

  725
  the response to the recommendations of the Fennell inquiry following the Kings Cross fire. Sir Alan will be paid on a daily fee basis of £398 plus expenses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Serjeant at Arms Residence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on the policy adopted towards the removal of panelling from the former residence of the Serjeant at Arms in Speakers Court as part of the conversion process to offices; what was the decision-taking authority for such removals; and how such panelling has been disposed of.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Director of Works; and I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Doorkeepers
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the implementation of the review of doorkeepers' responsibilities; and if the Commission will carry out a review of hours worked by doorkeepers.

  Mr. Beith
  The House of Commons Commission approved the recommendations of the Board of Management on the report of the staff inspector on the Doorkeeper grades on 9 December 1991. The recommendations did not cover doorkeepers' responsibilities as such, although they did propose changes concerning their manning levels. Subsequently detailed discussions were held between management and trade union representatives and agreement was reached on the implementation of the staff inspector's review.

  The agreement included a reduction in manning levels, to be achieved by natural wastage over a period of time. I understand this has still some way to go. It also made provision for close monitoring of the working hours of doorkeepers, particularly if and when the House sat very late on frequent occasions. The Commission has asked the Serjeant to keep working patterns of doorkeepers under review, and has received no representations from him that the manning reductions are not working satisfactorily. Until the full implementation of the recommended reductions has been achieved, it does not seem appropriate to carry out a further review.

PRIME MINISTER

  India
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy during his visit to India to raise the matter of the conditions under which India would join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  During his visit my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has discussed with Prime Minister Rao the attitude of the Indian Government towards the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and has emphasised the importance we attach to universal membership of the treaty.

  Machine Tools (Iraq)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), of 11 January,Official Report, column 555, what information he has on the sale of machine tools from Germany to Iraq in 1987, 1988 and 1989, based on the standard international trade classification.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 26 January.

  Genetically Modified Material
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has the responsibility for the licensing and control of premises using genetically modified material for research, development and production purposes for industrial, medical or educational uses.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State for Employment has responsibility for the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989, which require all those intending to use premises for the first time for genetic modification work to notify the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Notification requirements also apply to the subsequent activities involving genetic modification.

  A range of additional requirements, which are the responsibility of a number of Departments, apply to specific products which may be genetically modified. The products include medicines, plant pathogens, food additives, veterinary medicines and agricultural pesticides.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to provide a substantive reply to the letter sent to him by Mr. Barrington of Clist road, Bettws, Newport, on 30 November 1992.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  A reply was sent by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's office on 10 December 1992. A reply to the hon. Member's constituent's letter of 13 January 1993 will be sent in due course.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek time at the United Nations for reconsideration of sanctions against Iraq.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Security Council reviews sanctions against Iraq every 60 days in compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 687.

  The most recent review meeting took place on 25 January at which the Security Council concluded that conditions did not exist for the modification or lifting of sanctions against Iraq.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  International Rescue Corps
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial and other support he gives to the international rescue operation dealing with the immediate aftermath of natural catastrophes; and if he will meet their representatives to discuss a programme to assist them.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The International Rescue Corps is an independent organisation which has not sought financial assistance since September 1989 when ODA funds were provided to move an IRC team to Montserrat after Hurricane Hugo. ODA regularly offers assistance through our embassies in clarifying IRC's status and bona fides when it is aware IRC services are being offered to an overseas country. ODA and IRC officials are in frequent contact.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to extend the use of the know-how funds to the Baltic states.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are considering a range of new proposals within our priority sectors, which are food processing and distribution, financial services, small business creation and energy.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Chartermark Awards
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will commission the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies to examine the Government's running of the Chartermark award scheme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans at present to involve the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies in the accreditation of the Chartermark scheme.

  Following the 1992 scheme, MORI was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the Chartermark scheme to find out reactions to the scheme, and to highlight any areas where improvements could be made for future years. MORI concluded its research at the end of November and its findings have been used in devising the 1993 Chartermark scheme; details of which will be published next month.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list and summarise briefly each of the initial commitments in the citizens charters which are environmental standards or targets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter commitment to high quality services also extends to a clean and safe environment—for example:

  Explanatory guides on "Green Rights and Responsibilities" have been published in England,
  728
  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These explain citizens' rights and responsibilities on environmental issues; and offer guidance on how to complain if standards are not being met.

  Under the council tenants charter all local authorities are expected to publish a statement advising tenants how their individual councils deal with environmental nuisances, such as graffiti and noisy parties.

  In addition the Government intend to publish a local environment charter in the spring which will detail citizens, rights to high environmental standards from their local authority.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to reply to the letter of 23 October 1992 from the hon. Member for Amber Valley about redundancy arrangements for miners.

  Mr. Eggar
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 25 January.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what examination he has given to whether the United Kingdom national authority under the chemical weapons convention will require additional powers in order to examine work and scientific research in the chemical industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The United Kingdom national authority will not have the role of verifying compliance with the chemical weapons convention, and it will therefore not require powers to examine work and scientific research in the chemical industry. Verification will be the responsibility of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an international body to be set up under the United Nations' auspices. Primary legislation will be required to allow the OPCW to verify compliance in the United Kingdom.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that British Coal provides recent analysis of reserves at Vane Tempest and Easington collieries to companies charged by his Department to investigate current reserves under the terms of the energy review.

  Mr. Eggar
  As part of the coal review, Boyds have undertaken assessments of the viability of each of the 21 pits included in the coal review, including Easington. Their report was published on 22 January.

  British Coal provided Boyds with recent information on coal reserves at each of the pits concerned, for use in this work. I understand that British Coal is providing similar information to Boyds for use in the assessment we have commissioned from them of the 10 pits currently the subject of consultation, which includes Vane Tempest.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meeting he has had with the chairman or other officials of British Nuclear Fuels plc to discuss the present and future financing of Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman and other board members of British Nuclear Fuels plc from time to time and discuss a range of matters on these occasions. The question of financing the company's business, both at Sellafield and elsewhere, is considered in the context of BNFL's corporate plan.

  Miners' Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect the extension of the consultation period will have upon the guarantees applied to redundancy payments for miners at the 10 pits currently undergoing the 90-day statutory consultation period.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. The current redundancy terms will remain available throughout the consultation period.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to prohibit the import into the United Kingdom of all species defined as endangered or threatened under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

  Mr. Needham
  No. The principal instrument for the regulation of international trade in wildlife species is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, in considering proposals to bring further species within the scope of CITES controls, the Government would take account of any designations made by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature together with any other relevant scientific information.

  Membrane Technology
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reasons underlay his refusal of a grant of £150,000 to the Coal Research Establishment for the development of membrane technology for the clean burning of coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has considered a proposal from the Coal Research Establishment of the British Coal

  G6 and Swiss exports of machine tools to Iraq 1985–1990

  US$ 000s

  USA

  Japan

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  1990

  728.1

  0

  0

  0

  2,124

  1,270

  578

  570

  731

  537

  645

  1,279

  22,209

  2,783

  7,666

  8,278

  733

  5,891

  911

  499

  6,992

  1,070

  2,762

  246

  735

  2,377

  39

  1,331

  6,286

  10,824

  1,743

  2,955

  TOTAL

  8,805

  1,595

  3,109

  37,611

  15,947

  12,749

  12,049

  1989

  728.1

  43

  N/A

  61

  1,530

  1,601

  69

  991

  731

  2,272

  2,816

  609

  57,486

  1,545

  20,505

  18,990

  733

  1,857

  2,268

  1,385

  18,948

  6,890

  3,375

  1,208

  735

  7,080

  451

  2,637

  20,007

  4,391

  13,203

  3,138

  TOTAL

  11,252

  5,535

  4,692

  97,971

  14,427

  37,152

  24,327

  730
  Corporation for development of membrane technology for the separation of hydrogen from carbon dioxide, as a method of capturing carbon dioxide formed during the combustion of coal or other fuels. It was concluded that in advance of the results of a major study which includes an assessment of a range of technical options for separation of carbon dioxide, it would be inappropriate for my Department to fund development work on one particular approach. The £1.8 million major study (involving 14 countries and the Commission of the European Community) is being carried out under the auspices of the International Energy Agency, with British Coal as the operating agent. My Department and British Coal took the lead in setting up this study, and National Power and PowerGen are also participating.

  Uruguay Round
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure a fairer international trade environment for the British and other European Community footwear manufacturing industries before the conclusion of the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations.

  Mr. Needham
  We and our Community partners fully support the objectives of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations in GATT, which include the specific aim of the reduction or elimination by all participants of high tariffs and non-tariff measures.

  The European Commission negotiates for the Community in GATT. It has details of all the concerns expressed to us by the United Kingdom footwear industry, and these have been carefully taken into account in the formulation of the Community's position in the negotiations.

  Iraq (Machine Tools)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 11 January to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) at column 555, if he will supply the corresponding information about the export of machine tools to Iraq in(a) 1985, (b) 1986 and (c)

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: For ease of reference the information requested for the major countries supplying machine tools to Iraq from 1985 to 1990 is set out as follows:
  731

  USA

  Japan

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  1988

  728·1

  168

  504

  111

  832

  1,287

  550

  529

  731

  N/A

  77

  239

  59,372

  10,920

  21,772

  53,951

  733

  N/A

  1,627

  5,922

  34,316

  7,306

  594

  2,160

  735

  N/A

  263

  4,711

  21,166

  2,754

  20,497

  6,436

  TOTAL

  168

  2,471

  10,983

  115,686

  22,267

  43,413

  63,076

  1987

  728.1

  116

  39

  63

  135

  208

  55

  359

  7361

  33

  1,991

  1,161

  16,740

  5,244

  13,871

  5,130

  TOTAL

  149

  2,030

  1,224

  16,875

  5,432

  13,926

  5,489

  1986

  728.1

  294

  15

  117

  674

  1,040

  10

  334

  7361

  267

  3,054

  812

  7,886

  1,358

  3,176

  2,078

  TOTAL

  561

  3,069

  929

  8,560

  2,398

  3,186

  2,412

  1985

  728.1

  510

  56

  483

  464

  1,323

  18

  137

  7361

  50

  2,903

  3,915

  10,578

  3,090

  3,902

  5,249

  TOTAL

  560

  2,959

  4,398

  11,042

  4,413

  3,920

  5,386

  Code

  Description

  728.1

  Machine tools specialised for particular industries.

  731

  Machine tools operated by laser or other light beam process.

  733

  Forgoing or die-stamping machines (inc. presses)and hammers.

  735

  Tools holders and self-opening dieheads.

  736

  Metal working machine tools.

  1SITC Rev 2—Replaced by codes 731, 733 and 735 from 1988 onwards.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement outlining those steps which have been taken by his Department since 9 April 1992 specifically to assist the United Kingdom manufacturing industry; and what future action he intends to take to assist manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, my ministerial colleagues and I have ensured that manufacturing industry's concerns are fully taken into account across the full range of the Government's decisions, and we shall continue to do so.

  Particular initiatives since 9 April have included:
  the re-organisation of the DTI so as to relate more closely to individual sectors of industry and facilitate an informed dialogue between Government and industry, and the creation of a unit on industrial competitiveness;
  the launch of the one-stop shops competition, where bids are due by noon on 29 January;
  the strengthening of DTI's support for exporters including recruiting 100 export promoters from the private sector;
  the launch of the Business in Europe campaign;
  steering the single market to completion;
  a full and active part in working for an early and successful completion of the Uruguay round of trade talks;
  a further £700 million of ECGD cover;
  co-ordination across Whitehall of the enhanced deregulation initiative to identify and remove unnecessary burdens on business; and
  numerous specific individual decisions and actions have also been taken in the light of the Government's interest in manufacturing industry.

  The Government fully appreciate the part played by manufacturing industry in securing the United Kingdom's long-term prosperity.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve the off-site emergency plan regulations for areas adjacent to nuclear installations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland, has responsibility for the proposed Off-Site Emergency Plan (Licensed Nuclear Installations) Regulations. Following the Health and Safety Commission's consultations, consideration is being given to possible changes. I await HSC's advice on the matter.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communications have been sent to local authorities from his Department concerning changes to the detailed emergency planning zones in areas adjacent to nuclear installations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: There have been no recent changes in detailed emergency planning zones or resulting communications with local authorities. These zones are however kept under continuous review by HSE's HMNII as part of the licensing process for nuclear installations. I understand that HSE will set out the existing arrangements in the guidance to accompany the proposed Off-Site Emergency Plan (Licenced Nuclear Installations) Regulations.

  Hinckley Point A
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce new safety regulations following the decision to re-license Hinckley Point A Magnox reactor.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: I am informed by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear

  733
  Installations Inspectorate (NII) that there is no specific requirement to re-licence or introduce new safety regulations at Hinckley Point A. However, following assessment of Nuclear Electric's (NE) long term safety review of Hinckley Point A the NII agreed (in December 1991) that the station could continue in operation up to 30 years (ie 1995) subject to completion of the programme of work specified in its assessment and compliance with NII safety requirements.

  British Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what budget provisions exist in the financial year 1993–94 to extend British Coal's present enhanced redundancy scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: It was announced at the time of the autumn statement that a provisional external finance limit of £1,900 million had been set for British Coal for 1993–94. The limit will be re-assessed in the light of the outcome of the coal review but the provisional increase of £1,400 million above previous plans for 1993–94 reflects provision being made on a prudent basis for higher restructuring and/or operating costs than previously assumed, including payments under the terms of British Coal's present redundancy scheme.

  Criminal Liability (Companies)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to extend the circumstances in which a company may be held criminally liable for the acts of its officers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton

  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: I have no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Industrial Innovation Support
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the funding of the club research and development programme; and what proportion of funding for industrial innovation support schemes remains uncommitted(a) for the remainder of the present financial year and (b) for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: Club research and development is one of a number of forms of collaboration accepted by the Department of Trade and Industry when providing financial assistance towards innovative research and development carried out by companies. It caters for collaborative efforts where one organisation undertakes the work on behalf of a number of others who contribute to the costs. It does not constitute a scheme on which separate expenditure figures are collected.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of each research and development scheme grant-aided through the Club research and development scheme, the LINK scheme, the SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—scheme and the SPUR—support for products under research—scheme.
  734
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The Department's schemes for supporting industrial R and D are: LINK, EUREKA, advanced technology programmes (ATP), general industrial collaborative programmes (including Club research and development), technology transfer, SMART and SPUR.

  Further support for industrial R and D is available from the SPACE budget, energy budgets, and civil aircraft and aeroengine research and demonstration budget (CARAD).

WALES

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources are allocated for the support and treatment of those who suffer from schizophrenia.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources are available to provide support for Alzheimer victims and their families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is not possible to separately identify resources allocated to schizophrenia or to the support of people with Alzheimer's Disease and their families. An estimated £211 million is being spent on mental illness services in Wales and an additional £6.3 million is available this year through the mental illness strategy. The Welsh Office is also making available some £110,000 to enable the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to operate in Wales and some £26,000 similarly for the Alzheimer's Disease Society.

  Secondary School Places, Mid-Glamorgan
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate is available to his Department of the number of secondary school places required in Mid-Glamorgan in each school year between now and 2000; and what is the existing number of places.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I currently have no forward estimates of the number of secondary school places required by local authorities. However, the Education Bill includes proposals which would require local authorities and the Schools Funding Council to review school provision annually and to report the results to my right hon. Friend.

  My current estimate of the number of places in maintained secondary schools in Mid Glamorgan is 43,308.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many known Alzheimer sufferers live in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Alzheimer's disease is often indistinguishable during life from other forms of dementia. The estimated number of dementia sufferers in Wales is 29,000.

  Citizen's Advice Bureaux Budgets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase his allocation of cash to local authorities in Wales for funding of citizen's advice bureaux budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The local authority revenue settlement covers all local authority expenditure. It is for individual
  735
  authorities to decide how to apportion those resources between and within services in accordance with their statutory obligations and their own priorities. I will shortly be presenting my final proposals for the 1993–94 settlement for the approval of the House.

  Schools (Surplus Places)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the number of surplus places in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Mid Glamorgan; and on what basis such estimates are made.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My estimate of surplus school places (as at 1 January 1991) for Mid Glamorgan is shown as follows:

  Primary

  13,416

  Secondary

  7,409

  The data is based on information provided by the local authority, and is currently being updated.

  HIV
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were born HIV positive in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since reporting of HIV/AIDS began in 1984, 10 children have been reported from Wales as born to an HIV infected mother, three in 1989, two in 1990, three in 1991 and two in 1992. In two of the 10, one of whom has developed AIDS, HIV infection has been established, and another two have been shown to be uninfected. The infection status for the remaining six is unknown as it is not yet possible to determine whether these children are infected or whether their seropositivity is due to passive transfer of maternal antibody.

  Schools (Excluded Pupils)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities have schools with conditional re-entry agreements as a means of re-admitting excluded pupils to schools; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Elton Report
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities have formal systems of communication within their schools and between schools and parents, governors, their communities and outside agencies, as recommended in the Elton report on discipline in schools; what percentage of schools have such systems of communication; and to what extent they meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the need for further legislation to clarify the legal basis of teachers' authority referred to in the Elton report on discipline in schools.
  736
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. The position of teachers is sufficiently safeguarded by existing legislation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made, following the Elton report on discipline in schools, of the equitable distribution of teaching and other resources across the ability range in schools and of how local education authorities are taking this recommendation into account when funding schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No assessment has been made of these matters.

  School Governors
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities provide regular training courses for school governors which meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All local education authorities provide training courses for school governors. The content of these courses is primarily a matter for the authority concerned. The Department has not set down standards in connection with such training.

  Teaching Hours
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the length of the school teaching day.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The length of the school day is a matter for school governing bodies. Current advice on this and related issues are contained in Welsh Office Circular 43/90 "Management of the School Day" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities have developed working relationships between schools and educational psychologists to provide advice on the management of behaviour in groups and in schools as a whole which meet with the standards expected by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Local Authority Borrowing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the boroughs and districts the borrowing limit for householders for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, giving the increase or decrease as a percentage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of Welsh local authorities' annual borrowing are not held centrally. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and regulations specify the sources from which each local authority may borrow and set parameters for temporary and longer term borrowing. The legislation requires the authority to determine annually the cash figure within which its borrowing is to be kept and the extent to which that may come from short term loans and from variable interest borrowing.

  School Management
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities have schools which take formal account of ascertaining the views of pupils on matters relating to school management; and whether these arrangements meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Schools (Police Liaison Projects)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to monitor the way in which local education authorities have assessed the number of schools in their areas which would particularly benefit from school-police liaison projects; and what percentage of such schools in each local education authority have these projects.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires governing bodies to report annually to parents on steps taken to strengthen links with the community, including the police. Generally, I would expect them to foster good relationships with their local police force.

  Education Targets
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish national education and training targets for Wales to cover(a) foundation and (b) lifetime learning.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The national education and training targets, proposed by the CBI and others, have been endorsed by the Government. I shall be sending a letter today to education, training and employers' organisations throughout Wales emphasising the importance of the targets to the Welsh economy. My letter declares the need for Wales to sustain an ambitious rate of progress towards the Great Britain targets, and explains that I shall be encouraging progress and reviewing the position annually. A copy of my letter is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Engineering and Technology Courses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the courses on engineering and technology available within each university college in Wales indicating the number of applicants for each course in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department does not collect information on the applicants to courses for the University of Wales.

  However, this information can be found in the guide "University Entrance" produced by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom from information supplied by the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Partnership Sourcing Initiatives
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the partnership sourcing initiatives currently established involving companies from Wales.
  738
  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not readily available but the Welsh Development Agency administer a major relevant intiative known as Source Wales.

  Counselling Skills
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many LEAs have provided courses on basic counselling skills in the last two years; what information he has on the percentage of staff in each LEA which have been on such courses; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of such courses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the academic year 1991–92 nineteen counselling-related courses were run by colleges in seven local authorities in Wales. This is the latest year for which information is available.

  No information is available centrally about the percentage of LEA staff which have been on such courses or about their effectiveness.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the representations he has received from individuals and organisations in Wales in support of the Government's rail privatisation proposals.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There has been a fair degree of interest in the franchising of services in Wales but no details can be provided, for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those schools in Wales which have(a) balloted parents in pursuit of grant-maintained status, (b) received approval to pursue grant-maintained status from such a ballot and (c) been granted grant-maintained status.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Fifteen schools have held a ballot of parents. They are:

  i. Primary Schools

  Cefnpennar Infants, Mid Glamorgan

  Llanerfyl, Powys

  Caergeiliog, Gwynedd

  Derwen, Clwyd

  Penybryn, Clwyd

  ii. Secondary Schools

  Queens, Gwent

  Cwmcarn, Gwent

  Bishop Vaughan, West Glamorgan

  Gowerton, West Glamorgan

  Olchfa, West Glamorgan

  Brynmawr, Gwent

  Emrys ap Iwan, Clwyd (twice)

  Maelor, Clwyd

  Stanwell, South Glamorgan

  John Beddoes, Powys

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply of 19 January 1993 to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), Official Report, columns. 193–94, for details of those schools where the ballot was in favour of seeking grant-maintained status and of those schools whose proposals have been approved by my right hon. Friend.

  Municipal Waste Water Directive
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish a list of the sensitive areas defined under the European municipal waste water directive.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the terms of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive member states must identify sensitive areas by 31 December 1993.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement outlining the mechanism by which tuition fees for students in higher education institutions are transferred from his Department via local authorities to the institutions, setting out the costs involved, and time scale of payments; and if he will estimate the moneys outstanding to the institutions at the latest available date.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations specify the tuition fees to be paid by local education authorities on behalf of award-holding students. For most courses, the regulations require the fees to be paid promptly in termly instalments by specified dates or within one month of the receipt of a valid request for payment, whichever is the later. For academic year 1992–93, the specified dates are 10 December 1992, 10 February 1993 and 30 April 1993, and the total amount of fees payable is estimated to be nearly £1,590 million. Information is not routinely collected by the Department on the amounts of any fees outstanding at a particular date.

  The Department reimburses the whole of authorities' mandatory awards payments, under section 209 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Specific grant is paid to authorities in termly instalments for the fee elements, shortly before each specified date. The Department's administrative costs are met from within its overrall running cost provision. Authorities bear their own administrative costs. No current estimate is available of the administrative costs attributable to the payment of fees.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1992,Official Report, column 477, if he will make a statement on the reasons why he has not been able to publish an updated version of the table in annex 2 of "Higher Education: A New Framework" (Cm 1541), setting out projections of home student numbers in Great Britain.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's policy, as set out at the time of the autumn statement, is to maintain the current record level of participation by young people in higher education over the next three years. The figures given by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) in his reply of 7 December 1992 at column 477 are consistent with that. Progress to a participation rate of one in three by 2000 will be at a rate determined in future public expenditure rounds.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answers of 20 January,Official
  740
  Report, columns 280–82, if he will list institutions not referred to in his answers which are funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council or Universities Funding Council together with the authorities which are authorised to award (a) degrees for higher courses and (b) degrees for research courses which commenced in September 1992 at those institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following institutions, all of which are funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, were not referred to in my reply of 20 January—Official Report, columns 280–81.

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  Bretton Hall

  Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education

  Camborne School of Mines

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  Chester College of Higher Education

  Christ Church College of Higher Education

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  Dartington College of Arts

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  Falmouth School of Art and Design

  Harper Adams Agricultural College

  Homerton College

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  King Alfred's College

  La Sainte Union College of Higher Education

  Liverpool Institute of Higher Education

  Loughborough College of Art and Design

  Nene College, Northampton

  Newman College

  North Riding College

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  Roehampton Institute of Higher Education

  Rose Bruford College of Speech and Drama

  Royal Northern College of Music

  Royal Academy of Music

  Salford College of Technology

  Southampton Institute of Higher Education

  St. Martin's College

  St. Mary's College

  The London Institute

  Trinity and All Saints' College, Horsforth

  Trinity College of Music

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  West Sussex Institute of Higher Education

  Westhill College

  Westminster College

  Winchester School of Art

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  The Secretary of State publishes a list of recognised degree awarding bodies in The Education (Recognised Bodies) Order. Bodies listed in that order are authorised to award degrees in relation to any of the above institutions. The Education (Recognised Bodies) Order is currently being revised and we expect it to be re-issued by the end of February.

  Dronfield School
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will be acknowledging and replying to the letter of 3 January from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East headed Dronfield school.

  Mr. Forth
  A fully reply has now been sent. The Department has not called for a report on the ballot at Dronfield. Any correspondence which the Department considers requires the comments of the governors will be sent to the chairman of governors for comment.

  Primary Education, Brent
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will carry out an investigation into primary school education in the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to carry out such an investigation.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from Brent primary schools head teachers as to the adequacy of the budget from Brent council for the education service in Brent in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of such representations. Brent council is solely responsible for determining its education budget, and within that total, the proportion of resources allocated to primary schools.

  University Education
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give details of the charges made for the last five years to those applying through Universities Central Council on Admissions for university education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The application fees (including VAT) charged by UCCA to those applying for admission to universities for the last five academic years are as follows:

  Application Fee

  Year of Admission

  £6

  1989–90

  £6

  1990–91

  £6

  1991–92

  £7

  1992–93

  £7

  1993–94

  UCCA is to merge with PCAS later this year to establish a joint admission system to be called the universities and colleges admissions service (UCAS). The application fee for admission in 1994–95 has yet to be determined.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local education authority in England in rank order(a) the number of nursery school places per 1,000 population and (b) the spending on nursery school places per 1,000 population.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the expenditure on nursery places or on the numbers of nursery places available is not collected centrally. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 21 January 1993 to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) at column 353, on the latest available information on the numbers of pupils in nursery classes and schools in each local education authority, expressed as rates per 100 population aged three and four.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on Government policy towards the proposed Council regulation establishing a European agency for safety and health at work and the location of such an agency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The United Kingdom believes that the European Community has an important role in disseminating best practice on health and safety in areas such as risk assessment, new health and safety techniques, research and the impact of Community legislation. A wide range of views was expressed at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 3 December 1992, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired, as to whether it was desirable to establish a new agency to take this work forward or whether alternatively it could be pursued through existing institutions or bodies, through Community programmes, through intergovernmental co-operation or otherwise. There was no discussion of the location of a possible agency. The Government's view is that the case for such an agency has yet to be clearly demonstrated.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many eligible young people in Leeds have currently been unable to obtain a place on a youth training scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the total number of young people eligible for youth training is not available. It is not, therefore, possible to say how many of this group are unable to obtain a place.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the levels of pay of the lowest decile of(a) male and (b) female workers in (i) Wales and (ii) England at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is published in part E of the 1992 New Earnings Survey, tables 116.2 and 116.3. A copy is available in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions are made within the citizens charter programme to ensure that the waiting times of outpatients is minimised.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In accordance with the provisions of the patients charter all health boards introduced, with effect from 1 April 1992, local targets for waiting times for first appointments at outpatient clinics. Health boards are at present reviewing these targets with the objective of converting them into guarantees to take effect from 1 April 1993. The patients charter also included the commitment that patients should be seen within 30 minutes of the appointment time they have been given or should expect to receive an explanation for the delay and an idea of how much longer the wait is likely to be.

  Folk Music
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on conserving, developing and promoting the cultural heritage of Scotland through folk music.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Support for Scottish folk music is the responsibility of the Scottish Arts Council. Since 1984 the council has provided annual revenue support for the Traditional Music and Song Association of Scotland. Financial assistance has also been given to a growing number of traditional music and folk festivals. This year, the sum allocated was £53,385.

  In addition, in 1992 the council established a traditional music development fund which, as well as supporting a number of education projects, supports the Greentrax Record Company which is re-releasing valuable traditional music source material. The fund totals £50,000.

  This year the council also provided financial support for Gaelic arts amounting to £73,880.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) physically disabled and (b) sensorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: There are currently 94 disabled staff employed by my Department, which represents 1.4 per cent. of the total work force. Of these, 78 are physically disabled and 16 sensorily disabled.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce measures to compel mortgage lenders to renegotiate fixed interest rates arrangements with mortgagors.

  Mr. Nelson
  No. The terms on which mortgage lenders make loans are matters for their commercial judgment.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special tax provisions apply to Ministers of the Crown in respect of(a) availability of a car for private use, (b) provision of a chauffeur in connection with a car made available for private use and (c) provision of any amount of petrol for private use of the car described in (a) above and in what aspects these provisions differ from that set out in chapters 11 and 15 of booklet 480, detailing the relevant statutory or extrastatutory concessions for Ministers of the Crown.

  Mr. Lamont
  There are no special tax provisions for cars, chauffeurs or fuel provided for Ministers of the Crown. They are subject to the same tax rules as employees generally.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from business organisations representing health service and local authority private 744
  contractors to underwrite losses on contracts secured under compulsory competitive tendering legislation where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were ruled to apply after the commencement of the contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received no representations on the matter. Contracting out has taken place for many years with no question of any losses being underwritten by the Exchequer.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons underlay his introduction of a new national accounts adjustment for NHS trusts' debt remuneration in table 2B.1 of his 1992 "Autumn Statement" (Cm 2096) and the treatment of hospital trusts as public corporations outside general Government; and if he will publish an analysis of this national accounts adjustment by the programmes for Health, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with the underlying calculations of interest payments on outstanding debt and of dividends on public dividend capital.

  Mr. Portillo
  The reasons are set out in paragraphs 2B.19 to 2B.23 of the 1992 "Autumn Statement" (Cm 2096). The forecasts of provision for debt interest and dividends are the responsibility of the individual health departments.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received calling for a reduction in vehicle excise duty for commercial vehicles.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations on this subject which he will consider carefully during the run up to the Budget.

  Investment
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount for each year since 1979 invested in(a) property and (b) manufacturing industry; and what was the cumulative total over the period for each category, at constant prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  Estimates of manufacturing investment may be obtained from the Central Statistical Office database accessible through the House of Commons Library. Figures showing investment by the property sector are not available separately; these are combined on the CSO database with other industries in the financial sector.

  Value Added Tax
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries in the EC impose a standard rate of VAT on books, newspapers and magazines.

  Sir John Cope
  Denmark is the only EC country to apply a standard rate of VAT to books and magazines. No EC country applies a standard rate of VAT to newspapers.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have been fined for late payment of VAT in each of the last four years; and how much revenue has been raised by the Treasury by these means.
  745
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: Information is held about the number of VAT default surcharge assessments issued but not of the number of businesses which have been surcharged which will be smaller, as a business may be surcharged more than once in any year. The available information is as follows:

  Number of surcharge assessments issued

  Number

  April 1988–March 1989

  426,000

  April 1989–March 1990

  415,000

  April 1990–March 1991

  451,000

  April 1991–March 1992

  490,000

  The amount of default surcharge paid in the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1992 was £337 million.

  Textile Imports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 260, when he expects to make a determination of country of origin of the textile products imported by Dewhursts of Driffield which were held at port in December 1992.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs tell me that inquiries are continuing. I will therefore let the hon. Member have a full reply when matters are finalised.

  Departmental Returns
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the 1993 departmental reports to be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  Proposed publication dates for 1993 departmental reports are as follows:

  Date

  Statistical Supplement to the Autumn Statement

  Friday 29 January

  Department of Health and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Tuesday 2 February

  Cabinet Office

  Wednesday 3 February

  Department for Education

  Tuesday 9 February

  Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments and net payments to EC institutions

  Tuesday 9 February

  Ministry of Defence

  Wednesday 10 February

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including ODA)

  Wednesday 10 February

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Intervention Board

  Wednesday 10 February

  Home Office (including Charity Commission)

  Wednesday 10 February

  Department of the Environment

  Wednesday 10 February

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Wednesday 10 February

  Department of Employment

  Thursday 11 February

  Department of Social Security

  Thursday 11 February

  746

  Date

  Department of Transport

  Thursday 11 February

  Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers' departments

  Friday 12 February

  National Heritage

  Friday 12 February

  Scotland

  Friday 12 February

  Northern Ireland

  Friday 12 February

  Wales

  Monday 15 February

  Copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

  House Prices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1992,Official Report, column 777, if he will publish figures for the percentage change in regional house prices to earnings ratios in each region between the third quarter of 1992 and the third quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: Information on average earnings is collected each April for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland through the new earnings survey. Until April 1992, quarterly data were not available. Since then, quarterly estimates for Great Britain have been produced by projecting the results of the April survey by the monthly average earnings index (AEI). There are no quarterly estimates for Northern Ireland because the AEI covers Great Britain only. The following table therefore only shows regional figures for the third quarter of 1992. For Great Britain as a whole, the average earnings to house price ratio was 3.89, some 9 per cent. lower than in the third quarter of 1991.

  Average house price to earnings ratio third quarter 1992

  Region

  Great Britain

  3·89

  North

  3·24

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·72

  East Midlands

  3·86

  East Anglia

  3·92

  South East

  Greater London

  3·79

  Rest of South East

  4·49

  South West

  4·28

  West Midlands

  3·93

  North West

  3·84

  England

  3·95

  Wales

  3·44

  Scotland

  3·43

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of money have been invested in British manufacturing industry in cash and real terms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: Estimates of manufacturing investment at current and

  747
  constant prices may be obtained from the Central Statistical Office database accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the source of investment funds for British manufacturing industry in percentage terms from(a) banks, (b) the stock exchange, (c) self-generated and (d) other in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: A statement of sources and uses of capital funds for all United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies is published in "Financial Statistics" table 8.2. Manufacturing companies are included in industrial and commercial companies but statements of sources and uses of capital funds for manufacturing companies, or for manufacturing industry, are not available.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total level of industrial investment as a percentage of national output in each of the last 20 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: Estimates of industrial investment and of gross domestic product may be obtained from the Central Statistical Office database accessible through the House of Commons Library. Consistent information is available only from 1978.

  Inflation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer What information he has concerning the average level of inflation experienced by each member country of the European Community, by the United States of America, and by Japan, over the last five-year period for which figures are available; and if he will rank those countries by order of magnitude of the level of inflation.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: Consumer price inflation data are published in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's "Main Economic Indicators" and the Central Statistical Office's "Economic Trends".

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount and percentage of the funds invested on the stock exchange goes into new issues or rights issues; and how this has changed in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: Details of money raised on the stock exchange are published by the stock exchange in the Stock Exchange Quarterly.

DEFENCE

  European Defence
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what forecast he has made of the number of jobs in the defence industry that will be gained or lost as a result of the new proposals for European defence.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am unaware of any new proposals for European defence which are likely in themselves to affect employment in the defence industry.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ms. Gill Linscott of Wood View, Hope-under-Dinmore, Hertfordshire HR6 0PP, can expect a reply to her oral and written complaint to his Department on 14 October 1992, concerning low flying RAF aircraft under Ministry reference SEC(AS) 92/10/280.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Officials from my Department will write to Ms. Linscott once the investigation into her complaint being conducted by the RAF police has been completed.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the additional 89 personnel to be deployed with British Forces in Bosnia as set out in his oral statement of 14 January,Official Report, column 1057, will be under United Nations command; and which vote will meet the costs of their deployment will be met by the Foreign Office vote.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. The additional specialist personnel deployed to Bosnia are an integral part of the British force and as such subject to the same command arrangments as currently apply to the battalion group as part of the United Nations protection force. The same will apply to the forces now available with the carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal if these have to be deployed ashore. It has not yet been decided which Government Department will meet the cost of this deployment.

  Tracked Vehicles
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tracked vehicles, and of what type, are to be deployed as part of the artillery contingent to be sent to the Adriatic on Argus; and what armoured protection such vehicles possess.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Seven armoured personnel carriers and 29 vehicles designed for cross country use in winter conditions are deploying to the Adriatic. While it is not our practice to comment on the detail, they have the armoured protection assessed as necessary to enable them to undertake their tasks.

  RAF Kemble
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the future plans for RAF Kemble, Gloucestershire; what consideration is being given to maintaining its present use; and what plans there are to sell all or part of the base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Current plans envisage the Army continuing to use RAF Kemble for the temporary storage of vehicles until 31 March 1994. Further defence used of RAF Kemble after this date is currently under review. No decisions are expected until later this year. In the light of the Army's current use and the longer term uncertainty no plans exist to sell all or part of the base although we continue to liaise with the local authorities to determine their views against the eventuality that the site may be declared surplus to defence requirements in due course.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide technical and operational assurance to Russia to assist in the safe dismantlement of nuclear weapons following the START II agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no plans to provide assistance to Russia beyond that announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 11 November at column 823. We will however continue to discuss issues relating to dismantling surplus nuclear warheads with the Russian authorities as necessary.

  Experimental Establishments
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the turnover at the Ministry of Defence proof and experimental establishment at Pendine is work carried out for the Ministry of Defence; and what percentage is for work carried out for private companies.

