Sitting of 12 July 1993

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

    Arts Funding
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage when he next plans to meet the Secretary General of the Arts Council to discuss Government funding for the arts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): My right hon. Friend meets the Secretary General of the Arts Council from time to time to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Clapham: The Minister must be aware that there is a mounting crisis in arts funding. For example, the proposed budget for next year is to be 2 per cent., or £5 million, less. That proposal will have a devastating effect. The former Secretary of State for National Heritage said only a few days ago in The Guardian that the reduction in funding will not be spread evenly across the board, but will fall heavily on the smaller companies, which means that some of them are likely to be put out of business. How does the Minister intend to ensure that those smaller companies are protected and are able to continue to make their cultural contribution to the community?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member mentions an important point. This year there will be an increase in the Arts Council grant in aid of £5 million, or 2 per cent. Next year it will be cut by 2 per cent. At a time of economic difficulties, the Arts Council cannot remain immune to those difficulties but must shoulder its burden like everyone else. Much of the unease being expressed results from the Arts Council's deciding on new artistic priorities, not from the amount of funding that it has been given.
    Mr. Renton: May I draw a comment from my hon. Friend on the reported decision of the Arts Council to ask three of the great orchestras to submit themselves, their musical standards and future programming to a judge for examination and for a decision on whether they should continue to receive public funding? If the musical experts at the Arts Council cannot reach a decision on that matter, what is the precise purpose of the Arts Council?
    Mr. Sproat: It is a matter for the Arts Council to decide how to deal with its funding. We want London to have world-class orchestras and I am afraid—or perhaps I am not afraid—that it is a matter entirely for the Arts Council.
    Mr. Sheldon: Surely the Minister cannot be immune from commenting on such important matters. He actually set up the Arts Council, which was established to advise on where the funding should go. If it makes a botch of it and relies on a judge to take over such responsibilities, surely he has something to say on the matter.
    Mr. Sproat: I do indeed have something to say about it. There is a firm tradition of an arm's-length relationship between the Department and the Arts Council in these matters. If the Arts Council chooses to make its decision by taking outside advice, that is a matter for the Arts Council.
    Mr. Jessell: What is the latest position on Arts Council support for the London City Ballet?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend mentions an important subject. As I understand it, the Arts Council was perfectly prepared for the London City Ballet to go into liquidation. Now that a new company appears, possibly, to be rising from the ashes of the old, the Arts Council has said that it will not even pay the touring grant, which previously it was going to pay. I cannot openly give my views on the subject to the Arts Council because of the arm's-length principle, but I see no reason why my hon. Friend should not.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister obviously has a convenient memory. At the last general election, the Conservatives promised to maintain support for the arts, but they have ratted on that promise, just like everything else. Does the Minister feel any concern about the probability that one, and possibly two, of London's orchestras will he forced to close, and that several of our famous regional theatres are now under threat of closure because of Government cuts, or is the Minister totally apathetic about the wreckage being inflicted on the arts by the Government's policies?
    Mr. Sproat: Perhaps I could remind the hon. Lady that funding for the arts has gone up by 45 per cent. under the Government. That certainly is doing our bit by the arts. It is true, as I said in answer to an earlier question, that next year there will be a cut of 2 per cent. only. The reason that so many provincial theatres are at risk is not the 2 per cent. cut but the fact that the Arts Council, in its wisdom, has decided that it does not want to concentrate as much on drama in the future. I hope that the Arts Council will read Hansard and see the strength of hon. Members' feelings about its decision.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, over the past five years, the Arts Council grant from the Government has actually risen by 20 per cent. in real terms? Will he state, particularly in relation to London City Ballet, that the Arts Council should be far more flexible about the way in which it allocates funding? It is disgraceful that, out of a classical ballet budget of £15 million, the council cannot find even £250,000 a year to give a touring grant to an established ballet company.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he will make it forcefully to the Arts Council. He is correct in pointing out that the Government spend a great deal on the arts. At a time of economic pressure, the Arts Council grant this year is £225·6 million, which is a great deal of money.

    Independent Television
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he proposes to take to protect the independence of the smaller independent television companies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission about the rules concerning the ownership of C3 franchises.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am reflecting on the discussions I have had with both the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies about the ownership rules and other issues.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the value of a genuinely produced and transmitted independent commercial television service to local areas such as my own in south-east Scotland? Will he say more about the discussions? Is he aware that the small independent companies are expressing great concern at the lack of protection that may exist for them after 1 January? Will he give an assurance that they will have a degree of protection similar to that afforded to the larger companies under the existing rules? Will he confirm that an article in today's Financial Times indicating that he will make an announcement in September is something like the truth?
    Mr. Brooke: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his commitment to, and endorsement of, the importance of regional quality. The Broadcasting Act 1990 was written in such a way as to ensure that the ITC made certain of that. As to protecting the small companies, the hon. Gentleman will know how the legislation is written. The meeting that I held on 14 June, on which I am still deliberating, obviously related to events after 1 January in a number of directions.
    Mr. Etherington: No, 7, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Questions Nos. 2 and 7 are linked.
    Mr. Etherington: Things are not always too good on a Monday, Madam Speaker.
    When the Secretary of State speaks to the heads of ITV companies, will he make them aware that many people in the industry are deeply concerned about the prospect of an internal carve-up and a free-for-all? It is also widely felt by many in the industry that this is merely a self-propagating effort by those with a vested interest in the matter. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who are stating that in the region of £100 million can be saved by doing away with duplication between various companies are made to explain filly to the Secretary of State's satisfaction that that is the case, and that it is not just another example of the companies advancing their own views to their own advantage?
    Mr. Brooke: The rules relating to ownership are written into the 1990 Act. I acknowledge—as I did to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—that my meeting with ITV companies on 14 June related to that and to other matters. As to the £100 million savings, that issue was raised at the 14 June meeting and I have had subsequent correspondence with a number of those present pressing just the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that there is, to put it mildly, some dispute between the chairmen of the various ITV companies over whether the moratorium at the end of the year is likely to lead to a greater risk of a foreign takeover of some of the smaller ITV companies. Does he have a view on that dispute and if he has concluded that there is some likelihood of a foreign takeover, does he propose taking any action to prevent it?
    Mr. Brooke: The issues that relate to what happens after 1 January came up at the meeting that I held on 14 June, so I was made fully aware of the views of individual Channel 3 companies about that proposition. We are of the view that our rules should be on all fours with those of the rest of the Community and we are taking an interest in those countries where we feel that the rules are not drawn up on the same basis as our own.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that immunity from takeover and protectionism for existing management do nothing for the quality of programmes or for the efficiency of companies?
    Mr. Brooke: I could not possibly disagree with my hon. Friend. On the other hand, if we were to proceed with the Broadcasting Act 1990 as currently written, companies in this country would be in a slightly different position from those in other Community countries after 1 January.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As there is some dispute, will the Secretary of State tell us the net amount he expects the ITV companies to pay to the Government this year compared with the amount paid under the old levy system? Is he aware that Yorkshire Tyne Tees Television is to axe a further 188 jobs in yet another cost-cutting exercise? Does that not confirm what the Labour party has repeatedly said about the discredited Broadcasting Act 1990 and the damage being inflicted on ITV? When will the Secretary of State understand that staff loyalty, staff continuity and, above all, adequate staffing levels are critical to maintaining programme quality?
    Mr. Brooke: I am, of course, aware of the commentary in one of today's newspapers about the specific amounts that ITV companies are paying in levy this year, although I have not yet done my own detailed cross-analysis of those figures. The hon. Lady knows that I share her views on the need to maintain the production base of television in Britain and that there are many aspects to that question beyond those that she has mentioned.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that strict enforcement of programme obligations, the current ownership structure and the regionality of ITV make it all the more important that the House should have regard to the funding of ITV? Does he accept that commercial pressure is being brought to bear on ITV at the present time? As a constructive way to resolve that problem, would he consider bringing forward the review of the ITV franchise arrangements to coincide with the review of the BBC charter?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand my hon. Friend's proposition, but it would be premature to take a decision of that nature. On the other hand, I mentioned to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) a moment ago my

    655
    concern that we maintain the production base in this country. That larger issue will certainly inform our thinking.

    Broadcasting Act 1990
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to seek to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990.
    Mr. Brooke: I have no present plans to amend the Act.
    Mr. Sedgemore: As the stability of commercial television is now threatened by takeover mania, and as Granada has expressed an interest in taking over London Weekend Television, as has Carlton, and in taking over Central, Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no change in the legislation to enable major regional companies to be taken over by national monopolistic conglomerates? Should not people like Jerry Robinson, the tea boy at Granada, concentrate on programme making rather than on pushing up Granada's share price for his personal benefit?
    Mr. Brooke: In answer to an earlier question, I paid tribute to the issue of regional quality and to the fact that the legislation is written in such a way that the Independent Television Commission can ensure that that quality is maintained. On the rest of the question, I have made it clear that the issues that we discussed at the meeting with the heads of the Channel 3 companies on 14 June covered a wide agenda. It was a lively but good-natured debate. All aspects of the issue were discussed constructively by all parties.
    Mr. Streeter: In any future amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing provisions to ensure that the Arts Council continues to fund excellent municipal theatres such as the Theatre Royal in Plymouth, which has attracted more people per £1 of grant—
    Madam Speaker: Order. What has this to do with broadcasting? The hon. Gentleman is referring to an earlier question.
    Mr. Streeter: In any amendment to the Broadcasting Act, is it possible to include a provision whereby the Arts Council can be made to ensure that it supports mainstream municipal theatres—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but I think that we should. now move on.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that the fact that the heads of a number of major independent television companies seek to change the fundamental terms of their franchises and the fact that Richard Branson is seeking to alter the waveband on which he has received his franchise throw into question the whole operation of the Broadcasting Act? Is that not a comment on the fact that the legislation is so misguided that it is creating an absolute shambles in the broadcasting industry?
    Mr. Brooke: Taking the second premise relating to Virgin Radio and the waveband first, in any negotiation for an exchange of the waveband, it would not be within the gift either of Mr. Branson or of anybody with whom
    656
    he sought to effect such an exchange to make that exchange. Control over the wavebands remains with the Radio Authority, with which he should therefore treat. The purpose of the meeting on 14 June—at which, I hasten to say, the smaller companies were as interested in being present as the larger companies were—was to discuss a way forward, looking at the larger objective of maintaining the quality and the production base of British television.

    London Hospitals
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of London hospital facilities are listed buildings.
    Mr. Sproat: There are some 90 hospitals in the 12 central London health districts, of which 25 are subject to 80 statutory listings.
    Mr. Cohen: Did not the 1987 report show that there were 770 listed hospitals in Britain, of which 11 were grade I—the equivalent to this place and Westminster abbey—a further 58 starred grade II and all the rest of historic significance? Has not Save Britain's Heritage been fiercely critical of the neglect of many hospitals, including the neglect emanating from the Government? Is not the position set to get a lot worse with the closure of hospitals in London? Will the Minister step in as part of his departmental responsibilities to save London's heritage hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's, or is the neglect part of a conspiracy with health Ministers, business-oriented health managers and developers, who see listed hospitals only as the source of a quick buck?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. The answer is that the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for ensuring that the heritage aspects of hospitals are maintained. Only last week, we issued general guidance to those who find that they are in charge of listed buildings, but who find that there is no longer a commercial use for those buildings. We are trying to reach an agreement whereby people understand that for the buildings to be preserved for commercial use one or two of the statutory listings may have to be changed. My Department has also set up a task force between the Department of Health and ourselves to ensure that the considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are taken into account.
    Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us appreciate the work being done by his Department in listing London hospitals and many other buildings? Will he proceed with extreme caution, however, before committing public money to buildings that clearly have no use or no useful life to come?
    Mr. Sproat: We will certainly be careful. That is why I mentioned that where it is possible to maintain a building with a commercial use, we quite understand that there may have to be one or two changes in the statutory listings in order that the building as a whole may continue. As to my hon. Friend's question about hospitals, that is primarily a question for the Secretary of State for Health.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Under-Secretary of State seriously saying that those hospitals that have been maintained over centuries, such as St. Bartholomew's, will

    657
    not be given any special concessions, and if it is in the commercial interests of the Secretary of State for Health to let that building go, presumably because it is a city centre site for which she can obtain a large amount of money, he will do nothing to ensure protection for existing buildings? If that is his implication, we shall begin to understand rather more clearly why the Secretary of State for Health is so anxious to get rid of that major centre of importance.
    Mr. Sproat: I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying that the Secretary of State for Health has a duty to look after the heritage buildings within her remit. Her Department spends £500 million a year on the maintenance of a current estate. Within that, the listed aspects of the building will be protected. If the buildings are sold off, that is a matter for her. The heritage aspects will absolutely not be neglected either way.

    Performing Arts
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations his Department has received about the impact on British performing arts of local authority discretionary grant policy.
    Mr. Sproat: Since the establishment of the Department of National Heritage last year, we have received more than 300 letters about local authority discretionary grant policy and its impact on students of dance and drama.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British performing arts make an enormous contribution not only to cultural life but to the economy? Is he aware that the local education authority discretionary grant policy in many counties, including my county of Hereford and Worcester, means that many talented young people are unable to play their full part in that success story? Does he share my concern at the damage that that is doing to the future success of the British performing arts?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend has been a persistent and assiduous campaigner for this important subject. It is certainly true that most of the letters and representations that we have had have shown that an awful lot of students are not able to take up places because local authorities have declined, for whatever reasons, to fund them—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Your lot did it.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman should wait. I accept that there is a serious problem. It may well be that there is a genuine shortage of money, although local authorities were given sums that the Department of the Environment thought sufficient. To settle the matter, the National Foundation for Educational Research will examine precisely what the facts are. Depending on what those facts are, the Secretary of State and I will speak to the Department for Education, which has a lead in the matter, to see what needs to be done to sort it out.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I welcome the Minister's response to the previous question—that there could indeed be a financial shortfall, which is having a deleterious effect on those young people who manage to gain the very few and highly contested places in drama schools—but does he agree that there is little or no point in any young person taking a place in a drama school if the Arts Council is
    658
    allowed to pursue its stated policy of closing 10 regional theatres? Is there any aspect of the cultural life of this country for which the Government take responsibility?
    Mr. Sproat: We certainly take responsibility and the £225·6 million that we shall give to the Arts Council this financial year is proof of that. That sum will be spent at the decision of the Arts Council. It has taken decisions that are nothing to do with me. Indeed, I am prevented by the arm's-length principle from lavishing so much as a breath of praise or dispraise upon it. It is up to the Arts Council. If the hon. Lady disagrees with the Arts Council's policy of moving away from drama and music towards contemporary dance, she should lose no opportunity of telling it so.
    Mr. Dickens: Is the Minister aware that in the borough of Oldham, we have a theatre workshop, the Oldham Coliseum theatre and one of the best repertory companies in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that it is important not only that funding reaches those worthy causes but that all hon. Members who purport to support the arts should help the National Lottery, etc. Bill complete its passage through Parliament before the summer recess?
    Mr. Sproat: I hope that the Bill will get its Royal Assent before the recess. Otherwise, I agree, as so often, with my hon. Friend's words of wisdom.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister care that 23 theatre in education companies in England and Wales, including the Collar and Tie in the constituency of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), have lost around £1 million in grants this year, mainly because of cuts in what the Government will allow local authorities to spend, and that they face further cuts because of money being taken from the Arts Council grant? Does he understand that this may see the end of the unique blend of theatre and educational drama, mainly for children in areas where no other theatre exists? Will he set up an independent inquiry into how theatre in education companies can be funded from next April or is he content simply to see another slice of our theatre wither away?
    Mr. Sproat: The issue arises on a later question and if the hon. Member will contain himself in patience, he will get a powerful answer at that point. However, I fear that I would be trespassing on your patience, Madam Speaker, if I gave a longer answer on that now.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the first moneys to be paid out by the National Lottery Charities Board.
    Mr. Brooke: We hope that money will be available to be paid out by late 1994 or early 1995 for charities and the other good causes.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he know that I am being pressed by the local Liberal Democrats in my constituency to get that money through as quickly as possible? Can he ensure that all parties in the House understand that all my constituents, from whichever party they come, are keen to see that money come through as quickly as possible so that it can go to all the excellent sports and arts projects that they wish it to support?
    Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats of South Dorset are pressing to get the Bill through as early as possible, as their party in the House voted against Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State kindly tell us whether there is any particular significance in the archaic use of the word "monies" in the question as originally tabled, and more particularly in the archaic use of that form of the plural, or is it merely a dry run for the Government's English test for 14-year-olds?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman may know, in terms of such textual criticism, his question should be addressed to my hon. Friend and not to me.

    Tourism, West Yorkshire
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the promotion of tourism in West Yorkshire.
    Mr. Sproat: That is a matter for the English tourist board through its strategy for support to the regions, and for the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board through its strategy for meeting local needs and priorities.
    Mr. O'Brien: I accept the Minister's reply, but does he accept that there are problems with the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board and the English tourist board over financing? West Yorkshire, with its loss of jobs both in traditional industries such as mining, textiles and engineering and in other sectors, is looking for Government help towards tourism. Is the Minister prepared to meet the leaders of West Yorkshire council to discuss tourism and allow them to put to him their concerns over lack of resources to promote tourism throughout West Yorkshire?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will glady meet a delegation if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring it along. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate his region on the fact that the latest figures show 7·2 million overnight visitors in his area. Other areas in the United Kingdom have been more badly hit during the recession, but the excellence of the tourist facilities in his area ensured that the number of visitors there were kept up.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the project to house the royal armouries in a brand new museum in Leeds will be, when completed, one of the largest and most important international tourist attractions in this country? Does he also agree that all political parties should come together to get the project built as soon as possible?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend. The armouries in Leeds would be a tremendous addition to the city's tourist attractions. I hope that the project will go ahead as my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Pendry: The Minister is to receive a copy of the Coopers and Lybrand report that has been commissioned by the English tourist board steering committee, on which sits one of his representatives. If that report condemns the cuts in funding to the English tourist board that were made by the Minister's predecessor, will he take the best
    660
    initiative to encourage tourists to Normanton, Bradford, Halifax and elsewhere in West Yorkshire by being bold, brave and sensible enough to restore the funding?
    Mr. Sproat: So far as West Yorkshire is concerned, I note that two applications for tourism renewal grants have been received from Wakefield and Dewsbury. No doubt both those applications will be considered properly by the tourist boards.
    Although it is true that overall funding to the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board has been cut, the British Tourist Authority's grant will be maintained. We believe that, within the cuts that have been made necessary by the economic climate, there should be a slight shift away from centralised English tourist boards to those run by the regions.
    Lady Olga Maitland: While continuing to promote tourism in West Yorkshire, will my hon. Friend also continue the campaign against deregulation? Does he agree that unnecessary regulation in the hotel and entertainment industries has been crippling, and has resulted in increased costs to the customer?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In West Yorkshire, and elsewhere in the country, there is no doubt that the competitive edge of our tourist industry—when compared with other countries—has been worsened by the heavy regulatory burden. I am determined to remove as much of that unnecessary burden as possible and to make our industry more competitive when compared with other countries.

    Theatre in Education
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet representatives of theatre in education to discuss funding.
    Mr. Sproat: theatre in education companies have traditionally been funded by local education authorities together with the Arts Councils and regional arts boards. Any discussions on funding are most appropriately undertaken with those agencies.
    Mr. Hall: The Minister will be aware, from the question put some moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that theatre in education companies are under threat. Some theatres have closed and others are facing closure because they have lost revenue, because of council tax capping placed by the Government on local authority spending, because of the lack of money that is available through the local management of schools and because of the threatened cuts in Arts Council grants.
    The Minister should recognise that theatre in education provides a unique dimension to education in many thousands of schools throughout the country. Does he agree that the shortfalls—amounting to £1 million—should be met by the Government? Will he instigate a full public inquiry into the funding of theatre in education for the years to come?
    Mr. Sproat: No to the hon. Gentleman's last question, no to his second last and yes to his third. I agree that theatre in education can make an important contribution to schools, but those involved now must realise that they must sell themselves to individual schools because of the

    661
    local management of schools process. If they do that, and if individual schools want to have theatre in education, the projects will continue.