  Mr. Aitken
  The proof and experimental establishments (P and EEs) are maintained primarily for the conduct of proof and trials work for the Ministry of Defence; work for private companies at Pendine, and at the other P and EEs, accounts for less than 10 per cent. of their turnover.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the estimated cost of relocation of the work now being carried out at the Ministry of Defence proof and experimental establishment at Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimates of relocation costs for the work now being carried out at each of the proof and experimental establishments are not yet complete. They will be an important factor in our review of test and evaluation activities.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which proof and experimental establishments (land systems) are being considered for closures.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Director General of Test and Evaluation (DGT&E) is conducting a wide-ranging review of the Department's test and evaluation activities and facilities. This will look at each of his 40 test and evaluation establishments, including all the proof and experimental establishments. DGT and E is due to report his findings in May. Decisions on his recommendations will be taken by Ministers after full consultation with the trade unions, hon. Members and others.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the turnover for 1991–92 and forecast turnover for 1992–93 for each of the five Ministry of Defence proof and experimental establishments (land systems); and what comparisons he has made of their cost effectiveness.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not possible to produce figures on an exactly comparable basis for the two years in question because of changes in the Department's accounting practice and some rationalisation of facilities.

  Subject to these provisos, the running cost details are as follows:
  750

  £ million

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Cold Meece

  1·8

  2·4

  Eskmeals

  8·0

  8·0

  Environmental Test Centre Foulness

  3·6

  4·5

  Pendine

  7·6

  7·0

  Shoeburyness

  11·7

  17·2

  1 Projected.

  The figures for Shoeburyness include P and EE Lavington which is a satellite of the former.

  Cold Meece is scheduled to close on 31 March 1993.

  Each establishment has different specialist capabilities and whilst the Department seeks to ensure that all are cost effective, comparisons on a purely financial basis would be misleading.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the construction cost in today's prices of building a facility to the same specifications as the 1500-metre test track at the Ministry of Defence proof and experimental establishment at Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are assessing our exact requirements for test-track facilities, and the cost of re-providing them should that prove necessary, as part of the review of test and evaluation facilities. Accurate cost figures are not yet available.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give individual cash estimates as to the amount of work carried out for customers in the private sector at the Ministry of Defence proof and experimental establishment in Pendine in the last financial year.

  Mr. Aitken
  Estimates of the cost of work undertaken for private customers are confidential to the Department and the companies concerned.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of jobs lost at Ministry of Defence establishments for each year since 1989–90 to the present and projected to 1996–97 for(a) Dyfed, (b) Wales and (c) Great Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Net changes in the number of posts since 1989–90 in Dyfed, Wales and the United Kingdom

  Dyfed

  Wales (including Dyfed)

  United Kingdom (including Wales)

  1989–90

  -81

  +11

  +56

  1990–91

  -102

  -54

  -1,173

  1991–92

  -103

  -9

  -745

  11992–93

  -50

  -27

  -3,300

  11993–94

  +35

  +17

  -4,000

  11994–95

  -176

  -109

  -2,900

  11995–96

  -205

  -135

  -4,750

  11996–97

  0

  +73

  -800

  1These figures are based upon announcements made to date; they are therefore susceptible to change. It should also be noted that as establishments and units are Market Tested further changes may occur.

  Nuclear Fuel Cores
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the conclusions of the studies carried out into the relative safety of keeping used fuel cores on board decommissioned submarines or storing on land.

  Mr. Aitken
  The safety of used fuel cores, both on board decommissioned submarines and stored on land, has been confirmed by rigorous independent safety assessments.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it is expected that the used fuel core from HMS Revenge will be removed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 14 December at column 81.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the long-term disposal of used fuel cores from nuclear-powered submarines which are currently stored at Sellafield.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is planned to continue with the safe storage of nuclear submarine used fuel cores currently held at BNFL Sellafield. No decisions have been taken on their long-term disposal.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the usual time scale for submarines taken to Rosyth for decommissioning before being defuelled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There is no usual timescale; we have only previously taken one submarine to Rosyth for decommissioning.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the minimum and maximum time period which submarines taken to Rosyth for decommissioning have had to wait before being defuelled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Only one submarine has been taken to Rosyth for decommissioning and defuelling has not yet commenced.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected time scale for any submarines taken to Rosyth in the future for decommissioning before being defuelled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We plan for a six-month timescale, but this will depend on the availability of docks for defuelling.

  HMS Valiant
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Valiant is expected to return into service on completion of repairs at Rosyth dockyard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is expected in May 1993.

  HMS Renown
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the recent refit of HMS Renown at the time the contract was placed; what the final cost was on completion; and what are the reasons for the difference.
  752
  Mr. Aitken
  The total estimated cost of the project at the time the contract was placed was just over £152 million at 1992–93 prices. Final cost certificates have not yet been presented but the current estimate of cost is in the region of £200 million.

  The difference between these figures is due mainly to a change in the method of assessing costs following commercialisation—this refit straddled vesting day—programme delays and additional equipment improvements.

  Weapons Proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the likely course of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had they not been interrupted, in the light of information received from the United Nations inspection teams.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Nations inspection teams have found incontrovertible evidence that Iraq was developing a crude nuclear warhead design. The earliest that Iraq could have completed its first nuclear weapon, had its programme not been interrupted, would have been by 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries which in his judgment currently possess(a) nuclear and (b) ballistic missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently, strategic nuclear weapons are deployed in the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Countries possessing ballistic missiles, excluding NATO members, include Afghanistan, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Libya, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Korea, Syria, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and Yemen.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the countries who(a) possess chemical weapons, (b) possess biological weapons and (c) are engaged in research in developing chemical and biological weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is assessed that approximately 20 countries either possess or may be developing an offensive chemical warfare capability. It is assessed that about 10 countries either possess or seek to acquire an offensive biological weapons capability.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  London Weighting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what London weightings are applied to social security benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The social security system provides a comprehensive set of national benefits. Regional variations are therefore not generally appropriate, except where benefits reflect actual expenditure, such as those offering help with housing costs. A Greater London extension is available in income support for people in nursing and residential care homes.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department's buildings in the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our records do not show that any such incident has occurred.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much funding has been allocated or spent to specifically deal with measures to reduce his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Expenditure is mainly incurred as part of the capital works and building maintenance programmes. It is not possible to identify the extent to which environmental measures formed part of these programmes.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the latest available figures are for his Department's total purchase of CFCs and HCFCs;

  (2) how many CFC and HCFC installations are contained within his Department's buildings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is currently not available. We are considering how this information can be collected to enable us to meet the commitment, in our green housekeeping strategy, to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within departmental buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information about the number held is not available. Replacement of extinguishers is being undertaken by contractors who are working to professional codes of practice.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many CFC domestic fridges are contained within his Department's building.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information about domestic fridges is not available centrally.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Advice and guidance on the environmental aspects of ozone-depleting substances in buildings is provided by the Department of the Environment. Advice relating to particular buildings is provided by the managing contractors or agents responsible for the maintenance of the building or the suitably qualified consultants.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances become controlled waste in terms of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
  754
  (2) what action has been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances consumed by his Department are identified as controlled wastes when they are no longer in use;

  (3) what measures have been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not reach the atmosphere.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information about the quantity of ozone-depleting substances in use in the Department is not available. Such substances, when no longer in use, are removed by contractors who are required to comply with the relevant legislation and associated codes of practice.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how the departmental Green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; which possible measures have been considered and rejected; and on what grounds;

  (2) what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within departmental buildings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A green housekeeping strategy, setting out the Department's policy for the use of its resources and designed to ensure that full account is taken of the needs of the environment, was adopted in 1992. All members of staff have been made aware of the strategy and an action plan for its implementation will be in place by the end of March. This will include, wherever possible, targets for the various measures. The policy will be reviewed periodically, and no possible measure has been rejected.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is refrigerant leakage detection installed on some equipment but information on the number is not readily available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within his Department and returned to the manufacturer;

  (2) if he will provide details from the maintenance and servicing record of the quantity and type of ozone-destroying chemicals used annually in his Department's refrigeration and air conditioning equipment for servicing and in leakages; and what proportion is removed for recycling.

  Miss. Widdecombe
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Our policy is to eliminate the use of these substances.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Target dates for the recovery, recycling and phasing out of ozone depleting substances will be included in the Department's action plan, which will be in place by the end of March, for the implementation of our green housekeeping strategy. The
  755
  aim will be to have taken all the appropriate measures to meet the phase out dates agreed at the European Council of Ministers on 15 December.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not currently available, but we will be identifying uses of ozone-depleting substances in implementing our green housekeeping strategy.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to purchase only ozone-friendly fridges that do not contain CFCs or HCFCs for his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is our existing policy to ensure that our purchasing activities take environmental considerations fully into account.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what quantity of HCFC 22 is purchased by his Department per annum.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available but it is our policy to purchase environmentally-friendly products where appropriate.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people made eligible for means-tested benefits because of the Government's imposition of a 1.5 per cent. pay limit for public sector workers; and what will be the total cost of payments of these extra benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr.Hogg) on 30 November 1992 at column 68.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the period of cold weather between 10 and 14 January; what was the average temperature during the period; what was the lowest temperature during the period; in which areas the payment of cold weather allowances was triggered; and what was the cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is available in the Library.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of cold weather payments; how it is calculated; how often it is uprated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Payments of £6 are made automatically to eligible people for every period of seven days where the average temperature is 0°C or below. The amount is designed to provide a significant contribution to extra heating costs and is kept under review. The main source of help with heating costs is provided through income support, and is uprated annually.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra money is to be given from April 1993 to those who currently receive the terminal-illness level of income support and are cared for by registered private nursing homes.

  Mr. Burt
  The income support personal expenses allowance will be uprated by the Rossi index (retail prices index less certain housing costs.) In addition £1 million has been transferred from the Social Security budget to the Department of Health for 1993–94 to ensure that additional funds are directed specifically to terminally ill people in hospices. This is in addition to the £1 million transferred for each of the years 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  From April 1993, under the community care scheme, all new residents of nursing homes who need public support will have their needs assessed by the local authority who will contract with individual homes for their fees.

  Invalid Care Allowances
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would benefit each year and what is his estimate of the cost, of amending the present contribution conditions so as to allow contributions paid in any previous tax year, instead of the previous two, to count towards invalid care allowance recipients' entitlement to unemployment benefit.

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

  Claimants, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much unemployment benefit has been paid to claimants in the Liverpool travel-to-work area in the last 12 months and for each of the previous years for which figures are available.

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

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had in regard to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recommendation to him in August 1992 to prescribe emphysema and chronic bronchitis in relation to underground coalminers; what replies he is sending; what action he has so far taken in regard to the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a number of inquiries from Members of Parliament and members of the public about the council's recommendation and its implementation. Our response and the action we are taking are summarised in my reply to the right hon. Member on 14 December 1992 at column 76.

  Actors
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether work within the acting profession may be classified as full time for the purposes of his Department's rules and regulations concerning income support and unemployment benefit claims.

  Mr. Burt
  People working less than 16 hours a week may qualify for income support provided they are available for work for not less than 24 hours a week. The rules apply in the same way to people who are employed or self-employed, whatever type of work they are engaged in.

  Unemployment benefit may be payable for each day of unemployment in which a person earns £2 or less. But it is not payable for any week in which a person earns not less than £54 (the weekly earnings limit for national insurance contributions).

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with representatives of the construction industry as to possible changes in the present system of holding retention moneys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have had no discussions about the general system of retention money. I am aware of concerns about this matter and welcome moves within the industry to examine alternatives. This is one of the matters that we expect to be considered in the proposed joint Government-industry review of contracting and procurement arrangements in the construction industry.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of increased activity in the housing and construction industry following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.

  Sir George Young
  Depending on the way local authorities spend the funds available, and the extent of the private sector funding attracted, we estimate that the additional spending generated by the autumn statement could generate between 40,000 and 90,000 employees years of employment in the construction industry in 1993–94.

  We also estimate that the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates announced in the statement could result in an increase of 1 per cent. in construction output on all private works. In the short-term, with interest rates at their lowest since 1978, this will mainly benefit the housing sector.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining those steps which have been taken by his Department since 9 April 1992 specifically to assist the United Kingdom construction industry; and what future action he intends to take to assist the construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: During this year's public expenditure round my Department was active in making the case for maintaining capital spending and infrastructure spending. Measures which will assist the industry include:
  758
  £750 million to support the Housing Corporation
  £1.75 billion of spending from local authority capital receipts
  retention of provision for the Jubilee line extension
  relaxation of the rules for private and joint financing of infrastructure and other projects
  a capital partnership scheme to assist local authorities in levering private sector contributions to projects
  special tax and capital allowances

  We have supported export efforts by the industry. Ministers led trade delegations to Indonesia and Vietnam. We have worked with industry and the DTI to support building material task forces for specific countries.

  We have maintained an active research programme and increased industry collaboration during the year. We have established working groups with the industry to improve knowledge and understanding of new legislative developments—here and in the European Community. We have established an advisory committee to improve the coverage of construction statistics and the use made of them.

  We have continued to advance the interest of building material producers in the development of the Construction Products Directive and other associated European standards.

  We have introduced new building regulations which reduce the regulatory burden on the industry while giving greater flexibility for designers.

  I have also established a fortnightly series of meetings at which representatives of the industry can put to me any matters of concern to them.

  Superquarries
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy in respect of superquarries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I believe that coastal superquarries could provide an increasing contribution to aggregates supplies in England. Their potential has been taken into account in the current review of "Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6" which is now the subject of public consultation.

  Local Authority Fraud
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of local authority fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Auditors of local authorities report to the Audit Commission all cases of fraud of £500 or over. On this basis, the amount reported for 1991–92 was £930,000; and for the first nine months of 1992–93 is estimated at £2.5 million.

  Armed Forces (Housing)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact on the demand for local authority housing of the acceleration of retirement from the armed forces under the "Options for Change" programme.

  Sir George Young
  Inquiries by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the intentions of people leaving the armed forces under the "Options for Change" programme indicate that they will be dispersing around the country. This means that the
  759
  number of housing applications to any individual authority is unlikely to be significant. Officials will continue to monitor the position in succeeding phases of the programme.

  Aggregate Mining
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of the recently issued new guidelines on aggregate mining in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  No representations have yet been received. The consultation period runs until the end of March.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made on fulfilling undertakings made at the North sea conference regarding treatment of sewerage prior to discharge into the sea.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom will be fulfilling the North sea conference commitments through complying with the 1991 EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This requires the provision of sewage treatment at dates between 1998 and 2005. The Department, the National Rivers Authority and the water industry have for 18 months been working together very closely on the action needed to implement the directive.

  House Building
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and how many housing association houses were built in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  The Department's latest estimates show that housing associations completed 23,400 dwellings in Great Britain during the 12 months ending November 1992, and local authorities and new towns completed 4,400 dwellings. Housing association completions are due to rise to over 66,000 in the financial year 1992–93.

  The comparable figures for 1979 are 17,800 completions by housing associations and 85,000 by local authorities and new towns.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make adjustments to standard spending assessments for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have now completed the formal period of consultation in respect of the proposals for the 1993–94 settlement which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 26 November 1992. The Government's final decisions based on a careful consideration of all of the representations received will be laid before the House shortly.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations about the standard spending assessments for each local authority since 26 November 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State has received detailed representations from each of the local authority 760
  associations. Full consideration has been given to all of the issues raised by them together with those raised by individual local authorities. The "Local Government Finance Report for 1993–94" incorporating final decisions on standard spending assessments will be laid before the House very shortly.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used in assessing the area costs allowance of standard spending assessments for local authorities; and if he will make a statement on their application to Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The area cost adjustment is based on an analysis of relative earnings in different parts of the country using the new earnings survey. The analysis focuses on those occupational groups which are most relevant to the labour markets in which local authorities operate. The information is adjusted to remove any distortions which might arise from variations in the mix of occupational groups in different areas. The area cost adjustment also allows for the assumed proportion of expenditure on each service likely to be related to labour costs.

  Because the new earnings survey is based on a relatively small sample, the underlying analysis can provide sufficiently robust results only at regional level. This analysis has shown that only London and the south-east face labour costs which are consistently and significantly above the national average. Hence Gloucestershire, along with all other authorities outside the south-east, does not benefit from the area cost adjustment.

  Gulf War (Ecological Recovery)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has now made of the length of time taken for the Gulf environment to make a full ecological recovery from military action in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has made no specific assessment. The June 1992 report of the United Nations Secretary General—a copy of which has been placed in the Library—summarised the results of action to assess and ameliorate the Gulf ecology. It notes some quick and effective recovery in air quality and vegetation. On the details of the impact on the marine environment we await the report of a three-month research vessel cruise carried out in 1992.

  Air Quality
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he is considering to tackle the problems of air quality affecting British cities.

  Mr. Maclean
  We set out our proposals in chapter 11 of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance: The Second Year Report" (Cm. 2068), published last October. They include tighter standards on emissions from vehicles and industry, increased effort on air quality monitoring in our cities, and development of new standards and guidelines for a range of pollutants.

  Oil Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to ensure that environmental considerations are in future taken into account in establishing rules for maritime transport of oil.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to ensure that environmental considerations are in future taken into account in establishing rules for the maritime transport of oil.

  Mr. Howard
  The International Maritime Organisation has been taking environmental considerations into account in establishing rules for maritime transport since at least the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster in 1967. In the United Kingdom, we shall be considering what further changes are desirable in the light of the report of the inquiry by Lord Donaldson of Lymington into the further measures needed to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. At the European level, following Monday's extraordinary joint Environment/Transport Council, both Ministers of the Environment and the Ministers of Transport will be considering how to improve the regulation of shipping in the light of proposals from the EC Commission.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received over the shortage of affordable rented accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  We receive many representations about provision of affordable rented housing, we are pursuing a number of policies, both through provision of new units and through measures to maximise use of existing property, to ensure that a decent home is in reach of every family.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local government expenditure in 1993–94 it is estimated will be financed by the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The precise proportion of local government expenditure which will be financed by the council tax in 1993–94 will not be known until all local authorities have set their budgets.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the current percentage of lead-free petrol sales; and how this figure compares with the three previous years.

  Mr. Maclean
  At the end of November last year, sales of unleaded petrol accounted for 49.2 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, compared with an average of 19 per cent. in 1989, 34 per cent. in 1990 and 41 per cent. in 1991.

  House Building
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the public sector.
  762
  Mr. Baldry
  It is provisionally estimated that housing associations completed 6,700 new dwellings in England during the three months from September to November 1992. Over the same period some 500 new dwellings were completed by English local authorities. The number of completions by housing associations is due to rise to 66,000 in the financial year 1992–93.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that any proposals to close collieries do not lead to river pollution.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first place, to assess any environmental effects of pit closures and what measures might need to be taken to avoid pollution. My officials and the staff of the NRA have been in frequent contact about pollution from closed mines, and arrangements have been made between British Coal and the NRA for effective liaison over any proposed closures.

  Recycling, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the development of recycling in the Chelmsford local authority area.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are responsible for national policy on recycling but it is the duty of each waste collection authority to produce a recycling plan for its area. Chelmsford district council has submitted such a plan to my Department. The Department told the council on 11 November 1992 that it could publish its plan, which should now be made available for public inspection. I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts the council and asks to see its plan, if he has not already done so.

  Local Government Employees
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of employees in local government in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There were 2,406,383 employees in local government in England at June 1992. This is the equivalent of 1,848,607 full-time staff.

  Staffing levels of local authorities in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Local Government Finance, Barnet
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the standard spending assessment and capping limits of Barnet council for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I met a delegation consisting of councillors and officials from Barnet council on Monday 21 December. I have given careful consideration to the various points which Barnet has raised, both at that meeting and in correspondence, as I have to all representations received during the consultation period, before reaching final decisions on the revenue support grant settlement and relevant notional amounts, which I intend to announce very shortly.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in environmental protection over the last year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The second year report on the 1990 Environment White Paper, published in October 1992, describes progress made over the last year on over 400 environmental commitments.

  Local Authority Corruption
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to eliminate local authority corruption.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today,Official Report, col. 1022, to my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste).

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the English house condition survey.

  Sir George Young
  The results of the English house condition survey will be published this year.

  Colleges, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the reduction in financial support for Nottinghamshire county council as a result of colleges funding themselves; and what has been the effect on Nottingham of the area cost adjustment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Education element of the standard spending assessment (SSA) for Nottinghamshire county council for 1993–94 reflects the responsibilities which remain with the authority following the transfer of further education. I estimate that in 1992–93 the education SSA element in Nottinghamshire would have been £47.8 million less if the transfer had taken place in that financial year.

  Nottinghamshire do as not benefit from the area cost adjustment. Analysis has shown that only London and the south-east face labour costs which are significantly above the national average.

  Timber Species
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to support the listing of threatened tropical timber species under the proposed revision of the European Community regulation relating to the implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species, flora and forna; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Those species of tropical timber which are listed on CITES are already controlled under EC regulations implementing the convention in the Community. We shall seek to ensure that these species are given at least the same level of protection in the new regulation. We shall also support the inclusion of further tropical timber species whenever this is justified by the application of sound scientific criteria relating to their conservation status.
  764
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to secure that all timber species are included within annex D of the new EC regulation on the trade in wild plants and animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  We support the European Commission's proposal to list timber species already protected under CITES in annexes A, B and C of the new regulation. We are also prepared to support the listing of further species in these annexes or in annex D if they meet relevant scientific criteria.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account his decision on the authorisation for the licensing of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will take of the letter sent to him in October 1992 by the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, on the ways in which radioactive waste arising from reprocessing foreign spent fuel at Sellafield will be handled.

  Mr. Maclean
  In accordance with the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, there has been extensive consultation on the draft authorisations for the Sellafield site. All representations will be taken into account by the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in exercising their powers under the Act.

  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the main recommendations which will be submitted by his Department to the Council of Ministers in June 1993 concerning the phasing-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by chemical companies.

  Mr. Maclean
  In discussions on hydrochlorofluorocarbons control within the European Community, the Government will continue to press for stricter controls than those in Copenhagen. These will include a 2015 phase out, and a consumption cap of 2.5 per cent.

  Ferro-Alloys, Glossop
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the results, on a week-by-week basis, of the monitoring that has been carried out by his Department of the emissions from the Ferro-Alloys chimney in Glossop, Derbyshire, since August 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ferro-Alloys Ltd., Glossop is required to monitor continuously the emission from its stack for the rate of release of sulphur dioxide. The maximum permitted emission is 113 kg per hour. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) is provided with the monitoring results on a monthly basis. The results so far are as follows:

  September average for the month 97 kg/hr

  October average for the month 105 kg/hr

  November average for the month 105 kg/hr

  December average for the month 98 kg/hr

  Check monitoring carried out by HMIP suggests that the monitor over-estimates the actual emission by 10 per cent. This is considered to give a generous safety factor.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to place a ban on the manufacture and import of foams made with chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's policy on CFCs, which follows the approach in the Montreal Protocol and the relevant EC legislation, is to eliminate them by controlling their production and supply rather than their use. We therefore have no plans to ban products containing CFCs.

  Project Assessment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the range of projects for which an environmental assessment will be required.

  Sir George Young
  We hope to lay regulations before Easter to implement the proposals announced on 16 December 1992 in my answer to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend).

  Local Government, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed(a) full time and (b) part time in local government in Liverpool in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is as follows:

  Numbers employed in local government in Liverpool At June of each year

  (a) Full-time

  (b) Part-time

  1987

  20,912

  10,356

  1988

  20,680

  10,394

  1989

  19,360

  10,394

  1990

  19,085

  9,705

  1991

  18,887

  9,797

  1992

  17,532

  9,659

  Source: Joint Staffing Watch for England

  Environmental Statements
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish the proposed new good practice guide on the improvement of the quality of environmental statements.

  Sir George Young
  We expect to issue guidance later this year on the preparation of environmental statements for projects subject to planning control.

  Wild Plants and Animals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek to amend clauses on proof monitoring and the list of species included within the European Community regulations on the trade in wild plants and animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  Negotiations on the proposed new EC regulation on the wildlife trade are continuing. The lists of species to be included on the annexes have yet to be 766
  considered in detail. We hold that the principal controls should be extended to non-CITES species where there are sound scientific reasons, and support a simple system of wider monitoring. The system adopted, including the requirements for proof, must be enforceable and kept as simple as possible.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the Government's response to the recommendations on planning policy contained in the CBI report "Shaping the Nation".

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's response to this report was set out in the speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave at the CBI's national conference on 9 November 1992. In that speech, he welcomed the CBI's report and endorsed most of its recommendations. In particular, he welcomed the recommendations on the need for business and local planning authorities to work more closely together, on the importance of a strategic approach based on regional planning guidance and flexible development plans, and on the need for local authorities to set out clear statements of the service they propose to offer to their customers. He indicated that the Government could not agree to the proposal for an annual policy paper with a five-year forward core funding commitment on infrastructure expenditure. A copy of the speech is available in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families are in temporary accommodation in Nottingham as a result of mortgage repossessions; and what proportion this constitutes of the overall figure for homelessness in Nottingham.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the year ending September 1992, 5 per cent. of homeless families accepted in priority need at Nottingham had been the subject of mortgage repossession. The number of such families currently in temporary accommodation is not available.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce homelessness among single people without children who are below the age of retirement and other groups of people not accepted as statutorily homeless by local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Government's rough sleepers initiative in central London we have made £96 million available over three years to provide 950 new places in hostels for people sleeping rough, and 2,900 places in more permanent accommodation for people in hostels to move on to.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his autumn statement that further resources of £86 million would be made available over the next three years to build on the success of the rough sleepers initiative in assisting people who sleep rough in central London. On 18 January my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning issued a discussion paper on the future of the initiative to groups in the voluntary sector and other

  767
  interested parties. An announcement about the future of the initiative will be made in the light of responses to that paper.

  Nationally, the Department makes grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to support the national homelessness advice service and some 150 projects run by voluntary organisations throughout England that provide direct, practical help to homeless people. Resources in 1993–94 will be increased to £6.5 million, from £6.1 million this year.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average cost for keeping families in(a) permanent council accommodation and (b) temporary accommodation in Nottingham in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  I regret that this information is not available to the Department.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on which local authorities in Great Britain have voluntary appeals procedures for people to appeal against a council's decision to turn them away as not meeting statutory homeless criteria; and if he will issue model criteria for assessing those appeals.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not hold the information requested. Our code of guidance to local authorities about operating the homelessness legislation recommends that authorities should have appeals procedures in place; that any review of a decision should be carried out by a senior officer who should ensure that the case has been properly processed; and that authorities should consider establishing appeals panels at member level with a chairman who is independent of the decision process. Decisions by local authorities about homelessness applications are open to challenge in the courts.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the financial memorandum which he proposes to issue to the urban regeneration agency requires the agency to consult(a) training and enterprise councils, (b) urban development corporations or (c) chambers of commerce in areas affected by its proposals before the preparation of its corporate plan;

  (2) if the financial memorandum which he proposes to issue to the urban regeneration agency requires the agency to consult local authorities affected by its proposals before the preparation of its corporate plan.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We will be issuing clear guidance to the agency about consultation with local authorities, the private sector and other bodies involved in regeneration. It will be for the agency to decide how to put that into effect.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will provide a breakdown of urban regeneration expenditure by region in the most recent year for which data is available.

  (2) if he will publish a breakdown of urban regeneration expenditure, by category of expenditure, for each year since 1980 in constant prices.

  Mr.Robin Squire
  Since 1980, my Department's urban group of programmes has spent as follows:
  768

  Outturn prices £ million

  At 1992–93 constant prices £ million

  1981–82

  162

  303

  1982–83

  283

  494

  1983–84

  325

  542

  1984–85

  450

  715

  1985–86

  436

  656

  1986–87

  442

  644

  1987–88

  1514

  711

  1988–89

  598

  771

  1989–90

  2816

  987

  1990–91

  969

  1,083

  1991–92

  987

  1,031

  31992–93

  1,016

  1,016

  1 Includes task forces and Docklands light railway operating costs from 1987–88 onwards.

  2 Includes city action teams from 1989–90 onwards.

  3 Estimated.

  Individual programme expenditure for 1992–93 is expected to be as follows:

  Estimated outturn £ million

  City challenge1

  63·5

  Urban programme

  243·1

  City grants

  59·6

  Derelict land (net of receipts)2

  94·6

  Urban development corporations and Docklands light railway (net of receipts)

  514·5

  Manchester Olympic bid

  13·1

  Task forces

  23·0

  City action teams

  4·4

  1,015·8

  1 Programme also supported by £19 million a year from the Housing Corporation.

  2 Includes provision for derelict land research.

  Programme information for previous years is available in relevant Public Expenditure White Papers and the Department's annual reports; the 1993 annual report will be published shortly.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an estimated breakdown of the total urban home expenditure for 1993–94 between(a) city challenge, (b) urban programme, (c) urban development corporations and (d) other.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1993–94, my Department will be providing specific urban resources as follows:

  1993–94 £ million

  (a) City challenge1

  213·5

  (b) Urban programme

  175·6

  (c) Urban development corporations and Docklands light railway

  337·4

  (d) Other2

  225·9

  1Programme also supported by £19 million a year from the Housing Corporation.

  2Includes city grants, derelict land grant, Manchester olympic bid, task forces and city action teams.

  Further information will be published shortly in the Department's 1993 annual report.
  769
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the resources for the constituent programmes of the urban regeneration agency next year will be subsumed within the total urban block expenditure of his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Following the autumn statement, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that £177 million would be made available from within the urban block for city grant and derelict land grant programmes in 1993–94, including DLG receipts and administrative set up costs for the urban regeneration agency. These programmes, together with DTI's English Estates, will transfer to the new agency when it comes into being.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a breakdown of the proposed urban block expenditure in the current year and next year by region.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expected breakdown of proposed urban block expenditure, for the current year, is as follows:

  Region

  £ million

  North West

  166·1

  Northern

  148·5

  Eastern

  4·0

  South East

  1·2

  South West

  30·4

  London

  1318·2

  East Midlands

  33·8

  Merseyside

  62·7

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  94·9

  West Midlands

  142·1

  Not yet attributable

  28·3

  Total

  21,030·2

  1 Includes Dockland Light Railway operating costs.

  Total for city challenge pacemakers excludes £19 million from the Housing Corporation.

  2Total includes £14·4 million derelict land grant receipts.

  A regional breakdown of 1993–94 urban block expenditure is not yet available.

  Nottinghamshire (Funding)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what method of calculation has been used to establish the reduction in funding for Nottinghamshire county council arising from further education colleges funding themselves in future.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The standing spending assessment (SSA) element for education in 1993–94 reflects the responsibilities of local authorities for all aspects of education, including those of further education which will remain the responsibility of authorities. There has been no reduction in the 1993–94 SSA. for 1992–93, £2.3 billion was implicitly allowed for further education within SSAs of which it is estimated that £47.7 million was attributable to Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long it is planned to take for affected areas in Nottinghamshire to receive proposed extra money to deal with their special needs in the event of pit closures going ahead.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department is making available £5 million under the coalfield areas fund and considering 770
  enterprise zone designations for areas which may be affected by possible closures. We have already received bids in respect of the coalfield areas fund from local authorities in Nottingham and elsewhere, in order that resources can be made available as soon as decisions are taken following the coal review.

  These initiatives are part of the substantial packages of measures announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 13 and 19 October 1992. Decisions on the implementation of these measures will be taken in the light of the outcome of the coal review.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prevent housing associations from buying new commercially built property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to prevent housing associations from buying new commercially built property, providing such property offers good value for money in addressing local housing needs.

  As part of the £750 million package to boost the housing market in the United Kingdom, which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement, £580 million was made available to the Housing Corporation to enable housing associations to purchase new, empty and repossessed properties in England.

  The proportion of new properties bought so far is high, but this is because these are the deals which can be completed most quickly. The corporation expects the proportion of private treaty and repossession sales to increase significantly. All purchases will reduce the current over-supply of homes on the market and so have a beneficial effect in stabilising prices and stimulating confidence.

  I am delighted with the rapid progress of the package so far, which has seen 11,812 purchases approved by 22 January. I congratulate the Housing Corporation and the housing associations involved.

  Housing, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of housing starts in Hampshire in each year since 1987 by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding starts by sector for each local authority area in Hampshire are shown in the publication "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1987 to 1991 are shown in tables 1(c) to 1(g) of the October 1992 edition—issue number 103. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless and in priority need in each Hampshire district council area in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities in England report the number of households they accept as homeless and in priority need in their annual housing investment programme (HIP1) returns.

  The available information for individual authorities in Hampshire for 1987, 1988 and 1989 are in column CIB of

  771
  the "HIP1 All Items Prints" for those years, for 1990 and 1991 in column C2D1 of the "HIP1 All Items Prints" for those years and for 1992 in column C2A1 of the "1992 HIP1 All Items Print".

  Copies of all documents are in the Library.

  £ per week including services

  Fair rents

  Assured tenancies

  Actual prices £

  1989 prices £

  Actual prices £

  1989 prices £

  1987

  26·96

  30·48

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  26·81

  28·89

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  32·28

  32·28

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  33·79

  30·87

  39·91

  36·46

  1991

  39·33

  33·94

  45·29

  39·08

  19921

  41·71

  34·79

  50·46

  42·09

  Source: Fair rents; DOE Rent Officers' Statistics.

  Assured tenancies; National Federation of Housing.

  Associations CORE data base.

  1 January—September.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average level of local authority rents in Hampshire in each of the years 1987 to 1992 expressed in(a) actual prices and (b) 1987 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information for Hampshire is as follows:

  Average weekly unrebated local authority rents (£ per week)

  In April:

  Actual prices £

  1987 prices £

  1987

  19·63

  19·63

  1988

  21·18

  20·38

  1989

  23·18

  20·65

  1990

  26·61

  21·65

  1991

  30·66

  23·45

  1992

  33·89

  24·86

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of sulphur dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom; and what the level was two years ago.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) earlier today.

  Repossession Orders
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mortgage possession actions were entered in county courts in England and Wales in 1992; how many suspended orders were made; and how many outright orders were made.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information has been published today and placed in the Library.

  Manchester Housing Committee
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply the Minister for Housing and Planning is making to the letter sent to him on 18 January by the chairman of Manchester's housing committee; and if he will make a statement.
  772
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average level of housing association rents in Hampshire in each of the years 1987 to 1992 expressed in(a) actual prices and (b) 1989 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  The averages on a weekly basis of registered fair rents for unfurnished housing association accommodation, and of assured tenancy rents for housing association lettings, in Hampshire are as follows:

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has today written to the chairman of Manchester city council's housing committee explaining that the figure of 5,000 empty council homes in Manchester, which he quoted in his interview with Brian Walden on 17 January, is based on the council's own returns. It represents the total number of vacant council properties and does not distinguish between capital voids (ie properties awaiting demolition or improvement) and management voids (ie. units of accommodation which became vacant through the movement of tenants).

  Landfill Pricing
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report on landfill pricing commissioned by his Department in the summer of 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  I intend that the report will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office next month.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of 11 January,Official Report, column 656, how much of the funding of each urban programme authority listed was spent on crime prevention work for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding each city challenge authority received at 1992 prices for each of the last three years; and how much of this was spent on crime prevention work.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of £7.5 million will be made available to each city challenge authority in 1992–93, which is the first year of city challenge funding.

  City challenge expenditure covers a wide range of activities contributing to urban regeneration. Each city challenge action plan reflects local needs and opportunities. Some plans place high priority on crime

  773
  prevention expenditure. However, it is not possible to quantify accurately expenditure directed solely at crime prevention.

  HIP Allocations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what housing improvement programme bid was made by Darlington borough council, and what was the actual allocation given for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the housing investment programme 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.

  Housing investment programme (HIP) bids by Darlington borough council, HIP allocations and housing capital expenditure, 1983–84 to
  1992–93

  £ thousand

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations1

  Housing capital expenditure

  1983–84

  4,475

  2,502

  4,186

  1984–85

  4,678

  2,387

  4,221

  1985–86

  4,869

  2,052

  3,474

  1986–87

  5,749

  1,689

  2,865

  1987–88

  6,950

  1,639

  3,569

  1988–89

  5,485

  1,538

  3,974

  1989–90

  6,373

  1,156

  3,883

  New capital finance system2

  1990–91

  5,468

  2,081

  2,476

  1991–92

  6,253

  2,124

  32,989

  1992–93

  6,785

  1,643

  43,623

  1 Allocations for 1989–90 and earlier years are final allocations, i.e., 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 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 directly borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  3 Provisional.