    Independent Television
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the operation of the Independent Television Commission.
    Mr. Brooke: This year, I have received five representations from four hon. Members about various aspects of the ITC's activities.
    Mr. Barnes: I do not know whether any of those representations backed the ITC's position on "News at Ten". I hope that the Minister will support that position and that adopted by the National Heritage Select Committee, which wants the programme to remain at 10 o'clock, so that political news—including 10 o'clock votes from this House—sports news, news from America and hard-hitting news generally can be properly dealt with. We need news at ten, not nudes at ten.
    Mr. Brooke: The obligation of the Channel 3 companies is
    "simultaneously to broadcast high quality news programmes dealing with national and international matters at peak viewing times".
    The hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to the action of the chairman of the ITC, who will be awaiting a response from the Channel 3 companies.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of cases pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in magistrates courts in the last 12 months have resulted in a conviction.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): For the year ending 31 March 1993, 97·6 per cent. of cases that proceeded to a hearing in the magistrates court resulted in either a guilty plea or a conviction.
    Mr. Booth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that those excellent figures have been achieved by the Crown Prosecution Service adopting the test of a reasonable prospect of conviction, not some higher esoteric standard?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am satisfied of that. It is extremely important to make it clear that when the CPS reviews the evidence to determine whether there is a sufficiency of admissible, substantial and reliable evidence, it applies the test of a realistic prospect of conviction—not, as is sometimes suggested, a higher test.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General aware that, despite a 50 per cent. increase in recorded crime since 1987, the number of cases that the police are instructed by the CPS to drop has nearly doubled? What role has the Treasury had in creating a situation in which arrested people are allowed to walk free because of the cost of bringing them to trial? Will the right hon. and learned
    662
    Gentleman confirm that 32 per cent. of cases are dropped on public interest grounds? Has he agreed to that? Will he define it in the context of decisions taken by CPS officers? Will he publish the instructions given to them; and what is the lowest grade of officer allowed to take such a decision on public interest grounds?
    The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any case that has been dropped on the ground of cost. The shadow Home Secretary has visited the Crown Prosecution Service this morning, I am glad to say, and has been able to hold discussions and form his own views on these very matters. Meanwhile, I am glad to have been able to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly in this regard.
    When cases are discontinued on public interest grounds, cost is not the reason. It will be well understood by the House that it is not in the public interest to prosecute every elderly person or every frail person or everyone suffering from some injury or every case for which there is sufficient evidence.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our magistrates courts are capable of dealing with a great many more cases, especially those that go to the Crown court? Does he agree that the recommendation by the royal commission to end the right to trial by jury would end the scandal of 83 per cent. of those electing trial by jury pleading guilty? Is not the reason for that the fact that policemen are spending too much time writing up reports and preparing cases for court, which keeps them off the streets?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the 83 per cent. of defendants who choose to go to the Crown court and then to plead guilty once they get there. That imposes what the royal commission has suggested are unreasonable costs and a waste of resources on the system.

    London Borough of Bromley
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service received reports from the Metropolitan police into two separate allegations of fraud within the social services and environmental health departments of the London borough of Bromley; and whether the Crown Prosecution Service now intends to prosecute.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): An initial report concerning the social services Department was received on 17 October 1991. Following further police investigations, an additional lengthy report was submitted on 20 May 1993. Meanwhile a report concerning the environmental health department was received in February this year. Police inquiries continue and decisions on prosecution will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dowd: Is the Solicitor-General aware that it is now almost two years since this matter was first reported to the Metropolitan police, and almost a year since it was first reported to the chief executive and monitoring officer of the London borough of Bromley? Is not it a disgrace that it has taken so long for a decision to be reached on a matter of such importance and significance, and that we are still told today that decisions are awaited? Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that incompetence and corruption in local government will be pursued as

    663
    vigorously as possible, wherever they arise, and not soft-pedalled in areas that the Government and the Conservative party regard as particularly sensitive?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that all cases ought to proceed with expedition. Where there are allegations of fraud and corruption, as in this case, it is doubly important that they are investigated rigorously. It is not unusual for such fraud to be carried out in a secretive way by those involved, and, for that reason, the police sometimes find that it takes a considerable time to investigate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is not in the interests of justice for defendants to he tried on half-baked inquiries, which are then found to be without substance when fully tested at trial.
    As to political considerations, I remind Opposition Members of the words of Mr. Peter Archer, when he was Solicitor-General, which were contained in a Fabian pamphlet. I do not suppose many Opposition Members read Fabian pamphlets nowadays. Mr. Archer said that no Law Officer takes into account party considerations.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is widespread concern about corruption in local government? Does he further accept that many hon. Members would like to see an inquiry into the corruption in local government, in view of the deplorable events in Lambeth?
    The Solicitor-General: A number of inquiries are being held up and down the country into local government dishonesty and fraud. There are two cases of alleged fraud in the Bolsover district council, in which one defendant has already been convicted and the other has been tried and a retrial of his case is awaited.

    Asil Nadir
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last two years over the Nadir case.
    The Attorney-General: I have explained to the hon. Member in a written answer this afternoon, of which I have given him notice, that a total of eight Members have written or spoken to me or my predecessor about this case. Of these, four have made representations during the past two years.
    Mr. Winnick: It is now eight hon. Members and not seven. Although the Attorney-General is reluctant to reveal their names, can he explain why the majority of hon. Members who made representations are very reluctant for their identities to be known? What were their reasons for making those representations in the first place? Is not there a particular responsibility on those who championed the cause of Mr. Nadir in the House of Commons, strongly to urge him to return so that he can put his case in open court? Does the Attorney-General accept that the money given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party should be returned promptly because it comes from a very dubious source?
    The Attorney-General: I do not accept the factual premise of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Most people, I think, have made it clear whether they wrote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they have not. Name
    664
    them."] However, as to contributions to any particular political party, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. This case makes it abundantly clear that it does not produce any favour or affection either way, whatever party may be involved.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while not condoning melodramatic practices by any of its operatives, hon. Members should not, in general, attack the Serious Fraud Office? Should we not all support it and give it greater resources in the fight against fraud?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend may have seen the remarks in the royal commission's report about the importance of the work of the Serious Fraud Office, both in maintaining high standards of financial probity in the financial services industry and in making it possible for anyone who abuses the privileges that apply to that industry, thereby damaging investors—often small investors—to be brought to justice more effectively.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal on grounds of leniency of sentences in the past 12 months.
    The Solicitor-General: In the 12 months to 30 June 1993, the Attorney-General applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer 33 sentences for review, including five in Northern Ireland. Of the 19 references so far determined by the court, 16 have resulted in an increased sentence.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Court of Appeal's judgments in those referred cases have already been of considerable assistance to sentencers at first instance? In the spirit of open government, will he publish the letters that he received from Opposition Members who voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which included that power, so that we may know that those who voted against it now seek to make use of it?
    The Solicitor-General: That power is now widely accepted as important and necessary and we often see it referred to by judges in their sentencing remarks. I shall resist the temptation that my hon. Friend has extended to me but, on Second Reading in 1988, an Opposition Member described that power as "sheer cruelty". He appears to have a poor memory because, only a short time ago, he wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend asking him to refer the sentence in the Newport case to the Court of Appeal and invite it to pass a severe sentence. However, following our usual custom of confidentiality, I shall spare his blushes and shall not publish his letter.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Elephants
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources he will make available for elephant conservation projects during the current financial year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We estimate that conservation projects supported by the aid

    665
    programme, which may include benefits to elephant conservation, will amount to £2·85 million in the current financial year.
    Mr. Banks: I noticed that the Minister said only "may". We need to know precisely how much money is being paid out to protect, wherever possible, the welfare of elephants. Is he aware that, because of drought, civil war and the continued activities of illegal ivory poachers in sub-Saharan Africa, enormous pressures are being put on herds of African elephants, a noble and magnificent beast which is close to extinction in some places? Will he please consider earmarking far more money for elephant conservation schemes? The people of this country would support that wholeheartedly.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We all know what the hon. Gentleman has done to save the elephant and he is to be commended. He must agree that the British Government have done very well. We did exceptionally well in 1992, when there was a further £600,000 specifically for helping elephant populations.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to protecting endangered species is effective action on bio-diversity to protect their habitats? In that context, what has his Department done to help elephants?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We do a lot for bio-diversity conservation generally, including the protection of habitats. At present, there are 78 projects wholly or partly concerned with bio-diversity and those cost some £37 million a year.

    Kenya
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Kenya to discuss bilateral issues.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit east and southern Africa later in the year. Her detailed programme is not yet available.
    Mr. Cox: When the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend visits eastern and southern Africa, will she note the fundamental changes in monetary and economic policy that the Kenyan Government are now following, adding to their increased problems with refugees from Somalia? Will the Government be sympathetic to requests for aid, should they be made, and for releasing funds earmarked for Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Kenyan Government have had difficulty with the International Monetary Fund, but reached a new agreement in May of this year called the shadow programme, which we and the IMF will monitor. If the shadow programme is successful over a period, the IMF and the British Government will consider their position on new balance of payments support and other such matters.
    Sir David Steel: Will the Minister take this opportunity to reinforce the concern that has already been expressed by Her Majesty's Government about the official sabotage of the printing presses of Fotoform Ltd, whose managing director is a British citizen? Will he make it clear that
    666
    enforced continued non-publication of various magazines by that press constitutes unwarranted interference with the freedom of the press?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have repeatedly stressed the importance of a free press as one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy and strongly condemn the police action against Fotoform printers. We are pressing for the court case to be concluded urgently.

    European Development Fund
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness and economy of administration of the European development fun; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The European Commission is responsible for administering the European development fund. We are in constant touch with the Commission and with other member states to improve its effectiveness.
    Mr. Wells: Is it not true that Britain, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, takes the lead in insisting on a more efficient and focused European development fund, and the co-ordination of its policies with member states' aid policies?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope so. We should certainly like to see in the European development fund greater concentration on countries in real need with a record of good government. Making multilateral programmes more effective is increasingly important, as they make up a steadily increasing part of the total aid programme.
    Mr. Meacher: The Prime Minister decided at Edinburgh last December to double the United Kingdom's contribution to the European development fund and the EC aid programme by the year 2000, while freezing the British aid programme for the next two years. In view of that, has the Foreign Office told him that such policies are throwing Britain's bilateral aid programme into turmoil? Is he aware that his own Department has released a statement declaring that the next two-year freeze will reduce Britain's aid programme by £150 million and that, in terms of value for money, after black Wednesday's devaluation, that figure will be nearer to £250 million? Will he confirm that his own Department is preparing contingency plans for major cuts in aid? When will the Foreign Secretary start standing up for the aid budget and stop being such a soft touch?
    Mr. Hurd: We are beginning, not ending, this year's public expenditure round and we all know the problems affecting that round. There will be pressures on the aid programme, as on other public expenditure programmes. As I said in answer to the first question, I believe that multilateral contributions, whether to the EC or the United Nations, are a steadily increasing part of the total aid programme. I believe that our bilateral programme is second to none in its quality and I intend to maintain an effective programme.

    Population and Development Conference
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the international conference on population and development to be held in Cairo in 1994.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the United Nations preparations are proceeding well. The Overseas Development Administration will continue to work closely with everyone involved to help ensure the success of this important event.
    Mr. Ottaway: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive statement. I congratulate him and the Prime Minister on persuading the G7 summit to agree to encourage the success of the United Nations conference, which reflects the growing concern over the population issue. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is growing concern that what is meant to be a conference on population and development is rapidly turning into a conference on development and a bit of population?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the conference must be about population, not development generally—it is essential to get that message across. My hon. Friend and the all-party group on population and development are to be congratulated on drawing attention to what is a great problem. There is no purpose in having aid programmes if they do not, in considerable measure, address the problems of population growth for the future of the world in the next century.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, as we prepare to go to some of these conferences, some countries find it odd that this country and Europe still pay farmers to
    668
    reduce production through set-aside programmes? Should not we try to use that food to help with the problems of population and development in other parts of the world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All those questions can be considered at the conference. The important point is to understand the principles that are at stake.