  4 Estimated.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show by region the housing improvement programme bids made and the allocation given for each year since 1982–83.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the housing investment programme 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.
  774

  Housing Investment Programme (HIP) bids, HIP allocations1 2 and local authority housing capital expenditure by region 1982–83 to 1992–93

  £ thousand

  1982–83

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  211,149

  129,696

  196,623

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  322,229

  214,813

  286,583

  East Midlands

  222,136

  152,916

  242,192

  Eastern

  249,754

  152,985

  281,711

  Greater London

  834,883

  630,961

  848,027

  South East

  316,018

  211,882

  338,330

  South West

  174,509

  138,691

  213,634

  West Midlands

  375,445

  204,601

  300,064

  North West (including Cumbria)

  492,519

  355,393

  452,269

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  75,067

  England

  3,198,642

  2,191,938

  3,234,500

  £ thousand

  1983–84

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  214,825

  119,543

  196,784

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  350,644

  210,798

  302,454

  East Midlands

  237,306

  159,257

  254,429

  Eastern

  280,535

  161,744

  313,747

  Greater London

  891,165

  596,308

  913,378

  South East

  331,701

  235,447

  406,041

  South West

  210,503

  147,620

  250,040

  West Midlands

  335,101

  243,155

  354,800

  North West (including Cumbria)

  517,041

  359,275

  499,611

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  80,116

  England

  3,368,821

  2,233,147

  3,571,400

  £ thousand

  1984–85

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  252,633

  95,803

  174,094

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  448,391

  166,769

  250,978

  East Midlands

  279,750

  114,769

  219,408

  Eastern

  359,215

  138,040

  343,076

  Greater London

  1,076,208

  559,831

  982,768

  South East

  446,847

  187,414

  418,363

  South West

  282,544

  113,760

  226,543

  West Midlands

  429,431

  186,170

  313,648

  North West (including Cumbria)

  609,042

  289,927

  441,485

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  130,537

  England

  4,184,061

  1,852,483

  3,500,900

  775

  £ thousand

  1985–86

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  257,956

  80,132

  145,260

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  375,035

  140,326

  233,733

  East Midlands

  277,908

  96,812

  179,738

  Eastern

  404,675

  123,705

  309,108

  Greater London

  1,223,525

  487,500

  779,899

  South East

  494,149

  166,480

  354,171

  South West

  287,601

  101,021

  193,600

  West Midlands

  458,472

  165,767

  274,663

  North West (including Cumbria)

  685,710

  243,720

  407,237

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  145,391

  England

  4,465,031

  1,605,463

  3,022,800

  £ thousand

  1986–87

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  311,178

  75,476

  152,889

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  561,179

  125,312

  222,429

  East Midlands

  274,588

  85,471

  196,831

  Eastern

  429,795

  106,760

  302,005

  Greater London

  1,616,891

  445,505

  838,249

  South East

  506,657

  148,141

  363,876

  South West

  305,507

  101,617

  197,307

  West Midlands

  645,585

  154,398

  274,508

  North West (including Cumbria)

  730,052

  215,950

  382,852

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  86,354

  England

  5,381,432

  1,458,630

  3,017,300

  1987–88

  £ thousand

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  293,575

  72,539

  174,314

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  617,966

  125,103

  264,620

  East Midlands

  297,703

  84,685

  201,358

  Eastern

  478,892

  102,705

  327,060

  Greater London

  1,935,446

  415,560

  890,413

  South East

  554,364

  138,627

  430,473

  South West

  319,253

  89,290

  213,439

  West Midlands

  691,951

  149,253

  286,251

  North West (including Cumbria)

  790,314

  222,296

  431,672

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  52,100

  England

  5,979,464

  1,400,058

  3,271,700

  776

  1988–89

  £ thousand

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  306,112

  73,907

  166,471

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  555,697

  123,706

  288,502

  East Midlands

  273,526

  72,983

  212,383

  Eastern

  536,860

  81,935

  427,654

  Greater London

  2,053,119

  427,422

  908,759

  South East

  644,217

  116,224

  533,282

  South West

  309,316

  79,033

  257,817

  West Midlands

  710,821

  142,301

  309,323

  North West (including Cumbria)

  838,917

  213,130

  434,326

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  65,783

  England

  6,228,585

  1,330,640

  3,604,300

  £ thousand

  1989–90

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  338,007

  62,061

  185,597

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  544,419

  106,288

  360,977

  East Midlands

  299,017

  60,687

  291,868

  Eastern

  562,632

  63,720

  572,188

  Greater London

  2,024,910

  329,458

  1,504,462

  South East

  717,437

  85,479

  662,952

  South West

  360,668

  62,319

  411,579

  West Midlands

  603,263

  127,808

  423,342

  North West (including Cumbria)

  855,083

  197,055

  531,995

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  181,040

  England

  6,305,436

  1,094,874

  5,126,000

  £ thousand

  1990–91

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  329,145

  99,103

  142,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  573,678

  171,199

  271,000

  East Midlands

  319,611

  104,420

  185,000

  Eastern

  574,225

  159,256

  347,000

  Greater London

  2,109,436

  538,872

  791,000

  South East

  702,528

  199,806

  416,000

  South West

  383,869

  153,269

  250,000

  West Midlands

  665,650

  198,040

  313,000

  North West (including Cumbria)

  693,061

  265,035

  386,000

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  63,000

  England

  6,351,203

  1,889,000

  3,164,000

  1991–924

  £ thousand

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  332,577

  99,184

  148,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  603,789

  169,217

  244,000

  East Midlands

  282,427

  111,815

  177,000

  777

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Eastern

  499,846

  151,559

  318,000

  Greater London

  1,823,538

  528,064

  625,000

  South East

  655,862

  195,103

  314,000

  South West

  380,114

  155,399

  220,000

  West Midlands

  743,105

  204,137

  269,000

  North West (including Cumbria)

  764,503

  246,615

  354,000

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  51,000

  England

  6,085,761

  1,861,093

  2,720,000

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  DOE regions

  HIP bids

  HIP allocations

  Housing capital expenditure

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  331,845

  88,263

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  545,798

  162,516

  n/a

  East Midlands

  266,485

  117,693

  n/a

  Eastern

  512,101

  142,478

  n/a

  Greater London

  1,860,531

  548,158

  n/a

  South East

  633,802

  181,966

  n/a

  South West

  359,321

  140,473

  n/a

  West Midlands

  696,595

  201,916

  n/a

  North West (including Cumbria)

  818,779

  243,249

  n/a

  Unallocated3

  —

  —

  n/a

  England

  6,025,257

  1,826,712

  2,600,000

  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.

  2From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation is an assessment of relative need for housing capital expenditure rather than a directly borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  3 The regional expenditure totals do not sum to the overall England totals as these totals include some expenditure (eg the housing element of the urban programme, leasing) for which regional estimates are not available and because the England totals have been reconciled with other expenditure data reported by authorities.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Estimated.

  City Grant
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the city grant projects funded in each of the last three years, and the amount of funding allocated.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have today placed in the Library of the House details of city grant projects approved in each of the last three financial years by region. The list excludes projects which were approved but where the applicant did not proceed.

  Chemical Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the first tranche of the process guidance notes for the chemical industry sector processes prescribed under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be available.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am pleased to report that nine notes, which are the first tranche of the chief inspector's guidance to inspectors in the chemical industry sector, are published today. These notes cover organic chemical processes, and have been drawn up following completion of research reviews. Relevant industries and other bodies have been given the opportunity to put forward their comments. The notes will provide a sound network within which inspectors can assess applications for the authorisation of new processes and existing processes. They represent a further stage in the introduction of integrated pollution control.

  A set of the notes will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are published.

  The preparation of guidance notes for the second and third tranches of chemical industry processes to come under control is well advanced. Further notes will be published later in the year.

  House Purchases
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have so far been purchased under the special package announced in the autumn statement; and from whom they have been brought.

  Mr. Howard
  Of the £750 million announced in the autumn statement to boost the housing market in the United Kingdom, £577 million went to the Housing Corporation to enable housing associations to purchase new, empty and repossessed properties in England. The latest figures from the corporation show that by 22 January approvals had been granted for the purchase of 11,812 properties; 3,394 from private individuals; 425 from mortgage lenders in possession; 7,724 from builders or developers, and 269 from other sources.

  Another £20 million was made available to the corporation to support the tenants' incentive scheme and £30 million to local authorities to support the cash incentive scheme, to encourage housing association and local authority tenants in England to move out and buy their own homes.

  Waste Disconnections
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families with children were disconnected from water supplies due to non-payment of water rates in 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: Information on disconnections of water supplies to families with children is not available. Total numbers of domestic disconnections for 1991–92 were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 4 November 1992, Official Report, columns 234–35. Information on domestic disconnections for the six month period from 1 April to 30 September

  779
  1992 was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 18 November 1992, Official Report, columns 204–5.

  Productivity Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the average annual percentage growth in productivity in the(a) manufacturing and (b) construction industry in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available in each member country of the European Community.

  (a) Manufacturing

  (Year-on-year changes: Percentages)

  Belgium

  France

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Denmark

  West Germany

  Spain

  1982

  6·76

  2·24

  1·88

  3·00

  2·01

  0·55

  n/a

  1983

  8·00

  2·46

  4·92

  7·42

  6·53

  4·62

  n/a

  1984

  3·76

  1·24

  9·41

  12·52

  -0·44

  3·20

  n/a

  1985

  2·51

  2·59

  4·40

  5·88

  -2·36

  2·10

  n/a

  1986

  1·95

  1·79

  2·84

  -0·04

  -3·42

  -1·56

  n/a

  1987

  4·88

  2·36

  4·88

  3·18

  -2·78

  -2·94

  0·87

  1988

  7·24

  5·33

  6·16

  15·16

  2·13

  3·13

  9·51

  1989

  2·63

  3·82

  2·57

  7·69

  1·48

  3·12

  0·14

  Note: Manufacturing is defined in terms of sections 5 to 8 of the Standard International Trade Classifications.

  (b) Construction industry

  (Year-on-year changes: Percentages)

  Belgium

  France

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Denmark

  West Germany

  Spain

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  1982

  3·1

  1·8

  -3·2

  -2·0

  1·3

  0·6

  n/a

  6·0

  13·2

  1983

  2·2

  1·9

  -1·3

  2·7

  -1·7

  4·1

  n/a

  5·9

  11·4

  1984

  2·0

  4·2

  2·6

  0·7

  1·4

  0·7

  n/a

  3·4

  2·1

  1985

  0·9

  3·5

  1·4

  0·2

  2·7

  -0·9

  n/a

  -0·1

  0·2

  1986

  2·8

  2·8

  1·8

  4·9

  8·1

  2·7

  n/a

  -1·7

  9·2

  1987

  2·5

  0·2

  2·5

  -0·3

  1·5

  -0·3

  -3·2

  -1·4

  2·2

  1988

  6·8

  3·2

  2·9

  5·6

  -4·4

  2·2

  0·2

  8·4

  -0·7

  1989

  0·0

  0·5

  4·4

  1·4

  -2·5

  2·0

  2·4

  2·8

  -8·6

  1990

  1·2

  0·2

  -0·2

  -0·8

  2·0

  0·0

  1·8

  2·2

  n/a

  Notes:

  Figures for Ireland, Greece and Portugal are not available.

  This table has been compiled using OECD data on the construction industry contribution to GDP, expressed in constant prices, divided by OECD data on all persons in the industry. OECD data for the United Kingdom has been expressed at constant prices using the DOE All New Construction Output Price Index.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury of 20 January,Official Report, column 264, for what reasons he has decided not to place copies of responses to the first consultation exercise on contaminated land in the Library prior to his decision being announced.
  780
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: A comparison of labour productivity in the manufacturing industry between the United Kingdom and its major trading partners can be found in the Treasury Bulletin dated summer 1992, a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House. The available figures for other members of the European Community are set out in the table:

  For the construction industry, the available figures are:

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: In my previous answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 264, I indicated that we are still considering the way forward on the proposals. We are still receiving representations on the issues set out in our first consultation paper, which were subsequently modified in our second paper. We will publish responses once a final decision has been taken on the whole question of registers.

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

Treasury Officials: Consultations with Industry
The Earl of Buchan The Earl of Buchan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that one day per year is adequate for Treasury officials to acquaint themselves with the exact needs of British industry and commerce.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his fulsome and lengthy Answer. We might have expected a little more from the noble Earl bearing in mind his experiences in dealing with the subtleties of the Orient in Hong Kong. We may still wish him well over his problems in the murky waters of privatisation.
Will the Minister arrange for parties of people who have suffered from the incompetence of the Treasury, in particular from the long period of high interest rates, which ended only by accident in September, to visit the Treasury on what might be called a reciprocal basis? I refer to businessmen who have been made bankrupt, mortgagees who have been dispossessed, zookeepers, businessmen and many others who have been put to great inconvenience.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thought that my Answer to the noble Earl was succinct, accurate and covered the remit of his Question exactly. I take note of what he says. I shall put it to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, did not the Treasury demonstrate yesterday that it had received the most important message from British industry loud and clear?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had many discussions with British industry. He acted promptly and decisively yesterday.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Treasury is sufficiently well in touch with industry and commerce, why did it wait until yesterday? The Treasury must have known that industry wanted such a reduction in interest rates a long time ago. Was the reason that the green shoots were in danger of turning brown?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thoroughly enjoy questions from the noble Lord. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury he will know that those matters are kept continuously under review.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, will the Minister agree that if the Treasury were to spend two days doing what is referred to on the Order Paper, it would be twice as wrong as it usually is?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what my noble friend says contradicts what the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, wanted initially. Perhaps the Treasury might have it about right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if one day is insufficient for Treasury officials to acquaint themselves with the exact needs of British industry and commerce, will the noble Earl comment on how long it might take Ministers to so acquaint themselves?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, Ministers keep in regular touch with industry, both big and small, private and public.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I refer to the original Question and Answer. Does the Minister agree that while Treasury officials are probably the ablest in Whitehall, they are the least streetwise? Their lack of understanding of how the real economy works limits the value of the advice that they can give to Ministers and therefore is a limiting factor on economic policy. Will he consider discussing with the Head of the Civil Service the possibility that Treasury officials who are going to the top might spend a period of one or two years, perhaps twice in their careers, in the real economy? I suggest that that period might be in their late 30s or early 40s. They might then be better equipped.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the first part of my noble friend's question. Treasury officials are very able and extremely competent and they keep in touch with business on a regular basis. The initiative that has been put forward is to make sure that that aim is fulfilled to the best advantage.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 1968 the Committee on the Civil Service, under Lord Fulton, recommended that engineers and scientists in the Civil Service should be given greater responsibilities and wider career opportunities? Does he agree that it is now most unsatisfactory that, when industry depends so much on scientists and engineers, there is not a single Permanent Secretary with qualifications in science or engineering? Will he draw this point to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is also in the Office of Public Service and Science?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I give full credit to my noble friend for the way in which he managed to get that question in under the main Question on the Order Paper. However, of course, I shall do what he asks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if Treasury officials take a day,
"to acquaint themselves with the exact needs of British industry and commerce",
how long do they take to consider the far more important needs of the man in the street?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the Question on the Order Paper and it was to that Question that I said "No", because it is an ongoing process.

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have undertaken any consultations with the board of directors of British Airways concerning the effects on British aviation interests generally of the campaign waged against Virgin Atlantic.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is that not a surprising Answer? Will the Minister at the very least agree that the behaviour of British Airways in this case was utterly unconscionable? Does he agree that it is in the interests of British aviation that the reputation of the world's finest airline needs to be repaired without delay? Have not the Government an interest in the matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the reply to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is again "No". We have a different philosophy from him. I understand that he likes to interfere with every business, whether successful or not. But this is a matter between two private companies.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should compliment the board of British Airways on creating an airline which is the envy of the world? Should we not deplore Mr. Branson's continuing threats of US litigation, which will benefit foreign airlines?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we should certainly compliment British aviation, not just the two airlines that my noble friend mentioned. However, it is sad that when there is so much competition from across the Atlantic our two prime airlines which cover that route are arguing among themselves. The sooner that stops and we get on with competing with the Americans the better.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if British Airways intends to keep its claim to pre-eminence and successfully to handle competition it must stop packing people in like sardines on its long distance jumbos, particularly in economy class? People are not sardines but at the end of a long flight in economy class on British Airways they feel just like sardines.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would like to take up his complaint direct with British Airways.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl may not yet have had the opportunity of studying the recent court proceedings involving British Airways
1260
and Virgin Atlantic. These matters require consideration. But does he agree that on the basis of the press reports which have so far appeared there is a case for the Government to interest themselves in the way in which the whole business has been conducted? It would be in the interests of the general public and the reputation of the country as a whole to make representations to British Airways, which is clearly culpable in the events that have taken place.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we must be careful—I know that the noble Lord will agree with me on this—about acting upon what is said in the press. One must look at the facts of the case. It was a libel case. But at the same time it is a matter between two private companies and they must sort it out themselves.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that British Airways generally has improved enormously since Ministers ceased to intervene with it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister not even say that in general he disapproves of the kind of conduct of which a major British company has been accused?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one must look at the particular case. If there is justification for action to be taken, it must be taken by the appropriate company in the circumstances.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister said that my noble friend wished to interfere in everything. Could he provide a little evidence to show that that allegation was not wholly irresponsible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one has only to look at the Labour Party's manifesto at the last election to see what it would have done and, indeed, at the recent announcement proposing to put a supertax on a number of successful British companies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl give chapter and verse as to where in the manifesto we say, or the Labour Party says, it will intervene, directly or indirectly, in British Airways?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I referred to the manifesto in general, as the noble Lord knows full well. It is a difference of philosophy between the two sides of the House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not clear that the Minister was, in the most misguided way, thinking on his feet and made a totally unfounded allegation? There is nothing in the manifesto on that at all. Does he understand that there has been revealed in British Airways' own statement an admission of the most appallingly illicit behaviour? Do the Government appreciate that there is a case for Ministers saying to the chairman of British Airways and to senior management, "This is not good enough. It damages the reputation of British Airways and British aviation generally and we shall not allow it to happen again"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if a company has been aggrieved by another company there are the usual remedies to go through, and that must happen.

Anthony Jeffs: Release from Prison
2.51 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why convict Jeffs, serving a life sentence for the murder of a police officer, is to be released after serving 20 years of his sentence; and whether the release accords with recent practice of treating life sentences for the murder of police officers as sentences to be served for life.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a life sentence is a sentence for life of which part is spent in custody. The murder of a police officer requires a minimum of 20 years to be spent in custody. The decision in principle to release Mr. Jeffs after 21 years in custody was taken in accordance with the normal policy for the release of mandatory life sentence prisoners.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, as I am sure he is, that the police realise that, in view of the nature of their work, they are particularly dependent on the effective application of the criminal law when they are attacked? In those circumstances, is it not a little depressing for them, as perhaps it is for the public, that this gentleman should be released after serving 21 years on two life sentences: one for killing a police officer in the execution of his duty and the other for seriously injuring another? Does my noble friend understand that the fact that this man can be released in middle age after such a record must have a very depressing effect on the police force?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I understand the anxiety which the police force have about murderers who have murdered policemen. The whole of society condemns that and is anxious about it. My noble friend said that the police depend upon the proper application of the criminal law. I can assure him that the proper application is undertaken. As I explained, a life sentence is a sentence for life. It is the current policy that those prisoners who have murdered policemen should serve a minimum of 20 years. That policy was stated by Mr. Brittan when he was Home Secretary in 1983. After their release, their liberty is restricted for life by the life sentence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether when a prisoner is released after 20 years the responsibility for the decision taken is that of the Parole Board or of the Secretary of State?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in a mandatory life sentence the Home Secretary decides whether to release a person. The Home Secretary considers the tariff, and in this case the judge chose 20 years. He also has to consider both the risk and wider considerations.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, was any recommendation made when sentence was passed at the trial?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the recommendation was that he should serve at least 20 years in prison. He has served 21 years.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is particularly strong feeling among members of the Police Federation on this point owing to the cold-blooded attitude of Anthony Jeffs towards the police force, and in particular that he was found to have the initials ACAB—standing for "All coppers are bastards"—tattooed on his knuckles? In this connection, does he agree that in the case of a cold-blooded murder of a policeman such as this, a tariff of more than 20 years would in the present circumstances be more appropriate?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only repeat that I quite understand any policeman feeling deeply aggrieved when a person who has murdered a colleague is released. That is a perfectly natural understanding. But the law has to operate in the correct way that it does. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has taken the advice of the Parole Board and has consulted the Lord Chief Justice. All the letters that my noble friend said were tattooed on the gentleman are a matter of his personal concern. But they cannot affect the running of the law. The policy has been that the murder of a policeman should require at least 20 years in prison. That is what has been done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since doubt is being cast on the wisdom of the 20 years' policy, which, as the Minister rightly says, was first introduced by Mr. Leon Brittan, will he confirm that the policy was reconfirmed as recently as 1990 by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was not the softest of Home Secretaries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the policy has continued just the same ever since it was announced by Mr. Brittan.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the concern of the police force, which I do not think he can dispute, over the knowledge that, when they are performing their duties, if one of their number is murdered the murderer will be released after 20 years? Does he realise what a bad effect this appreciation of the situation must have on the morale of the police? Will he undertake to speak to the Home Secretary about it and ask him to give it the most serious consideration?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand the concern which is felt by the police. I can also understand the concern which some people feel that those who have committed murder should suffer capital punishment. I know that that happens to be one of my noble friend's views. Many people think that. But the law has to be operated in the way in which it is. My right honourable friend has responsibility and has consulted widely. The Parole Board considers that there is no risk. It recommended

1263
Mr. Jeffs's release. He has been a model prisoner and has shown remorse. When one thinks of the condition of the prisoner as well as the condition of those whom he has affected, it is appropriate that all matters should be considered. They were. But I understand my noble friend's concern.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, as someone who once had to exercise that responsibility and knows how carefully these matters are looked into, I ask my noble friend whether he will make quite clear something which I believe is the case but could get overlooked; namely, that the prisoner does not have to be released after 20 years. It is possible to release him after 20 years, but only after the most careful inquiries in depth and recommendations from many sources.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The sentence was for life, with a recommendation that he should spend at least 20 years in prison. My right honourable friend takes advice particularly from the Parole Board as to the condition of that person and as to the likelihood of his reoffending. As to the risk which would be attached to him being released and other public interest matters, these matters are considered very carefully. It is not just decided on the whim of my right honourable friend. I am glad that my noble friend drew that matter to the attention of your Lordships.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that if somebody is sentenced to life and that in fact means 20 years, the word "life" is rather misleading?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. I can understand my noble friend's concern. The sentence is for life. The imprisonment is for a part of that time. When released, that person is still out on licence, to be recalled if ever he or she reoffends.

Hospitals in London: Waiting Lists
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
The total number of patients waiting, first, for consultant appointments and, secondly, for admission at the London hospitals named in the Tomlinson Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, in the year to September 1992, the total number waiting for in-patients or day case treatment in inner London fell by 13 per cent., while the number waiting over a year was more than halved. Information on out-patient waiting lists is not collected centrally. However, under the Patient's Charter health authorities are setting and publishing local charter standards for waiting times for first out-patient appointments for each hospital speciality and consultant.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is there not some contradiction in the figures we are getting and in the figures which occur on page 39, paragraph 145, of the Tomlinson Report? There it is stated that 1,700 beds in London have already been closed, and the Tomlinson proposals would reduce the number by another 2,500. Surely there is some relationship, even in the mind of the Government, between supply and demand. Does she agree that the closure of so many beds will make it more difficult for doctors to get their patients into hospital or to get appointments for out-patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that we will be debating the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report in terms of the Statement shortly to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Last Monday I answered a Question on the Tomlinson Report. I explained the great dilemma that exists in London in terms of beds and the way that they are used. We know that 60 per cent. of people coming into accident and emergency departments are visiting London and would not normally use those departments. One of the main thrusts of the Tomlinson Report, upon which my right honourable friend will be commenting, is the provision of primary care. It is not just beds and acute services; it is the whole range of London healthcare that is important.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether she is concerned about the frequency with which general practitioners in London need to have recourse to the emergency bed service to get their patients into hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. I believe that is the answer I gave a moment ago.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness may not have the figures available today, although she has quoted percentages. Is she aware that to be able to quote percentages means that she must have the figures and statistics upon which those percentages are based? Presumably it would be quite easy to obtain the figures and publish them. It is perhaps too late to ask the noble Baroness to do that today. However, when she comes armed to debate the Tomlinson Report, will she ensure either in advance or at the time that the actual figures are made available as distinct from the percentages?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in my short time in your Lordships' House I have learnt never to come to Questions unprepared. There are 78,573 people on waiting lists in London. It is not the total number that is important; it is the time that they wait for their appointments that is important. Should there be any hospitals about which the noble Lord has a specific question, I am prepared and I hope able.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the problem in regard to the health service in London is that the obsession about which we hear in this Chamber and read of outside regarding the hospital provision and the

1265
dominance that that provision has had on the budget of the health service in London has led to what is the poorest primary health service in the country? The Government must turn their hand to that.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I am sure that that will be a major plank in the Government's strategy for the future.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not correct that in some of the departments in our great teaching hospitals there is a waiting list; but, equally, in other departments there are vacant beds? Is not the answer the kind of rationalisation which was suggested in the Tomlinson Report? For instance, while rendering great gratitude to St. Bartholomew's Hospital for the services it renders to those who come and work in the square mile of the City of London, is it not reasonable that obstetrics and gynaecology should be concentrated at the Royal London Hospital? That hospital serves an area in which many babies are born, whereas one hopes that in the square mile of the City of London there are relatively few babies born.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question and those comments. I am sure that he will make a major contribution to the debate which will be before us in the next few months.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it is not the number of beds which is of high significance but rather the number of patients who are treated? To have beds which are not used efficiently and effectively does not help the healthcare provision in our capital city. Let us concentrate on patients while of course recognising the significance of beds in any specific specialty in a hospital.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. One of the great thrusts in the health service at the moment is the use of day-case surgery which does not involve beds at all. People prefer it; it is more efficient, and we know that in this respect London lags behind the rest of the country.
Lord Howell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider the experience I have just undergone? I spent several days in Westminster Hospital where the demand for emergency work was astronomical. On two occasions on two successive days four patients were brought into my ward when the previous occupants of the beds were still in them. That illustrates the demand. There were people from hostels and those who were tourists in the Westminster area; there were people from the large day-time working population. The suggestion that Westminster Hospital and possibly also St. Thomas's should close and that the whole of the Westminster area should be left with an inadequate amount of emergency beds is lunatic.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the reasons for some of those problems revert back to the earlier questions on primary care and its inadequacy in London. At this moment, I do not want to make any comment regarding the future of London hospitals. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that we shall
1266
be looking at accident and emergency services specifically. We recognise how crucial they are to people living and working in the City.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give us an assurance that primary healthcare facilities will be in place before beds are closed in London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid your Lordships will have to wait for the announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place.

Business
3.5 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, that means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and in that of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, 14 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Road Transport: Pollution of City Centres
3.7 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird rose to call attention to the case for the control of combustion-engined road transport in city centres; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is my pleasure to welcome this afternoon my noble friend Lord Cadman, our maiden speaker. I am sure that his contribution will be significant, particularly in regard to the City of Bristol. I am grateful also to other noble Lords for their support in the debate and I am sure that all contributions will be important in this complex subject.
In calling attention in the debate to the need for the control of combustion-engined road transport in city centres, I should like to structure my remarks this afternoon into the format of a new standard published by the British Standards Institution. The new standard—BS7750 —for environmental management systems was published in March last year and is currently being piloted through about 300 enterprises of all types in the United Kingdom. Its contents have had a significant influence on eco-audit regulations published recently in Brussels and it was commended in the recently published 12th Report of your

1267
Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community and its activity within the context of the eco-audit scheme.
That should therefore provide a framework for the debate. The standard calls first for commitment, demonstrated not only by the presence of your Lordships here today, but also by the work being carried out by the Government, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and a host of other organisations. Next it calls for an initial review followed by the formulation of policy. From that formulation would evolve an organisation for the achievement of objectives and targets and for operational control over the programme. Records and audits should be properly maintained. Finally, there should be a review of the whole programme.
The initial review is under way. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is currently undertaking a study to explore the options for developing transport strategies aimed at reconciling the necessary movement of people and goods with the need to protect the environment. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport have already issued a joint memorandum by way of evidence to the Royal Commission and it is clear that the need to address the problems of transport-related inner city pollution is central to the study.
Your Lordships will recall that Her Majesty's Government came away from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June last year with a firm commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2000. It is my belief that, within the context of this debate, the significance of reducing levels of carbon dioxide cannot be overstated. In the UK, approximately 20 per cent. of all carbon dioxide emissions result directly from fuel used in transport. About 90 per cent. of this figure is derived from road transport alone, and of this, a staggering 67 per cent. is derived from private cars, vans and taxis.
Air pollution from transport has grown with the increase of traffic everywhere, particularly in the inner cities. Road congestion is making the problem worse as combustion engines work less efficiently in heavy traffic. In addition to carbon dioxide, emissions from combustion engines include, first, the oxides of nitrogen, split 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. between petrol and diesel-engined vehicles; secondly, hydro-carbons, which arise largely from petrol car exhausts; thirdly, carbon monoxide, almost all of which emanates from petrol engined vehicles and which in the UK accounts for 90 per cent. of emissions of this type; fourthly, particulates emissions, the source of most of which come from those diesel-engined vehicles which have been poorly maintained; fifthly, lead, mostly from petrol-driven vehicles. However, lead content in the atmosphere of our inner cities is declining dramatically because of government fiscal measures supporting the use of unleaded petrol. Sixthly, and finally, there is sulphur dioxide, of which transport only contributes about 3 per cent. to total emissions.
Another aspect of combustion-engined transport which has been a focus of technology is that of traffic noise. In inner city areas, where cars move at slow speeds, engines, gearboxes and exhausts have been the primary cause of this noise, while at higher speeds the surface contact between the tyre and the road has been responsible for the most harrowing of screeches and noises in our streets.
The third environmental challenge we face is urban congestion and the impact of the combustion-engined vehicle on towns and cities. Road traffic in metropolitan areas increased by 20 per cent. between 1983 and 1990, and as the joint memorandum by the Departments of the Environment and of Transport recognises, urban congestion has gradually spread from the inner cities to the suburbs. The fourth is the issue of inner city crime, and in particular the escalation in the theft of vehicles.
These are all facts that we encounter in the reality of our everyday lives. The key issue before us is what objectives and targets should be set to ensure greater control over these machines so as to achieve the proper management of combustion-engined vehicles within our environment.
For some, the objective is to eliminate the combustion-engined vehicle from our streets forever. For others there is to be no limit or restraint on the use of cars and lorries in our inner cities. A more realistic objective would be to accept that 67 per cent. of British households own a car. It is not the job of government to tell people when, where and how to travel. The Department of Transport forecasts car ownership rising between 18 and 31 per cent. by the end of the century, and between 48 and 77 per cent. by the year 2015. In greater London alone there are estimated to be 2.32 million cars. If all those cars were parked on the M.25 at one time there would need to be 50 lanes to accommodate them. Moreover, the Department of Transport's projections to the year 2010 suggest a further increase of nearly 50 per cent. to 3.4 million—another 24 more lanes on the M.25. Can one imagine such a car park with 74 lanes the length of the M.25? Car use, as measured in vehicle kilometres, is expected to increase even more rapidly. Furthermore, many car journeys cannot be conveniently made by public transport. The truth is that public transport provision varies within and between our cities. Most routes in London are radial rather than orbital. Towns are served better than rural areas.
The car is therefore here to stay. Today we are debating whether or not the environmental costs of combustion driven engines can be contained and controlled. It is my contention that they can be, and that British industry is playing a significant, if often unrecognised, part in providing technical solutions to the challenges posed by increasingly stringent environmental targets. And if we were to place greater emphasis on technical rather than commercial or political solutions, we would not only drive forward Britain's advanced technology base, but would also arrive at solutions which are acceptable to both UK commercial interests and the range of political interests represented in this House.
The British record for providing technical solutions is remarkable, if seldom remarked upon. I once spent some time with a Danish consultant working on a new type of medical pump. His comment was, "If you want something invented you go to Britain". Today the same philosophy applies but now we can produce as well.
I hope that in this debate we will be able to draw attention to the achievement of British industry—in particular its scientists and engineers—in providing solutions to environmental challenges. The most successful solutions are likely to come from both the engine component manufacturers and the oil industry working closely together with legislators to achieve real reductions in emissions rather than artificial standards which vary significantly from country to country. The oil industry is already doing much to lower the lead and sulphur content of fuels. Sulphur emissions, while lower from the transport sector than the quantities emitted by power stations, still contribute to the creation of acid rain. An EC directive which is due to be in place by October 1996 aims to reduce the sulphur content in diesel to 0.05 per cent. At the same time, motor and components manufacturers have combined to improve engine and emission control technology. There can be no doubt that these technical solutions, particularly when combined with fiscal incentives, have had a profound impact on air quality. No longer the Stygian gloom of Limehouse in the 1940s.
The effect of improved technology on air quality is dependent on the emission characteristics of vehicles in use. Dr. Franz Pischinger has shown, in a report for the European Commission's Symposium on Auto Emissions 2000, that diesel engine technology,
"has been refined to a degree beyond which it was thought possible two decades ago".
Dr Pischinger reminds us that the emission behaviour of cars is determined largely by maintenance. Insufficient maintenance increases the emission factor by more than two. He goes on to note that in respect of the life of an engine diesel cars are better. There is only a modest deterioration over the vehicle's life. Diesel engines burn fuel more efficiently, using 30 per cent. less fuel than the equivalent in petrol cars and producing about 20 per cent. less carbon dioxide per mile, a factor which the Chancellor has already recognised by widening the fiscal advantage of diesel over standard petrol. Cleaner cars using unleaded petrol, catalytic converters, diesel fuel and engine technology have been developed through European-wide scientific and technical co-operation.
It is essential that the United Kingdom should continue to play a role in joint European motor and group industry research programmes to tackle road transport emission problems in a co-operative spirit. I shall highlight to your Lordships some of the areas in which I know technical solutions are being sought; for example, hydrocarbon based fuels—all of which pollute and all of which can be made cleaner.
BP, along with other major oil companies, is studying the role of fuel chemistry on emissions' performance and as a measure of its commitment, has recently invested £12 million in an acute, clean fuel
1270
laboratory at its Sunbury research centre. British Gas and Johnson Matthey are doing serious research work to improve catalytic converters and pressurised gas. Lucas Industries are developing electronically controlled fuel injection systems which offer significant emission advantages over the present mechanical systems as well as improving fuel consumption and overall performance.
However, there is no single fuel formulation which has been found for diesel or gasoline that offers the complete panacea. There will have to be collaboration for these technical solutions both between industries and with our European partners. An example of that collaboration was the invitation from three oil companies, Agip, Elf and Fina, to British manufacturers, like Lucas, to discuss joint research initiatives in the presence of European Commissioners. That collaboration between oil, engine and fuel injection manufacturers has led to the development of joint standards.
Collaboration also occurs within the framework of the standards institutions. There are many issues which are defined by these bodies, including the technical specifications, nomenclatures and methods of testing. The collaborative process is greatly assisted by the fact that national trade associations representing national companies are represented within these different bodies at all three levels. Therefore, collaboration is widespread and the relationship between the bodies is close.
Collaboration between local authorities and the public to reduce toxic emissions is already a feature of inner city government. I particularly have in mind Westminster City Council which has just launched its "Exhaust Watch" scheme whereby residents are encouraged to report cars which they see producing visible emissions.
There have been striking successes in reducing noise levels in vehicles over the past 20 years. I understand that Britain is currently one of the leading countries worldwide in the production of environmental noise analysers, a business which is driven by the environmental regulations from our own Government and the European Commission.
Perhaps I may now turn to the problem of inner city congestion. Traffic growth and congestion in city centres across the United Kingdom are serious problems. Projected growth will cause increasingly severe and more widespread congestion, imposing a severe burden on the economy of the region.
One method of dealing with congestion is congestion metering, a process which is currently the focus of research at Newcastle University. The research is being partly funded under a European Commission project called "Drive" and involves a wide range of European manufacturers. The system works on the basis of a charge being levied for a unit of congested road; a unit being half a kilometre or a third of a mile. The system is activated by electric monitoring scanners which are placed on the boundaries of congested areas. When a car crosses the boundary the on-board computer monitor is activated and the charges are registered on a card. The "beacon technology" is developed by Saab in Sweden with the

1271
use, in part, of American technology. The research into developing the on-board computers is primarily being dealt with by Newcastle University.
In the past the policy of "park and ride" has been proposed by many local authorities and in many cases it has been rejected by opposing views. However, if we look at what is going on in London and in other cities, that policy is being implemented by stealth. Car owners are parking near public transport junctions such as tube stations and bus stops, with the result that vast areas of residential streets are blocked and are being turned into creeping car parks, denying a source of revenue to local authorities and making life very difficult for the residents of those areas. Surely, the potential for "park and ride" must be one of the alternatives to the present chaos.
In conclusion, I hope that, in tabling this debate, I have created an opportunity for your Lordships to tackle the last part of BS7750; namely, a review of the whole programme. Before rushing to legislate or to implement solutions, we must take care to clarify the facts. We should urge further collaboration and dialogue between interested parties. Technology has driven progress forward a great deal over the past 20 years and that is apparent. However, we must increase our efforts to ensure that this progress is sustained. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, is to be congratulated on having introduced this Motion at this time. He made our minds boggle with his reference to what might happen to the M.25 if all London's cars were parked along it. I suppose that one beneficial consequence would be that it would be easier to move around in the rest of the city. We could at least walk in peace, ride our bicycles in peace and perhaps go back to horse-drawn vehicles. However, I should utter a word of caution here. I am quite convinced that over a century ago or so, in this very House, there could well have been a Motion from a Peer with a similar interest to that of the noble Viscount, drawing attention to the environmental hazards of the ever-increasing quantities of horse manure which were impeding movement on the roads of London. I am sure that some fanciful projections would have been made as to where that might lead in due course. Very shortly after that the petrol driven vehicle came to the rescue.
Now we are concerned with emissions of a different sort. There is no doubt that this problem is a very serious one. I am glad to note that the Government fully recognise that, because in the second progress report on This Common Inheritance, a document which was issued in October, 1992, it is stated that while pollution from industrial and domestic heating has declined,
"pollution caused by traffic has grown. Emissions of nitrogen oxides from motor vehicles increased by 38 per cent. between 1986 and 1991 … and in London during December 1991, there was the worst episode of nitrogen dioxide ever recorded in the United Kingdom".
The report goes on to say,
1272
"Diesel vehicles have taken over from domestic fires as the main source of urban smoke".
The Clean Air Act 1956 removed smoke from domestic chimneys in built-up areas in Britain. It was one of the most dramatic changes that we have seen in the way we live, particularly in urban areas. But there is now a new menace and pollution from vehicles is the most significant contributor to poor air quality. So I believe that it is extremely timely, in view of this very serious situation with the prospects of ever-increasing quantities of motor vehicles, to have another look at this question.
There is no doubt that a great deal has already been done, but it has been done on a fairly disparate basis and these various actions need to be brought together in order to have a comprehensive policy to deal with this new environmental menace, which is certainly growing, and will grow, unless more urgent action is taken. In the early part of last year the European Commission issued a consultative document on transport and the environment which attempted to do that on a European basis. I believe that we should have a similar overall review for the United Kingdom and that, rather than waiting for standards to be proposed by the European Commission, we should move ahead and act in advance of the thinking of the rest of Europe.
Within the broader framework at which we need to look, we should consider technical developments, regulations, fiscal measures, traffic management and public transport. A number of these issues were referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird. He was quite right in respect of technical developments in referring to the fact that very much positive and valuable work has been carried out. In a Question asked in the House on Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who I am glad to note will be speaking in the debate, attention was drawn to some of the significant technical advances that have been made. There has been progress in the development of lean-burn engines. Above all, there has been progress in the development of catalytic converters, especially the three-way catalyst with which the firm of Johnson Matthey, to which the noble Viscount referred, has been much associated. It is interesting to note that 15 million of its converters have already been sold within Europe alone. There has been a big development in their use and, as a result of the standards that have now been established by Brussels, more and more such converters will have to be installed.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit the British Gas research centre near Birmingham, which is developing the natural gas vehicle. This vehicle, to which the noble Viscount briefly referred, is indistinguishable in its performance—so far as I could tell and from what I was told—from any normal petrol-driven vehicle, but its polluting impact is vastly reduced not only in the more obnoxious ground-level pollution from petrol-driven engines, but also in CO2 by some 20 to 25 per cent. The problem associated with natural gas vehicles is the distribution of the fuel, because it has to be compressed. It is, therefore, likely that it could best be used initially for fleets of vehicles where there could be a central point for fuelling.