    Russian Federation
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet European colleagues to discuss continuing aid to the Russian Federation.
    Mr. Hurd: Aid from the European Community and member states makes up 70 per cent. of all western support to Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. I meet my European colleagues regularly, and support for Russia is often discussed.
    Mr. Fabricant: Following the success of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister at the G7 summit, we are all aware that £3 billion will be given to assist the Russian Federation. Will my right hon. Friend expand on this and state the sort of aid that we give to Russia, especially for expertise on privatisation?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may touch on that in a few minutes. It was certainly an important result of his expedition to Tokyo. Through our British know-how fund and the schemes that were confirmed and extended at Tokyo, it is important to give special assistance to Russian privatisation and to small and medium enterprises in Russia. I think that my right hon. Friend will give details of the extra commitments that were made.

Economic Summit (Tokyo)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement on the economic summit in Tokyo and the Group of Seven meeting with President Yeltsin.
I attended the summit with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the three days I also had bilateral meetings with our host, Prime Minister Miyazawa, and with the Presidents of the United States and Russia and the Prime Minister of Canada. The summit produced significant achievements. These are set out in the economic and political declarations which I have placed in the Library of the House.
Before the Tokyo summit, the GATT talks had been stalled for several months. The summit acted as a catalyst. The United States, Japan and the European Community negotiated a report on access to each others' markets which has led to a resumption of GATT negotiations in Geneva this morning.
The report offers large benefits to British industry. In six of the eight categories where tariffs are to be abolished entirely, Britain is a net exporter. These include pharmaceuticals and construction equipment. Japan's agreement to abolish all the import duty on whisky will give a welcome boost to sales in a market which is already worth over £170 million a year to Scotland. Many other particularly high tariffs faced by British exporters will be cut by 50 per cent. or more. These include punitive United States tariffs on ceramics, glassware and high quality textiles. In other categories of manufactured goods, there was agreement to cut as many tariffs as possible by a third, or to harmonise them at low levels.
The Uruguay round is far wider in scope than previous multilateral trade negotiations. It still has a long way to go, but the Tokyo meetings have injected much-needed momentum and real progress on substantive issues—action as well as words—and the world-wide prospect of more trade and more jobs, especially for a trading nation like the British. With low interest rates and firm control of costs, British industry is exceptionally well placed to benefit from a successful GATT round.
Each summit country, except Japan, is facing a serious fiscal problem. With the exception of the United Kingdom, the European participants are not expecting economic growth this year. Against this background, the summit identified barriers to growth which have developed in much of the industrialised world.
As at the European Community's Copenhagen Council, I found a new willingness among our partners to address some of the hard lessons that we learnt in the United Kingdom during the recent recession. Three points in particular were generally accepted. The first is that there is a long-term upward structural trend in unemployment in addition to the cyclical effect of the recession. Secondly, on present forecasts, the cost of social provisions is likely to exceed the capacity to meet them in all the main industrial economies and, thirdly, that deregulation and labour market flexibility are vital to get unemployment down.
It was agreed that Europe should implement the firm budgetary and other measures needed to facilitate the rapid reductions in interest rates that are now required in many countries on the continent. In north America, strong
670
action was being taken to bring down fiscal deficits over the medium term with the objective of securing higher saving and investment. Japan, meanwhile, will implement fiscal and monetary measures to ensure sustained growth led by strong domestic demand. That will help to reduce Japan's large current account surplus.
Each of those measures is intended to help growth around the world. The summit's accent on jobs was reflected in agreement to send high-level representatives to a special meeting that President Clinton is convening in the autumn. That will study the causes of unemployment and pool experience in seeking solutions.
In April, the Group of Seven put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia through its deep transformation. At Tokyo, the Heads of Government confirmed that approach and noted that some large financial flows were already being made available, including $1½ billion in a new IMF facility. We set out a programme worth some $3 billion to help privatisation and restructuring. There are now some encouraging signs of a spreading enterprise culture in Russia. The summit leaders told President Yeltsin that they were determined to sustain the huge support that they had given reform in his country.
Of equal importance, we have reinforced our political partnership with Russia. As an innovation this year, our agenda included a joint review with President Yeltsin of international problems. At my suggestion, the meeting concluded with an invitation to the Russian President to join us again next year in Italy.
The political declaration touches on many of the problems we discussed with President Yeltsin, or beforehand among the Seven. We supported a negotiated settlement for Bosnia, but only on the basis that it would be acceptable to the Muslim people and not imposed on them. We highlighted the importance of the nonproliferation treaty, supported the constitutional talks in South Africa and expressed concern about the behaviour of Iraq, Iran and Libya.
The summit paid close attention to problems of the developing world and of the environment. I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope that that will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further. On the environment, the summit reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and implementation of the Rio decisions.
Finally, a word about the summit process itself. Over 19 meetings, the summits have evolved from an informal discussion between Heads of Government into an enormously expensive and, in my view, over-structured international event. I believe that radical change is necessary if we are to get the best out of the summit process. I proposed innovations last year and I made further proposals in Tokyo. These were widely supported. I hope that, as a result, future summits will be more informal, less pre-prepared and will provide even more opportunities for spontaneous discussion between the summit Heads.
Despite the procedural weaknesses I have mentioned, the Tokyo summit produced results of particular benefit to the United Kingdom as an exporting nation and a leading advocate of free trade. It concentrated on problems that are causing deep concern not just in this country, but around the world. It helped to bring leaders who are

671
addressing those problems in common closer together. It laid the groundwork, I believe, for productive work at future summits.
Mr. John Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for making this report to the House.
We welcome the recognition by the Group of Seven that there is insufficient growth and too much unemployment in their economies. In particular, we welcome President Clinton's proposal for a special employment summit this autumn.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when similar issues were raised at the summit last year by the then French Government, he was, as was noted in Saturday's issue of The Independent, brusquely dismissive of the idea of unemployment being discussed, apparently saying:
"What for, if we can't do anything about it?"
Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept the need for closely co-ordinated international action to promote growth and employment, and that such action must be taken at the European level? Would not it be a good lead to others for Britain now to cut interest rates? Would not that also be very much in Britain's interests, given last week's warnings by Midland Montagu, among others, that recovery in our economy will flag unless there is a further cut in base rates? I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the progress that has been made on the GATT. Will he explain, however, why two of the critical issues—agriculture and trade and services—were ignored at the summit? Although valuable progress has been made in the quad talks to which he referred, all the agreements depend on a successful outcome on the difficult fronts. Why was agriculture ignored when the main protagonists in the dispute—France, the United States and Japan—were all around the same table?
Does not the Prime Minister recall that the G7 countries have promised to settle the issue in every summit since Houston four years ago, and that two years ago, at the London summit, the right hon. Gentleman himself pledged to remain personally involved in the process,
"ready to intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level"?
Why was the subject dodged at Tokyo?
Opposition Members also welcome the continued economic assistance for Russia; but is it not strange that the $4 billion package agreed by the G7 in April has now shrunk to $3 billion? Why has that happened, and what message is meant to be conveyed by such a startling reduction in such a short time?
Was any consideration given to assistance for the Ukraine, especially in the light of its genuine economic difficulties and the vital importance of its accepting the arms reductions agreed under the strategic arms reduction treaties?
Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be disappointment—in many parts of the House, I hope—that full agreement on the Trinidad terms of official debt reduction has still to be reached by all the G7 countries, and in particular by Japan? Should not consideration now be given to extending the principle of debt relief from bilateral to multilateral official loans, especially those of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank? Can that be put firmly on the G7 agenda?
We welcome the recognition in the declaration of the danger of nuclear proliferation and the vital importance of the non-proliferation treaty. Would not the process be
672
assisted, however, if a comprehensive test ban treaty could be agreed? Will the Prime Minister join me in strongly welcoming the United States' decision to extend its own ban on tests by a further year?
Does the Prime Minister understand the depth of feeling, in this country and throughout the world, about the disastrous turn of events in the former Yugoslavia—which, I believe, merited only one sentence in his statement? Does he appreciate the incomprehension at the complete failure of the international community to address its responsibilities in Bosnia? As we speak, the Serbian siege threatens to overwhelm Sarajevo. How does the Prime Minister think the inhabitants of that city feel about the evasive platitudes of the G7 declaration? Have they not heard it all before? Meanwhile, Serb and Croat aggression continues unchecked.
Are we not in a parlous state when the whole United Nations effort—both humanitarian relief and peacekeeping—is stalling because of inadequate resources and support from the international community? Instead of vague threats such as
"Stronger measures are not excluded"
which the Foreign Secretary got into such a mess trying to explain—should we not hear a commitment to action, such as the use of air strikes, to make the aggressors understand that the international community will no longer tolerate the defiance of United Nations authority and the dismembering of Bosnia?
Why are not sanctions against Serbia being toughened, and why are not sanctions being imposed on Croatia? Why are extra troops and greater resources denied to the United Nations in the field? Why is there no resolve to make safe areas the haven that they should be for the innocent sufferers in this bloody conflict?
Has not the summit generally failed to fulfil its exaggerated promises of success, and, in the case of Bosnia, completely avoided its fundamental responsibilities?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was uncharacteristically negative, but I shall endeavour to deal with the points that he made. I am grateful for the welcome that he gave to parts of the agreement that have been reached. Whatever cross-party support is available is always helpful on these occasions internationally.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the report in The Independent. As is so often the case with newspaper reports, I am a little baffled by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting from, or what he might mean by it. [Interruption.] Well, he probably quoted something that was inaccurately reported.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question regarding co-ordinated action on unemployment at the European level, I refer him to the report that I gave on the Copenhagen summit some time ago, to which I believe he responded.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a long way to go on the Uruguay round. I specifically made that point. It was necessary to get the access agreement settled so that we could return to everybody negotiating, yet again, for both services and agriculture, where there are extremely difficult problems to be solved. What is vital is that, as a result of the agreement reached in Tokyo, the multilateral negotiations have started again this morning.

673
Whatever agreements may be reached by the quad, they are only a part of all the countries which finally have to reach agreement in terms of the Uruguay round. I have made the point on many occasions that each G7 summit since Houston has sought an agreement on the Uruguay round. It was for that reason that on a number of occasions in the last six months I approached other Heads of Government to try to push the negotiations along further, including a meeting that I had with the President of the Commission in the autumn of last year.
I have therefore, as I said I would, remained personally involved in this matter, and I propose to do so for one reason above all others. I believe that there is nothing more important internationally at the moment than a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay discussions, for such an outcome will increase growth and create jobs in this country and around the world. I believe that that is vital. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares that view.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions about Russia, the $4 billion to which he referred that had been spoken of in April was an aim suggested by one member. It was not an agreement. We have agreed on $3 billion. No one is forthcoming with resources beyond that. When I met President Yeltsin at breakfast, and subsequently, he seemed to regard that as a very substantial contribution, and one for which he was extremely grateful. He did not have the reservations expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it.
As for the Ukraine, we are helping the Ukraine bilaterally. The reason for the inability to help the Ukraine multilaterally is that it has not reached an IMF agreement. If it is able to reach an IMF agreement, the prospect of further multilateral assistance is certainly necessary. The point made about arms reduction in the Ukraine is important. It was a point that we discussed, and it was discussed on previous occasions. It is a problem of immense complexity that we shall need to continue to address.
As for the Trinidad terms, Japan has always had a rooted objection to writing off debt. Japan is prepared to extend debt, but for its own internal accounting reasons it is deeply reluctant to write it off. The United States has often had the same difficulty. However, it has now established the principle of debt relief and will be meeting the Trinidad terms. That is a distinct move forward.
We agreed, as a result of discussions, that we would ask the Paris Club to look afresh at further help for the poorest countries. That will involve the Trinidad terms countries in particular. I expressed the view that I hoped that it would look at going well beyond the Trinidad terms and writing off a large proportion of the total stock of debt, not just the stock of debt that becomes due for repayment during the period of an IMF agreement. That would be a substantial addition to write-off for the poorest countries in the world. We shall continue to push for that in the Paris Club.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a comprehensive test ban treaty. That does remain a long-term aim. I hope that in due course we shall be able to achieve it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a series of points on Bosnia, points that he has raised on previous
674
occasions. I am not sure that there is anything fresh in what he has said today. Although he was quite long on questions, he seemed to me to be a little short on solutions. It may be that he has lost touch with some of the events that are occurring on the ground. In respect of humanitarian aid, he will perhaps have noticed that even this morning my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker announced a further £18·5 million worth of humanitarian aid from the United Kingdom to help people in Bosnia.
Mr. John Watts: Did my right hon. Friend impress on the other European Community Heads of State and, in particular, on the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, that if they are at all serious about reducing unemployment and improving employment prospects they should immediately abandon the social chapter and all similar policies, which would impose unnecessary costs on industry and commerce?
The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry to say that Mr. Delors was unwell and was not therefore at the summit. He was represented by Mr. Christophersen, the Vice-President of the Commission, who is aware of the United Kingdom's views on the social chapter. We did not specificallly discuss it, but he is in no doubt whatsoever that we believe that the social chapter would cost jobs, not create them.
Sir David Steel: I thank the Prime Minister for having met an all-party group to discuss the Trinidad terms before he left for the Tokyo summit. How soon does he expect some results from the initiatives that he took at the summit?
Secondly, am I correct in understanding that none of the announced tariff cuts will take effect until the Uruguay round of the GATT talks has been completed, and should we not keep that in perspective?
Thirdly, on Bosnia, will the Prime Minister accept that neither the strong words of the G7 nor the humanitarian package announced this morning will do anything to help the potentially murderous siege of Sarajevo unless the United Nations troops on the ground are authorised and reinforced with resources by their Governments to enable them to break that siege?
The Prime Minister: On the three points that the right hon. Gentleman made, I hope that the Paris Club will begin soon to discuss the question of further debt relief. How rapidly it will reach a conclusion I am afraid I cannot anticipate. The United Kingdom will push for a comprehensive solution as speedily as possible, but we have run into difficulties. People believe that we have been a little ahead of them in seeking debt reduction in Toronto terms three or four years ago, in Trinidad terms a couple of years ago and now. There are distinct difficulties in other countries. It is possible for some countries to move ahead unilaterally, as we ourselves have done from time to time in the past, but that then diminishes the capacity of those countries to seek what the debtor countries most need, which is a comprehensive write-off of debt by the Paris Club and, where appropriate, by the London Club as well in terms of commercial debt.
One of the points that I hope all our partners will recognise is that there is no incentive whatsoever for many of the poorer countries to continue to try to lift themselves out of their present difficulties if every element of their

675
increased prosperity is then utilised to pay off an increasing level of debt interest on an increasing capital sum. I hope that it will be possible to have a substantial write-off.
On tariff reductions, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: nothing, in the famous terms, is agreed until everything is agreed. The hope and expectation is that the deadline will be in the middle of December—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Again.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says, "Again", and he is right to be sceptical about it. We have done it, but we now have movement that we have not seen in the past with the fast track renewal in the United States and the breakthrough on access talks. I hope that we will get it concluded in December of this year.
On the question of Sarajevo, the right hon. Gentleman knows the Government's position. I am not in a position to offer fresh troops.
Mr. John Biffen: The Prime Minister has clearly had a most excellent Tokyo summit, but may I congratulate him in particular on the work that he intends to undertake to make such gatherings much less structured and, hopefully, much less frequent? Is he aware that in certain circumstances travel narrows the mind and that there is nothing more absurd in the current circumstances than a gathering of the world's elite, discussing the nobility of its aims, at a time when right across north America and Europe there is an all-time record gap between the perceptions of Government and governed?
The Prime Minister: I strongly share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. It may be that one of the reasons for that gap between the public and the politicians is an excess of summit fatigue, where people meet together without a realistic expectation of actually achieving what may have been expected from a summit of that sort.
I am delighted that colleagues have accepted many of the ideas for simplifying the summit process. I must confess that I did not achieve all the ideas that I wanted. I say with some trepidation, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sitting beside me, that I had hoped to restrict the summit to Heads of Government only and not Foreign Ministers and Finance Ministers. However, those of our colleagues with coalition Governments felt that they should continue to attend.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the advantages of these summits is revisiting, again and again, the continuing problems that face the world? Will he accept that what is needed now is the necessary pressure on Japan to reduce its balance of payments surplus and the essential requirement to move the GATT forward? The excessive trumpeting of success does not suggest that we have the GATT problem fully in mind.
The Prime Minister: We are well aware of the importance of the GATT round and no one in this House has been in any doubt about that for the past two years. Well over 100 nations are engaged in the Uruguay round talks. That makes it extremely difficult to reach agreement. As I indicated earlier, the talks are much wider and much
676
more comprehensive than any previous trade talks. They include services and agriculture, and that has not been the case in the past. Those extensions are very welcome.
One point which deserves to be made is that many of the Cairns group of countries—in industrial terms, rather smaller countries—reached their GATT agreements three, four or five years ago and they have held to them. Their frustration at the difficulty of the United States and Europe in sticking to agreements that they reached months ago is entirely justified. I very much hope that we will be able to do that and also reach an agreement.
The point about revisiting problems is entirely right. However, it is not desirable to revisit them on occasions when there seems to be no practical opportunity of doing anything about them unless the revisiting is on the basis that I have proposed for the future—much more informal discussions.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while the agreements in Tokyo are to be welcomed, there is no question but that a general reduction in tariffs is to be preferred to a series of bilateral agreements reached between different countries such as the United States and Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main purpose must be to achieve a reduction and success in the Uruguay round in agriculture? Will he confirm that no single country has the right of veto in such negotiations?
The Prime Minister: I would certainly confirm that. In terms of the European Community, an agriculture agreement is available by qualified majority vote. One hopes that that would not be necessary and I hope that, at the end of the negotiations, the advantages there for every western European country in industrial matters will ensure that no one would seek to block it on the grounds of agriculture. We need an agreement on agriculture. It will be a novelty to have one and it would be a very remarkable breakthrough if it were achieved.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's earlier point, a general agreement is infinitely to be preferred to bilateral agreements. Bilateral agreements are of little help to many of the developing countries.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In his bilateral talks with President Clinton, did the Prime Minister discuss the United States ban on British nuclear tests in Nevada? Did he remind President Clinton that a year and a quarter ago this Government told the country that nuclear tests were indispensable to British security? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether British nuclear tests are still indispensable to British security, and will he give a clear yes or no?
The Prime Minister: In fact, I discussed that with President Clinton a few days before we went to Tokyo and we spent some time discussing it. The ban has been extended for a further year. We will wait and see whether other people outside the United States sphere of influence continue testing, in which case I think that the United States and we would as well. In that year, we are seeing whether we can find alternative ways of managing without the necessity for the tests. Some think that we can do that and we are still examining that. The scientists are as yet uncertain. I hope that it will be possible.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very successful