1273
However, what was particularly interesting is that work is being carried out into a domestic-sized compressor, which means that we could each have a small compressor in our garage, link in to the domestic gas supply, and refuel our cars overnight.
That seems an interesting development and it has, in fact, been perfected at Vancouver in British Columbia in Canada. The process is already being used there, helped by substantial government grants. There are already 0.75 million natural gas vehicles being driven around the world and the likelihood is, particularly with the stringent regulations that are being introduced in the United States, and especially in California, that their number could rise to some 2 million by the end of the century. That is a most interesting development.
The conclusion that we can reach is that in the technical sense enormous progress has been made. It needs to be further stimulated, no doubt, but what is much more important is to see how effectively the technical progress which has been achieved can be applied.
That leads to the second issue, which is the question of regulation. There is no doubt that the setting of evermore stringent standards is the only way in which, by regulation, we can help to resolve this problem. The Community now has regulations, applying from the beginning of this year, which will mean that all new cars have to conform to a much more stringent emission requirement. However, the standards set in Europe are below the standards set in the United States on a federal basis, and the United States' federal emission requirements fall below what is now being enforced in California. So, much higher standards are being enforced in other parts of the world. We should study them with care and see what we can do about this matter.
I have been much impressed with the work that local authorities have been doing in monitoring emission concentrations. In the City of Westminster, for example, some very detailed emission monitoring is taking place. As the noble Viscount mentioned, Westminster has introduced an "Exhaust Watch Scheme", which is an attempt to mobilise all who live and work in Westminster to watch out for vehicles with noticeable emissions. A good deal of work in this area has also been carried out in the city of Sheffield and, I have no doubt, by many other local authorities. I hope that they can be encouraged to persevere along this route.
Fiscal measures are another way in which we can help in this area. We have seen what happened with lead-free petrol. There is a growing case for having a graduated vehicle tax to take account of the extent to which vehicles are fitted with what can be called "green accoutrements".
Traffic management is perhaps the most effective method of dealing with congestion, which is another way in which pollution is concentrated. It is estimated that more effective traffic management throughout the country could reduce fuel consumption by some 7 per cent. and journey times by 10 per cent. We all know
1274
how much congestion costs everybody. It is estimated that congestion on the roads costs up to £500 per household per year.
To sum up, this is not only a timely debate, but it draws attention to the fact that, although the importance of the issue is fully recognised and although much has been done, perhaps the time has now come to bring together these various facets. Perhaps the Government could consider issuing some consultative document in this area which could bring all these issues together, following on from what they said in their last report, to which I have referred. Perhaps they could indicate whether they feel that further legislation covering all these issues might, in due course, be appropriate on a more general basis than the particular lines which have so far been pursued.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, for introducing this debate and to congratulate him on his opening remarks, which were learned and very much to the point. I very much agree with him that it is difficult physically to prevent people from using the form of transport that they wish to use. However, while the Government cannot interfere with freedom to that extent, they could nevertheless refuse to accommodate too large a future increase in vehicles and traffic on the roads.
It is accepted that vehicle exhaust fumes are very dangerous. They appear to be acceptable to people at large because they are invisible, but that makes them no less dangerous. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, soot and particulates are undoubtedly harmful substances and are a real cause of many respiratory diseases. I believe that too little research has been carried out into the results of vehicle exhaust fumes. Perhaps if it were made compulsory to add a harmless chemical agent to petrol to colour exhaust fumes (to resemble cigarette smoke, for example) there would be an immediate outcry—perhaps even a call for cars to be banned in public places and a European-wide ban on advertising motor vehicles. That, of course, is not going to happen, because people love their cars, and I understand why. They get them from A to Z reasonably efficiently—except, of course, in town centres—and they go from door to door. Nevertheless, people need to be reminded that exhaust fumes are dangerous to health in the same way as many other substances are dangerous.
The first law of road transport is that traffic expands to fill the available road space. Therefore, of course, the Government must examine their roads programme and pay special attention to what local authorities are doing. Local authorities must be told not to increase road capacity into town centres through the widening of roads unless that is necessary to improve an accident black spot or something similar. The Government should not merely reduce the transport supplementary grant for such schemes, they should say to local authorities, "If you go ahead with that scheme against the Government's will, we

1275
shall withdraw from your total transport supplementary grant an amount equal to the sum you are spending on that undesirable and environmentally bad road". That sort of thing can be done by government.
Public transport policies are important and have already been mentioned. They must be based upon a full cost benefit analysis which should include health, the environment and the cost of road building. Public transport must be made more competitive with private transport in terms of cost, convenience and reliability.
When I was chairman of the Reading transport undertaking, my objective was to provide frequent, reliable, comfortable and cheap bus services. It is becoming increasingly difficult to provide such services profitably in competition with the private car. It will become impossible to do so unless the bias against public transport is removed and reversed. Let me give an instance of what happens in Reading, where I live, in relation to bus and private car costs. If a man, his wife and two children go into Reading town centre on a bus, that costs them £3.60. On the other hand if they go in by car, the total costs are £1.80, because they can park in a car park for three hours at 60p per hour. They naturally take the cheapest way and take the car into the town centre. Those costs should be reversed. It should cost them £3.60 by car and £1.80 by public transport. That would be an encouragement to people to use the bus instead of the car.
One of my hobbyhorses is electric vehicles, which I have favoured for a long time. Far too little effort has been put into the development of electric vehicles over the years. We need a spur. The Government should set a deadline of 2003, after which date no internal combustion vehicle would be allowed within two miles of a town centre. That would wonderfully concentrate the minds of vehicle manufacturers. It is no good people saying that that would merely transfer the problem to power stations. It would be different and more easily dealt with than the problems which arise in the thousands of towns and cities up and down our land. If the Government do not want to go that far, they could give substantial assistance to electric buses—trolleybuses, battery-powered vehicles or a mixture of both.
I suppose that I should declare an interest, because I believe that I am still the president of the British Trolley Bus Society. The trolleybus is probably the finest form of stage carriage transport ever devised. It has good acceleration and braking and is a silent, comfortable ride. Of course there is no pollution. The Government should consider giving assistance to bring back the trolleybus.
Let us take Oxford Street, as an example. I expect we have all been to Oxford Street recently. All cars are banned there, but the pollution from oily diesel fumes is a disgrace. A case can be made out for banning diesel vehicles and replacing them with electric vehicles. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
We need also to do something about the huge goods vehicles which pound our streets and go into
1276
town centres. Although I cannot develop that topic, it would be possible to bring bulk goods into town centres by rail. Most of our town centres have a railway station. The goods could then be distributed by electric vehicles. That would help considerably to relieve congestion and pollution. I recommend those suggestions to the Government.
3.46 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for introducing this important subject. I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, who will follow me. I first made contact with this subject some 30 years ago when I became chairman of the Institute of Cancer Research. That was in the pioneering days when the influence of smoking and smog, for example, on cancer of the lung and other pulmonary disorders was very much under investigation.
I have two statistical memories of those early investigations which have stayed with me because they are memorable. The first is that among the non-smoking urban population there is a higher incidence of pulmonary trouble than in the non-smoking rural population. So there is something about cities that is lethal to some people. Secondly, to show how sensitive we are to it, first generation non-smoking New Zealanders are more subject to lung troubles and cancer of the lung than are second generation non-smoking New Zealanders. Most of the first generation would have been subjected to city pollution here with a higher degree of probability than they would be in New Zealand. Once subjected to the polluted atmosphere of the city, one is more liable to run into pulmonary trouble. Whether it is life in the city as a smoker or a non-smoker, there is something objectionable in the city.
I am sure that your Lordships will remember the terrible smog that we had in 1952 when the death rate increased to almost astronomical proportions. There just happened to be an atmospheric inversion layer at that time and several days' accumulation of smog descended upon the City of London.
What could be the causative agent? It is not carbon dioxide. One breathes out far more carbon dioxide than one ever takes in. Carbon dioxide is easy to detect on analysis so it is a good marker for all the other things. In the same way with carbon monoxide, the amount of carbon monoxide that you fix as carboxyhaemoglobin is entirely proportional to the partial pressure of carbon monoxide and oxygen in your lungs. If somebody is suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning, one only has to feed him a little oxygen and he is back to a normal state.
As regards oxides of nitrogen, I have tried for a long time to find out what proportion of NOx in the air is due to manmade pollution and what is due to thunderstorms. There are 1,000 thunderstorms in progress all over the world at any one point in time. All of them are shedding oxides of nitrogen. They are very difficult to isolate because one does not have the apparatus near the thunderstorm at the time.

1277
My own choice of culprit is smoke and unburned hydrocarbons. We all know that tars and such things are active and most unpleasant carcinogens.
There are always the two problems of prevention and cure: the problem of clean-up versus some kind of alternative lifestyle. I wish to introduce your Lordships to this question: why do people commute? Why do they go from low density residential areas to high density city areas once a day, polluting the atmosphere with their cars as they go?
There are various motives but the main one is communication. Those people travel to be close to one another by juxtaposition so that they can communicate. They can communicate with others face to face and even more important, they can communicate with their filing systems. They want to be in touch with other communicators. All that leads to a high density population of communicators which can be rendered low density in the course of development.
Let us take telecommunications, the telephone and its development as the fax. Let us think of the two in combination with a home-based secretary. You simply ring her up, dictate what you have to dictate over the telephone. She sends you back a fax which you correct and send back to her. She then posts it for you. That involves no commutation to the same office.
The face-to-face television will come in the course of the next generation. There is also the distributive filing system. You do not have to have a filing system consisting of paper, boxes, filing cabinets and so on. Your filing system can be merely a series of dots on a microfiche or something of that kind. I look forward to the day when people will not come to large concrete boxes at high density in order to be able to talk to one another or to look up things in their filing system. You will have an electronic sitting room which will have a fax machine, a telephone, a desk computer and a television camera so that other people can see you if you want to talk to them face to face and vice versa. People will not need to leave their homes.
Your Lordships may think that that is all a counsel of perfection. Your Lordships may wonder whether such things will ever happen. I look forward to them happening because I look back at what has happened during my lifetime. I was born in 1908. Bleriot flew the Channel in 1910. The Marconi scandal erupted in 1911. The radio came in and I listened to the Beckett-Carpentier fight in my bedroom on a radio which I had found on the junkheap. I repaired that and got it working myself. That was in 1921. I saw the first television set by Baird. I listened to the results of dialling on the first automatic telephone exchange. I did sums on the first computer. For years I have been accustomed to photocopying devices. Now, there is the latest gift from the communication engineering industry to a hard-pressed Parliament—the fax machine.
That will not stop; it will continue. That is why, coming to the end of my fairly lengthy life, I do not believe that progress will stop. By all means let us clean up hydrocarbon exhausts as much as we can. However, I believe that we may find that the urban density of traffic, far from reaching the type of
1278
astronomical proportions to which the noble Viscount referred, may diminish and we shall be smog free one day.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I rise this afternoon with some slight misgivings since these words of mine will not only be my first in this House but also my first anywhere in public. I was tempted to begin with the old cliché, but having listened to a number of maiden speeches since taking my seat, some by experienced speakers and some by those less so, and having been encouraged by the splendid and most interesting effort by the noble Earl, Lord Portland, last Thursday, also a "primeur", 1 shall desist.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Oxfuird for introducing this Motion. I am sure that his intention is to invite some discussion not only with regard to reducing traffic congestion but also to reducing both atmospheric and noise pollution in our city centres. Controlling access to city centres by vehicles with combustion engines could be construed as being somewhat controversial so I shall confine my remarks to the subject of electric traction.
Our Victorian forefathers introduced electric vehicles, more often than not as part of a railed tramway system, as a solution to the problems of operating such a system with horses. As advancing technology improved the reliability of internal combustion engined vehicles and the availability of relatively cheap petroleum fuels increased, electric tramways found themselves at a disadvantage due to the difficulty and expense involved in adapting the system to the expanding transport needs of the city. A bus can go just where a driver points it but an electric tram or trolley-bus must follow the rails or wires.
Today, however, the wheel has turned full circle and many cities which kept their electric systems are now able to take advantage of that pollution-free method of people movement. I live in Bristol and recently we were introduced by our local bus undertaking to a large and rather cumbersome looking vehicle referred to as a "Bendy Bus". It is a highly sophisticated vehicle which forms part of an urban transportation system known as guided light transit. The bus is 85 feet long and in three articulated sections. It is geometrically designed so that all of the wheels follow exactly the same track. That means that, despite its size, it can be confined to a given section of road. When operated by a road-based guidance system it can be powered by an overhead electric supply.
In fact, the vehicle also has a diesel engine which drives a generator. It can be driven about, away from its guidance system just like a normal bus. In the city centre it is electrically powered, reducing pollution, and in the suburbs it reverts to diesel power where the fumes seem to be less of a problem.
It was fascinating to watch that vehicle negotiating the streets of central Bristol. The system seems to have all the advantages of a tramway, with very few of the disadvantages. Let us hope that Bristol can be in the

1279
forefront of the possible introduction of what appears to be an ideal system of pollution-free urban transport.
Once you have most of the buses in the city centre replaced by electrically powered vehicles and, it is hoped, advancing technology making electrically powered goods delivery vehicles more of an economic proposition than they are at present, it should be possible to persuade people to accept some form of controlled access to our cities by combustion engined vehicles. I am sure that a positive approach to the introduction of modern electrically-powered mass transit systems to our inner cities will go a long way to enable people to be persuaded or even directed not to bring their vehicles into our city centres, with a consequential reduction in pollution.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Cadman on his notable maiden speech and his contribution to our discussion which has enlightened us about electric traction. I know that as well as speaking on my own behalf I am speaking on behalf of the whole House in saying that we look forward to hearing him again on many occasions in the future.
I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Oxfuird on the clear and thorough way in which he introduced the subject of the debate: the problems created by motor vehicles in cities and towns. I intend to touch on two of the unfortunate effects: pollution and congestion.
My noble friend drew attention to the air pollution caused. In some situations this can lead to unhealthy smog, which we remember from 1952 in London. However, it happens more often in Los Angeles, which has a very bad reputation in regard to this. I believe it also happens in certain Japanese cities, although I have not visited them. In this country the pollution of the air is less obvious but it happens nonetheless where concentrations of motor vehicles are active. The situation can be improved, and the adoption of catalytic converters and other measures, including the increasing use of unleaded petrol, is helping.
Your Lordships may recall that only last Thursday the Government brought us some startlingly good news, mentioned just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. This was in a reply from my noble friend Lady Denton to a Question of mine. A month earlier I had seen a press report of a car engine which cleaned the air passing through it in urban areas. Between the air intake and the exhaust it was reported to extract more pollution than it added. It was indeed "hoovering" the atmosphere. At the time I found this astonishing. It sounded like the eighth wonder of the world. However, my noble friend confirmed that this was happening and stated that government support for experiments of this kind was continuing. Question Time last Thursday was not the best time to pursue the subject further. Other questions, of course, come to mind, such as how expensive is this going to be? How complex? When is it likely to have practical
1280
application to most motor vehicles? These questions are still before us, but it is very welcome progress in the right direction and the Government should give full encouragement to those working in this field.
I now turn to congestion. Besides the inconvenience, there is the substantial cost to the country arising from traffic jams in city centres and from the inefficient use of road space. Some cities have adopted pedestrian precincts, especially for shopping areas, where no vehicles may enter. Some cities abroad stipulate that deliveries to commercial premises by lorries and vans must be made within certain periods during the night. This applies also to rubbish collecting. Is this policy being adopted anywhere in this country yet? I do not know, but perhaps my noble friend can tell us when he comes to reply.
One radical change which has been much discussed is the introduction of road pricing. I understand that the Government are considering the issue of a Green Paper soon on this subject, and again I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us about that later today. I believe that road pricing will have to be adopted eventually. Difficulties will mainly arise in finding a system which is simple, workable and accurate. I believe that parking must be covered as well as mileage if road miles are to be a factor.
I come now to a further consideration which must not be overlooked, and perhaps I am the most appropriate person to raise it in this debate: that is, arrangements for disabled people. In carrying out pedestrianisation in some schemes in this country, the needs of people who are dependent on wheels must be catered for: those who cannot walk or can manage only short distances with difficulty.
There is a well-known city where motor cars have never been allowed and which can provide lessons for us: that is Venice. There, any fumes which escape into the atmosphere come from the vaporettos, or the motor launches. It is a beautiful city, but difficult for those whose legs do not function. I have been well aware of that on private visits to this city. I could plan my own movements, but your Lordships may be amused to hear of my experience five years ago when I had to be in the chair of an international conference there.
The meetings were on the conference island of San Giorgo Maggiore and the Mayor of Venice had kindly put a launch at my disposal for the period. Difficulties arose only when I had to reach premises which were some distance away from the Grand Canal when I was acting as chairman or host and had to be there. The launch was halted by pedestrian bridges over the smaller canals. Seeing me struggling on my sticks, Italian colleagues started searching ancient Venetian collections for a sedan chair as the best expedient. That was a stark reminder of the problems that occur when no wheels are allowed in an area. It is not only one for severely disabled people but for those with problems in walking.
Turning to central London, severely disabled people have been much restricted because the councils concerned have not accepted the orange badge scheme for parking. That is entirely understandable to me, as I have told your Lordships' House before, because

1281
central London could be overwhelmed by tens of thousands of orange badge holders from within a radius of 30 miles or more. Now the orange badge scheme is being replaced by a new scheme involving a personal passport-type identification to be carried by the disabled person. It had been hoped that agreement would be reached with the central London local authorities for this new system to cover their areas too. This is a matter of importance to disabled people, who have reason to reside in, or to visit, the centre of London and for whom taxis are not possible because they cannot get in or out of them. My noble friend Lord Caithness may be able to say more today about the new disabled parking system and whether practical measures have yet been agreed on how the system will operate in central London.
4.8 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, on his maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the silent trolley bus. I like the idea of the trolley bus, but it has its dangers. Being silent means that it is easier for such a bus to run over an unwary pedestrian than a diesel vehicle. I am afraid the same observation also applies to all electric vehicles, although perhaps a bleeper system might overcome that objection. I think there is a future for hybrid diesel/electric and battery vehicles.
With regard to large vehicles, it is worth remembering that a 38-tonne articulated vehicle can carry 25 tonnes of produce at seven miles per gallon, whereas a seven-and-a-half tonne truck can carry, say, only four tonnes at a best possible fuel consumption of 20 miles per gallon. In other words, the articulated truck carries six times as much for less than three times the fuel cost, not to mention lower empty running and driver costs which are incurred when using several smaller vehicles. The emissions from trucks are in direct proportion to the amounts of fuel burnt.
One aspect of control of road vehicles is the MoT testing of vehicles, and also the testing of drivers. The MoT test has now been made stiffer, and the vehicle's engine will not be so polluting, and therefore it will be more efficient. I am a great believer in the annual MoT test, as it means that once a year the vehicle is practically defect-free. A possible weakness is that vehicles under three years old are exempt, even though a company car could have covered over 100,000 kilometres in that time. Thus the engine could be completely out of tune, with obvious implications for fuel efficiency and pollution.
When it comes to the driver, we test him or her for about half an hour at the tender age of 17 or 18. Unless they get tested for a vocational licence, that is it for the rest of their lives. As a qualified army driving instructor, I have in the past been involved with the training for heavy goods vehicle or large goods vehicle vocational driving licences. I found three types of driver: novice, experienced, and expert. It was always clear to me that an experienced car driver stood practically no chance of passing a vocational driving test without at least four or five days' training.
1282
Apart from not knowing how to pass the test, the student would not normally employ good defensive driving. Defensive driving is a system aiming practically to eliminate any risk of an accident from the planning stage to the end of the journey. An expert driver is a defensive driver. By definition, he or she will rarely have an accident. We are all aware of how much expense, congestion, inconvenience and even grief that accidents cause. They can also cause further accidents, and certainly a lot more pollution. An expert driver will be a progressive driver when it is safe. He will certainly be more fuel efficient, avoiding harsh acceleration, late breaking, or inappropriate gear changes.
I should like to see five-yearly testing of drivers; but I realise that there might be certain practical difficulties. However, who can argue that higher standards of driving would not do more to reduce accidents than stricter vehicle testing? There is a group of drivers who have shown that their standard of driving is far too low; namely, those convicted of careless, reckless or dangerous driving. These drivers should automatically have to take a driving test within six months of conviction or on return of their driving licence if they are to continue driving.
4.14 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, may I just be allowed to tell the noble Earl, with no feeling of rancour, that he spoke about four places out of turn? His father, who was a great friend and colleague of mine, showed me around when I first came into your Lordships' House. I only wish that the noble Earl had followed his father onto these Benches. Then somebody could have gently tugged his shirt-tail and we could have got back to the right order.
I thank the noble Viscount for introducing this important debate. It is one that I have looked forward to. I believe that today I can talk about motor-cycles without cunningly having to introduce the subject in a debate that is not directly connected with them because we are discussing the internal combustion engine in inner-city areas and the motor-cycle is an important part of the problem.
My charming researcher hinted that she would do some harm to my person if I did not mention two-wheeled vehicles that are not motorised. I do not think that they are relevant to today's debate, so all I can say is that all those interested parties who want to talk about congestion in our inner cities have problems in the queue, as it were, of lobbying. Cyclists, pedestrians and to some degree motor-cyclists have great difficulty in getting to the position of the car manufacturers and the motoring organisations in influencing the Government. The position is very much tilted in favour of cars, which, after all, are the main culprits so far as congestion is concerned in our inner cities.
I do not have to tell your Lordships that a motor-cycle takes up a good deal less room than a car on our roads; roughly one-third of the space. This ought to be taken into account when road pricing is considered—a matter mentioned by a noble Lord who preceded me—if the Government should think of

1283
going down that road. Also the damage to road surfaces is considerably less than with a car. Traffic jams are not caused by motor-cycles, and there are quite a lot of motor-cycles in London. They are relatively easy to park, and there is no need to develop high-rise or multi-storey car parking.
The problem about cars and congestion in London is that the congestion is mainly caused at certain times of day by commuters, either in the process of commuting or when they are in London. A great proportion of commuters are driving company cars; in other words, as a perk. The way that the system of company cars is structured is unique to Britain. Through taxation an attempt has been made to make it more expensive for people to use such cars. But, as other noble Lords have said, when considering mobility and public transport, having one's own vehicle is obviously an advantage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is difficult and probably undesirable for the Government to act in too heavy a manner.
There is not much appeal in public transport today for commuters. It is expensive, uncomfortable and often unreliable. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave us a comparison of costs between car and bus. I can give him a good comparison. It was done by a colleague of mine to show exactly what things cost. A train ticket from Guildford to Waterloo costs £12.70 for a day. On a 900 c.c. motor-cycle, which is moderately large, the tank can be filled for £8 with lead-free petrol, which is used in about 90 per cent. of motor-cycles, and that will last for three whole days. The economy of using a motor-cycle, quite apart from the other aspects of road wear and so on, is obvious.
Another problem that I do not think any other noble Lord has mentioned in connection with congestion in cities is not so much the inconvenience, the bad temper and the pollution of the environment. They are all important factors, but there is also the waste of time, and the waste of working time. It is not just the waste of time getting to work. Presumably most commuters make sure that they get up early enough to get to work on time. But what about people who have to ply their trade in London, using their vehicles to get to appointments? The loss of management time and the frustration of drivers must be enormous. I am not suggesting that every manager should try a motor-cycle; heaven forbid. But there is room for considering two-wheeled transport whenever possible.
I must say a few words about parking. I declare an interest in motor-cycles. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and I formed the all-party motor-cycle group, which is now two years old and has some 26 members. I believe we have made quite an impact on a number of bodies, even on Members of your Lordships' House. A number of noble Lords ride motor-cycles and, more importantly, a number of noble Lords have now taken the trouble to take the two-part test. That number includes the Government Deputy Chief Whip. I believe he does not intend to ride his motor-cycle in London, which may be a relief to the noble Earl who is to respond to this debate. It
1284
is certainly encouraging that there is support across the House not only for motor-cycles but also for the concept of riding them.
Parking for motor-cyclists is a problem but it can be quite easily dealt with. Local authorities have already made quite an effort to provide better parking for motor-cycles. We need more such parking, but there is the question of security. Rings and other fixtures need to be supplied to which motor-cycles can be attached because motor-cycle theft, together with car theft, is still a big problem.
I wish to say a few words about motor-cycles and the environment. I have already said that about 90 per cent of motor-cycles take lead-free petrol. Motorcycles are relatively fuel efficient. Most of the parts of a motor-cycle can be recycled when the motor-cycle has reached the end of its useful life. There have been many misconceptions both in your Lordships' House and outside about the safety of motor-cycles. That was one of the contributory reasons for our forming the parliamentary group concerned with motor-cycles. We felt the misunderstandings needed to be dealt with.
Government figures show that at present motorcycles have never been safer. Those figures take into account the fact that there are fewer motor-cycles on the road now than there were, say, five years ago, as young people now have to take the two-part test and motor-cycles are relatively expensive. There has been a fall of 18 per cent in motor-cycle accidents in the last quarter of 1992 as opposed to an increase of six per cent in car accidents. There has been a decrease in the number of motor-cycle accidents in seven consecutive quarters. The Government's target is to cut motor-cycle accidents by 40 per cent by the year 2000 and to cut car accidents by 30 per cent. Motor-cyclists have already met their target thanks to better motor-cycle riding, better training and better made machines. It is therefore important that the Government certainly do not discourage the use of motor-cycles for many of the reasons I have mentioned. I hope they will encourage their use.
The noble Viscount referred to industry in his introduction to the debate. The British motor-cycle industry was at one time the leading motor-cycle industry in the world. Unhappily it disappeared almost entirely but it is now re-emerging. The Triumph company now produces some of the best motor-cycles in the world. Triumph certainly has the most automated and most modern motor-cycle manufacturing plant in the world. The plant has not been in existence for many years but Triumph is making a quite incredible impact on world motor-cycling products. That is all to the good. I hope the Government can at least supplement the encouragement which was given to the industry by the Minister responsible for transport when he opened the Motor Show at Birmingham.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cadman on his excellent maiden speech. We are delighted to hear him speak and we hope to hear him on many other occasions. I also wish to add my congratulations to

1285
my noble friend who has introduced this most interesting and timely debate. He introduced the debate in a splendid fashion when he emphasised the importance of this matter. Other speakers have reinforced that point. Noble Lords have spoken of the problems of congestion and of pollution of the atmosphere. My noble friend also touched on a number of technological measures which have been tackled over the years, and which are being tackled. In implementing those measures solutions may be found to some of the problems we face.
I believe most of the technology needed to solve the problems is in place and is available. The problem is not one of technology but of application. What can we do to apply the technology to meet our urgent needs? I divide the problem into two parts: first, what can we do about reducing the number of vehicles on the roads, particularly in urban areas, and, secondly, what can we do about contamination of the atmosphere? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy touched on the matter of road pricing. I consider that is one of the more promising approaches to our problems. I believe it has been tried in some parts of the world. If some noble Lords have experience of that system, I should be interested to hear about it.
As I have said, the technology is in place. We have electronic tagging and other methods of collecting fees for entry into defined areas. Those methods are available but it is a question of whether they can be properly applied. However, such systems would have to be used all over the country. It must be possible to drive one's car anywhere without changing to a different system. I shall return to that matter later. Increased vehicle utilisation is another possible solution. Every day one sees cars streaming past with a single occupant in each car. However, I do not know how one could ever persuade people to act otherwise. I do not believe increased vehicle utilisation is a promising solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, touched on the matter of restricting heavy vehicles. There is a lot to be said for that. Many heavy commercial vehicles entering urban areas belong to contractors who wish to deliver goods to building sites. We all know what that can entail when they are unloading. Why can those vehicles not be driven and unloaded at times of the day when congestion is not so great? Can their entry to urban areas not be restricted to certain times or, alternatively, could the size of those vehicles not be restricted along the lines that have already been mentioned? I believe possible easements could be found along those lines.
If we are to reduce the number of cars in cities, we must link up the use of cars with public transport systems such as the new light railway systems which are now being introduced into a number of cities. Such systems have great possibilities provided there are adequate parking places in "park and ride" car parks and there is co-ordination between one system and another—for example, between a main line rail system, a light railway system and car parks. The information technology is available to enable that to be achieved but it is not being used at present. Why is that? I shall return to that matter in a moment.
1286
Perhaps we can make vehicle use more expensive by means of taxing vehicles according to their size, the places where they are driven, the petrol they consume and other such measures. However, I rather doubt that that will be a deterrent to vehicle use. I think drivers will simply pay the bills and moan about them. There are ways of reducing the numbers of vehicles entering our city centres and returning from them. There are also ways of reducing the contamination of the atmosphere that vehicles cause in our cities. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to gas engines. I was interested to hear about that. Our technologies have made great progress already as regards the internal combustion engine's performance but more can be done as regards reducing the weight of vehicles and improving their aerodynamics and therefore their general performance. Impressive progress has been made in introducing the diesel engine for a personal vehicle. It is widely used in countries such as France. There is a big market for the diesel-engined car. Perhaps my noble friend will explain why the Government do not do more to encourage the diesel car. Such a development is in the interests of pollution reduction and of the motor car industry. I know that the motor car industry has pressed strongly for it.
There are ways and means of lessening the contamination of the atmosphere by our vehicles. In his excellent maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Cadman referred to the large electric vehicle. I am more impressed with the small electric vehicle. I believe that that offers the main practical application for electric cars. I am surprised that there are not more small electric cars or vans undertaking delivery services around our cities. That would assist with regard to contamination and to occupancy of the road surface. We ought to ask ourselves what can be done by special tax arrangements and so on to encourage the use of electric cars, though such cars have a limited contribution to make because of the limitation of the battery. The technology is such that long distance travel in electric cars is still a long way off.
Having considered both sides of the problem, I have to ask: what can we do about it? I remind noble Lords that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology examined the problem about five years ago. It issued a good report, Innovation in Surface Transport, which touched on many of these problems. Not much progress has been made since then. However, the report referred to the importance of the Road Transport Research Laboratory in giving a lead in the technology of those matters. I hope that the laboratory still acts in those fields.
The report raised one other fundamental point: the problem of the interfaces between the different systems—central government, local government, the nationalised railways system shortly to be privatised into different systems, public transport systems, the private individual and vehicle manufacturers are all involved. How will one co-ordinate all those interests to achieve a practical, sensible approach to the problem that my noble friend has outlined? I was foolish enough to believe that the Minister for Public Transport would do so. That is where we came

1287
completely unstuck on our Select Committee, because we were told firmly by the Minister for Public Transport that co-ordination between the different transport systems had nothing to do with him; it was for the different authorities to work it out between themselves. I believe that that is the nub of the problem. If my noble friend has anything to say on that issue when he replies, I shall be most interested.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to commence my contribution to the debate at precisely the point at which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, began his: 30 years ago. In 1963 Professor Colin Buchanan produced a report, entitled Traffic in Towns. It states:
"The briefest acquaintance with the conditions that now prevail in towns makes it clear that traffic congestion has already placed in jeopardy the well-being of many inhabitants and the efficiency of many activities. The potential increase in the number of vehicles is so great that unless something is done the conditions are bound to become extremely serious within a comparatively short period of years".
During the intervening 30 or so years, vehicle ownership and use has increased substantially. That increase was forecast in that report. Sadly, both then and in the intervening years we have not heeded the warning. We now suffer what I might call a mild form of anti-motor vehicle hysteria.
Against that background my noble friend Lord Oxfuird will agree that today's debate has an aspect of déjà vu. In his excellent introduction my noble friend produced a mass of figures, many of which I do not contest. However, somewhat sweepingly he spoke about pollution and numbers of vehicles, with percentages of this, that or the other. One might gain the impression that the speech was a condemnation of all internal combustion-engined vehicles. Research by the Royal Automobile Club suggests that more than 50 per cent of the pollution from road transport comes from only 17 per cent of all vehicles; and that I per cent of vehicles generate as much pollution as the cleanest 40 per cent. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the inclusion of emission testing in the new MOT test. In the fullness of time that will make a considerable contribution to a solution of the problem.
Sadly, I do not believe that congestion will ever be removed. However, I believe that we might be able to contain it. Containment could be implemented by small measures which in total would add up to a formidable attack. I am encouraged by an Automobile Association paper presented in 1991 to the Trades Union Congress Transport Industry Committee which suggests half a dozen points which could be considered. The paper refers to roadworks. Noble Lords will recall that the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 which implements the Horne Report of 1985 is coming into force little by little. That will make some contribution.
The enforcement of waiting restrictions must be stepped up. It is estimated that in London alone 2.5 million fixed penalty parking tickets are issued. Half a million are unpaid. The Transport and Road Research
1288
Laboratory suggests that each day in London there are tens of thousands of undetected parking offences. Purely and simply, the risk of getting caught is minimal and therefore people ignore the restriction. I ask the Minister this question. How much money is raised in London alone from parking meters, residents' parking permits and so on? Where does that money go? Originally it was to provide off-street parking, but that does not seem to occur. Where does the money go? Every journey has a start, a middle and an end. Some of the biggest problems arise at the end of the journey because there is nowhere to put the car.
London has about 40 authorities responsible for traffic transport and parking matters. There is no cohesive policy. In some parts of London there are acres of parking area; in others there is none. The 1991 Road Traffic Act provided for the red route system, with a director. We should have a directorate of transport which could co-ordinate such matters and provide parking. It would mean a big shift in resource. I often leave my car at Winchester Station. However, I am hesitant to do so now when I come up by train because parking costs £1.80 or £2. There is no supervision, no responsibility. There is not a bad, asphalt car park, I grant you. In Kent, it costs £2 a day in an old builders' yard owned by British Rail, or at least that is what it looks like to me. There is thieving, hooliganism, damage. Of course, one can take the car all the way and worry about the problem when one gets to London and the inner city. We are just not grasping the problem.
The park and ride system has been mentioned and the same applies there. The frequency of the ride and the safety of the park are missing so let us not bother, let us find a corner and put the car at the kerbside.
One of the failures of recent years has been in the planning system. Land-use planning has proceeded with little or no regard for the travel demands that development and redevelopment create. One only has to look at Milton Keynes, a marvellous, splendid idea with all its avenues and tunnels. But it failed to take account of the increase in traffic so there are problems.
Development and redevelopment in the future can only be permitted where the demand for travel can be accommodated in the existing infrastructure. Where that cannot be achieved —I make no bones about it —the developer must be required to pay for the necessary infrastructure and improvements thereto.
I had planned to say something about public transport, a sad subject, but perhaps I shall leave it for another day.
Why do people own cars? They do so because it gives them freedom and it is an expression of their own will. They can go where they wish when they wish. It opens up new avenues of leisure. It offers job opportunities. Without a motor car or adequate public transport the chances of getting a job diminish.
Burdening motor car ownership with taxes was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Nelson and Lord Oxfuird. It would create problems and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said in effect that it would be morally and politically unwise to do so in order to prohibit the use of cars. So we have to accommodate the reasonable demands. I add a little trailer to the debate

1289
of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, which is to take place early next month, following what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. Ten per cent of the UK's population—over 5 million people—have disabilities to the extent that they cannot use public transport, they need a motor car. That must be accommodated. It is perfectly reasonable and cannot be disregarded and perhaps we shall deal with it next month.
Solutions to congestion must be based on balanced transport and land-use policies. I believe that they can also take care of a number of alternatives, including cycling and the use of one's own feet.
The integration of transport does not mean more buses and trains and fewer motor cars. It means using the various modes at three levels: planning, financing and operating. A start has been made there but, as I suggested, we need to go further with a directorate in places like London.
We have talked about modern technology—it is in place. We have failed to use what is available to us; we have wasted the resources available to meet the problem. Before we go dancing down the route of road pricing systems, adding more burdens, we must look at the utilisation of what is available and devote the kind of money which is necessary to overcome the problem. Goodness knows, the motor vehicle industry, motorists and lorry drivers contribute 4.5 points of revenue to 1 point spent on dealing with the problem. Much of the responsibility lies with government, with the firm allocation of resources so that the planners can be sure in their own minds that the funds will last. That would be better than having the stop-start messing about with the money spent on public transport, the management of transport systems and the road network which has gone on over the past 10, 15 or 20 years.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend, I fiercely negate the suggestion that public transport is a sad subject. However, I shall not go further into that point now. I too join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Cadman on an extraordinarily warm and effective maiden speech. The topic selected by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird is of vital importance to the health of the country, in both the economic and medical senses of the word.
Our great cities were not so much planned as evolved. We are apt to forget that it is characteristic of this densely crowded island that three-quarters of the population occupies only a small fraction of the available space—perhaps 10 to 20 per cent.—especially during the working day when the great tides of commuters sweep in from suburbia.
Unlike many cities abroad, our heritage and culture have not blessed us with the wide avenues and boulevards of a Paris or a Washington. We must also remember that our cities were partly shaped by transport, especially in the last century and the early part of the present century, first by trains and then by trams. Then came prosperity to the large majority of the population and the explosion of car ownership:
1290
the new freedom of unlimited personal mobility changed the habits of the post-war generations. Of course, I am simplifying and generalising, but who can deny that people should be free to travel when and how they choose?
However, we must look more closely at that freedom. Her Majesty's Government have committed themselves to meeting the obligations of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, which the Prime Minister signed in Rio last summer. We must cut our emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide, which accounts for half the global warming effect, I understand) back to 1990 levels by the year 2000. If exhaust emissions from private cars continue unchecked and traffic grows as the Government predict, it will be impossible to meet that target.
It is, of course, not only greenhouse gases—carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen—that are of concern. The list of pollutants from motor vehicles (the vast majority emitted by private cars) is a considerable catalogue. Many are injurious to health; concentrations of them increase with congestion. It is no exaggeration at all to say that our cities are in danger, some might almost say literally choking to death.
In September 1991 the Yorkshire Evening Post, the local Leeds paper, warned:
"City in Crisis over Fumes and Noise".
That emerged from monitoring by the council of air quality and pollution at key points in the city. Leeds is not alone. London, Bristol and Sheffield have all reported similar results.
Where can we turn for a solution? We cannot deny people mobility, having built up a society that depends on it. But we can call for more responsible choices. We must seek a renaissance of public transport. In the White Paper, This Common Inheritance, the Government have shown that pollutant emissions per passenger mile by the typical London bus are less than half those produced by cars. A large bus typically carries over 20 times the number of people in cars taking up the same road space, and that is true of buses that are half full or less. Trains, too, are far more economical, both in their emission of pollutants and their use of scarce space in our cities.
Perhaps we should look to Los Angeles, the gross centre of the car culture. There, gridlock occurs now on an almost daily basis and the city swelters under an ever present cloak of photochemical smog. But the authorities are reinstating abandoned urban rail routes as light rapid transit systems, constructing metros and giving ever increasing proportions of their street systems to bus ways, bus priorities and higher occupancy vehicle lanes in which cars can only be driven if all seats are occupied. They are fitting their buses with engines which burn cleaner fuels and marketing transport to attract a better informed public back on to "transit", as they call it. These are the methods of carrot and stick, education and persuasion and "prevention is better than cure". The Los Angeles Times on 22nd August 1990 stated:
"Progress on alternative fuels in the 1980s was driven almost entirely by California's dramatic efforts to clean its air by forcing auto makers and fuel suppliers to meet tough

1291
emission standards. That program became a blueprint for Congress and … has affected the strategies of auto and oil companies around the globe".
The same issue reported an increase in bus ridership (number of passengers in British terms) in Orange County of nearly one-third in two years because of:
"environmental concerns, high employment and good quality service",
and that for the first time in many years:
"Some rush hour buses are so packed that riders must sometimes wait for a second bus".
I believe that we must catch up with our American cousins. They created the problems earlier than we did. We can learn from them and take action now.
What action should that be? Much work is going on. I pay tribute to the investigations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which recently embarked on a study of transport impacts on the environment, following up its work on diesel engines, to which I am glad to see the Government are responding positively. The local authority associations have published the second edition of their guide to environmental good practice, which has a substantial chapter on transport and case studies on the efforts of cities such as Hull, Leeds and Leicester to solve problems before they become acute.
Our passenger transport authorities and their executives have done sterling work with campaigns such as "Don't choke the city" in the West Midlands and "Cars are bad news for the environment; you're looking at an alternative" on the sides of buses in West Yorkshire. Park-and-ride schemes should also be encouraged, despite the reservations in some ways rightly expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas.
All that is being done with relatively low resources. I am afraid that the policies of my noble friends are not helping much. Since deregulation the average age of buses in many parts of the country has increased from six or seven years to 10 or more, despite influxes of new, smaller buses. Older vehicles are not necessarily bad; most are well maintained, but obviously they become less efficient, more polluting and less likely to tempt motorists from their cars.
I depart from my prepared speech to recall a recent visit to Malta, which must be the antithesis of Los Angeles. In that very small island masses of buses ply for hire at very low prices. But I am sure that their output of pollutants is enormous. The vehicles are aged, dating from the 1920s and 1930s. If they were illustrated in a children's comic, one would read it and think that it had gone over the top. However, without those vehicles at those low prices, the congestion in the narrow streets of that small island would be impossible. Congestion slows journeys; it frustrates and deters passengers. Therefore, I ask my noble friends to consider what help they can give to promoting increased investment in the bus industry. We need good public transport.
To use an Enid Blyton-type phrase, our "magnificent seven" —the six English passenger transport authorities and Strathclyde, in Scotland—have shown the success of investment in good public transport, in buses, trains, metros and trams and the need for promotion and support. Their policies are models that
1292
can be built on. But, sadly, they are not helped by the limitations under which they find themselves: strict control of local authority finances, especially under the present precept provisions; the uncertainties of the coming railway denationalisation; and the weak state of much of the bus industry.
I feel that I have only scratched the surface of a very important topic. Public transport use has to be increased, people must be persuaded to use their cars wisely and not to contribute to congestion by journeys that can just as well be made by bus or train. That is the route to maintaining vibrant, healthy cities and stopping their further destruction by private cars.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Oxfuird for the opportunity of debating a subject which is probably of greater interest to more people directly in this country than in any other. I started to be interested in the subject as a young researcher in the Conservative Research Department about 30 years ago, when I was attached as an aide to Ernest Marples, who in my opinion was one of the great Ministers of Transport. He always used to say, "It's not what you say that matters. It's what you do". I do not believe that a great deal new has been said today. (That is not a criticism.) However, I think it is true that a great deal more could be done.
Mr. Marples was very concerned with congestion in cities. He set up the Buchanan inquiry, which has been referred to. In his report Sir Colin Buchanan described the car as "the monster we love". Marples did a great deal of traffic engineering: pink zones and various parking restrictions. He was extremely unpopular when he did it. His public profile was always very high but he was pretty unpopular at the time. But when he left there was a lacuna, when, briefly, nothing happened; then the motto was: "Come back, Marples, all is forgiven".
Later we had another—in my opinion—great Minister for Transport, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, whom I am delighted to see here. She too was an action person. I am sure that we owe many lives to her. She introduced compulsory seat belts and the breathalyser.
It has already been suggested that there is no way in which we can cope with the number of motor cars. Los Angeles has been referred to. It is a perfect example. They are now changing their road policy. Some of your Lordships may remember in the 1930s that it was, I believe, General Motors which bought up the public transport system in Los Angeles and closed it down in order to promote a bigger market for cars. That is at last likely to be reversed.
I believe that there is still an inclination on the part of the road lobby to claim that it ought to be possible to cope fully with the demand for car space. I am extremely doubtful. Is it wise to be spending £1 billion on an extra lane on the M.25? It would certainly have been right to put an extra lane on the M.25 when it was originally built. But I very much doubt whether in

1293
terms of the opportunity cost of that money it is the right way to spend £1 billion now. Sadly it is probably too late to do anything about it.
I would like to emphasise another point on whether to cater for the growth in the number of cars. There is increasing multiple car ownership in families. It is the number of cars related to the number of people in them which is one of the main causes of congestion. The cost of owning a car is actually falling in real terms. In 1975, for example, the vehicle excise duty was £40. If you relate that to today's prices by using simple inflation percentage you would get to £165. Currently the cost of a licence is only £110. If you were to apply £165 to the 22 million cars that there are it might discourage people having quite so many cars. At the very least it would produce an extra £1.2 billion of tax revenue. That, I believe, suggests that there should be—I hope the Chancellor will consider it—a pretty stiff increase in the vehicle excise duty rate.
I should like to say a word about on street parking. Parking meters are obviously a good idea. However, I believe that it has been a mistake not to allow people to feed parking meters. The object of a parking meter is to ensure that there are always on-the-street parking spaces available. To do this it is necessary to have a price mechanism which ensures that at peak times there are a few meters free. To have complicated rules to stop meter feeding merely makes the administration of a parking meter system more expensive. The logic for these rules—I do not believe that they are logical—is that if parking is made too expensive some people will not be able to afford to park. Most of us would probably agree that on-street car-parking should be one of the many things that the price mechanism is used to allocate.
If I may I should like to turn to something about which little has been said, although it was mentioned on the other side of the House; that is, the role of bicycles. The Department of Transport provided a useful brief for this debate and in the first paragraph I was encouraged to see that it mentioned bicycles. However, I was then horrified to see that it contained a total non sequitur. It states:
"The Government has not specifically set out to encourage people to cycle, since decisions of this kind are a matter of personal choice".
With logic like that I can only be depressed by the quality of thinking on the bicycle front that exists in the Department of Transport.
Little has been done to help the cyclist in cities. Until more is done there are three simple rules which I apply from time to time. Eyebrows may be raised when I mention them so I do so with diffidence. The first is that when there is an unoccupied pavement, use it. Secondly, when there is a one-way street it is sometimes safer to cycle down it the wrong way, then vehicles cannot take one by surprise from behind. Thirdly, if one crosses a red light one probably has less chance of colliding with other cars, at least those going in the same direction. I am not saying that those are virtuous rules to follow. But it is lamentable how little is being done—apart from the first sentence the brief gave me no encouragement at all—for cyclists in Britain generally and for cyclists in cities in particular.
1294
When my noble friend Lord Caithness answers perhaps he can give us a few simple figures. For example, what is the cost of providing facilities for bicycles per person mile, or whatever way one measures it? Compared with cars it must he infinitesimal. Can he tell us how many miles of bicycle track there were in London 10 years ago, how many there are now and how many he plans to introduce over the next five years? I shall not blame the Minister personally if he cannot answer those questions. It merely reflects the lack of attention being given to a means of transport which must be thoroughly desirable. It is completely green, unlike the motorbike. I am not wholly against the motorbike but it is a jolly noisy beast compared with a bicycle. There is huge scope for greater use of cycles.
I conclude with one specific suggestion. It would not be expensive and should at least be examined. Would it not be possible to construct along the River Thames for whatever distance is necessary, and certainly from the West End through to the City, a wooden shelf cantilevered out over the Thames specifically for bicycles? Clearly it would encourage many more people to use bicycles. I suggest it would also help to reduce road congestion and be good for the nation's health.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thought that there would be one subject on which I could speak which would be left out of the rich kaleidoscope; namely, bicycles. I hold a brief sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who unfortunately cannot be in his place because his bicycle could not get him here fast enough. He asked me to say a word or two on bicycles but the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has done that extremely well.
Before I continue perhaps I can say just one or two more words on bicycles. It is interesting to see from the brief that 75 per cent. of all journeys in the City start within five miles of the centre, and that is a good biking distance. I certainly support what was said about the need for more cycle routes in central London and indeed in all our major towns. I am glad to say that in the fair city of Taunton where I now live the local authority has been building cycle tracks over the past few years. Not only are people healthier because they ride bicycles, but also they do not have to inhale exhaust fumes while riding on those cycle tracks.
We have had an excellent debate this afternoon, free, I am glad to say, from political polemic on any side. I hope that nothing I say will disturb that placid bond. Indeed, if there has been any political criticism it tended to come from the government Back-Benchers. One heard some remarkable comments regarding the need for transport strategy. Those are words I never thought I would hear from the other side of the House. They are welcome in one form or another from both the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this subject and indeed for introducing it in such an excellent way this afternoon.

1295
We have had a wide-ranging discussion. People talked of their own specific interests. My noble friend Lord Falkland insisted on telling us what a wonderful machine the motor-cycle is. I am sure that it has its merits, although again I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that they are rather noisy and occasionally come upon one rather suddenly.
We then heard about trolleybuses from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—at one stage I thought he was going to talk of electric hobby-horses but I obviously misheard him. Although trolleybuses are extremely efficient at moving people and are non-polluting, I remember that when I was a boy in Manchester and we had them there, we used to refer to them as "the whistling death". One tended to be knocked down before one heard them coming.
It was interesting to hear of the developments in Bristol mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cadman. As a member of the Procedure Committee I am not allowed to congratulate him on his speech. It says in the Companion that only the speaker afterwards is allowed to do that. Nevertheless, were I able to do so I would congratulate him most warmly.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, rightly pointed to the need for improved driving and again the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned the question of tidying up our roads so that there were not so many roadworks. We all spent many hours on the Horne Report and the Act last year. The important point in the debate is that all those various facets are brought together and we recognise that there is not any one single solution to the problem. However, we all agree that the problem exists and it is one of enormous magnitude for the health not only of London and the inner cities, but also for the health of the world at large. The impact of the pollution being created is seriously affecting our climate and, in the long term, the world outside.
I want to deal in a little more detail with one or two aspects. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the car being something with which everybody has a love affair. It has certainly brought considerable blessings in its wake in terms of giving families freedom and flexibility to be able to move from door to door as and when they wish. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out, for people with disabilities of one kind or another, motorcars are now an essential part of life. But it has also been one of the greatest curses of our time because of the pollution that it has caused.
There has been much talk of London. But it is interesting to note that in Manchester where there were something like 80,000 vehicles an hour in the rush hour in 1980, the figure has now risen by another 15,000 vehicles an hour. That trend is continuing. It must stop and it must be redressed. Carrots and sticks have been mentioned. It is true that the carrot and stick approach must be the one that we use.
Apart from anything else the one point that nobody has mentioned, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Ezra, is gasoline availability in the coming years and centuries. He spoke of using natural gas which presumably could be produced from sources other than extracting it from the ground—it would not then
1296
be natural gas; it would be produced gas. These days we are extremely reliant upon gasoline and cannot continue to rely on it for much longer, which comes back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in terms of using electrical traction. It is easier to control such pollution because it is produced at a central point, although the investment necessary to clean up the flue gases of our power stations is something to which the Government will have to address themselves sooner or later.
There are three ways to improve the situation. One is to improve our public transport, a subject which has been talked about at length. I hate to mention the fact, but I do not believe that bus deregulation is of any great help in this regard. Bus deregulation in central London will have a deleterious effect on congestion because many of the electronic aids which could benefit passengers—for example, signing at bus stops, which we now have on the Underground—will not come into being because no-one will be responsible for that general infrastructure. There is the opportunity to introduce that kind of technology. Indeed, it is being experimented with at the moment. Those of us who regularly travel on the Underground know how much more confidence it gives us to be able to see what time the next train is coming. If we could know what time the next bus is coming, we would very often be prepared to stay at that bus stop for that much longer rather than getting out our cars, leaping into a taxi or using some other form of transport.
My party went into the general election suggesting that there should be a transfer of taxation from the vehicle excise licence onto petrol. That suggestion caused somewhat of a furore. In various parts of the country little notes were put round saying, "If you want to increase the cost of using your car by £5 a week, you will vote Liberal Democrat". It was not true but it was a good line. I do believe that by putting the cost onto petrol rather than putting it onto the vehicle excise licence there is a better chance of people understanding the true cost of any journey.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave some comparative figures for cars and public transport. However, the figures that he used for cars did not show the full cost of the journey. They showed the marginal cost of a single journey. When people are making that decision, that is all they think about. A shift onto petrol pricing rather than using either insurance or the vehicle excise licence would go some way towards redressing the balance. Of course there would be problems in rural areas. One would have to have some kind of compensatory factor for those areas where it is absolutely essential to use a car because no public transport is available. People in those areas should not have too great a burden.
I should like to turn briefly to road pricing. There is a reluctance to go into road pricing because it can be cumbersome. Experiments have been carried out in different parts of the world; in Greece, Singapore and so on. But the situations in those places are different. We are moving to a situation where technology is beginning to catch up. In coming years it will be possible to have electronically tagged cars so that one can have differential rates at different times of the day.

1297
People will have a bill to pay depending on where they have been, for how long and when. These possibilities have to be borne in mind. We are not there yet but such developments will make a big difference. They will show people the true cost of being in the city centre when it is least advantageous to the community as a whole.
As the end of the day we have to recognise that the car will be with us. We have to learn to live with it. However, we have to learn to control it. The debate today has probably gone a long way to clearing people's minds on what needs to be done. Some decisions have to be made. I hope that the Government are moving towards some decisions. I hope, as has been suggested, that they are moving towards some kind of cohesive and coherent transport policy.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Viscount for introducing this debate with what was an extremely interesting speech. I join those who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Cadman. It is remarkable to think that this was his first speech anywhere. I do not know what has been holding him hack. We have also had some very interesting revelations during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election—a tissue of lies. We had a fine speech from the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who made a remarkable comment about the brief from the Department of Transport. He is no doubt very privileged. I did not receive a brief from the Department of Transport. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Stoddart or anyone else on this side of the House received a brief from the Department of Transport. But it gave the noble Lord no encouragement, and so he now finds himself in precisely the same position as the Minister—briefs which give him no encouragement whatever.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said, transport is a major source of pollution. However, having said that, I think that the noble Viscount put too much faith in technological solutions. I join with him in praising those elements of British industry which have made great strides in bringing forward anti-pollution technology, but that will not be the whole answer by any manner or means. The large projected increase in transport movements which were referred to in the Government's White Paper frankly threaten to render insignificant the progress which has been made in improving technical standards. We have to recognise that liberalisation of transport markets, desirable though that may be—I played my part in seeking to achieve that in the European Commission—and plans for the further development of transport infrastructure have potentially damaging environmental impacts. That is as true at national level as it is at European Community level.
We have concentrated on setting technical standards rather than addressing the more fundamental structural conflicts that exist between transport and the environment. The Government's own forecast growth rates to which I have just referred, especially
1298
for road transport, seem to be environmentally unsustainable. It follows from that that we on this side of the House believe that urgent action, far more dramatic than we have witnessed so far, will have to be taken by government if there is to be the faintest chance of honouring the commitments that they have entered into to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels no later than the year 2000. That is already an inadequate target.
Crucial to any effort to curb pollution from transport are policies aimed at reducing the need to travel by road and increasing the use of public transport, cycling and walking, wherever those may be possible. That note was introduced fairly late in the debate but it was an important one.
The European Community's fifth environment action programme identifies transport as one of the target areas selected in making environment a component of all other policies. That programme identified industry and local authorities, a point made by the noble Viscount at the beginning of the debate, as lead factors regarding five of the transport measures on which action is recommended up to the year 2000, those measures being land-use planning, infrastructure investment, better information for drivers, improved public transport and the discouragement of road traffic wherever that is practicable. Those arguments were deployed in greater detail in the Green Paper issued by the Commission A Community Strategy for Sustainable Mobility.
There is no easy route available to achieve a sustainable transport policy. Transport is inextricably linked with economic and social vitality. The choices, both personal and institutional, are based on cost, convenience, availability and comfort. The question then arises: has society taken proper or any account of the environmental costs, particularly those arising from increased transport use? Choices necessarily involve political choices as well. What is the acceptable level of intervention in freedom of choice by businesses and individuals? Trade-offs have to be made between development objectives and environmental gains. But decisions have to be taken by organisations that are democratically accountable in this regard but not, I suggest, by quangos or individuals who are unaccountable. It was very refreshing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who had been a Minister at the Department of Transport, call for a director of transport in London. But why not go one stage further and have a properly elected and accountable authority?
The background to this debate—I shall try to bring together the various subjects which were introduced into it by your Lordships—is that most journeys are local. All transport and transport infrastructure make a significant impact on the local environment whatever the length of journey involved—I revert again to the point made by the noble Viscount; consequently the role of local government is critical in this. Being democratically accountable, it has a special role in alerting people to the environmental implications of the choices which are being contemplated and an especial task in representing the interests of local people in discussions and consulta-

1299
tions about strategic and national transport policy and transport infrastructure as well, which is designed to meet national needs.
It has a role in relation to land-use policies which can influence the type and amount of transport which may be required. It should have a much more important role in making transport investment decisions to determine the way in which journeys may be made. It has a very important role indeed, which is not fully utilised, in transport management strategies relating to car use and encouraging the greater use of public transport and cycling and walking. I believe that it should have an increasing role in undertaking vehicle emission monitoring and control.
To exploit fully the potential advance that can be made, the position of central government is vital. Land-use planning decisions determine the needs and patterns of travel in the final analysis. To that end central government have to take greater account of the environmental impact of transport than they have done hitherto. The Commission's case for requiring environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes, as well as of major infrastructure proposals, is very important indeed. In a local sense my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to that point. Where do the Government stand on those particular issues?
We also take the view that some urgent change of priorities from road to rail has to be undertaken in terms of the resources required. That involves long-term decisions regarding grant aid and addressing the imbalance between the resources made available for roads and public transport. New types of policies are being experimented with by local authorities in particular to alter the way in which cars are used and to encourage the greater use of public transport. We applaud that. The use of traffic calming techniques, 20 miles per hour zones for residential areas, bus priority measures and other ways of encouraging public transport and the increased attention which is being given to parking policy, which has been touched on by a number of your Lordships in this debate, all point to potentially significant ways of impacting on people's decisions regarding travel.
I now turn to the issue of vehicle emissions themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right in saying that good monitoring of ambient air quality was the key to any strategy for tackling vehicle emissions. I believe that statutory authority, coupled with resources, needs to be given to local authorities to do that according to centrally determined standards of monitoring which must be capable of being understood by the general public. Up-to-date information also needs to be provided on poor air quality. That can be done in a variety of ways, not least through the local media. Information about public transport availability—a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—is extremely important in that regard.
Smog alert procedures should be invoked to deal with those cases where more radical action may be justified. That is done in the Federal Republic at the present time in a number of the Länder. Central and
1300
local government should together examine what powers may be required for a strategy along those lines to deal with poor air quality.
I applaud the Government in ensuring that emission standards are now included in the MoT test. But what action is proposed as regards on-the-road control? The technology now exists, such as remote sensors and so on, to record emission concentration and to photograph culprits. According to surveys which have been undertaken in the United States, about 10 per cent of vehicles emit 50 per cent. of carbon monoxide gases. Consequently, there is a need to use such technology to identify the culprits.
Some authorities implement vehicle spotter schemes to identify smoky vehicles. Have the Government any plans to give local authorities powers to set up such schemes to report smoky vehicles and to require the owners to undertake remedial work? In parallel with the use of cameras to detect and enforce speeding and traffic offences, have the Government any plans to permit the use of new technology in that particular area? Do they have any plans to set up a system of penalties for the owners of vehicles which persistently breach emission standards? I put those points specifically to the Minister.
This has been a useful debate and I end where I began by congratulating the noble Viscount in introducing it in a very effective and interesting speech.
5.28 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Oxfuird on proposing this debate to your Lordships' House. It is a most important subject and one which affects the lives of people throughout the country. I join him in paying a special tribute to our scientists and engineers who, as he rightly said, are at the forefront of world technology in this important area, as they are in other important areas.
My noble friend started by using the British Standard for Environment Management Systems (BS7750) as the framework for his remarks. The standard is an important environmental initiative which the Government have strongly supported. We shall continue to take a keen interest in its development. It is the first such standard in the world and it puts Britain firmly in the lead on environmental management. It will be the benchmark against which future environmental management developments will be measured. The standard is designed for the use of business in monitoring and managing its impact on the environment. A company implementing the standard would have to carry out a review of its environmental impacts, establish a programme of improvement objectives and carry out regular audits to ensure that the objectives will have been achieved. The standard provides a management framework to ensure the effectiveness of these measures. We recommend that transport businesses should give careful consideration to the use of the standard.
The Government seek to control the internal combustion engine in our towns and cities in two ways. The first is technological and includes the ways

1301
in which emissions from individual vehicles are controlled and the scope for alternative methods of propulsion. Here much of the regulatory work we do is international. For example, vehicle emission standards are clearly a matter for EC action. The second strand is the way in which we manage traffic, and it touches on what we can do to make use of all kinds of vehicles more environmentally friendly. I shall take these two broad points in turn.
Most of your Lordships mentioned emissions from vehicles. Those are a major anxiety, and air pollution is worse in congested city centres. The Government have recognised the importance of monitoring air quality and are taking steps to improve it. A system of daily air quality bulletins, forecasts and associated health advice was introduced in October 1990. It now includes sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ground level ozone. Guidance was issued by the Department of the Environment in May 1992 (Summertime Smog—How to prevent it) on action the public could take, much of it transport related, such as minimising the use of cars and keeping cars parked in the shade, to reduce emissions of ozone precursors during summer pollution episodes. Similar guidance on winter pollution episodes was published in October 1992.
Since 1st January 1993, most new cars need catalytic converters to secure reductions of around 75 per cent. in emissions of harmful substances such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons. In addition, another EC directive introduces new regulations on emissions from new heavy diesels. A new feature of these controls is a limit on particulates. A second stage of limits will apply from 1st October 1995. Tighter regulations to take effect further into the future are already under discussion in the EC. The United Kingdom Government are committed to seeking the tightest practicable standards for vehicle emissions which are cost-effective.
The performance of catalysts in reducing pollutant emissions when vehicles are cold-started and over the first two kilometres or so is a particular problem. Despite pressure from this country, the Commission's proposals for "Stage II" standards are not expected to require any improvements before the year 2000. Nonetheless, with our encouragement, some manufacturers are developing devices to accelerate the warm-up of catalysts; and the department is carrying out a programme of research to help formulate tighter emission standards. I listened with care to what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, had to say on motor-cycles; but I draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that emissions per kilometre from motorcycles can be just as high as those from cars. That is another good reason why we should tackle the motor-cycle problem in addition to the problem of making motor-cycles safer.
However, we also need to tackle pollution from vehicles already in service. We have introduced an emissions test into the annual MoT test for cars and light goods vehicles: this checks emissions of CO and hydrocarbons. Vehicles with badly tuned engines will fail. A new directive on road worthiness testing of emissions has recently been agreed. It introduces progressively tighter standards up to 1997.
1302
In its recent report the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended further action to reduce emissions from heavy diesels already on the road. The Government published their full response on 6th November 1992. An instrumented check of smoke at annual road worthiness tests of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles was introduced in September 1992, replacing the existing visual check. Specific roadside checks to detect heavy diesel-engined vehicles which are smoking excessively have also been stepped up significantly during 1992 to complement the instrumented annual check. Both the Government and many more local authorities than just Westminster have instigated schemes whereby grossly smoky vehicles can be reported on telephone call lines. In the year from April 1991 to March 1992 it proved possible to take action on 1,169 (78.8 per cent.) out of 1,483 calls received. Where no action proved possible, this was often because of inadequate information given by the caller.
My noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford argued that the Government should encourage the use of diesel-engined vehicles because they emit less CO2 per kilometre travelled than petrol-engined vehicles of a similar size and power. The greater fuel efficiency, and hence lower CO2 emissions, of diesel engines is beyond dispute. However, these benefits must be weighed against higher emissions of NOx, smoke and particulates, in comparison with a petrol-engined vehicle fitted with a three-way catalytic converter. Emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from diesel engines can be reduced by fitting an oxidation (two-way) catalyst, but this type of catalyst cannot reduce the emission of NOx and particulates. I would therefore say to my noble friend that there is a balance to be struck between the effect on the global atmosphere and the effect on local air quality. I assure my noble friend that we are continuing to study this question.
I turn next to the "electric hobby-horse" of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Electric vehicles are the subject of much attention, as they offer the prospect of significant reductions in emissions at the point of use. However, emissions from electricity generation cannot be ignored. At present the burning of extra fossil fuels could increase emissions not only of CO2 but also of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide, both of which are precursors to acid rain. Again it comes back to the fact that we have to create a balance. Manufacturers are working hard to develop advanced batteries and more competitive electric vehicles to improve their limited range and performance and to reduce their higher cost compared with traditional vehicles.
The Government are sponsoring and watching with great interest a number of research projects looking at alternative fuels and engine technologies. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, did not mention one in his home town of Reading: that is the Reading buses biodiesel project. We are studying that. There is also the possibility of diesel being derived largely from rapeseed oil. That offers the possibility of lower overall emissions of CO2 through the growth of the plants; lower exhaust emissions of carbon

1303
monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate and soot; greater energy security for those countries without fossil fuel reserves; and a ready market for any excess arable capacity. However, again one has to look at the downside because these benefits are partly offset by high energy consumption in production and possibly by increased oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions from exhausts. There would also be a need for a heavy subsidy so that it could compete with ordinary diesel.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned what might be called the "Hoover car". For a car to be a good Hoover car normally means that high volumes of exhaust gas are being processed by the catalyst, but this also means that CO2 emissions are high and that in turn is not a good thing. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned compressed natural gas cars. I am glad that he did so. These too could generate lower CO2 and particulate emissions; but again they could lead to higher emissions of oxides of nitrogen. These problems are being studied and we are hoping that progress can be made.
My noble friend Lord Cadman made an excellent maiden speech. I hope that my noble friend will attend and speak on a regular basis. He raised the question of the new technology being considered in Bristol with regard to guided bus and light rail transport. We are watching with care what is happening in Bristol, and I can tell my noble friend that on a different aspect of that policy we are giving some joint funding, with the local authority, on road pricing and parking controls with Avon County Council in Bristol.
My noble friend Lord Teviot will be pleased to know that the Department of the Environment has recently published a discussion document intended to stimulate public debate about the ways in which individuals, businesses and other organisations can contribute to limiting emissions of CO2 up to the year 2000. I commend this document to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Fuel prices were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is clear that the priority which motorists and manufacturers attach to fuel economy is largely determined by fuel price. During the early 1980s, when fuel prices were high, the average fuel consumption of new cars fell. Higher fuel prices could also help to limit CO2 emissions by affecting driver behaviour. The Government see it as important to continue to influence the cost of fuel through taxation, as the 1990 environment White Paper made clear.
One of the main possibilities in the medium term for restricting further CO2 emissions per kilometre from transport appears to lie in improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. Estimates suggest that it is technically possible to improve the weighted average fuel efficiency of new cars by 40 per cent. in the next 10 to 15 years by a combination of improved technology and in particular decisions by motorists to buy models which consume less fuel.
Within the European Community discussions are continuing on how the fuel efficiency of new cars might be improved, including the possibility of regulation. In relation to CO2, however, regulation
1304
would particularly distort the market because there is no single rate of emissions which all vehicles could achieve and no single technological solution is available.
The United Kingdom has pursued an active policy of noise reduction from motor vehicle engines and exhausts for many years. I am surprised that this issue was not mentioned more by your Lordships, although the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, touched on it. Since joining the EC, the UK has adopted the standard of existing directives and this has resulted in reductions in drive-by noise levels of 10dBA in as many years. Perhaps I may put that in layman's terms: it means that noise from individual vehicles has been roughly halved in that time. The new EC Directive on vehicle noise presents a new challenge to attain further reductions in noise from vehicles. The Government will continue to press within the EC for a further lowering of the limits in line with what is technically and economically feasible.
I am sure that, given what I have said so far, none of your Lordships could fail to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that undoubtedly technology will improve in the future. The advances which the noble Earl has witnessed in his lifetime will be overtaken by the advances that I shall witness in my lifetime. Goodness knows what my children will witness during their lifetime or whether they will still be driving cars.
Apart from these technological solutions, we are also pursuing a range of policies to manage traffic better. Under this second heading the Government recognise that a variety of solutions is needed to tackle the increasing traffic congestion in our towns and cities to suit local needs. The problem cannot be solved by building more roads simply to increase capacity for car-commuting to city centres which are already heavily congested. In any case, it would be physically impossible and environmentally unacceptable to do so in most places. This is especially true in towns. Bypasses have a significant part to play in removing traffic from town centres; and many more are planned. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will welcome our collaboration with local authorities in a bypass demonstration project covering six towns in which comprehensive traffic management, parking, signing and other environmental measures will help to ensure that the bypasses produce maximum benefits. The results will be published as a guide to good practice.
We want to see as much traffic as possible (both passengers and goods) transferred from road—not just to rail as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wanted, but also to water.
We believe that public transport can play an important role, especially in urban areas. Where it is well loaded, it can provide a more energy efficient and more environment-friendly alternative to private cars as well as a means of transport for those who do not own cars. The Government are therefore looking at ways in which the use of energy-efficient public transport might be encouraged. The Government attach particular importance to improving existing services through the application of the Citizen's