677
summit, may I press him again on Bosnia? Does he accept that, since the Washington declaration, events have deteriorated markedly, that no extra protection has been given to those in safe havens, and in Sarajevo in particular, and that that great European city stands on the brink of total collapse in the most atrocious conditions seen anywhere in Europe since the end of the second world war? There were some tough words in the declaration on Bosnia. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say that they will be followed by action to try to save Sarajevo?
The Prime Minister: The Secretary-General, as my hon. Friend will know, is actually mustering troops at the moment in terms of the resolution, the number of which escapes me for the moment, on safe areas which was passed some time ago. We ourselves have provided troops; we have had troops in Bosnia for some time. We look forward to other people doing so as well so that that resolution can be carried out.
Mr. Frank Field: Given the importance of the level of world trade to British prosperity, may I welcome the small but important movements in the GATT negotiations that the Prime Minister announced this afternoon? May I remind the Prime Minister of the answer that he gave recently to the House, that one of the Government's objectives was to establish full employment? Is he aware that it is a long time since the House has heard that as an objective of Her Majesty's Government? Does the Prime Minister accept that, although many people have very useful ideas on how we could marginally increase the number in employment, nobody but nobody in the western world has any idea how to achieve his objective?
When Britain faced exactly the same situation in the 1930s, the then Prime Minister sounded a note of urgency by initiating a national debate and having that debate reporting directly to him. Will he consider a similar initiative so that when the British delegates go to Camp David they can go armed with new ideas, bringing hope to our constituents, some of whom have waited 10 years or more in the dole queues, rather than acting as mere intellectual bag carriers of other nations?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say in his opening remarks about GATT. It was, of course, this country that raised at Copenhagen the significant question of employment across Europe and the long-term trend.
What is of increasing concern when one strips away the effect even of the recession is that right the way across Europe—not just in this country but right the way across Europe—from about 1970, under Governments of both parties, and at one stage two parties at once, there has been a general increase in unemployment. Worse than that, there has been a corresponding increase in long-term unemployment that is centred particularly upon low-skilled or unskilled males. That is not a British phenomenon; it is a phenomenon that one can see to a greater or lesser degree across the whole of the industrialised world, with the exception of Japan, where different circumstances apply.
We did raise the issue in Copenhagen. I raised it again in Japan. We will most certainly contribute forcefully both to the White Paper in Europe and President Clinton's
678
discussions later on this year. Some jobs will certainly be created by supply side reform, some by growth, but there is not an automatic equalisation between growth and jobs, as hon. Members will realise. On any rational expectation, a satisfactory GATT agreement will also create a significant number of jobs. There is a series of events in train that can help to put people back to work. That is certainly our objective.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the substantial and exciting tariff reductions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought so hard to achieve can be frustrated if the GATT round breaks down, what on earth can we do if the European Community is unwilling to reduce its agricultural expenditure which is currently beating every previous record, with the mountains of food breaking every previous record? Would it not greatly help the GATT discussions that the Prime Minister has worked so splendidly on if some member state within the EC would propose that either the CAP should be scrapped or that individual nations should be entitled to disengage from it? Would not that help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the fantastically good job that he did at Tokyo?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. The Government agree with him on the need for CAP reform, and there has been some reform of the common agricultural policy. No doubt more will be necessary, but we will certainly endeavour to persuade all our European partners not to stand in the way of a comprehensive trade agreement.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his opening statement, the Prime Minister referred to discussions on the behaviour of Iraq. What hard evidence did either the Americans or President Clinton give about the involvement of the Iraqi state in the so-called attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait? Is it likely, if it was Saddam Hussein's handiwork, that the would-be assassins would run out of petrol and not know where the university of Kuwait was? Will he be very careful before endorsing further military action and the launching of missiles on Baghdad?
The Prime Minister: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the remarks concerning the behaviour of Iraq that were made recently by Ms Albright at the Security Council of the United Nations, which I think he will find of some interest. In the past couple of days, we have also seen obstruction of the United Nations weapons inspectors. I think that is a provocation. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq's obligations under Security Council resolutions and, clearly, that matter will now have to go back to the Security Council.
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I ask my right hon. Friend—who always represents Britain at meetings of Heads of Government with distinction—a similar question to that which I asked him when he returned recently from the European summit in Copenhagen? What is the point of repeated high-flown communiqués drawing attention to the urgent need to reduce unemployment, when its principal creator, the central bank of Germany, is outside democratic control? Has my right hon. Friend, with his usual tact, reminded his German colleagues of the fact that it was not inflation but unemployment that brought down the Weimar Republic and put Adolf Hitler into power?
The Prime Minister: I cannot say that I made that particular point in that fashion at the summit discussions, but we indicated the importance that we attach to unemployment when we were in Copenhagen, bilaterally with other European and other Heads of Government, and again in Japan. I think there is a level of understanding about the concern that people feel about the problem that did not exist even a few months ago. I know that my hon. Friend's remarks will be read carefully in other places.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not there an air of unreality about the fact that the Prime Minister had to go all the way to Tokyo to tell us that they have discovered unemployment in Britain? If he had asked in any region of the British Isles, he would have found out that everyone knows that there is a lot of unemployment in Britain. Instead of swapping advice with other Heads of State about how to fiddle the figures in different countries. and talking about level economic playing fields when there cannot be such a thing in the world, why does not he do something here at home, and save the pits, stop shutting the shipyards, save the engineering base, reintroduce exchange controls and introduce import controls? That is the way to save jobs in Britain.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that someone would have made a similar speech following the invention of the wheel.
Sir Anthony Grant: Did my right hon. Friend make it clear at the summit that there will be no deeper involvement of our limited forces in Bosnia, or any mad adventure there, notwithstanding the blandishments of the armchair television warriors on the other side of the House? Will he suggest to them that, if they want a deeper involvement, they had better go out there and serve themselves?
The Prime Minister: I have said on a number of occasions that we have made a contribution in terms of troops to humanitarian aid. There has been a call by the United Nations for more troops. I think that that call should be met by those countries that have not yet contributed.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While I recognise that every Member of the House will welcome the fact that the GATT round of talks seems to be under way again, will' the Prime Minister say whether he believes in his heart of hearts that a conclusion can be reached by mid December?
As to the agreement on Scotch whisky reached by the quadrilateral partners, does the Prime Minister accept that throwaway remarks suggesting that it will be to the benefit of Scotland really mean that it will be to the benefit of the Exchequer? While the agreement may help to retain jobs in the whisky industry in Scotland, it will not create them. The issue underpinning that industry, which is a major exporter, is the need to eradicate the internal excise duty levied by Japan, which disadvantages Scotch whisky and other spirits produced in this country by £4 to £6.
The Prime Minister: As to the hon. Lady's first point, I think that a settlement can be reached. I cannot be certain because many complex matters have yet to be determined. I am in no doubt now that one can be reached, and I am delighted that the talks in Geneva recommenced this morning.
680
As the hon. Lady said, there are two elements in the difficulties faced by Scotch whisky in the Japanese market. One is the external tariff. When a settlement is reached, it will disappear entirely—100 per cent. of the external tariff will go. The other is the internal taxation level. We have been pursuing with the Japanese—and I did so again with Prime Minister Miyazawa—the high level of taxation on Scotch whisky. We will continue to do that in the hope of having it reduced. There has already been a significant reduction, or there will be, with the removal of the external tariff.
As I said in my statement, £170 million of exports go to Japan. As Scotch whisky will in future be cheaper, it is likely that exports will increase. That will certainly safeguard jobs, and I am not sure why the hon. Lady is so certain that it will not create them as well.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that perhaps the most popular policy being pursued by his Government at the moment is that of deregulation? It would be even more popular if it were more widely known. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he was able to persuade his G7 partners that that is a popular and necessary part of a world policy, which will make the lives of small businesses in particular rather more fruitful in future?
The Prime Minister: They seemed persuaded. We shall see whether action follows the gentle response when I made that point in discussions. I believe that there is an understanding that there need to be supply side changes to create employment. One important change, as my hon. Friend said, is deregulation.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the question of Bosnia, the Prime Minister has sometimes given the impression that all the expert advice that he receives is that the west should not get involved in using military force to deter territorial aggression, first in Croatia and then in Bosnia. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether that is the uniform advice that he is receiving, or do senior diplomatic and military figures say that we could and should use military force to stop the slaughter in the former Yugoslavia?
The Prime Minister: I have received no advice either from senior diplomats or from military figures that a solution could be imposed by military force.
Mr. Edward Garner: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents, who are heavily involved in the textile and agriculture industries, on the results of the Tokyo summit? We are pleased at the 50 per cent. reduction in textile tariffs as against the United States. However, if that agreement cannot be put in place by December, does he understand that there will be a need for further reductions in the 50 per cent. tariff ratio so that we may achieve far better exports of British textile goods to the United States.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we will achieve the settlement by December. In any event, that is not the end of the matter. Although a 50 per cent. reduction in tariffs is certainly welcome, we would have preferred a larger reduction—but that was what was negotiable on that particular occasion. I hope that we will return to that matter and seek an even larger reduction in the tariff, up to its complete elimination.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Perhaps I may pursue the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in response to which the Prime Minister seemed to be well intentioned and sincere in his desire to reduce unemployment but vague as to what he would do. Will the right hon. Gentleman share with the House a little more what new specific policy and initiatives the Government are currently examining which they may take to any new employment summit in the autumn?
The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, there was a range of matters to deal with unemployment. One is deregulation, which has just been mentioned. Not to impose extra costs on employers, as the social chapter would, is a second illustration of what needs to be done. Other measures include policies that will enable the economy to grow—as we have been seeking to do—and to protect capital investment, as we did in the previous public expenditure round. There are also the international macro points that I mentioned earlier: the United States is tackling its budget deficit, Japan will continue to support domestic demand as necessary, and in continental Europe there will be a move towards a reduction in interest rates. The necessity and attraction of closing the fiscal deficit in this country, as in other countries, is that it will be easier to make further interest rate reductions.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive and warm support he receives from Conservative Members for the achievements of the summit, especially the progress towards freer world trade and the greater advantage that that will have for our manufacturing industry? Will he now renew his efforts among our European partners to ensure that they all share our enthusiasm for free world trade?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly do that. A number of our European partners are also firm advocates of free trade. There are one or two who are slightly less firm in their advocacy and we shall endeavour to encourage them. We are not the only advocates of free trade in Europe; a number of other nations wholly share our views.
Mr. Bob Cryer: How much of the money that has been allocated to Russia will go towards helping to dismantle its nuclear weapons? Would not it impress the other.G7 countries if, instead of talking about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in glowing terms, the Prime Minister did something about it by introducing a programme in the United Kingdom to shift our manufacturing base away from producing weapons of war to manufacturing for peace and getting rid of Trident nuclear weapons? On the basis of his argument, our jobs will depend on either the manufacture or maintenance of weapons of mass extermination for the next 20 years. Is that his policy?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to weapons of mass extermination, when nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to protect the nation. That is their purpose. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen for us not to manufacture them, I hope that he will make that point equally clearly in Barrow and Devonport and that he has previously made it in Rosyth. His point rings with a rather curious air against representations made by many of his hon. Friends during recent months.
Mr. Cryer: What about diversification?
The Prime Minister: On the question of Russia, to which I was just coming, we are already helping the Russians with the transport of nuclear weapons and with technical help on their destruction. That is of importance to Russia, and, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, it is important to Ukraine, where further progress needs to be made.
Mr. Tim Devlin: As my constituency is not far from that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and as it produces pharmaceuticals, chemicals, engineering products and other products that fall into the eight areas on which, it has been agreed, tariffs will not be imposed in the future, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on negotiating away those tariffs? I hope that he will bring as much pressure to bear as he can to end the GATT round as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to do that, and I am grateful for his earlier remarks.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I noted with interest the Prime Minister's reference to the Rio accord, which is intended to underpin all economic and trade policies henceforth. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that a recent United States district court ruling meant that the north American free trade agreement could not be ratified because it did not include an environmental impact statement. Is not it possible that a similar fate might await the GATT agreement and that that could unravel the whole round? In that case, will the Prime Minister give some detail about the nature of the environmental discussion in Tokyo and the effect on the agreement there?
The Prime Minister: One of the significant points made in the discussion on the environment at Tokyo was that President Clinton pledged himself wholeheartedly to the Rio accords. That was a shift of policy for the United States and one that was very welcome. As the hon. Gentleman may know, much work has been going on following Rio to produce national plans for sustainable development, for dealing with climate change, for biodiversity and for forests by the end of 1993. There have been meetings of the United Nations commission on sustainable development; the most recent was in New York last month. Developed and developing countries are now working together actively to put the Rio commitments into practice. Rio is becoming a reality.
Mr. James Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the issues that figured most prominently at Tokyo, such as cutting deficits, deregulation and improving the flexibility of the labour market, were issues of British concern? Just as at Copenhagen, the agenda reflected Britain's concerns. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that there is growing evidence that Britain's case is prevailing, both in Europe and in the rest of the world?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that point. It was very striking in the Copenhagen discussions just a few weeks ago and it was equally evident in our discussions in Tokyo last week. One of the reasons for that is that we went into the recession earlier than many other countries did. There is nothing like a recession to