1305
Charter. I hope that that will help to meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as he stands at the bus stop. I hope too that in future he will have more information about when the next bus will come and that he will not get into his car and drive into the city centre.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way. He touched rightly—and I omitted this—on the issue of water transport. What are the Government doing as a matter of urgency to encourage the greater use of water transport for freight and for passengers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to answer that question but a lot of other points have been raised in this debate. Water transport is a subject that we are studying at the moment and I hope that we shall have more information both for the noble Lord and for the rest of your Lordships who are interested in this matter in the not too distant future.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, we would like to see more people using buses to get into our towns. Buses, especially when they are well used, offer environmental benefits in transporting large numbers of people and getting cars off the road. Efficient operation makes the bus more attractive, and this is helped by bus lanes, bus priority at traffic lights, clear road space at bus stops and better passenger information. We have allocated £4 million specifically for new bus priority and park-and-ride schemes during the current financial year. A further £15.5 million has been allocated next year. On the question of park-and-ride, I thought that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was, unusually for him, rather dismissive of the benefits that such schemes can offer.
Also in relation to buses I was surprised that red routes have not been mentioned. They have had successful trials. They have shortened bus journeys and increased passenger numbers. We have therefore designated a further 300 miles of these routes.
Traffic calming also has an important role to play. I hope that the measures that we have instituted will be welcomed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. They constrain vehicle speeds and improve driver behaviour by means of road humps, chicanes and road narrowings. Traffic calming techniques can be used in the design of local safety schemes aimed at treating local accident black spots. In 1992–93 the Government allocated £43 million of TSG to assist highway authorities with local safety schemes as part of the strategy to reduce road accidents.
Like my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Nelson of Stafford and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we are considering the role road pricing could play in controlling traffic in cities. Road pricing would be a radical step to take. There is a great deal of work to be done before any judgments can be made. That is why we have under way a major research project to look at the feasibility of road pricing in London. It has a clear remit to look at the advantages and disadvantages of road pricing and is due to be completed at the end of 1994. The scope and depth of our research programme is such that at the end of it we shall be in a position to answer the full range of
1306
questions which are asked about road pricing. If road pricing is to move beyond the subject of academic argument, it will need to be shown that not only is it effective at making better use of road space but also that the cure is not worse than the disease.
We also need to look at the feasibility of road pricing in smaller cities than London where experiments or trials would be less difficult to mount. We are in touch with local authorities such as Avon, Lothian and Cambridgeshire on this work.
I move from that to pedestrianisation. In recent years there has been a steady increase in the number of pedestrianised areas. They are popular because they improve the convenience, safety and attractiveness of town centres. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out, the key to success is to achieve a sound balance between the needs of different users. There need to be adequate facilities for bus services, adequate car parks, adequate access for the disabled to enable them to take advantage of easier mobility and reduced exposure to traffic.
Finally, from feet to the cycle. My noble friend Lord Marlesford will be surprised to hear that I have answers for him. We fully support the provision of the new 1,000 mile strategic cycle network for London and, wherever possible, we will provide the cycle routes proposed on trunk roads as well as cycle crossing points on the trunk road network.
In summary, the Government recognise that increasing congestion in our towns and cities needs to be dealt with for economic and environmental reasons. We are acting on a number of fronts. National and local government, the European Community and other international bodies, the private sector and individuals all have their part to play in the development and implementation of solutions to deal with the pollution of vehicles. Let us be clear about the cost of doing nothing: businesses are already suffering from congestion, which adds to transport costs, detracts from the attractiveness of towns as places to live, shop and work and encourages out-of-town development. An immobile city is the last thing that city traders need. A better traffic flow and a more pleasant environment are in everyone's interests.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, it remains for me to thank Members of your Lordships' House who have participated in the debate, which has been broad and very impressive in many areas. Favoured subjects have been aired. For one or two moments there were almost tears of déjà vu. Technology is serious about emissions from all forms of internal combustion engined vehicles. I am sure that investment, time and sheer hard work will bring the benefits that we seek.
Finally, I shall take great care not to drive backwards down a one-way street but to go down it forwards and to take the greatest care not to meet my noble friend Lord Marlesford going in the opposite direction. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children's Homes: Training of Staff
5.52 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch rose to call attention to government policies on the recruitment and training of those entrusted with the residential care of children; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is of course a great honour to open the debate today even if many of your Lordships will be aware that it is one that I do not exactly deserve. It is therefore a source of great comfort to me to see the list of speakers who are to follow and to know that the depth of experience and wisdom that they will bring to this very difficult subject will be of assistance to the Government in their future policies. It is, I am sure, a special pleasure for all of your Lordships to see that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will be speaking today. I say that not only because it is always a pleasure to hear him speak, but because the last time that your Lordships debated the quality of care provided in children's homes, which was nearly a year ago on 19th February last year, the Motion was in the name of the noble Earl, but he was unable to speak because of illness. I have read that debate. It is good that my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who spoke a year ago, is to speak again today.
I should perhaps quote again, for the record, the broad parameters of the problem that we are discussing. There are now about 1,300 residential care homes in England, staffed by some 15,000 care staff and heads of homes. There are about 11,250 children in them. This gives an average of about nine children and 12 staff per home. It also gives some idea of the size of the problem we are debating, especially when one considers that most of the children come from very difficult home backgrounds, and that their average age has been going up recently. The average age is now 14, with more 16 year-olds than any other age group.
There have been a large number of reports which cover the selection and training of those entrusted with the residential care of children; that is, children taken for whatever reason into the care of local authorities. Most of those reports seem to have been inspired by disturbing incidents which have come to public knowledge. I do not claim to have read all the reports covering the subject in question, which I understand may number more than 50 since 1945. However, there is not much doubt in my mind, having studied some of the more recent reports, that we are discussing the Cinderella of our state provision for the unfortunate among us. It is doubly depressing that one should have to say that about a service for children and young people.
Since your Lordships' debate last February, more reports have been published, and more scandals have emerged. The most recent scandal is perhaps the story which appeared in the Spectator magazine on 9th January this year of two children being wrongly taken into care against their parent's wishes. I shall put a copy of that article in your Lordships' Library, together with a copy of a letter carried in the Spectator
1308
of 23rd January, which challenges some of the assumptions in the article, but which does not attempt to deny the tragedy of the case.
This is probably as good a place as any for me to be as fair as I can to those who provide the service we are discussing. I am sure that we all appreciate the pressure under which social workers and others find themselves when a case of bad child abuse comes to light about which they have done nothing, or not enough. No doubt that pressure can make them overzealous at other times, and I am sure that that is part of the problem.
I am also sure that it would be right to pay tribute to those who give good and selfless service in residential homes for children. I am sure that that tribute is due, and I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to pay it.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, most of the recent reports, particularly those with reasonably independent membership among their authors, do suggest that the selection, training, management and performance of most of those entrusted with the residential care of children is far from adequate.
Since your Lordships' debate a year ago, perhaps the two most significant reports to emerge are the Howe Report and the Warner Report. Of those, I am slightly nervous of the Howe Report because it was compiled by providers of the service in question. I do not say that it may not contain some useful ideas, but in general I distrust self-regulation, and I found the report's recommendations somewhat too weighted towards trying to improve the image of the service, without paying enough attention to the possibility that its image might improve if its service improved. Perhaps I am being unfair to the Howe Report, and, if so, I leave it to other noble Lords to do it more justice.
The Warner Report seems to me to be an altogether more valuable document. It is a report which I would urge the Government to take to heart, and to treat very seriously indeed. Apart from the objectivity and common sense which it brings to this highly complex subject, it contains at least one statement which should be music to the Government's ears. This goes as follows:
"A common reaction to a report such as ours is to assume that nothing can be done without additional resources being made available. We are not convinced that this is so".
The report goes on to favour a redistribution of existing expenditure on the personal social services and local government budgets.
On recruitment, the Warner Report has much good advice to offer, and I am sure that your Lordships will do that part of the report more justice than can I. But there is one warning of a situation which arises from our membership of the EEC, to which your Lordships may not refer, and which should be put on the record. The report sees problems arising from the free movement of labour, because it is difficult for employers or the police to make inquiries into the pasts of people from overseas, or to establish details of convictions acquired outside the UK. It is difficult

1309
under current arrangements in some Community countries to check the criminal records of those who wish to work in the UK. However, it will not be possible to impose restrictions on people from other Community countries which would put them at a disadvantage to UK nationals. The Warner Report urges the Department of Health and the Home Office to consider the implication of this for children's homes. I am sure that we would all agree with that advice.
It is when the Warner Report moves on to training that I find it most useful. There are many excellent passages which, if there were time, I would want to put on the record in your Lordships' House. But I shall confine myself to one quotation, because it leads me on to the main point that I wish to make to your Lordships this afternoon. It is to be found on page 171 of the report, and it goes like this:
"Even if one accepts that the Diploma in Social Work is the most appropriate qualification for residential child care—which we do not—then on present plans it would take over 30 years to train the eligible staff to obtain this qualification. The present training strategy seems more geared to helping able staff to obtain qualifications which enable them to leave, than to providing practical training for the majority of staff in homes looking after children".
I share the Warner Report's doubts that the Diploma in Social Work is an appropriate qualification for residential child care. I say that because in my research for this debate, I have become more familiar with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, or "Set-swer" as it appears to be known in the trade, which regulates the Diploma in Social Work. The rules and requirements for the Diploma in Social Work are set out in Set-swer's Paper No. 30 which is now in its second edition.
I have to say that this publication is deeply disturbing to anyone well-versed in the language of the gender, race and class fraternity. If our social work courses reflect the biased ethos of this document, which they must, I would be very doubtful if the resulting qualification can be of much help to those about to work in or around children's homes. Indeed, I would have thought that it would be positively harmful. All the old neo-Marxist jargon is here in abundance. Furthermore, any "practice learning" must take place in institutions which are similarly faithful to the bias which I have criticised.
Your Lordships may be aware that for 10 years I have been the representative of commerce on the Council for National Academic Awards which used to validate the degrees in the polytechnics, now miraculously transformed into universities. My experience at the CNAA leads me to be certain that the delivery of these courses at the chalk-face will be even more narrow-minded and virulent than Set-swer's rules and requirements indicate, so I am sure that the courses are even more damaging than Paper No. 30 indicates.
In short, I am fairly sure that we are looking at a secret garden, the secret garden of social work training. This would benefit from some light being let into it, in much the same way as light is at last being slowly let into the secret garden of teacher training.
1310
Of course, some noble Lords will think that I exaggerate or that I am letting aggressive right-wing emotions distort the evidence before me, in which case I should inform them that Set-swer has just had a little bit of bad luck. It has sent me the programme details of the eight Diploma in Social Work courses being offered under their residential child-care initiative at institutions which they describe as "centres of excellence".
The bad luck occurs in that I have a friend who is actually on one of the eight courses in question. She assures me that:
"The course is totally preoccupied with issues related to class, gender and race, to the detriment of other issues relevant to the education of effective social workers".
So that is what is going on at the chalkface of at least one of our eight flagship courses.
I know that this is anecdotal. The fact that my informant is a friend of mine may convince some of your Lordships that she must share my right-wing paranoia about this subject, but it is not so. A difficulty arises because, as usual, she does not want to be identified for fear of victimisation at her approaching examinations and thereafter when she applies for a job. I say "as usual" because this fear of being revealed as a critic of the gender, race and class brigade was something I often met at the CNAA with students on our teacher education courses. It is a very real fear, and in my view it is wholly justified.
I end by making two suggestions which I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will find helpful. First, in order to discover whether I am exaggerating about the poor quality of Set-swer's courses or not, I suggest that an appropriate sample should be validated by a small group of perhaps five to seven suitably qualified people. The majority of the members of this group should be health care professionals assisted by at least one proven manager. Social workers and social scientists generally should be in a minority. This validating panel should be free to talk to students who would have to he offered convincing protection against victimisation at their exams or their subsequent search for work. This would clearly not be an expensive exercise and I hope that the Government will consider it.
I am sure that the group's findings would justify my second suggestion which is that the Government should accept Recommendation No. 62 of the Warner Report and abandon the Diploma in Social Work in favour of a new diploma targeted at the residential care and after-care of children. I am fairly sure that the Diploma in Social Work is beyond redemption and that any attempt to reform it will be frustrated by the deeply-entrenched establishment which now controls it.
I hope that the Government will look favourably on those two related suggestions. I hope that your Lordships do not feel that I have exaggerated or spent too much time on this aspect. I believe that social work training is the soil in which many of the roots of the problem which we are discussing today may feed. I believe that the time has come to examine the quality of that soil and, if necessary, to change it.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord was so kind about me that if only for that reason, although not only for that reason, I must be nice about his speech. He realises that he has been controversial and he seems to feel that he may be accused of right-wing paranoia. In my experience, anyone who feels that he may be accused of paranoia suffers from a mild dose of that trouble. The noble Lord voiced views which will be greatly disliked throughout the world of those who dedicate their lives to looking after children. However, I was glad that a fresh mind was brought to bear on the subject even though it is not quite the same mind that I shall deploy. The noble Lord rightly told us that there have been 50 inquiries into these matters and it may be that we have got into a rut. I should be surprised if the noble Lord receives any support in the world of social work but perhaps he does not expect it. He is against the whole thing. Perhaps when the noble Lord has had many more years' contact with the issue, he may think differently.
As the noble Lord was kind enough to say, I was going to introduce a debate on this subject last year. I lost my spleen. I do not know whether any other noble Lord has lost his spleen but it does not seem to make much difference. People said that I had not got enough spleen anyway. If I had not lost my spleen, I might have spoken more sharply to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. However, the debate was taken over by my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke in the debate. She is a great expert in these matters and was a child officer for many years. The debate was handled extremely well, and like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I read it carefully.
Last year I was going to emphasise the need for better pay and conditions for staff at homes. I recognised then that the answer would be that the staff were not qualified. Therefore, the question of improving pay and conditions is very much linked, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will agree, with improving qualifications. It is on that aspect of the matter that I wish to concentrate today. The Warner Report is a very comprehensive document, but I shall be concerned only with the question of training.
I have complimented the Minister so often in the past that I cannot utter any more compliments without seeming to become hysterical. However, I know that she is well qualified to handle the debate. It is obvious that if we are to improve the pay and conditions of those people—and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said that he wants those people to he very different from what they are now, although I do not know what he wants them to be like—we can place on the Government requirements under three headings: willpower, resources and method.
I ask the Government to show us clearly whether they have the willpower to improve the conditions and status of the workers and staff in the homes and whether they are ready to provide the resources, if not tomorrow at any rate at some time in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, seemed to feel that that could be done without increasing resources. It would
1312
be nice if that were so. However, I do not believe that any great social improvements can be brought about without increasing resources. We do not expect the Minister this evening to promise large sums of money, but I should like to know whether the Government are making plans which are bound to involve increasing resources.
This report is a comprehensive report, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the whole has been able to approve. I am afraid that I find difficulties over it. Of course we admire the dedication, learning and exertions of the people concerned, but I am afraid that I find certain difficulties. There are two outstanding features. With regard to the first, I quote two sentences from the report.
"Any training strategy for children's homes which places undue emphasis on off-site training is probably doomed to failure. In our view the only practical way to train a lot more staff quickly and effectively within the resources likely to be available"—
that is where the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, hopes to save and increase the resources—
"is to concentrate more on work-based training."
I must press the Minister to tell us whether the Government accept that conclusion. I feel very dubious about it myself because of the small size of the homes, which was in fact brought home to us by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He pointed out that the average capacity of a home is nine. In many cases they are much smaller, though some are larger. Experience and some common sense lead me to believe that you cannot improve enormously the training of these people within such very small units. However, obviously that is an issue on which more than one opinion can be held. I cannot think of any parallel in my experience where people in units of that size were professionally trained, or trained to similar standards. That would be the first difficulty.
We may be told, and it may be in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that it is too expensive to train residential staff in any other way. I suppose that it would cost a bit more to do the job properly, but residential care is a closed world and those who give their lives to this—and in most of what I am saying I have not been instructed by anybody, but I am speaking after discussion with people who devote their lives to these matters and the bodies concerned —take the view that residential care is a closed world within these little units, and opportunity for extramural experience and learning is essential. However, it is one central feature of the report that training is to be done on the job in these little units.
The other point is the introduction of what is called a new strategy for a new professional qualification. Here again I shall quote recommendation No. 62, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson:
"The Government should reconsider its current policy on qualifications for heads of homes; and should consider arranging the design and introduction of a new Diploma, focused more on the group care of children and young people at an equivalent level to the Diploma in Social Work as the preferred professional qualification for staff working in children's residential care."
No doubt that recommendation has been carefully thought out and I am not trying to belittle the hard work that has gone into producing it, but that

1313
recommendation has been widely criticised throughout the world of social work, and not least by the British Association of Social Workers. The association does not accept—and let us be clear that it is the professional body concerned with the people we are discussing today—the Warner proposal that the existing training framework cannot produce the numbers and quality of residential staff required.
Also, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work is confident that the Diploma in Social Work, which was established only two years ago and which brought together two separate qualifications, has the flexibility to accommodate the anxieties expressed by Warner. That is a flat rejection—they do not mince any words—by the professional bodies most concerned with which I have been in touch. They reject the crucial finding of the Warner Report that there should be a new diploma.
I shall quote one passage expressing disquiet. The body concerned
"shares the report's concern at the numbers of qualified staff leaving residential care, which has been going on for years. But the solution is not to create a new qualification which only has currency in residential child care."
Let me repeat that. The idea of having a special qualification in this little world of child care, with only 11,000 young people in it at one time, and which will be relatively limited outside that, does not appeal. I personally share the anxiety that it does not appeal to the social workers most concerned. Therefore, we must ask the Government whether they do or do not agree. Perhaps they are thinking it over. Perhaps they are waiting for this and other debates. Do they agree with this new professional qualification or do they not? I do not, but it is up to the people who matter, the Government, to tell us where they stand.
I must not take much longer. I hope that the Government will indicate that they have a strong will to improve the conditions of these workers. I hope they will indicate, however they like to phrase it—when resources permit, or whatever jargon is thought most appropriate—that they intend, or aspire, to provide the resources necessary. As regards methods, there is a choice. I have indicated my views and the views of the various bodies. Let us hear from the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has done a lot of work in the education field, and I know that we can all agree that we are desperately and equally anxious to support probably the most vulnerable children in the country and the staff who devote their lives to serving them.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I should like to record my thanks to Norman Warner and his colleagues for their report on staffing of residential care for children, and to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for this timely opportunity to debate the issues. I say timely, but I must remark that, pleased as I am to be here and to have the chance to participate, a little of my attention is wandering across Parliament Square to the MCC drama unfolding in the Methodist Central Hall, where many Members of your Lordships' House
1314
appear to be ensconced. Some small part of my attention is also on my birthday celebrations later this evening.
The celebrations of birthdays assumes a certain urgency when you reach the mature years of many of us in your Lordships' House—even though The Times today has granted me, in some Faustian way, a further 10 years of life. Reaching beyond three score years and ten towards the more accurate but less euphonious three score years and 16 still seems ambitious, despite the recent assurances that there are over 2,300 of our fellow citizens who have scored a century or more. I only hope that the records of these centenarians are more accurate than those which appear to adhere to Graham Gooch in his century of centuries.
I was fortunate that my early birthdays were landmarks in a happy and secure childhood in what was once Yorkshire, is now Humberside, and after the local government review who knows. Windily teetering near me on the North Cliff at Hornsea was a residential home for children with disabilities. The home looked institutional; may have been eminently caring; and labelled its young charges as "poor brave things"—known locally as "the braves". Brave and unfortunate we all thought they were as they clattered on calipers and rattled in wheelchairs to sit in their reserved pews on Sunday mornings. As our language indicated, we felt sorry for them, but were less inclined to see them as part of a shared community.
It is easy to improve on the language. It is even more important to ensure that the staff who determine whether a building is an institution or a home should be carefully chosen, properly trained, and adequately supported. That I take to be the essence of the Warner Report and they are objectives that Mencap stoutly supports. Sixty and more years on from the memories of my childhood, residential care for children is still being debated and I expect that debate to run on well beyond my allotted span. However, we have an historic opportunity to get it right in a way that we have failed to get it right in the past. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I believe that training can take place on the job. We have found in Mencap that those highly trained in a hospital setting do not necessarily transfer easily to the cosier, small residential home.
As with others in your Lordships' House, departmental circulars are my favourite bedside reading and I notice that Local Authority Circular (92)21 refers to money for training staff in children's homes but also records that bids last autumn for this money exceeded the amount of money actually available. That means that local authorities are trying to respond to the Warner recommendations; that the Government have accepted those recommendations and are trying to help them to respond; but that there is a gap between what local authorities would like to do and what they can afford to do. I would venture to guess that the gap between what they would like to do and what they need to do is greater still.
In spite of the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that costs need not escalate, Warner recommendation 69 states that extra training incurs extra costs. For many childcare staff the challenge is children and young people with very difficult

1315
behaviour. Within Mencap's remit the issue is children and young people with learning disability and very difficult behaviour, and/or with multiple disabilities. A little love goes a long way in looking after children but a little love becomes worn out and ineffective if it is not supported by more than a little training. These children are very vulnerable as well as sometimes very difficult but also on occasions they are very rewarding.
I would add that in modern service patterns the importance of training extends to staff supporting parents who are doing the caring, to substitute families, and to residential and family-based respite care. Let us not make the mistake of assuming that family-based services are always best and necessarily cheaper. Even more important, let us not make the all too tempting mistake of assuming that cheaper means better: generations of children have suffered from that "Oliver Twist" philosophy.
Mencap itself caters for young people with special needs in its three residential further education colleges, and we are very conscious of the responsibility of caring for other people's children. Caring means providing opportunity and support. It means enabling development. It means taking risks, but doing so within a framework of safety supplied by agreed policies and procedures, and by the skills of staff who have been well trained and who know the children they are looking after. I might add that for people with severe disabilities who grow up, but who remain vulnerable, the relevance of the Warner recommendations does not stop at age 18. For adults there is much less protection than there is for children. That worries me.
I have one final point to place on record, if I may. In commending better selection procedures, training, monitoring and support, and complaints procedures to help identify where things are going wrong, I want to join others who have paid tribute to the staff who are doing this vital work on our behalf. Warner is about supporting them more adequately; and I hope that as the Government's initially favourable response unfolds the resources will be invested to help people who, for the most part, are doing their best in a job that would stretch any of us to the limit and beyond. For the vast majority of them, my admiration and gratitude know no bounds.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to my noble friend Lord Pearson for initiating this important debate. Before the noble Earl, Lord Longford, leaves the Chamber, I hope I may say how much I have agreed with his comments in the past. However, I must add with regret that, except for one point he made, I could not quite agree with his comments today.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I would never dream of leaving this House when the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was speaking. I was merely changing place to hear her better.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his remarks. I entirely agreed with everything
1316
my noble friend Lord Pearson said in his speech except for one point which I shall mention later. Inevitably it concerns resources. I remind your Lordships that in 1967 the Williams Report recommended that training for staff working in residential homes and schools was essential. The fact that the recommendations in that report were not implemented to the full is the responsibility of both central and local government and of all political parties. This is not a party political matter. As a country we have allowed children to suffer as evidenced by the distressing reports on malpractices in children's homes. I refer to the "Pindown" inquiry, the Leicestershire inquiry, the Welsh inquiry, the Northern Ireland inquiry, the Crookham court case and others. Furthermore, we have wasted resources in having to commission these inquiries, which have cost money. I suggest that if we had followed the recommendations of the Williams Report in 1967 we would not be in the position we are in today.
Various reports have been written, for example the Utting Report on children in public care, the Howe Report—that was referred to by my noble friend Lord Pearson—the Meyer/Goodenough Report, which was commissioned by the Association of County Councils, and finally the Warner Report. I believe we all agree that the Warner Report is a most outstanding report. All those reports stress the need for training staff who work in a group setting with children. As has been mentioned, the residential sector has been a Cinderella service. I agree with two noble Lords who have said there are staff who are dedicated to children and who are carrying out good work in difficult conditions. We must acknowledge those staff and pay tribute to them.
The Warner Committee was commissioned by the Department of Health. The committee states that its report covers private homes and homes run by local authorities and voluntary organisations. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has given us figures on this matter and I shall not repeat them. Within the homes there are 9,000 sexually abused children and young persons. There are 15,000 staff. Some 40 per cent. of heads of homes and some 80 per cent. of assistant staff have no training or relevant experience. That is not something of which we should be proud. Training should include studies of human growth and development and therapeutic understanding, and it should be undertaken by people of insight and sensitivity who have sound qualities of character, and commitment.
In 1957 Leila Renold, the founder of the Caldecott Community, which is situated in Kent and caters for deeply disturbed children, asserted that training should be work based. In 1993 that is one of the recommendations of the Warner Report. The Local Government Training Board has already embarked on a national vocational qualification. I believe that that should be incorporated in the wider recommendations of the Warner Committee.
I do not believe the Diploma in Social Work issued by CCETSW is adequate. Like my noble friend Lord Pearson I am distressed that matters of class, gender and race should be brought into the report. In time gone by there was an excellent advanced course for

1317
residential workers run by Professor Beedell at the Bristol University. It was closed down for lack of resources.
As chairman of the governors, I speak from personal experience of the Caldecott Community. Five years ago we appointed a qualified training officer to the staff, who offered the staff training on site. That has proved of inestimable value to the work being done and of help to the staff. Only by work-based training would it be possible to train the large number of untrained workers in children's homes.
I say this to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Even in small children's homes it is possible to have work-based training on site. Staff will probably attend their local college of further education for the academic side. On the practical side, it is hoped that on the staff of the social services departments there will be a manager who will co-operate with the college of further education in giving the staff their practical work in the children's homes.
At this juncture I wish to widen the debate. I have informed the Minister of that. The terms of the debate today are,
"To call attention to Government policies on the recruitment and training of those entrusted with the residential care of children".
Apart from the report commissioned by the Association of County Councils, all the reports, including the Warner Report, were commissioned by the Department of Health to deal with children's homes which came under the umbrella of the Department of Health and the social services departments. However, there are residential schools which come under the umbrella of the Department of Education. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, knows about the schools for handicapped children. There are also EBD residential schools. EBD was initiated by the Department of Education, and refers to children experiencing emotional behavioural difficulties. I was unable to discover the number of schools and the number of children in those schools from the Department of Education. Those schools are often run by charities.
There are also the therapeutic residential centres which form the Charterhouse Group, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is the president. We are sorry that she cannot be with us today due to illness in her family.
In addition there are boarding schools, some run by charities and others privately run. The majority of those establishments employ staff who care for the children out of school hours. They too do not have training or relevant experience.
Training of all care staff in residential establishments should come under one umbrella, not two departments. Indeed, I believe that the Department of Education does not have a training scheme for care staff in residential schools. Therefore the money put aside for resources covers only the children's homes run by the social services departments, the voluntary organisations and those under the umbrella of the Department of Health.
In the Warner Report it is recommended that there should be a joint implementation group. The Utting
1318
Report recommended a development action group. However, I maintain that there should be one residential care consortium group to cover all children in residential establishments under the umbrella of both the Department of Health and the Department of Education. There should be one scheme for training the care staff in both those sectors.
I have two final points. The first concerns EBD schools and therapeutic centres which fall under the umbrella of the Department of Education. I say this with deep regret. There is evidence that the Department of Education has little knowledge or understanding of the needs of disturbed and disruptive children. That is not surprising as the teacher training colleges no longer teach human growth and development. They have discarded the teaching of such experts as Winnicott and Bowlby. Furthermore, the department seems to give little help, support or encouragement to the schools for difficult children. It allows schools to close without having helped or advised them, and few inspections are carried out. At lunch today I spoke to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. He was most distressed that a very good school in his area was closing.
Many such schools are run by charities. They have to close if they do not have the full complement of children. Such schools are expensive because they have special services to offer difficult children. However, I regret to say that even though the action is recommended by a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a teacher, many city treasurers will not allow those children to be sent to such schools because of the expense. What happens? It means that those children become the responsibility of the social services departments, which are unable to deal with them. Furthermore, responsibility for those children will be expensive and authorities will not have either the facilities or the resources. The fragmentation of responsibility between two departments is a cause for real anxiety.
Inevitably I come to the question of resources. I slightly part company in that respect with my noble friend. So often the treasurers cut down on training and sending children to special schools. But I do not believe that training can be carried out without extra resources. The Warner Report makes recommendations about training. Figures are given for training. But remember that they relate only to the children in the children's homes under the umbrella of the Department of Health. What about the care staff in the children's homes under the umbrella of the Department of Education? Many more resources and the same training will be required for the care staff in those homes.
I believe that all local authorities should have to give an annual report on their training schemes: how many staff have been trained and how much money has been spent. I believe that the report should be submitted to the Department of Health and, in the case of the residential establishments under the umbrella of the Department of Education, to that department. I hesitate to step into realms which are rightly those of the right reverend Prelate. However, I

1319
would say that, where there is no vision, the people perish. Over the years many children may not have perished but they have been badly damaged. It is timely that we have had the debate. I urge the Government —I refer not only to the Department of Health but to the Department of Education—to look together at this great problem of the training of staff.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the year 1991 there was a series of serious allegations about the conduct of a community home with education in Gwent in South Wales called Ty Mawr, just outside Abergavenny. The Secretary of State for Wales, to his eternal credit, directed the local authority to carry out an investigation. It instructed me to do so. It was a very humbling experience. In the encircling gloom there were only two shafts of light: first, the quality of the assessor who sat with me, John McReadie; and, secondly, and much more fundamentally, the quality of the children with whom we dealt.
The noble Baroness concluded with a word which I endorse. She said that many children had been seriously "damaged". They have been damaged, many of them irremediably. I was surprised and shocked to discover in my investigation that virtually none of the care staff had any qualifications at all. I endorse what was said by your Lordships earlier that most of them are good natured, well meaning and well motivated people.
Earlier this afternoon your Lordships held a debate about the internal combustion engine. There is not one among us who would entrust the servicing of a motor car or motor-cycle to an untrained person. I could reasonably sit down at that point, but life being what it is I shall not.
The fact that people are well meaning—as most of them are —is a gross dereliction of duty towards the children in their charge. We need to bear in mind when we speak of children in residential care that we are attending to or should attend to a wide spectrum. Most of the children will be profoundly fragile through no fault of their own. Many are there for a brief period, for example, taken in the middle of the night from police stations because of the protection offered them by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Many are there for brief respite care; some are in residential accommodation for assessment. We should bear in mind that some are there because they have nowhere else to go, in other words the children's home is the home of the child.
The training required is such that none of us present would be able to undertake the work without proper qualifications, experience and training. It is not simply the management of a child in what is the child's home. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, pointed out, many of the children are well into adolescence. They can be large and may be physically intimidating. Many are sophisticated in crime even at the age of 14. We should not blind ourselves to that. Therefore, the staff need at the very least simple training in the physical control of sometimes large and intimidating youngsters. Often they do not have it.
1320
There is unfortunately no mileage in an establishment for children. No one is interested in it until, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a scandal emerges and public funds are spent—some would say wasted—on needless inquiries.
Many children who go into residential care do so because magistrates are now rightly ashamed of committing them to remand sections of adult prisons where frequently they harm themselves or even kill themselves, or try to. The alternative is twofold: first, send them into the care of the local authority, which, I regret to say, magistrates do without appreciating that there is no security in most children's homes; or, secondly, commit them to secure accommodation. There is no secure accommodation in the whole of Wales. If secure accommodation, properly certified, means that we can keep a child in security so that he or she cannot abscond, run away or commit further crime within a 24-hour period, it is horrendously expensive. The figures vary, but it is of the order of £80,000 per head per year. Do we want that? If so, then the money must be made available.
Many of the care staff at Ty Mawr are well meaning. They were chosen as a consequence of the rundown of heavy industry in South Wales. People aged about 40 were available for work and they were chosen for this work which none of us today could carry out with any prospect or hope of success. They were chosen on the basis of going down to the jobcentre and being asked whether they would like a job caring for children. That is the literal truth, and I do not believe that home to have been unique.
What happens after training? The work in these homes is very demanding. It leaves the staff feeling like sponges which have been put through a mangle. It is desperately hard, committed, devoted work. If training is offered, the temptation is then to look for work in a similar field but not as hard or harsh, not necessarily requiring residence on the premises. Part of the history of training, alas, has been, with a degree of irony, that those who are trained leave the residential homes because life is easier and better paid outside.
When there is the opportunity of talking to residents of children's homes, or in my case listening to a tape left by a boy who by the time we had reported had killed himself, we do not readily forget the faces, weakness or vulnerability we have seen.
I echo what the noble Baroness said. It is important that children in these circumstances should not only be cared for by trained staff but should not be divorced from the mainstream of life, society and in particular education and skills. That is another significant danger that, when one has isolated communities, education is provided out of the mainstream.
I wish to say a word or two on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He accused himself—I believe that in Army circles it is called a pre-emptive strike—of Right-wing paranoia. I do not ascribe that to him. I do not agree with all that he said, but one remark I wish to endorse. He said that often

1321
not only are children damaged by untrained or unreflective people who care for them but so are parents, deeply.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Orkney inquiry. I shall touch on it because after those many millions of pounds no parent there now knows, first, why their children were taken from them at dawn; and, secondly, whether they will have any vindication in this world. Not long ago when Cleveland erupted, the editor of the Mail on Sunday at the time, Stuart Steven, wrote an article which is well worth remembering. Its headline was, "In the Secret State". We need to be exceptionally careful not only that we attend to the rights of children in care by making sure that they have qualified staff to look after them but that their parents' rights are properly attended to and not shuffled away. I shall finish the story. Stuart Steven's reward for that courageous piece of exemplary journalism was to be taken before the High Court and charged with contempt. There is a shaft of light—he was acquitted.
Those are the few words I wish to contribute. The children of whom we speak, by and large in the state institutions, have no voice. There are no votes there. There is nothing pleasant about their lives and circumstances. If we do not make trained provision for them we are worse than pre-Dickensian.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for introducing this important topic. I feel a certain diffidence in speaking on it in view of the great experience and expertise that I know is enjoyed by many of those who have already spoken.
The Warner Report is the latest in an escalating number of reports which reach similar conclusions. One might think that it is perhaps time to stop, take stock and prepare a summary and perhaps call a halt until progress has been made on the recommendations on which there seems to be a good deal of consensus.
The recommendations on the personnel procedures have, I believe, been accepted by the Government who have asked directors of social services to report by April on how they are implementing them. I know that while directors will endeavour to meet that timetable, in itself it is causing a problem. The other recommendations are being consulted on.
I entirely take the point that the issues in this report and debate are not party political. But the title of the debate refers to "Government policies" which led me to look at the Conservative manifesto. The sections on care services and children are directed to diversity and choice. I do not claim that there is no place for the voluntary and private sector provision. But, as I believe this debate has shown, the issue is about standards and quality. We have listened in other contexts to how one deals with quality when one contracts out services. That, I believe, is an issue for this area as well.
I was interested, when I looked at the terms of reference of the Warner Committee, to see that the question of resources was not included. I wonder whether the Minister can explain the thinking behind
1322
that. She may say that the right way to go about such things is to identify best practice and then work out how the resources can be applied and what the resource implications are. That may be the case in an ideal world, but I know that all those involved will be anxious to know not just that the Government accept some of the recommendations, but also how they are to be achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness Lady Faithfull mentioned that point. The costs are far more than just those of the training, a point which has already been referred to fully in this debate.
It is interesting too that we are discussing this issue at the time when care in the community is being introduced, with all the costs that are attached. I realise that community care budgets are ring-fenced, but in a period of fast-increasing demands on social services budgets—including requirements of the Children Act 1989—those budgets are under enormous strain. Community care, being ring-fenced, must rely on other parts of the social services. It is interesting that the question of residential care is so important, as noble Lords have illustrated, at a time when we are perhaps concentrating on other parts of the social services.
Warner does not ignore the resource issues. I support the comment at paragraph 10.34 of the report that it is:
"important to relate the resource implications of [the] recommendations to the wider context of total expenditure on the Personal Social Services and local government activities as a whole".
But I share other reservations expressed by your Lordships about funding by redeploying existing social services and local government resources. I believe there is a dilemma facing us when we assess our priorities in the light of the introduction of care in the community.
I support one particular very narrow comment in the report about the refurbishment of children's homes. It is important because the physical surroundings give people a message as to the value that is placed on what happens in those homes. The report recommends that refurbishment might be achieved by allowing the expenditure by local authorities of accumulated capital receipts, not just the receipts earned in the current year.
I accept that the physical surroundings are an indicator of the regard in which homes are held by the public and by those working in the service. At the root of the problem perhaps is the low regard and low status of homes and some of the staff in them. We have, perhaps, slipped into this situation. Warner identifies the problem when he says:
"Society as a whole has shown considerable indifference to the position of children in residential care. There is a tendency to disbelieve that abuse can occur in residential institutions that are assumed to provide higher standards of care than those families from which children have been removed".
The report goes on to say:
"National and Local Government has shown a lack of interest in defining the role and purpose of children's homes or in obtaining information about how the sector was changing … Too often the profession has seen children's homes as a 'necessary evil'".

1323
I think that in identifying homes as somewhat of a backwater, Warner has put his finger on a large part of the problem.
The emphasis recently in social work has been on fostering. There must be something of a sense of failure if a child is placed in a residential home. The tendency has already been mentioned for staff who work in residential homes, after they have managed to find training, to go and do field work, which is certainly better paid and in many ways more rewarding.
There is a raft of cross-departmental issues which has been quite rightly identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I have thought about it more at local level than at ministerial level, and of the needs and provision of education as well as social services. But:
"Under local management and grant maintained changes, there is no incentive for heads [of schools] to take these children and many of the education facilities in residential homes are poor".
I myself might have made some comment of that kind, though not perhaps quite so extreme. But that was Norman Warner himself in an interview in the Local Government Chronicle. He said—and this too is worth putting on the record:
"At the end of the day, the local authority took the legal step in virtually all these cases to remove the child from their natural parents in order to protect that child. Having taken that step, it seems to me that they are under an overwhelming obligation, which is different in kind from the obligations to the physically disabled and elderly, to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child.
"It is very hard to see in a lot of cases in residential care, how the local authority is promoting the welfare of the child in its care. How can you be doing that by not ensuring that they are receiving the education or psychological help that they need beggars belief as far as I am concerned".
Warner also refers to the problems experienced by children who are increasingly among those who are excluded from schools and who lose out in every sector.
Many of your Lordships made reference to the question of training. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wondered whether he was paranoid. One of the answers is that if one is paranoid, one is not necessarily wrong.
Reference was also made to Recommendation 62, about the suggestion of a separate professional qualification for those working in children's homes. I am a little surprised at that. I wonder whether it does not suggest that there is something different qualitatively and something perhaps not as good, about working in that kind of sector. I know that the Association of County Councils is concerned about setting professional qualifications apart. It is also surprised that a new diploma is suggested hardly before the Diploma in Social Work has been adopted.
I have concentrated on certain concerns. But I must welcome the report. It is too easy on such occasions to forget that basic rule. It is characterised by underlying real concerns and determination, and it aims very high. Mr. Warner regards as most important the recommendations on supervision and appraisal. When I say that he aims high, he says that structured
1324
supervision must be weekly or fortnightly, and that monthly is not good enough. That is a tremendous target to be reached.
I must also pay tribute to the majority of staff working in residential homes. The scandals that have hit the press must be a source of greater distress and frustration to them than to the general public.
Suffusing the whole of the report is the notion that young people living in children's homes need champions. I am sure that noble Lords agree that they have certainly found a champion in Norman Warner and his colleagues.
7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, let me first join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for introducing this subject for discussion. The Warner Report is a good report, as many noble Lords have said. We must thank Mr. Warner and the committee who laboured long and hard to bring it about.
I am conscious that many people who have already spoken are much greater experts in the matter than I. We have heard some excellent speeches, especially from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lord Williams. I am conscious also that the hour is late. Not only does the noble Lord, Lord Rix, celebrate his birthday today but I note also that the noble Baroness the Minister also shares his birthday. Therefore I must not be prolix.
I shall first quote from the report, which contains three essential messages. First, the report says,
"Society as a whole has shown considerable indifference to the position of children in residential care".
The second point we must remember is that,
"society needs a range of well-managed children's homes as an important and permanent part of its system of public care of children".
I emphasise the words "permanent part of its system". Lastly, the report states that the approach in children's homes,
"must be seen as developmental and therapeutic, and not as custodial".
Those are the three principles that we must bear in mind. We have neglected the problem; it will not go away; and the way to approach it is in a therapeutic and developmental rather than a custodial frame of mind.
The first thing that strikes one about the sector is that it is a shrinking sector. The number of children's homes has been decreasing and there are now a small number of children in the homes—11,000. They are tough cases. Each child has his or her own problems and I do not want to minimise them. The sector is shrinking for two reasons. Most local authorities are reluctant to place children in the homes. They would prefer them to be fostered or adopted. Children are placed in a home either when there is no alternative or when doing so is the proper thing to do because they cannot and should not be placed with a foster family.
Given all that, 11,000 children is a manageable number and small enough not to produce problems if the sector is managed correctly. Because the sector is shrinking, there is a problem in retaining good staff. My noble friend Lord Williams pointed out that as

1325
soon as an individual is fully trained he or she leaves the sector. Before we think of training, recruitment, supervision and all those issues, we must produce a strategy whereby good trained staff can be retained. That means that there is not only a need for training, which many people have mentioned, but that we must look also at the reward structure in the sector in such a way as to provide no easy incentive for quitting the sector. That having been said, we must not make the sector such a closed garden that people within it never get out. There must be reasonable entry and exit so that people from other sectors of caring can bring their knowledge to bear.
One point which strikes a relative stranger to the matter is whether the size of the homes should be seen as a problem. They seem to me to be rather small and that must create a problem as regards the variety of help that staff can offer, especially in terms of psychology and education. By definition that must be limited. I wonder whether there is any thinking going on either in the Department of Health or elsewhere regarding the possible scope for moving towards larger homes which could provide a variety of facilities on the spot and could look after the children's developmental and therapeutic needs. I am concerned especially with the educational needs of the children. It is not always possible, or desirable, that they attend the nearest local school. It may be better to provide educational help on the premises. Therefore one problem to consider is whether or not the current homes are of the correct size.
Many noble Lords mentioned the problems of training and recruitment. The problem of whether the current Diploma in Social Work is suitable or whether something else should be introduced is a practical problem on which one should not take an extreme stance. Coming from a university I am less impressed by the idea that practical training is all and academic training is nothing. I take a somewhat opposite view. I believe that, as well as on-the-spot training, some firm grounding in many of the disciplines which contribute towards the care of children in need is essential.
It must be remembered that we want people to receive practical training only in the homes providing the best practice. It is not sufficient to have on-the-spot training in just any home. We must find the homes with best practice and use them for practical training. I would imagine that a combination of a Diploma in Social Work with one extra year added as a special module on children's problems, combined with practical training, would be the answer. As it is, the Diploma in Social Work, which is a two-year degree, is too short for all purposes. It would be better for it to be lengthened to three years.
I shall not enter into the controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, over class, gender and race. He will not be surprised to know that my views are exactly opposite to his. I am part of his paranoia. However, while class, gender and race are not everything, they are not nothing. I would place a small bet with him that, if he were to take a sample of children in the homes, I could predict what class they would come from. It would not be socio-economic groups A and B.
1326
I imagine that many of the problems from which such children have suffered arise from broken homes which have gender problems. Of course, we do not even know, as the Warner Report says, what is the ethnic mix of children in the homes. Therefore, while I take a different view, these are important issues which must not be ignored. Also, I believe that we need to devise a course which will be a combination of some sort of social work course with an added component to train people especially for children's homes.
Lastly, I turn to the resource implications. As I said, there are two kinds of resource implication. One is that although many of the people who work in the sector are sincere and hardworking, they are not as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn pointed out, properly trained. Training is important. Whether we intend to train people who are already in the jobs or to recruit trained people, it will cost resources. It will not be a vast amount but it will cost resources. More than that, I should like to emphasise the career and reward structure which would be necessary to retain people who enter that difficult sector and encourage them to stay to ensure that children receive continuing good care.
Once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for initiating the debate and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as one who knows the quality of the NHS better than most, I have every confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will compete very favourably with the longevity of other noble Peers. As a mere 69 not out, I believe, he has far to go to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who is nearing his century. I have even a little further to go.
I thank my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for initiating and so ably introducing this timely and crucial debate on the subject of children's residential care, a subject which I know your Lordships follow with keen interest, having last debated it just 12 months ago. On this occasion I am also delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is with us and, as always, he has made a cogent and learned contribution to the debate.
I would like to start with some personal comments. Looking back over my career I realise that, as with many others, I have contributed, with the best of intentions, to creating the circumstances now facing children's homes and which prompted this evening's debate. Fifteen years ago, when I was chairman of East Sussex social services, I took the responsibility, in the face of some criticism, to close 10 family and group homes. I did so in the belief that for most children it was better that they should enjoy the sort of love and care that is best provided within a family. For those of us who have had a happy home life it is hard to imagine how children can be brought up in any other setting. That is perhaps why we admire the work of both foster parents and staff who work in children's homes.
It seems to me that many of the children who need to be looked after in residential care are there because

1327
through abuse or neglect they have lost faith in the power of love. I remain persuaded that the longer-term solution to providing better and happier lives for children lies in breaking the cycle of deprivation that passes from one generation to another; and of course some preventive programmes have proved to be outstandingly successful in breaking the cycle and in avoiding the need for children to be taken into care. Over the past 10 years we have seen a reduction of 29 per cent. of children in local authority care and over the same period the number of children in residential care has declined by a staggering 60 per cent.
This is a success story, and perhaps paradoxically residential care has played a very significant part in this achievement. Children's homes have had to adapt to support preventive policies. They have provided much more short-term care and helped families to endure temporary crises. Staff in residential homes have worked hard with children and young people, preparing them for living in substitute families, helping them to understand the realities of their lives and thereby reducing their fears of an unknown future in a new family. Children's homes have always been there to provide for children when their foster care has broken down and have patiently met their needs during these painful upheavals and transitions. These homes have faced increasing difficulties, not least in the children themselves, many of whom have suffered a succession of placements. Due to misery and abuse in their earlier years they become under-achievers at school, play truant, are violent, may become involved in or are on the brink of crime, and thus present serious behavioural problems.
The truth is that, through policies which have favoured family support or fostering and adoption, social services departments have relied on the support of children's homes —perhaps even taken it for granted. Sadly, the evidence of the scandals that have hit us in recent years—one so lucidly described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn —and the subsequent reports on them which have been mentioned by several of your Lordships, suggest that many social services departments have failed to maintain the conditions in which good practice and good management of residential child care have been sustained. This is perhaps the real scandal.
Despite this, having visited a number of local authority homes I have to say how impressed I have been by the fortitude, enthusiasm and caring attitudes of the staff I have met and talked with. I would like to endorse the view of my noble friend Lord Pearson and others. On the whole, staff in residential child care are hardworking and show a great deal of commitment to the children in their care. The majority do a difficult job well, sometimes in circumstances which are frankly adverse. I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that it is a very difficult job. The degree of difficulty in dealing with these children cannot be underestimated. Local authorities need to recognise the stress that staff work under, providing them with first-class training, career breaks and staff development schemes. I commend the London
1328
Borough of Croydon's approach which makes it possible for staff to leave and recuperate for up to five years with a guaranteed job to return to.
Research carried out by the Dartington Research Unit has shown that positive outcomes for children in residential care are associated with five features. I paraphrase these: young people should feel enriched because they perceive the staff in the home as caring for them; they should feel as though they are acquiring some skills which will be useful in later life; homes should work with the child to tackle some of the problems that have led to the child needing to come into care; there should be a consensus between staff, children and parents about what the home is setting out to achieve, and this consensus should be realised through clear and consistent leadership; homes should avoid large sub-cultures of children, probably by looking after them in small groups. I know that this is not a view shared by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and although he has some cogent arguments, they are ones not necessarily shared by the professions working in this field.
If children's homes are to succeed in creating these features outlined by the Dartington unit then they need proper conditions. Exactly what these conditions are and how they are best created has been the subject of three recent reports: the Utting Review describing the current condition of residential child care; the Howe Report concerning, primarily, conditions of service for staff; and the Warner Report looking mainly at recruitment, selection and human resource management.
Recruitment, selection and training are essential for setting the right conditions. Norman Warner and his team, to whom I pay tribute, have provided a great deal of material which employers can actively begin to work on to improve their methods. His report was welcomed by the Government as a thorough and constructive analysis of the issues. On the day of its publication the Department of Health wrote to local authorities enclosing copies of the report and requiring them to take early and positive action to implement the 24 vitally important recommendations dealing with personnel procedures and practices and those on the supervision and appraisal of staff. We have asked for progress reports by 8th April. At the same time, recommendations directed at government, including those concerned with training, which I shall come to in a minute, are subject to consultation with all relevant interests. Comments have been asked for by the end of February.
There is ample evidence from recently publicised cases—Crookham Court School, Castle Hill School, the Frank Beck case and the Malcolm Thompson case—to show that some child abusers seek to work in children's homes in order to have contact with vulnerable children. How insulting it must be for the vast majority of committed and conscientious staff to read about the insidious activities of predatory paedophiles exploiting vulnerable children to indulge their own perversions. The fact that some of these people had high-flown therapeutic pretensions is a betrayal of those engaged in genuine therapeutic care. These people must be excluded.

1329
But there is a more positive reason why selection and training are so important. In a cogent and illuminating speech based on his knowledge and expertise in this field, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was right to say that being well intentioned is not good enough. We must appoint staff who have real potential for skilled and creative work and who can, with training and experience, begin to build up a sound professional base for the specialised and difficult task of caring for children in children's homes.
I turn now to training. The Government are committed to training in the personal social services and have a good record on funding improvements to it. The Department of Health's training support programme has made a significant contribution to the improvement of training of local authority staff working in the personal social services. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, questioned the Government's willpower, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, concerning resources. The Government have a powerful track record in terms of their investment in training. They have increased the level of funding from £7 million in 1988–89 to £31.8 million for 1993–94. The grant is an element of the department's personal social services training strategy, published in 1991, which produced a framework for additional investment in social services training of £10 million in 1991–92, rising to £19.6 million in 1993–94.
The Government have also increased the funding of the Central Council for Education in Social Work which has a budget in this financial year of £33 million. Much of this money goes on student grants, practice placement fees and developmental work. However, CCETSW core functions, given to it by statute in 1983, are to promote and regulate,
"training in relevant social work".
CCETSW approves courses as suitable on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, and no other body can do so. Its membership is drawn from a wide range of interests, by no means only social work. The performance of CCETSW as a wholly governmental sponsored body is kept under detailed review by the Department of Health and other relevant government departments.
The five-yearly policy review of CCETSW currently being conducted by the Government is particularly addressing issues, some of which were raised by my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Faithfull, concerning the content of courses and issues such as quality assurance, management and control in social work training.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mr Tim Yeo, shares some of the views which have been expressed tonight. We need a new profile for social work training in the 1990s and beyond. Concerning the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Pearson on validation, I shall undertake to explore that issue with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The department has also funded the central council to implement the new diploma in social work as the professional qualification for social work in all settings. With particular reference to residential child care, CCETSW convened an expert group in February
1330
1992 to clarify the required content of residential child care within training programmes leading to the new qualification. The work of that group formed the basis for guidance on Residential Child Care in the Diploma in Social Work which was published by CCETSW and issued to all social work training courses in November 1992 with a view to ensuring,
"high standards of social work education, training and assessment in residential child care".
The Utting Report drew particular attention to the training needs of staff working in residential children's homes. As a result the Government introduced a special initiative (the residential child care initiative) to begin a programme to ensure that all heads of children's homes are professionally qualified. The initiative, which this year is funding an additional 144 staff from residential children's homes, including, I am very pleased to say, 12 from the voluntary sector, has been welcomed by local authorities. It has also encouraged many of them to use other training budgets to boost qualifying training for this sector to the extent that 560 local authority staff are undergoing training to diploma standard this year.
The success of the residential child care initiative will be kept under review, as will the Central Council for Education and Training's work, to ensure that sufficient diploma in social work programmes are available to offer appropriate teaching and practice experience in residential child care.
Warner has also focused on the adequacy of training the staff in children's homes. The central thrust of that report's conclusions is entirely consistent with the framework of objectives set out in the Department of Health Personal Social Services training strategy, a key one being,
"to improve the training of the existing PSS workforce at professional and vocational levels".
We shall continue to urge that residential child care staff are given high priority for training through the training support programme.
The Government also fully support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that training staff at vocational levels should be work-based as far as possible. I believe that we have much to learn from the voluntary sector, not least from MENCAP and the Caldecott Therapeutic Community which was mentioned tonight by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
The Care Sector Consortium is currently working on new standards to provide the basis for national vocational standards and qualifications for staff in children's services. My noble friend Lord Pearson shared the view of Warner in that the diploma of social work is not necessarily the most appropriate qualification for those working in residential care. Warner is sceptical that effective training for residential child care can be provided through diploma in social work programmes. Hence his recommendation for a new diploma.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is correct that opinions are divided on that issue. The Government have not yet arrived at a view about the recommendation, but we shall be interested in the comments of employers and others as to whether such a radical breakaway from a unified approach to social work training should be contemplated.

1331
I say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that I am very much aware of the important work that the therapeutic communities do, including Caldecott. I am also conscious of the financial problems that they are experiencing due to the high cost of the very specialised treatment they provide. I hope that the therapeutic communities will take action to assess what services local authorities require of them and to provide those services at a price the authorities are prepared to pay. Local authorities have been advised to take account of the services available from independent organisations in planning their children's services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the matter of whether all services should be provided in local authorities. As she is aware, this Government have the approach of a mixed economy of social support and services. But the view that she takes about assessment and ensuring and monitoring that standards are high is one that the Government take very much to heart.
Concerning the role of residential care with education, my noble friend Lady Faithfull raised some pertinent points. The Government recognise that the provision of education for children in residential care is not as good as it should be and that at best it is patchy. It must be improved and the department is currently in discussion with the Department for Education with a view to guidance being issued.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wished to widen the debate to resources generally. The Government have a proud record. In the past three years alone the increase has been 33 per cent in real terms. With regard to community care, the additional burdens which the noble Baroness outlined will be taken care of in terms not only of increased resources but of ring-fenced money. But as a former councillor she will know that it is up to local authorities to make local decisions within the social services budget.
In conclusion, we have all been chagrined by some of the reports which have been presented over the past few years. They highlight bad management and bad practice. These children are too damaged to suffer from further and often preventable distress. The Government are not offering prevarication but action which I trust that this House will endorse.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I believe that it is now my pleasant duty to thank all of your Lordships who have contributed so wisely to this debate. I would like to clear up one slight misunderstanding perhaps with the noble Earl, Lord Longford. If the noble Earl understood me to say that I was, generally speaking, against social workers, I point out that I am not. I know what a very good job many of them do, often in spite of their training, which is what I was criticising. Further than that, I would say that there does seem to be a tremendous amount of public resource going into this area generally. Having listened to the debate, I still believe that it must be possible to redirect some of that to the benefit of new and more relevant courses for training the people that we have been talking about. For instance, I understand that there are about 10,000 students at the
1332
moment on social work courses at a cost of about £53 million per annum. My noble friend the Minister has mentioned other sums which are fairly astronomic. I would have thought that if there was a will there would be a way in this direction.
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that she will discuss my suggestion that there should be an independent panel to validate the social work courses which I have criticised. I very much look forward to hearing the outcome of that discussion. Beyond that I think that it is time to close the debate and to thank all of your Lordships for your contributions. As I do so, I think that it would be appropriate to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend the Minister on their birthdays. We wish them the very best this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I introduced this Bill in another place just before the general election, when, for the first time, I was lucky in the ballot of Private Members' Bills. However, the dissolution intervened and I now reintroduce it for the reason that it was borne upon me by my interviews every month and by letters from my inner city constituents in the city of Leeds that the Bill deals with many of the problems that were brought to my notice on a regular basis. I have been provided with case notes which prove that, but I will forbear from reading them out.
Housing problems took up a major part of my interviews over the years. They changed very much over the years but the heating problem became paramount. Just before I left the other place I was talking to some Members who, as it happens, came mainly from my side of the House, because they are the ones who represent inner cities. I asked them what was the major problem that they had had to face in recent years and they answered "condensation". They said that if they were to write a paper on the problems they faced in their constituencies it would concentrate on condensation. The big wide world does not know about this but I can simply tell your Lordships that if you go and visit many of the older houses, or indeed some of those built in the 'fifties and 'sixties, you will see the black mould growth that is around and smell the smell that arises from it, and that shows that something is wrong.
This Bill is not designed precisely to deal with that, but I am trying to explain why it matters to me. I regard the Bill as a sensible one in the tradition of health and housing legislation since the days of Shaftesbury and Chadwick. I do not know what the Government's view of it will be, but if the Bill is defective as regards that tradition then it may quite properly be thrown out. However, if there is good sense in it I hope it will be allowed to go forward. Certainly my aim and the aim of the Institution of

1333
Environmental Health Officers, which has provided all the back-up work and which is a bona fide and, in my view, a very eminent professional organisation, is to show that this Bill should be allowed to go forward.
Many years ago when I used to teach social history, I could not understand why legislation in this field took such a long time. There were the royal commissions and the select committees on health in towns and yet it took a period of 30 or 40 years before a Bill appeared on the statute book. I thought how foolish Parliament was not to realise that there was a problem. I now understand that there are always doubters and that it takes time for these things to be understood and appreciated: history does not run in straight lines in the way that the textbooks write it.
However, there cannot be many doubters now that there is a problem, and I raise it in this Bill. Of course we come up against the problem of the Treasury and money. I understand that, because all governments suffer from the same problem. Also, I have been chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and the Legislation Committee and I realise that very good Bills have had to be bypassed and not allowed to go through because of the problem of time. I simply say that this Bill has built into it a time schedule which would allow it to be introduced in bits. It is better to get it on to the statute book, because it deals with pressing problems, rather than for it to have an untimely death. One of these days the issues and suggestions contained in the Bill will be on the statute book. Why not give it a chance now, because it is vitally important to people in many parts of the country?
Clause 1 seeks to restore the ability of local housing authorities to take action in respect of houses and flats of which part only and not simply the whole is unfit for human habitation. I am advised that there was once the power to deal with this but it disappeared by sleight of hand or by mistake. Why is this? As the law presently stands, such action as either the service of a repair notice or the making of a closing order can be taken only where the whole of the premises is affected, whether it is a dwelling house, a house in multiple occupation, a flat or a flat in multiple occupation which is unfit. It used not to be this way. Can we not go back to the situation that we had for many years? It is a very minor technical change which the Bill proposes. Why not agree to that, at the very least? I have been provided with information which notes that prior to the amendment to the Housing Act 1985 a local authority had powers to close part of a dwelling that was substandard: in the case study with which I have been provided this was an internal room. I fail to see, in a non-partisan sort of way, why we cannot go back to the situation as it was before 1985. It matters to my people in the city of Leeds and it has been put to me by the institution that I have just mentioned.
I am advised that Clause 2 is a tidying-up provision necessitated by the change proposed in Clause 1. It cannot be contentious because it is purely a technical change which is required as a result of Clause 1. Incidentally, there is an error in my drafting of the Bill
1334
—a very minor one—where "1B" is shown instead of "1AA". I shall not go into that in detail now: it will be easy to put right.
Clause 3 is a mirror of Clause 1. Whereas that clause provides for the service of a repair notice in respect of part only and not the whole of any dwelling house, Clause 3 seeks to provide similarly for the making of a closing order in respect of part only of a dwelling house. In other words, if Clause 1 allows only part of a dwelling to be dealt with, then Clause 3 too has to ensure that that is allowable.
Clause 4 is, again, a mirror of Clause 2 and should not be contentious. Whereas that clause provides for an express right of appeal in the case of a repair notice served in respect of part only and not the whole of any dwelling house, Clause 4 seeks to provide similarly for a right of appeal against the making of a closing order in respect of part only of a dwelling house.
Now I come to the substance of the Bill. Up to this point, I would say to your Lordships that I fail to see why the change should not be made. The matter goes back to before 1985. The Bill will correct a problem which local authorities need to face up to. Clause 5 seeks to amend the fitness standard itself. That standard is set by reference to nine criteria. I will go through them very quickly because I want to add two more to those that the local authorities have to deal with at the moment.
The criteria are: Is the house structurally stable? Is it free from serious disrepair? Is it free from dampness prejudicial to the health of the occupants? Does it have provision for lighting, heating and ventilation? The heating side is minimal and I shall come to that later. Has it got an adequate piped supply of wholesome water? Has it got satisfactory facilities for the preparation and cooking of food, including hot and cold water? Has it a suitably located water-closet for the exclusive use of the occupants, if any? Does it have a suitably located fixed bath or shower and wash hand basin for the exclusive use of the occupants, with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water? Does it have an effective system for the draining of foul waste and surface water? Those are the criteria on which the local authorities have to work.
We want to add two extra criteria to that list of nine. The first is that the dwelling house should be free from poor internal arrangement. The second is that the dwelling house should be thermally efficient. These additions will apply equally to houses and to flats, irrespective of the way in which they are occupied.
Perhaps I may deal first with the issue of internal arrangements. Most of us, when we are students, live in a house or a flat the internal arrangement of which needs to be questioned, and some of us saw such things when we were young—a long time ago. There may, for example, be steep and winding staircases which may be dangerous, particularly to the disabled and elderly. Front entrance doors may open straight into living rooms and provide poor security. In many parts of the country, security is now a much more important issue than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Rooms may lead off other rooms. In the case of bedrooms, that leads to a loss of privacy. Bathrooms and toilets may open directly into kitchens. It has been put to me

1335
that that is unaesthetic, but I should have thought that there is a much stronger word for it than that. That problem commonly arises where the property has been extended, for example, by adding a ground floor bathroom to a Victorian house. So, our first objective relates to internal arrangements. The need for this provision has arisen because of the sort of housing that I have seen in the city of Leeds. Those of us who live in proper housing are very lucky. It is important that we all take into account the fact that the internal arrangement of a house should be suitable, sensible and healthy.
I come now to our second objective: thermal efficiency. Last night on the television I saw what appeared to be a very expensive, but a very good, advertisement which had been paid for by the Government. It talked about the importance of thermal efficiency and about how we should try to avoid the emission of CO2 because of global warming and things of that kind. I presume that it was paid for by the Department of the Environment. As I sat there having a quiet drink at half-past ten last night, it came to my mind that my Bill met exactly that requirement, but without the expense of advertising. It gives the task to the local authorities. The advertising companies will not be very pleased, but I warrant that my Bill would bring home the importance of that thermal efficiency criterion far better than all the television advertising that the Government are likely to undertake—and it would save a lot of money.
The Government are committed to reducing energy consumption in the residential sector. They have made resources available for upgrading the energy efficiency of council-owned dwellings. But what about privately owned dwellings such as I am talking about? The building regulations set out minimum standards for new construction. They have been revised and now prescribe a much higher standard than was hitherto the case. However, fewer new properties are being built—I do not want to make a point about that—and even fewer older properties are being demolished. That is the sector that I am concerned about in this Bill. We need to examine the ways in which the existing housing stock may be improved.
We have heard a lot recently about the Select Committees of the House of Commons. When I was a Member of the other place I never realised that they were so important, but I read about them every day now and about how the Secretaries of State will take notice of them—I shall be surprised if they do—because they are so important. When the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment considered indoor pollution, the institution to which I have referred gave evidence. It recommended that the fitness standard be amended to include a requirement for adequate thermal insulation. So, I am asking only for that for which a House of Commons Select Committee has already asked.
I do not want to let go of the issue of thermal efficiency for a moment. I regard it as one of the most important matters in the Bill. Indeed, the provisions which relate to it form the most important part of the Bill. The 1985 English house conditions survey
1336
highlighted the fact that 1.3 million households were very dissatisfied with their heating arrangements—that was eight years ago—and having spent time visiting constituents, I can only say "Hear, hear!" to that. I do not think that half of us know the problems that exist in the private sector when homes are concocted out of old houses in city centres that were better in Victorian times.
I have some words to say about the environmental issues, but I shall keep them for the Committee stage, if we get that far. I should, however, like to deal with one such issue which I encountered in my long period in an inner-city area. I first learnt about this as a junior Minister at the Home Office many years ago. I worked flat out in the early days of the urban programme to do something about the inner cities. Some of the problems to which I am referring, however, arise in rural towns also and, although on a smaller scale, conditions there are as bad as in the Newcastles, Leeds, Hulls, Bradfords and Birminghams. The urban programme—or whatever it was called—no longer exists, but apparently it will reappear in a different form and on a wider scale.
Significant social and health consequences arise from the inadequate heating of dwellings, so I turn now to fuel poverty. Simply defined, fuel poverty is the inability to afford adequate warmth in the home. Apparently, the phrase was first coined during the mid-1970s. The inability of many people to pay their fuel bills is a growing problem. The people most affected are those on state benefits: pensioners, the sick or disabled, lone parents, the unemployed and the low paid. Such groups of people spend a larger than average proportion of their income on heating bills—I have the figures with me—so when they are short of money they save on heating. That is particularly true of the older generation. My area contains a large number of widows. That is a statistical fact of life. They come from a different age and they save on heating, but they are saving to their disadvantage. It is because a high proportion of their income is spent on heating that that is the one saving that they feel they can make.
One can talk about the health effects of all this and about the cycle of poverty that is caused by high fuel bills in the attempt to remain warm in a house. It has been estimated that the National Health Service spends £800 million each year to assist people who suffer from bronchitis and asthma which has been caused, or at least exacerbated, by living in cold and damp housing. I have been reading with interest the research that has been carried out into this. I have copies of it with me. I had not realised (because it is not my field) the extent to which concern is expressed in medical and other circles about this problem. It is a major issue.
I referred earlier to the condensation and dampness that is caused by moist air coming into contact with cold surfaces, leading to moist walls. Many such problems arise in the housing that was built in the late 1950s and the 1960s, when this country attempted to build more housing but with the same amount of material. One of the greatest social errors made in my lifetime in politics was in the mid-1950s when the then

1337
Mr. Harold Macmillan urged that we should build 300,000 houses instead of 200,000 but using the same amount of housing material because there was a shortage.
One can detect the annual building rings in our inner cities. One can tell the houses that were built before a certain date because they are better houses. Now when they are sold, they command a high price. The next ring of houses was produced to lower standards. It is in those houses that much of the condensation and dampness arises.
The two extra criteria I have proposed are important. Of course public expenditure would be increased through additional renovation grant expenditure, but work would be provided for small builders. They require work, as we are only too well aware, for other reasons. The scheme would provide work and effect social change in inner cities and the old areas of our big towns. That explains Clause 5, which is a major part of the Bill.
Clause 6 is merely an interpretation clause. Clause 7 will be worth studying in Committee. I have a copy of the Housing Act 1985, and the clause would enable the Government to put the Bill on to the statute book even if full implementation could not take place straight away. There is much sense in the Bill. I hope that it receives a fair wind. The bottom of a slump is the time to provide an opportunity for work. We should not wait until the top of a boom is reached. That is the great mistake that we have made over the years. I shall not rehearse the arguments again, although at one time I thought that that might be necessary. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Merlyn-Rees.)
7.52 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, it falls to me to welcome the Bill, the case for which the noble Lord argued so cogently. I once had the pleasure of visiting him when he was a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he played a part in improving the housing conditions in the Province. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been an outstanding success. If one wants to see good public housing these days one has to go to Ulster. It has some of the best housing in the kingdom.
The noble Lord explained the Bill in great detail. I wish him every success with it. I hope that the Government will take it on board. As I read it, the key to the Bill is contained in Clauses 1, 3 and 5. The measure calls for the Housing Act 1985 to be amended so that it applies to part of a dwelling-house, flat, or flat in multiple occupation. It should cover thermal efficiency and poor internal management. The noble Lord explained those points in considerable detail. Like him, I cannot understand why that is not already the case. I gather, as we know from environmental health officers, that they were able to deal with that position only a few years ago. I fail to understand why it is not possible to do so today. It is obviously a loophole that should be closed, and the sooner the better.
1338
I suspect that when the Minister replies he will refer us to an Answer given in the other place only yesterday which said that a consultation paper had now been issued setting out proposals for strengthening the requirements for Part L of the Building Regulations 1991 for the conservation of fuel and power. Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain a copy of that document although I have tried. It is obviously to be greatly welcomed, if somewhat late in the day. I wonder whether the timing of the document had something to do with the fact that we are debating this Bill, because it covers some of the same ground.
Earlier today we debated traffic control in urban areas. Much was said about the need to reduce emissions of CO2, carbon monoxide, lead oxide and so forth. In this debate it is only right to refer to the link between insulation/thermal efficiency and global warming. I am told that domestic energy use in 1987 contributed 172 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. I am not sure how that was weighed, but the figure appears in official statistics and so one presumes that it is correct. Almost half of that came from energy used to heat homes. We have been talking about coal-mines and the fact that we should not use so much gas, but it would be a good idea if we used more gas to run motor cars and heat our homes because gas is one of the more efficient methods of burning fuel.
It is further claimed that up to 6 million householders in the UK cannot afford enough fuel to keep their homes warm and fit. I lived in the Isle of Wight for 36 years. When I left the other place I spent two years trying to encourage investment in commercial property on the island. Every time I rose in the other place the honourable Member for Bolsover said, "Another bloody estate agent". I was a chartered surveyor and I was involved with property. I went round some very seedy properties in my old constituency, many of which were in multiple occupation. They need attention and the Bill would contribute to that.
The Isle of Wight now has the oldest population of anywhere in the country with the possible exception of West Sussex. We may have now overtaken West Sussex which has been called the Costa Geriatrica. What the noble Lord said was right: to save fuel, elderly people often go to bed in the afternoon with a hot water bottle. I am sure that vast numbers of my former constituents do just that. It is not a satisfactory situation, but it is a fact of life.
Statistics relating to deaths from hypothermia in the UK compare badly with those of other countries, especially Canada and Sweden. We do not have a good record. More therefore needs urgently to be done, although I am not certain where the money is to come from. We need to find it, that is for sure. Research in Glasgow shows that a scheme using loft insulation, fibre cavity wall filling and double-glazing cut fuel bills for those families lucky enough to have that done from an average of about £20 a week to £8.50 a week. However the cost of the work per unit was an average of £4,600.
In my dotage I am now a member of a housing association in mid-Wales. I was at a meeting only last

1339
week. Some of the houses we have been able to buy as a result of the Government's initiative which I support fully will cause the housing association some problems in bringing them up to a proper standard. There is also another problem which is not covered by the Bill, although it should be and that is the issue of smoke alarms.
In Welshpool the other day at two o'clock in the morning someone put a lighted taper through the letter-box of a flat. That was presumably done to try to burn the occupant. I think it was probably put into the wrong flat. If it were not for the fact that the person involved awakened at four o'clock to go to the toilet, he would probably be dead by now. That block of flats was built in 1986. The housing association is now faced with costs of about £50,000 to install proper smoke alarms. We cannot install battery-operated alarms because there has apparently been a court ruling that they are unsatisfactory. Unfortunately tenants take the batteries out of them from time to time and so we have a problem. We have considerable difficulties in obtaining the money to do these things, but they must be done. We must find the money somehow. I believe I am right to say that smoke alarms are now required under the building regulations.
The great need is to get things right in the first place. I gather that the Association for the Conservation of Energy is producing a handbook for this year's annual conference of the Institute of Housing. It relates to the conserving of energy in buildings, and of course it is very welcome. Having said all that, there is an interesting article in this week's edition of the Christian Science Monitor. I do not know why it has been sent to me. I imagine that it has been sent to other noble Lords. I did not have to pay for it. The article is by Mr. Robert Cowan. It points out that if we were too successful in reducing CO2 emissions we could destroy the whole process of life. We do not want to go too far, but we have a long way to go yet because CO2 emissions are regrettably still increasing at 0.5 per cent per annum. The heat in this House this evening tells me that there is no shortage of CO2 coming from the House of Lords at the moment.
I believe that most of us are aware of the appalling standards of fitness in many properties of multiple occupation. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, mentioned condensation. He is quite right that condensation occurs in even the most modern of buildings. It is an absolute disgrace that we have still not been able to conquer that problem. Therefore, it is surprising to me to learn that since the Local Government Housing Act 1989, environmental health officers have not been able to issue orders in respect of parts of buildings—attics or cellars—which are regrettably being used for accommodation in some properties in this country today. It is very important that that should be dealt with. At present action may only be taken in respect of a self-contained unit of accommodation, whether an entire house or flat. As I
1340
said at the beginning of my speech, it seems to me that that omission should be dealt with and the pre-1989 procedures should be restored.
Among other things the Bill will remedy that defect. Therefore, it must be supported. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, for bringing forward this legislation.
8 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest, although not a financial one, in that I am vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to which my noble friend referred. That body has been extremely active in promoting the Bill.
At the risk of boring your Lordships, I wish to concentrate on Clause 5, which is the clause which has attracted most attention so far, and in particular I wish to concentrate on that part of it which refers to the provision of thermal efficiency.
As we have heard from my noble friend, the Government are committed to the reduction of CO2 emissions and to the conservation of energy generally. Housing makes a sizeable contribution to that. I do not have the percentage figures although I believe that my noble friend gave them.
The state of our present housing stock is poor. The Department of Energy supplement to the 1986 House Conditions Survey provides extremely depressing statistics. I shall quote your Lordships a few brief items from that. For example, only 8 per cent of private rented accommodation can be categorised as energy-efficient, compared with 31 per cent. of owner-occupied homes. That is not an impressive statistic in itself. Council properties achieve only 11 per cent., although 52 per cent of local authority stock reaches what is called average efficiency. The housing associations do better, as 40 per cent of their stock is thermally efficient.
Clearly at the time of the report there was plenty of room for improvement. I do not know whether the Minister has any more recent statistics. Although the survey was produced in 1986, it was not published until October 1991. Moreover, I understand that when it was finally published, it had been severely edited. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to explain to the House why there was such a delay.
My noble friend told us a great deal about the poor who are most affected by the need to pay so much for their energy. Proportionately more of their limited incomes must be spent on fuel. They are not only unable to afford to install insulation but they cannot cope with the increases in fuel prices which have taken place in recent years and which have outstripped any increases in pensions. Pensioners, the sick and disabled, and indeed people who are out of work, must spend more time in their homes. Therefore, they must have a higher heating level for longer than those of us who are more active and can leave our houses for a large part of each day. It is in all our interests to avoid the extra social and financial costs of cold-induced illnesses.
The present requirements are flawed. Age Concern quotes a case to illustrate that. It tells us of an elderly