683
concentrate people's minds on the reality of what needs to be done. Many countries, now that they are entering recession, are having to look, just as we have done, at some very hard decisions to help people and to recreate jobs.
Mr. John Spellar: The Prime Minister conceded earlier that Japan was not experiencing high levels of unemployment. While he was in Tokyo, did he take the opportunity to look at what is happening in Japan? Did he notice, for example, that the Japanese are spending $70 billion in public works programmes to expand the economy? Did he notice that Japanese employers are trying to hold on to their workers and are not taking every opportunity to cut the work force? Did he notice that they are not as obsessed with the flexible labour market ideology? In fact, the Japanese Government and Japanese employers cannot understand all the fuss about the social market. Did the Prime Minister notice that, in spite of all that, it is the Japanese who have the substantial balance of payments surplus and that it is we who have the balance of payments deficit? When will he abandon the outdated Thatcherite philosophy and look at what really works in this world?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may care to study Japan a little more closely before he entirely advocates that. He might, for example, not be entirely happy if we reduced our public spending share of gross domestic product to the Japanese level. That would make a significant difference and one that would be pretty unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman. If he looked at the social costs in Japan, he might also be just a little less enthusiastic. If he looked at some of the wage levels in parts of Japan, he might be a good deal less enthusiastic. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends his holiday in Japan.

Points of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a genuine point of order on which I have had discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Attorney-General and a number of colleagues.
You will recollect and have had it brought to your attention, Madam Speaker, that in 1941 one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, took exception to the various efforts made to raise under the emergency procedure the fall of Singapore before it actually happened. Are we to understand that your advice is that if there is a serious threat of military action whose importance is not challenged and whose urgency is not challenged, but which may not meet the third criterion, which is that it is definite, you cannot hear a Standing Order No. 20 application?
Bluntly, it is appalling that the House of Commons should face the situation where, apparently, there is British endorsement of a United Nations plan to launch missiles on a foreign city, Baghdad, which the House cannot discuss before it has actually happened. Will you, Madam Speaker, reflect over the next 24 hours and come up with a ruling on the conditions in which you will hear an application under Standing Order No. 20 in the case of possible military action?
Madam Speaker: I cannot anticipate what may or may not happen in an emergency. I must look at every application on its merits and I do precisely that. But as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have to be new developments. This is a continuing situation and there must be a new immediate development before I can grant an application. I look at each application to me entirely on its merits and will continue to do so.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that you give a ruling debarring hon. Members who are Lloyd's names from voting on Report this evening or tomorrow on Third Reading. If hon. Members who are Lloyd's names vote themselves tax privileges which are worth perhaps thousands—or even tens of thousands—of pounds, that is tantamount to them putting their hands on taxpayers' money and putting it straight into their wallets.
Lloyd's names have a direct pecuniary interest and "Erskine May" cites a whole series of precedents in which hon. Members are debarred from voting. I realise that they mostly concern private Bills and that the Finance (No. 2) Bill is a public Bill. Nevertheless, the 14 clauses and two schedules in the Bill that apply exclusively to Lloyd's affect uniquely and personally those 44 Members who are shown on the Register of Members' Interests as having an interest in Lloyd's. Therefore, I feel that they should be debarred from voting, and I ask you to give that ruling.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) raised an important distinction between a private Bill and a public Bill. The Finance (No. 2) Bill is a public Bill.
I draw specific attention to amendment No. 21, which you have selected for debate this afternoon. It renders the special reserve funds liable to tax. My submission is that that represents an immediate and personal interest on the part of those hon. Members who are Lloyd's names.
No doubt, Madam Speaker, you will refer me to the ruling that your predecessor made on 14 January 1986 at column 1013 when the issue before the House was whether hon. Members who were Lloyd's names could vote for an amendment that widened the scope of the Finance Bill. Your predecessor quite rightly held that, on a matter extending the scope of the Bill, the House was dealing with a public matter.
In my submission, there is a difference. We are not talking about the scope of a public Bill. We are talking about an amendment, which, if pressed to a vote, would result in tax privileges being available to a number of hon. Members, all of whom are Conservative. It would be useful if you would give a ruling at to what exactly is meant by an "immediate and personal" interest, which is referred to on page 354 of the current edition of "Erskine May".
Finally, Madam Speaker, you will be aware that the matter was raised on 24 March 1981 by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in relation to the Lloyd's Bill. Mr. Speaker advised Members that if there was any doubt on the matter, they should not vote.
It would be helpful if you would let us have a ruling as the matter is of interest not just to Members of the House. Members of the public would like to be assured that the House would not let a situation arise where Members who

685
had a vested interest in their own benefit were allowed to vote in a way that other members of the public were precluded from doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can now deal with those points of order if I may be allowed to do so.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Shame.
Madam Speaker: Yes, it is a shame but we ought to make some progress and I am quite prepared to deal with those points of order.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for giving me notice that he would raise this matter. The rule against voting on a matter in which a Member has a personal pecuniary interest does not apply on a public Bill so long as other similarly situated persons will benefit in the same way.
The provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Bill are not confined to those members of Lloyd's who are also Members of the House. There is no prohibition on such Members voting on this matter of public policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished. Hon. Members should not be so impatient, but should listen to my entire ruling. The House will expect members of Lloyd's affected by the Bill who speak in the debates on the relevant clauses to declare their interest.
Mr. Darling: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to be clear about the matter. Do I understand that the effect of your ruling is that, because there are members of Lloyd's who are not Members of Parliament, Conservative Members of Parliament can vote for the measure, notwithstanding the fact that they gain direct benefit? I understand that a further procedure has to be invoked. However, the House must look at such circumstances because many people regard that as rather unfair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me take the matter a stage further because I want it to be clear to the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is quite right. The measure affects other individuals outside the House and, for the sake of completeness, I shall leave the House with this thought. If I ruled that no hon. Member could ever vote on a measure that would allow him or her to enjoy benefits available to others, the House would never be able to vote for a reduction in income tax. I hope that that clarifies the point. I have given my ruling and I will accept no further points of order on that matter.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different one?
Mr. Evans: It is an entirely fresh point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on clarification of the position under Standing Order No. 31, which, as you know, deals with the selection of amendments, so as to
686
assist Back Benchers in future over the submission of amendments at this stage of consideration of a Bill? I am referring specifically to the Finance Bill.
The point is covered on page 502 of "Erskine May", which says that the power is exercised by the Speaker as
"a check upon excessive repetition of debates which have already taken place in committee."
I have in mind that, on 10 May, the House, in Committee, spent a full day debating issues that appear to be grouped together under amendment No. 7 and other amendments on the provisional selection list.
I do not question your selection in any way, Madam Speaker, but I should like to know whether there has been any change in the guidelines or in Standing Orders, given that "Erskine May" says that that is a power that Speakers tend to exercise "rigorously".
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will find that "Erskine May" also says that the Speaker has total discretion over the selection of amendments. Irrespective of whether a matter has been debated earlier, it is at the discretion of the Speaker to decide whether to select such amendments for debate during our consideration of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not get involved in the points of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) because they dealt adequately with those points, which you then answered. However, in your answer—
Mr. Dickens: Ah, the hon. Gentleman will get involved now.
Mr. Skinner: No, this is straight and above board. In your answer, Madam Speaker, you said that if the rule were applied in the way that we wanted, hon. Members could not vote on a reduction in income tax because we would all benefit, as well as those outside. The clear distinction is that, while all Members of Parliament would benefit from a reduction in income tax from 25 to 20 per cent., or even to 15 per cent., in the Lloyd's case, only 44 Tory Members will benefit.
Madam Speaker: Clause 123 relates to Members of Parliament, but not all Members will benefit from it. That is quite distinct from the taxation point. I have given my ruling on the matter, and we should not now return to it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On an entirely separate point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the developments that has taken place since I was elected in 1974 is that the House has adopted a much more tightly controlled attitude towards Members' financial interests. In the circumstances, would not it be helpful if you asked either the Select Committee on Members' Interests or the Select Committee on Procedure to look at the position of those who have financial interests and their voting abilities? I am not challenging your ruling because, unfortunately, I do not have the power to do that, but it might seem outside that it is inconsistent with the development of tighter scrutiny in the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make such references himself. I am certain that my ruling will be seen to be accurate and logical when it has been printed and reflected on.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to what you have said. You commented that if hon. Members who are also members of Lloyd's speak during the debate. they should declare an interest. Will you reflect and make a ruling before tonight's vote on whether those hon. Members should also declare an interest before they vote?
Madam Speaker: The interests are contained in the Register of Members' Interests. I am advising Members who wish to speak that they must declare an interest when they do so. Hon. Members have never been called upon to declare an interest before they enter the Division Lobby.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are there any matters of public policy that are decided in the House that do not affect people outside the House?
Madam Speaker: I think that I require notice of that question.
Mr. Boyce: I am sure that you will get that for tomorrow.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point that concerns the general principle of declaration of hon. Members' interests. I am not a Lloyd's name. Does an hon. Member have to declare an interest at the onset of his speech, or can he simply allude to it during that speech? The 44 Lloyd's members on the Conservative Benches should, if they catch your eye, declare an interest at the beginning of any intervention that they make.
Madam Speaker: The procedures of the House on this matter are clear and direct. An hon. Member must declare an interest immediately on standing to speak.
Mr. Rod Richards: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on the group of amendments starting with amendment No. 7. Many of the amendments deal with the same point and could be described as repetitive and overlapping. Have the guidelines for those matters changed?
Madam Speaker: No. We never allow repetition or overlapping to occur in the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my selection of amendments.
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to make a point about fair play. I rose following your response to the first point of order, and you would not allow me to continue because you said that you had given an answer. You have since called four Opposition Members to speak on the same subject. I shall not detain the House by pressing you on this, Madam Speaker, but I like to see fair play.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman often rises to say that I have been particularly fair. If he reflects on Hansard tomorrow, he may see that the points to which he refers which were raised by hon. Members were separate from my ruling.
Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek advice from you for the future.
Madam Speaker: Is it on the group of amendments starting with No. 7?
Mr. Butterfill: My point relates to petroleum revenue tax, and the concerns of hon. Members on that subject. We know that the matter was debated extensively on Second Reading and that some amendments that were tabled by members of the Committee were ruled out of order for various reasons.
The issue is complex and hon. Members have taken counsel's opinion on the amendments that have been tabled today to ensure that they are in order. Although I appreciate that the matter was explored at some length in Committee, the concept of transitional arrangements was not so explored. Is there a way in which, in the future, hon. Members can frame amendments so that we can be sure that they will be in order and available for consideration?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the Public Bill Office, which is open all hours, will be extremely helpful.