1341
woman whose home was undergoing major work, including re-roofing, at a total cost of over £7,000. She could not have her loft space insulated at a cost of only £180 because the council said that it was not covered by the fitness standard. As she was already making a £400 contribution towards the work, she could not afford to pay for the insulation work herself. That is a flaw in the present arrangements.
The Institution of Environmental Health Officers quotes an equally frustrating situation of an elderly widow living in a house in poor structural repair lacking even a bathroom, with no heating or hot water system. Quite rightly the house was declared unfit and the occupant applied for and was given a renovation grant. All the structural works were carried out under that mandatory grant; but because of the financial and legislative constraints on the local authority, it could not give a discretionary grant. Therefore, that now sound house was left without insulation or heating, although the added amount to provide that would have been small in comparison with the amount spent on the renovation.
If this Bill had been operative at that time, that further modest expenditure would have been mandatory. Further difficulties for the occupant, which will inevitably arise in the future, could have been avoided. Clearly, there is a need for this clause on environmental, social and commonsense grounds. I hope that the Government will support the Bill in its entirety, including the useful Clause 5 which so many of us have supported.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for speaking although my name is not on the speakers' list. I support the Bill.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, brought home to me an occasion when I was in the sometimes unenviable position of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I asked to visit and went to a house in multiple occupation in West London which was sometimes used (wrongly in my view) by the local authority as a bed-and-breakfast hotel. That is by the way because the whole point of the story is that the house that was selected by civil servants for me to visit was, very unusually, a worst case. Civil servants love to show Ministers a best case and very rarely show them a worst case. However, in the example that I was shown, there had been a recent fire and a man had died. Had there been smoke alarms, as noble Lords have suggested, that would most certainly not have been the case, although I have no doubt that the house would have gone up in flames.
That said, I can recall other examples of houses in multiple occupation, council flats, and so on, where the condensation was, in anybody's terms, appalling. I believe that the builders and the building scientists in the past, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, had a lot to be blamed for in that respect because, generally speaking, there is less condensation when there are wooden-framed windows rather than aluminium or
1342
metal-framed windows. The point is that one needs plenty of air around a window in order to reduce condensation.
As regards heating, I have been to establishments where I needed to retain my overcoat whereas the old person living there, who was not feeling the cold, could not understand my comment that it was perishing. All those matters can be dealt with by fitness standards and building regulations and by sensible changes, such as those proposed in this Bill, to the Housing Act 1985. I was a Whip at the time, but I am afraid that I cannot remember why these provisions were dropped from the previous legislation and not included in the 1985 legislation. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will remember or perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us why this was so. Be that as it may, they are not there now, they jolly well should be and I support the Bill.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees for bringing this Bill before us. I am delighted that, so far, it has attracted universal support. I hope that the same can he said at the conclusion of the debate this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, suspected, I have a particular interest in this Bill because I cut my teeth in local government on this very issue. I came on to a city council in 1969 when local authorities still believed that the right way to deal with unfit houses was to slum clear them.
As venue housing chairman I faced 15,000 unfit Victorian terraced houses. With the help of Conservative colleagues, and in the face of Labour opposition on the city council, we won a stay of execution and obtained improvement grants for 13,000 out of the 15,000. Then, with the aid of the Housing Act 1969 and the enlightened Conservative housing action area Act 1974 these properties have found their way—colour-washed courtesy of Sandtex—into conservation areas where they grace the city and provide housing choice to people of modest incomes. Houses that were in slum clearance areas are now in conservation areas to the enrichment of our city.
Thereafter in places like Norwich, and others, we were able to target our work by using repairs notices and partial closing orders. I am referring, for example, as so many noble Lords have said tonight, to those larger houses perhaps built on a slope where there is a basement room with a front area, or where people are sleeping in back rooms with no natural lighting or ventilation, or in rooms created artificially by partitions or sloping ceiling attics. Two-thirds of Norwich's current closing orders are partial orders, targeting a problem within an otherwise acceptable and fit house.
But apparently, as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said, by oversight this power has been removed, and that is simply silly. Problems of lighting and ventilation—for example, of the basement—cannot be placed on a repairs notice even if it is practicable or financially sensible to remedy it, for

1343
example, by excavating the front area. In consequence, local authorities have to close the entire property, thus losing a habitable home; they have to rehouse the occupant and possibly pay compensation, leaving a boarded up property in the middle of a terrace to create damp, dereliction, and the risk of squatting for the adjacent terraced houses, which then find their own heating bills, their own repair bills, and problems of damp increasing.
But the alternative to not closing that house is to leave families to live in rooms unfit for human habitation. That is the dilemma in which this Government have placed every decent housing authority and every environmental health authority in the country. I am sure that it is by oversight. If it is by oversight, I hope that the Minister will be graceful enough to acknowledge it tonight and pledge to support the Bill in order to remedy that oversight.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, would she not accept that that particular problem is not restricted to this Government but has been a feature of the policies of all Governments since the war?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, under previous legislation local authorities have had the power partially to close a property. That power was removed by the present Government. That was the point that I was making. If the removal of that power was an oversight—and I have no reason to think that it was otherwise than that—then I hope that the Minister will be graceful enough to acknowledge it and therefore to remedy that situation, and allow local authorities again to have the power to target the problem and to use the land.
We warmly welcome the first part of the Bill. It allows us to address a problem of public and personal health in flexible and sensible ways and at modest expense. The second part of the Bill extends the fitness criteria. As other speakers have made clear and in particular my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, at the moment in order to be fit a house has to meet a nine point standard. If it falls short of these criteria it is entitled to a mandatory renovation grant. Then there is a second order set of criteria; internal arrangement, space heating, insulation and future prospects of repair, which are eligible for a discretionary grant. This Bill increases the nine-point standard to an eleven-point standard by moving two other criteria, internal arrangement and thermal efficiency, from the discretionary range into the mandatory range, thus attracting mandatory grant. That is highly desirable.
Let us take the first of those two internal arrangements. Until 1989 that too was a consideration that could be used by environmental health officers and legal staff in determining the fitness of a house. Again it was removed, I trust and suspect, by oversight. Yet a house condition survey in my own authority, Norwich, in 1990 as to whether people found their internal arrangements satisfactory found that a third of all dwellings, nearly all of them pre-1919 terraced housing, were unsatisfactory, and in a small percentage of cases substantially so. Noble
1344
Lords have already given examples of this. Bathrooms which are reached only by passing through a bedroom; kitchens off which the WC and bathroom open, with all the implications for ventilation and hygiene; steep staircases, and the like. It is highly important that internal arrangement, which is the fitness and appropriateness of the house in its lay-out of space for present-day living arrangements, is addressed.
The second criteria, which is currently within the discretionary range and which my noble friend is arguing should be brought over into the mandatory range, is that of thermal efficiency. There is no doubt again that this is a real problem. In Norwich a third of all house condition complaints in the private sector were that the house was damp, and in half of those cases it was due to condensation. That is a consequence not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, of metal windows, or as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said, of add-on ground floor unheated bathrooms, but also of the unwise adoption by governments of all colour of new and untried building materials, in particular prefabricated materials and concrete. We know that this, especially in blocks of flats, acts as a conduit to dampness and condensation where it hits warm living space, and as a result has made many of the 1960s concrete flats, Yorkshire-designed blocks of flats and the like, places which are unliveable.
Old insulation grants provided for loft insulation, and now something like 90 per cent. of houses have some, but not to the appropriate six inch standard. Subsequently in its first year the Government's home energy efficiency scheme has helped some 200,000 families on benefit with loft insulation and draft-proofing. I am happy to give credit to that scheme. But unfortunately it is limited essentially to those on benefit. It is taken up mainly by pensioners as a way of avoiding going into residential care. It is limited to insulation and draft proofing, when too often more major work such as cavity wall insulation and new heating systems require additional resource beyond the reach of these schemes.
Extending the criteria for fitness—that is, by internal arrangement on the one hand and thermal efficiency on the other—for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Nicol and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, have already addressed, is important. I should like to congratulate my noble friend for raising this point with us. Unless proper resources are made available to local authorities, the situation will be impossible. I should like to ask the Minister to respond to us on that.
Local authorities are already struggling with mandatory renovation grants. Last year in 1991–92 local authorities spent £185 million on mandatory grants to bring homes up to the nine point standard. But that expenditure, according to the survey by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, to which I should like to pay tribute, suggested that barely half of the requests for mandatory grants were being met. Such grants are mandatory, and they are an open-ended demand-led system. But local authorities' resources have been deliberately constrained, capped,

1345
reduced and abolished by central government, and therefore local authorities cannot—but are required to —meet mandatory renovation grants.
So local authorities now are spending well in excess of their normal allocation from the Exchequer. In the current year 186 local authorities have asked for additional supplementary credit approvals, or capital allocations, of £94 million to meet the statutory commitments that they have to undertake. Yet the DoE could find only £30 million of the £94 million that local authorities are required to provide. Will the Minister tell us what local authorities are supposed to do in that situation? According to environmental health officers and the Association of District Councils half the authorities questioned had waiting lists of over 300 families, which would require additional expenditure on mandatory existing renovation grants of something like £2 million pounds an authority.
What are they supposed to do? The pressure on credit approvals—that is, capital allocation—is bad enough. However, there is worse to come because central government only refund now 75 per cent of the cost of grant-aided works and next year this will go down to 60 per cent. Local government have to meet the rest at an additional cost to local authorities of something like £80 million. Would the Minister please tell me—I would love to know—how a local authority district council with a budget of perhaps £14 million, which is required under capping to cut £2 million from that (my authority has £18 million and is required to cut £5 million) can then find an additional £1 million or so of revenue to meet its share of mandatory grants which are demand-led and will be a statutory requirement from 1993 onwards? Will the Minister please tell me how that can be done?
Local authorities cannot now meet mandatory demand-led renovation grants. It will be even harder next year when their contribution will rise while their capped budgets are required to fall. The queues for mandatory grants will grow and therefore I fear that to add additional requirements—although I support them wholeheartedly—to the standard of fitness and thus to enlarge the potential demand for mandatory grants in the present perverse system of finance imposed on local government by central government will make it impossible for local authorities to meet those requirements. Does the Minister accept—everyone has remarked on this tonight—the long term wisdom and investment associated with this Bill, and will he do his best to ensure that local authorities not only have the capacity to meet their mandatory renovation grants as presently constituted, but will also have the capacity to take on these additional responsibilities to effect longer term savings?
Like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I too am intrigued by the research that the Government fail to publish—I am sure through oversight. Will the Minister please tell us the numbers and sums involved in such a Bill? Can he give us advance notice of the findings of the house condition survey which took place in 1991 but which has not yet been published? When will that be published?
1346
I support my noble friend Lady Nicol on the following point. Can the Minister tell us how many research programmes since 1988 the Government have commissioned into private housing energy efficiency and how many of those research findings the Government have published? No one doubts that thermal efficiency standards would reduce fuel poverty—that has been argued tonight—would improve living comfort, and would reduce CO2 emissions. Given the Government's recently published document entitled Climate Change—Our National Programme for CO2 Emissions, how do the Government suggest the proposals be met, if not by funding local authorities properly to take the measures advanced by my noble friend in his Bill tonight? We on this side warmly support our noble friend's Bill. We invite the Government not only to support it but also to ensure they provide the finance to meet its objectives.
8.23 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, for bringing his Bill before us today. In doing so he has provided us with the opportunity to discuss the establishment and enforcement of standards for our housing.
While we are not opposed to all the concepts covered by the noble Lord's Bill, I should make it clear that we are not in favour of changing now the contents or application of the fitness standard. Indeed, we find some of the Bill's objectives most worthy and we shall certainly consider them further when the time comes to make changes to the housing fitness standard. But we do not feel we have yet reached that time.
A fitness standard for housing has in one form or another been with us since Victorian times. Over the years there have been many changes to the matters the standard addresses and the way in which it is used. The amendments contained in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 were, however, the first made to the standard for over 20 years and represented the first major revision since 1954. Changes have therefore not been undertaken lightly by any government over the last quarter of a century. That is only right as the standard has much riding on it—not least because of the role it serves as the minimum standard for enforcement by local housing authorities.
Any addition that is made to the already wide-ranging requirements the standard sets is likely to increase the numbers of properties in the country that are determined unfit. This in turn potentially exposes more private individuals to enforcement action by local authorities and will possibly leave them having to undertake such remedial action as the authority decides is necessary. Public intervention in this way is, of course, sometimes necessary and desirable. But it is clearly right that any measures which would increase the likelihood of such intervention are fully considered before they are introduced.
We should not forget the implications for public expenditure that any increase in the demand for grant would bring with it. Owners of unfit private dwellings may qualify for mandatory renovation grants and

1347
local authorities are already facing increasing financial pressures because of the existing demand for mandatory grants arising from the current standard. Obviously the Government must have regard to considerations such as this in deciding the way forward.
The changes introduced by the 1989 Act were preceded by extensive consultation and consideration. They were not minor changes. The requirements made by the standard were extended to cover more matters known to be crucial to health, and the way in which local authorities apply the standard was fundamentally altered.
I shall now answer the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Skelmersdale, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, regarding the consideration of part of dwellings. The decision is now based on the property having to meet each individual requirement set by the standard and not on a combination of them, as was previously the case. This means that the standard can only be sensibly applied to a complete unit of accommodation—anything less, such as a single room or cellar, would be most unlikely to ever meet each of the wide-ranging requirements the standard makes. The changes have barely been in place for two and a half years. Of course standards must change over time but it is perhaps somewhat premature to be amending the new standard so soon after introducing it.
This is not a question of dragging feet. The Department of the Environment has a number of research projects in progress to review the standard and to inform the Government of the direction in which it should evolve. One project has been looking particularly at how the standard is being applied by local authorities. This work will conclude very soon and will identify any difficulties authorities have encountered in working with the new system. Recommendations for any government action considered necessary in this area will be made.
A second and more long-term project is currently reviewing the health, safety and—this was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Skelmersdale—fire risks associated with housing. This project will also guide us on any revision necessary to the standard and also on any future changes we might make to the building regulations. In addition, a third project is under way which embraces a feasibility study on a minimum rating for energy efficiency, and this has been undertaken with a view to including such a criterion in the fitness standard. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are on very similar lines here with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and with the views of the Select Committee on Indoor Pollution, which recommended that a requirement for adequate thermal insulation be added to the standard.
We expect reports from all these projects to become available over the next year or so. We wish to consider their findings most carefully before we seek any further changes to the detail and usage of the fitness standard. Given the importance of this matter, that is
1348
only right. In addition to having noble Lords' views this evening, we propose to consult other organisations such as the local authority associations.
I shall now address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The grant system as a whole underspent in its first two years which made it difficult to justify allocating more resources to it. It is now likely to spend fully this year for the first time. It is also becoming clear that a growing number of authorities are facing increasing financial pressure as a result of demand for mandatory grants. The Government have concluded that we need to take stock of whether the system as it currently stands offers the most effective way of supporting the essential repair and improvement of run-down private housing given the resources likely to be available in future years. We plan to issue a consultation paper in the spring setting out possible options for change. We want a wide debate on what changes are needed and the form they might take.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised a point on the results from the 1991 English Housing Conditions Survey. We intend to publish results as soon as our analysis of all the information that we have received is completed. The large size of the survey means that it takes time. We are not yet in that position. Collecting data began in September 1991. For the last survey in 1986, it took just over two years from the start of data collection to publication of the results. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are as anxious as others to have results from the survey.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that we feel unable to support the Bill at present. We need longer to take stock of the current standard. We need to be absolutely satisfied about the case for changes, which will increase intervention. It would be premature to conclude on the matter in advance of considering the results of our surveys.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may intervene to ask this question. I asked about the energy supplement to the 1986 survey report. It took from 1986 to the end of 1991 before the result was published. I am curious why that might be so. I understand that the noble Viscount may not have the answer. Perhaps he will write to me.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I apologise. I forgot to answer the noble Baroness's question. Perhaps she will allow me to write to her on this specific matter.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that we ought to have a wider debate on the issue. If we have a Committee stage, other noble Lords could become involved. It is a most important issue. I understand that the Government have undertaken a number of inquiries. Let us have a wider debate soon. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Europol
8.31 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the activities of Europol receive proper democratic scrutiny.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I congratulate the Government and the other 11 governments of the European Community on their readiness to set up the Europol organisation. I believe that it will be a thoroughly popular measure in the United Kingdom which will contribute considerably to the fight against crime. In the area that I represent in the European Parliament, I have found great enthusiasm for the idea of a European police force and of co-operation across boundaries in the solution of crime and in the clearing up of offences especially in areas such as terrorism and drugs.
Some weeks ago I was able to visit just outside Strasbourg, the project team of Europol. A few dozen brave souls are putting together a European or international police force in embryo in what can only be described as a Portakabin with very few resources and without even a decision on where the site of Europol will be.
It has been said that Europol is a small child, a small beginning to what could be a substantial enterprise. At this stage it involves only the idea of pooling information about drugs-related offences. At present it does not include terrorism or other serious crime, but it involves principles of the utmost importance. I welcome the chance to discuss them with your Lordships today.
Provided that the Maastricht Agreement is ratified, and that Europol comes formally into existence, there will be a variation in the sovereign nature of the police force and of the constable. Once the Maastricht Agreement and the convention which will have to follow as soon as possible are in place, I presume that there will be the concept of a policeman working for many countries rather than only the country from which he derives his authority as a constable. I shall be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that I am right. It will mean a policeman working for an alliance of police against the criminal. It will involve certain increases in the power of the police, and in the power of the computer. In some European Community countries that is an extremely controversial matter. I refer not so much to the United Kingdom but to the Benelux countries and Germany, where the subject of data protection is extremely sensitive. However, if we are to go ahead with the project, we have to contemplate the idea of a British citizen possibly being arrested by Belgian police in Belgium on the basis of information fed into a central Europol computer by the Spanish police. If anyone finds that in some way objectionable, then he is an opponent of the Europol project. I find it a logical continuation of the fight against serious crime.
We should therefore consider the Europol idea as being an international police force in embryo and perhaps the catalyst for something greater in future years. It may well be that if Europol succeeds, it will
1350
spread its wings and take off into other areas of international crime, such as fraud, terrorism, serious theft, movement of goods illegally across frontiers, and so on.
When I was at the Europol project team headquarters, I was told by the team, which included a number of British policemen, that Europol is besieged by the media, parliamentarians and Ministers from all over the Continent. They were surprised that so little interest had been shown in Europol by the media and parliamentarians of the United Kingdom. I hope that more interest will be shown in the future. I am glad that the British police are particularly interested because it could mean a change in the status of some of them if the project becomes a reality. It could be an opportunity for them to work in a different way against the criminal. I declare an interest. I am the European adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
The issue is part of what is called the home affairs pillar of the Maastricht Agreement. At present there is no provision for democratic control over what the home affairs Ministers do or will do. It has been said in various letters by Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries that the European Parliament, your Lordships' House and another place will be informed of what is done at home affairs level and specifically on Europol. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that that is enough. It is not enough for this House, another place or the European Parliament simply to be informed of the decisions on Europol after the event.
I refer to Article K.6 of the Maastricht Agreement which states:
"The Presidency shall consult the European Parliament on the principal aspects of activities in the areas referred to in this Title and shall ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration".
We no longer hold the presidency of the European Community; but as the previous president we are part of the troika of the presidency. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm to me that it is the presidency's intention to consult the European Parliament fully in all respects before reaching decisions upon it, including one on Europol. I also hope that he will be able to confirm to me that the presidency and the British Government have no objection to occasional informal contacts between parliamentarians, whether European or national, and officials or police officers working from Europol. That will be a possibility if the Europol team remains in Strasbourg because of its proximity to the established seat of the European Parliament.
However, I should point out that there is a fair difference of view on the whole question of Europol being outside the European treaties. My noble friend may not yet have had the opportunity of taking on board the European Parliament's report on the matter which was passed unanimously by the assembly on 22nd January—last Friday. The report was by my Belgian colleague, Mr. Van Outrive, and it puts forward the idea that questions of home affairs should only be dealt with by member states within the context

1351
of the EC institutions. It invites the European Commission to take action to bring that about immediately under Article 235.
The report talks about an eventual transfer or improvement in the possibilities for operational duties on the part of Europol's employees. It deals with the need to control the transfer of data from one country to another and from one country to the central pool where the information will be held. It talks of the need to protect the individual and possibly of some kind of ombudsman who could intervene if an individual had reason to believe that there was inaccurate information about him on the central computer.
The report mentions the site of Europol. On that subject more than any other, I think it would be appropriate to consult the European Parliament in accordance with paragraph K.6 of the Maastricht Treaty. It mentions interestingly other areas to which Europol's activities might be extended. I wish to bring up one area in this connection which would be very appropriate—subsidy fraud. The matter has been frequently debated in your Lordships' House, and we have been frustrated from time to time by the large frauds committed by various organisations or even governments, on the basis of European Community subsidies. It may have been cattle moved across the Irish border or imaginary tobacco farms in Greece.
Perhaps my noble friend would give his view on whether it would be a good idea if that kind of offence could be put under the authority of Europol. We have been told in the past that the Commission does not have the resources to investigate subsidy frauds. Very well, let the resources be created under the Europol umbrella.
I shall be grateful if my noble friend will answer some of those points. Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention to keep your Lordships and Members of another place fully informed about developments? I do not believe that it is sufficient simply from time to time to provide a Written Answer to a planted Question on the subject. There should be the opportunity for debate both in the Home Affairs Committee and on the floor of another place and in your Lordships' House.
Will the noble Earl also indicate how he sees the timing for bringing about a convention on Europol, without which the system will not be able to operate properly? That is of course assuming that the Maastricht agreement is ratified. Perhaps he would care to comment on the—I agree highly unlikely—possibility that the Maastricht agreement should not be ratified. Would he care to speculate that in that event the Government would wish to go ahead with Article K with the home affairs pillar as a treaty between the 12 member states?
I hope that the noble Earl will have something to say about the conflict which will inevitably arise over the need to protect the individual against erroneous material appearing on a computer entry. As I mentioned, that seems to be a matter of the deepest worry in certain Continental countries; but it has not yet caught the deep concern of public opinion here. Nevertheless, I predict that it will arise once people
1352
realise what is happening and what I believe needs to happen if we are to maximise our efforts in the fight against crime.
Finally, for many decades it has seemed quite normal for British soldiers and British officers of our Armed Forces to work and fight in close alliance with soldiers from allied countries. It has seemed quite normal for British officers and British soldiers to take orders from foreign officers. Provided that the aim is the same and that the alliance is clearly defined, no one seems to mind. However, up to now that has never happened with police work, in the fight against terrorism, organised crime, drugs, organised murder and assassinations and where criminals cross frontiers—often with impunity—and where co-operation by the police is needed in order to oppose co-operation between the criminals.
I am grateful for the chance to put those questions to my noble friend, and I look forward with keen anticipation to his reply.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I speak personally on this matter but I am sure that the whole House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the question of European policing. My only regret is that his experience and knowledge of police matters over so many years have not stimulated more of your Lordships to contribute to the debate.
European policing is as complex as it is important and its concerns range from the Lockerbie disaster to the smuggling of works of art across national boundaries. Police and Customs officers must now, since the beginning of this year, be able to recognise a Picasso when they see it in a suitcase. They must know a Braque from a brick better than the Tate Gallery; yet the public throughout Europe is sublimely unaware of the huge new burdens that their police forces must now assume. I suspect that the average British citizen, if asked, "What is Europol?", would probably tell us that Europol is some kind of French parrot!
The difficulty of ensuring democratic scrutiny is not eased by the historical accident that international police co-operation has been started more than once. Indeed, there are currently no fewer than four major organisations in competition trying to secure business. They are TREVI, Interpol, Schengen and Europol.
The start of the century saw the beginnings of international police co-operation in the inception in 1914 of what is now called Interpol. That has grown into a large international organisation with 169 member countries and splendid new headquarters in Lyons in France. Eighty seven per cent. of the workload of Interpol is initiated within Europe and its working languages are now limited for the sake of simplicity to the four languages: English, French, Spanish and Arabic.
Despite its long and honourable history, Interpol has clearly not met every recent perceived need. By the mid-1970s it seems that new solutions had to be proposed for new problems. So, in December 1975, in response initially to increasing Irish terrorism on the

1353
UK mainland, the Council of Ministers set up an organisation subsequently named TREVI to develop European police co-operation. TREVI developed by 1985 into four groups, each with specific responsibilities. TREVI 1 dealt with terrorism; TREVI 2 with communication, police training, public order and forensic science; TREVI 3 with international crime and drug trafficking; and TREVI 4 with the exchange of information relating to the fire service.
In the field of international police information systems the TREVI group has sponsored the EIS or European information system, which is very similar in design and intent to the Schengen information system.
The particular characteristic of the TREVI group seems to have been achieved by its consideration of individual subject areas rather than broad policy. Yet it should be noted that the TREVI groups meet in camera, they publish no minutes of meetings, they have no permanent secretariat or budget. TREVI itself has no permanent headquarters and it meets only twice a year. Noble Lords may feel that democratic accountability is not at the very front of its agenda.
In 1984, the French and German Governments decided to force the pace of Europe, remove internal border controls between the two countries and rely upon each other's external checks. That agreement—known as the Saarbrucken Accord—was extended in 1985 at the town of Schengen to include the Benelux countries. While it was primarily concerned with the early removal of internal borders, it included a large section on police co-operation, constructing quite complex rules on cross-border chases and the like.
The agreement also arranged for the Schengen information system to be set up to enhance the exchange of information between member countries. The SIS (Schengen information system), based in Strasbourg, has not yet become fully operational because, among other factors, of what it calls "technical problems", which I understand include particularly difficulties in co-ordinating data protection legislation—one of the principal problems behind the whole of European policing.
While the idea of a European police force has been discussed over the past 20 years or so, the notion was not officially launched until it was launched by Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor, in 1990. The TREVI group of Ministers was given the task of developing concrete proposals for discussion at the Maastricht Summit in 1991. At Maastricht the scheme was given official approval, and TREVI was told to develop Europol "as soon as practicable". Some people hope that Europol will develop into a European FBI. It is possible that the newly released headquarters of Holland's CRI in the Hague may be used to house the organisation. But there seems to be a certain amount of difficulty in deciding between the various places in which it could have its headquarters.
I hope your Lordships will pardon this brief history lecture—it is what I am made and programmed to do—but it seemed to me important to establish that Europol is not a simple and single concept and there are tensions, rivalries and vested interests which must be kept in mind in any consideration of democratic scrutiny of its as yet embryonic activities.
1354
The problems are created by the fact that Europol itself was never really created; it evolved. It evolved from different sources; and it evolved leaving anomalous residues still active behind it. At the moment Europol is only present in a skeleton form, partly because of differences between EC member states on the whole business of policing policy.
The skeleton of the force is operating, as we have heard, in a suburb of Strasbourg. Europol's first aim is to co-operate on drug traffickers and it may be extended, we are told, to attack the Mafia. Informal co-operation has already grown up among Europe's police forces through the 1990 Schengen group, though the Schengen group is unaccountable either to the sovereign parliaments, I understand, or to the EC itself. Europol's provisional headquarters is at Strasbourg because the Schengen information centre is already there, and it is inconvenient. That is pragmatism in exercises, and it makes the establishment of checks and balances and democratic accountability very difficult indeed.
Let us be quite clear about one thing. No one would want to argue against the facilitation of police work to catch criminals who exploit European borders. But Europol, as it stands at the moment, raises certain civil liberty questions and problems of democratic accountability. That was demonstrated most recently when the Schengen group met behind closed doors and made European-wide asylum policy without having to account for its actions either to the EC or the parliaments of the countries involved.
Both the European Parliament and civil liberties groups are concerned about the democratic deficit when policies on asylum, police co-operation and the like are made by inter-governmental agreement rather than by EC law. The British Government made no great efforts during the Maastricht negotiations to make sure that democratic accountability on such matters was increased. No representatives of citizens or of consumers are involved at any level in these negotiations, although they directly concern their individual rights.
It is widely believed at the moment that Europol will model itself to some extent on Interpol. Yet Interpol has managed to persuade its resident country, France, to waive data protection laws. It has also encouraged a police culture in which exchange of data takes place without too many legal controls and in what can best be described as an informal manner. That raises certain worries about the way Europol will operate.
However, the British police, so far as I can understand, seem generally in favour of Europol, but they have some reservations because of the Ulster border with Ireland. For that reason they are not so keen on the role proposed for Europol in preventing terrorism. They think that their own secure systems already suffice. Presumably they also fear leaks, and who can blame them for that?
There are some other problems with the structure of Europol. There is definitely a debate going on inside different national police forces as to whether Europol should be an intelligence agency or also have operational duties, such as investigative powers. The

1355
German view seems to veer towards allowing investigative responsibilities, such as investigating a tragedy like the Lockerbie disaster. British officials, on the other hand, seem to favour Europol modelling itself on the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which gathers information for local police to use and has no powers to investigate or arrest. One senior British source is quoted as saying:
"Europol would never have got off the ground if there was any suggestion that it would be anything other than an intelligence agency".
Yet other countries favour it developing into a body which can carry out arrests in conjunction with local police and according to local judicial regulations.
For those reasons the activities of Europol must be set in a context of proper democratic scrutiny. As the tree is bent, so will it grow. And just as politics is far too pervasive in human life to be left to politicians, so policing is far too important to be left to the police.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for providing the opportunity for this debate. Although he is concerned primarily about the important question of the accountability of Europol, I hope that he will forgive me if I describe a little of the background to these matters before I answer the matters that have been raised. It is a complicated subject. This approach may be helpful to those noble Lords who do not have my noble friend's depth of experience in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that as a teacher he was giving us a history lesson. I may run down that track a little and I have no doubt that the history as perceived by both of us will be the same.
The idea of Europol is, I think, a typical European concept—and I bow to my noble friend's great expertise in the intricacies of European political life. I think though that it is also fair to say that Europol is a much-abused word, and I should like to be as precise as possible in setting out the Government's position.
A German proposal to establish a central European criminal investigation office was first adopted at the European Council in Luxembourg in June 1991, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. That has now come to be known as Europol. The European Council at Maastricht in December 1991 asked for Europol to be brought into existence as quickly as possible. An ad hoc working group on Europol was, therefore, formed to do that. That group of officials meets under the auspices of the TREVI Group and it is always chaired by the United Kingdom. Very good progress has so far been made and, indeed, the United Kingdom has received considerable acclaim for its work in preparing the groundwork for that organisation.
The United Kingdom Government see Europol as a body for co-ordinating intelligence on serious crime which poses a threat to two or more member states of the European Community. That view is now shared by other member states. The original German proposal, which continues to arise from time to time in public perception, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord
1356
Morris of Castle Morris, envisaged giving Europol operational powers as well. But that has always been rejected. And it is not the intention to give operational powers to Europol now. A development of that nature would be a considerable departure from present policing arrangements which we have not only in this country but also in other member states.
Europol itself has though not yet been established. That will require a legally binding convention, and that will involve a lengthy and complex set of negotiations among member states. It would, however, be folly to hold back on the development of an important organisation such as this until the convention has been agreed as it could help us considerably in tackling crime, especially international crime.
My noble friend Lord Bethell said that he envisaged that a British person could be arrested in Belgium by a Belgian policeman as a result of information given by Spanish police on a computer. I am bound to say that the use of information provided by Europol remains to be decided. Europol will not have operational powers. However, in the example my noble friend gave it will be open to the Belgian police to arrest anyone on their territory in line with their own national law, irrespective of from where the information came—whether or not from Spain—or indeed how it came, whether by word of mouth or by computer.
The European Council has, therefore, agreed that the establishment of Europol should proceed in stages. The first stage will begin with the creation of a drugs intelligence unit. That will be known as the Europol Drugs Unit. A full-time project team to develop the Europol Drugs Unit was established on 1st September 1992 to undertake the detailed work which will be needed to set it up. In doing that the project team is also helping to develop Europol in the longer term. As my noble friend Lord Bethell knows only too well, the project team is based in Strasbourg.
The purpose of the Europol Drugs Unit will be to act as a non-operational team for the exchange and analysis of intelligence about illicit drug trafficking and the associated criminal activities which affect member states collectively. The unit's objective will be to help the police and other law enforcement agencies both within member states and between them to combat crime more effectively.
The urgent problems which are posed by international illicit drug trafficking—and the money laundering and organised crime which is associated with it—led Ministers to call for the Europol Drugs Unit to be established as quickly as possible—and, indeed, by 1st January 1993 if that could be achieved. I regret to say that that target has not been achieved. The stumbling block has been the need for a decision on the location of the Europol Drugs Unit and on the permanent headquarters of Europol. The pressures both of time and content at the European Council at Edinburgh meant that the Council was unable to take this particular decision and as a result we will now have to wait for the outcome of the European Council meeting at Copenhagen in June.

1357
The Europol Drugs Unit can be established soon after a location has been decided. The prospect of establishing the Europol Drugs Unit raises, of course, the question of its accountability. The utmost care and attention is being given to that. It is covered in the draft ministerial agreement, and a more detailed paper is under consideration by the ad hoc working group on Europol.
The Europol Drugs Unit will operate under the authority of a ministerial agreement. Under the terms of the agreement the unit will be accountable to TREVI Ministers of the European Community member states. In this country that is my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In practice though Ministers will delegate the responsibility for the day-to-day running of the unit to officials. That is likely to require the creation of an executive committee with representatives from each member state which will monitor the activities and the management of the Europol Drugs Unit.
The precise arrangements about the frequency of the committee's meetings and its detailed functions have yet to be worked out, but the co-ordinator—that is the name which is given to the person who will head the Europol Drugs Unit—will report via the committee to TREVI Ministers.
While we are working in that informal way, and before we have a legally binding convention, there will be considerable limitations on the extent to which information from one member state may be passed to and used by other member states. My noble friend Lord Bethell asked when the convention was likely to appear. It is difficult to speculate, but my guess is that it will be at least two years away.
The ministerial agreement, which will establish the Europol Drugs Unit, lays down strict guidelines on how information should be treated, and it makes it very clear that the exchange of information may only he carried out within the limits of national legislation, legal rules and any instructions which may be given by, or on behalf of, the competent Ministers in the various member states.
National data protection authorities will play an active role in the oversight of the Europol Drugs Unit, over the handling and the protection of data which are received by it. The unit will not, though, certainly at this stage, hold a central database of personal information of any kind.
The arrangements for accountability which have been proposed for the Europol Drugs Unit are likely to be very similar under the convention when it comes into force. They will be capable of being adapted to fit in with the new systems for interior and justice co-operation which are being set up under the Maastricht Treaty. The third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty—that which covers interior and justice matters —provides for police co-operation between the governments of member states.
Although the proposals for accountability of the Europol Drugs Unit relate to the system as exists at present, we realise that there will have to be a role for national parliaments and for the European Parliament when the treaty comes into force. Europol, of course, is part of the third pillar.
1358
My noble friend Lord Bethel! was concerned about Article K6 of the Maastricht Treaty. He was quite right in saying that it states that the presidency will consult the European Parliament and that it must ensure that the views of the European Parliament are taken into account. I can confirm to my noble friend that the European Parliament will hold debates, and members may ask questions of the Council of Ministers, just in the same way as they may now ask questions—albeit in a less formal way—of the presidency of TREVI. I must make it clear to my noble friend that the presidency does intend to consult the European Parliament but the correct and proper route for this to be done is through the presidency. It might be considered not to be the correct route for members to have official contact with officials.
The Maastricht Treaty also has a declaration which encourages a greater involvement by national parliaments in the activities of the new European Union, including an increased exchange of information with the European Parliament. The Government have always thought that national parliaments have a very important role to play.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Bethell that all Ministers from all the member states of the Community are concerned about questions of democratic accountability—in the same way that they are concerned that all the member states should co-operate and should act rigorously against crime.
The Europol Drugs Unit will, therefore, not operate at all until the draft ministerial agreement has been signed by all 12 Ministers. There is no question of TREVI Ministers surreptitiously allowing the exchange of any information on the guidelines before that time. That agreement will be laid before Parliament.
Once the Europol Drugs Unit is established, it must abide by the arrangements for data protection, staffing, accountability and finance which are contained in the ministerial agreement. The unit's co-ordinator will be accountable to Ministers, who will each, in turn, be accountable to their own national parliaments.
It would be rash of me, particularly at this time when it is undergoing such close scrutiny in another place, to hazard a guess as to whether the Maastricht Treaty will be ratified before the Europol Drugs Unit is set up. Both events are hard to pin to an exact timetable. My noble friend asked me what will happen if Maastricht is not ratified. I would not wish to speculate on such hypothetical possibilities as that. The improved arrangements under a ratified Maastricht Treaty will, though, apply both to the Europol Drugs Unit and to Europol. In both cases, the involvement of national parliaments and of the European Parliament will be greater.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will also continue to have close oversight over the negotiation and the development of the work towards a convention which will establish Europol. Home Office officials chair the ad hoc working group which is working on the convention, and the ad hoc working group reports formally on its progress to the relevant Ministers.

1359
Your Lordships will, of course, also be involved in the process of the ratification of the intergovernmental conventions which will require to be agreed under the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty. Parliamentary Questions, oral statements and debates will continue to be the means of keeping Parliament informed.
I am afraid that I cannot give your Lordships precise details of how Europol will operate. A complex negotiating process is at present under way. And the existing lines of parliamentary accountability will be likely to be further improved before Europol is fully operational.
I can assure your Lordships, and my noble friend Lord Bethell in particular, that the Government are
1360
fully aware of the need to ensure that Europol and the Europol Drugs Unit are fully and properly accountable to the parliaments of all the member states, including the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Bethell that that is the desire and the intention both of Her Majesty's Government and of the governments of other member states.

Clean Air Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  COCOM FORUM: NOVEMBER 1992 MEETING
  COCOM FORUM: NOVEMBER 1992 MEETING
  TOPAZ 2 SPACE NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM
  TOPAZ 2 SPACE NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM
  RAILWAY PRIVATISATION: PASSENGER ROLLING STOCK
  RAILWAY PRIVATISATION: PASSENGER ROLLING STOCK
  RENT A ROOM SCHEME
  RENT A ROOM SCHEME
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
  DORKING ST. MARTIN'S AND OTTERSHAW SCHOOLS: SALE PROCEEDS
  DORKING ST. MARTIN'S AND OTTERSHAW SCHOOLS: SALE PROCEEDS
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIP POISONING
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIP POISONING