Ways and Means

  SCOTTISH TRUSTS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made in relation to trusts having effect under the law of Scotland where the trustees are resident in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day
  Finance (No. 2) Bill
  Not amended ( in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Finance (No. 2) Bill
    New clause 17

      SCOTTISH TRUSTS
      '.—( 1) Where—

      (a) any of the income of a trust having effect under the law of Scotland is income to which a beneficiary of the trust would have an equitable right in possession if that trust had effect under the law of England and Wales, and

      (b) the trustees of that trust are resident in the United Kingdom,
      the rights of that beneficiary shall be deemed for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts to include such a right to that income notwithstanding that no such right is conferred according to the law of Scotland.

      (2) This section shall have effect in relation to the income of any trust for the year 1993–94 or any subsequent year of assessment.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.39 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to apply the same income tax treatment to beneficiaries with an interest in possession in the income of a trust governed by Scots law as applies to beneficiaries with an interest in possession in the income of a trust governed by English law. At present, beneficiaries of English and Scottish trusts are treated differently because of the differences in the underlying legal position.
      We discussed this point in Committee, and the new clause responds to the undertaking that I gave there to bring the two systems into line. Scottish lawyers who are present may recognise that we have done this by aligning Scottish legal practice with the practice in England. That may not be the best solution in the context of Scottish nationalism, but in the time available it seemed the most practical way of responding to the concerns expressed in Committee.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: We welcome the new clause, which we pressed for in Committee. I am glad that, in a comparatively short time, the Government have met our objections. There remain one or two matters that might be dealt with in the Finance Bill to be introduced at the end of this year. I understand that one or two parts of the new clause might be better phrased—according to some of my colleagues who regularly practise in Scotland.
      First, it is suggested that the phrase,
      "having effect under the law of Scotland"
      might be better expressed as
      "a trust, the proper law of which is the law of Scotland".
      Such matters of definition are important. Without the change, the measure would also affect an English trust that happened to have land in Scotland.
      As the House is anxious to make progress on other matters I will write to the Minister with my other
      690
      suggestions. Meanwhile, we welcome the new clause, without which Scottish beneficiaries of a trust would have been treated less favourably than English ones.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister said that there are reasons why this form of new clause might not be so welcome as its purpose. When the issue was first raised in Committee, the effect of the Bill as it then stood being to treat dividends received through trusts in Scotland differently from those in England, the Minister was at first unpersuaded. He said that as the payment received in the Scottish case is not a dividend it would be wrong to treat it as though it were. He then listened to our arguments and was eventually persuaded that something had to be done.
      Meanwhile, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wrote to the Lord Advocate pointing out that in his view a breach of article 4 of the treaty of union might be involved because that treaty provides that
      "all rights, privileges and advantages which do or may belong to a subject of either kingdom should be communicated to the subjects of the other".
      The combined considerations of the Lord Advocate and the Minister resulted in a Government willingness to table a new clause to sort out the matter.
      The Minister must not be surprised to learn that Members who have a concern for Scots law are unhappy that a form of words should have been chosen which treats the matter as an extension of English law instead of changing the Scottish legal basis. The new clause uses the words:
      "notwithstanding that no such right is conferred according to the law of Scotland".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled an amendment—probably in order, but not chosen—which dealt with the matter via the law of Scotland. Although the Minister seemed to hint that considerations of time had driven him to this desperate expedient, I cannot believe that any technical failing in my hon. Friend's amendment could not have been improved by the efforts of the Lord Advocate's Department, assisted by the Treasury. That could have produced an amendment framed within Scots law.
      Treasury Ministers may not be aware of the strong feeling in Scotland that a sort of legal imperialism prevails under which the Scots legal framework, the Scots statute book and Scots common law are all gradually eroded by United Kingdom legislation being tacked on to Scottish law. Law Bills relating to England and Wales often have clauses relating to Scotland added to them, with the result that the law of Scotland is not contained in a distinctive statute book or in Scots common law.
      The Minister was thus right to anticipate that there would be some criticism on this score, and right to expect some lamentation over the fact that the practice of bolting bits of English law on to Scots law continues. It was not really necessary to go about the matter in this way.
      Mr. Dorrell: My original remarks were not intended to cast a slur on the Scottish National party—I can cast slights in its direction on other occasions, but I was not trying to do so this time. I merely recognised that the drafting of the new clause involves an infelicity from the point of view of Scots law. I do not accept that it could have been easily reconciled, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested. He said that

      691
      we should have spoken to the Lord Advocate. I can assure him that the Treasury has access to his advice. We did not, in the time available, find a better way of achieving the objective.
      4.45 pm
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the Minister perfectly relaxed about the compatibility of this measure with European Community law? The European Court of Justice is a court superior to both English and Scottish legal systems.
      Mr. Dorrell: I am satisfied that the measure does not cause a problem with the ECJ.
      We have sought to respond to the practical concern expressed in Committee—
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister answer the point about a possible breach of the treaty of union being involved? Has he consulted the Lord Advocate on that aspect? Has the latter yet replied to the leader of the Liberal party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), on that point? The Minister seems to be treating the matter very lightly indeed.
      Mr. Dorrell: Not at all. I recognise that this is a matter of some concern in the Scottish legal fraternity and among those who follow Scottish legal affairs. In the limited time available between the Committee and Report stages, it seemed to the Government more important to respond to the practical concern expressed in Committee than to perfect the drafting in such a way as to meet all concerns. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      COMMENCEMENT OF SECTION 174
      'Section 174 of this Act shall not come into force until such time as the Board have by regulations provided that no payments shall be made from a special reserve fund except as provided for under Schedule 20 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Darling.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Payment under section 174—
      'No payment shall be made from a special reserve fund established under section 174 of this Act except for the purposes expressly provided for in Schedule 20 to this Act.'.
      Amendment No. 29, in clause 183, page 142, line 26, leave out from the beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
      '(3) The provisions of this Chapter shall come into force on such date as a Minister of the Crown may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes.
      (4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by the Commons House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 6, in schedule 20, page 291 line 42, at end insert—
      '(3) The arrangements must be such as to secure that, except as required or permitted (whether expressly or by
      692
      necessary implication) by this Part or Part II of this Schedule, no payments shall be made into or out of the member's special reserve fund.'.
      Amendment No. 21, in schedule 20, page 294, leave out lines 27 to 29.
      Mr. Darling: We come now to a debate on Lloyd's and the special reserve fund, the subject of an extensive discussion in Committee. We touched on some of the issues during points of order to Madam Speaker, mentioning the difficulties in which some Conservative Members might find themselves because they are Lloyd's names. Looking around, it is clear to me that many of them have absented themselves from the debate because of the difficulties, but I am sure that when the bell sounds they will come back to vote.
      This group of clauses and schedule 20 create a special reserve fund to enable Lloyd's names to put money aside to meet insurance losses. We are not against the principle of making provision by means of such reserves—they are a thoroughly good thing—but our objection throughout has been that we should not allow Lloyd's names to benefit from a device that will enable them to shelter large sums from tax.
      One of our principal objections was that under the Bill as drafted it would be possible for a Lloyd's name to put aside sums into the special reserve fund, to shelter them tax free, to see them accumulate and then to withdraw them at will to gain maximum tax advantage. In Committee, we pressed a series of amendments to prevent that happening. To our great surprise, the Government tabled an amendment last week in which they effectively climbed down from the position that they had adopted in Committee, and accepted that the Opposition amendments had a substantial point. The Government's amendment and our new clauses 1 and 2 seek to do the same thing: they would stop the special reserve funds from being used as a tax shelter by Lloyd's names.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 6, because it will prevent Lloyd's names from using the special reserve fund for anything other than meeting insurance losses. I am sure that that was the intention of the legislation and that will be its effect. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for reconsidering the matter. He has certainly departed from the suggestion made in Committee by some of his hon. Friends that the Opposition were raising a matter that had no basis. The Government now admit that it has a substantial basis, and I am sure that they agree that it would be wrong to allow Lloyd's names to use the special reserve fund as a tax shelter. For that reason, we welcome the Government amendment.
      Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome he has given to the amendment. I hope that he will accept that it is hardly a climbdown for the Government to table an amendment that has the effect of ensuring that the result sought by both sides of the Committee is delivered by the legislation. Our policy objective has been unchanged throughout consideration of the Bill.
      Mr. Darling: I understand that the Financial Secretary must preserve his position. If tackled by his hon. Friends, ministerial colleagues or the Prime Minister, he can point to this passage in Hansard and say that he has put on record the fact that the Government were not climbing

      693
      down. If that is not the case, why did so many of his hon. Friends accuse us of scaremongering and raising falsely-based fears?
      I am sure that the Minister will accept that, had we not pressed the matter and drawn attention to the fact that a tax shelter would be created, no amendment would have been tabled and Lloyd's names would have been able to use the special reserve fund as a tax shelter. It is important to recognise that the Government have now accepted our position, and that the possibility of using the special reserve fund as a tax shelter has been virtually shut off.
      Mr. Dorrell: I do not accept that in the absence of this amendment it would have been possible to use the special reserve fund as a tax shelter. I made it clear in Committee that the safeguards against that eventuality were contained in the deed establishing the trust fund. I said to the Committee:
      "We are debating now into which piece of paper the principle should be written."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 1993; c. 495.]
      In response to the views expressed in Committee, we have written it into both pieces of paper.
      Mr. Darling: The Minister is being tenacious. I remember that he said that it did not matter in which piece of paper it was contained. Our preference is to have that tax loophole shut off by this particular piece of paper because this is the statute and the law. We do not want to leave it to the discretion of those who draft the trust fund documents. Nevertheless, we give the Government amendment a fulsome welcome.
      Amendment No. 21 deserves attention. We will seek a Division on it at an appropriate time, although that may be some hours, if not days, away. Amendment No. 21 would have the effect of rendering the special reserve fund liable for tax on an annual basis. At the moment, paragraph 9, schedule 20 provides:
      "Profits or losses arising from assets forming part of a special reserve fund shall be excluded for the purposes of income tax … and for the purposes of capital gains tax".
      This matter was discussed briefly in Committee because the main part of the debate was taken up by our principal objection. We were not entirely convinced by the Minister's argument.
      It is important that we should accept that, while Lloyd's names should not be discriminated against under the tax system, neither should they be unduly favoured in a way that most members of the public would find intolerable.
      I think it is important to put on record the importance of Lloyd's. That point is usually raised by Conservative Members, although not many are here today. Lloyd's is crucial to the United Kingdom, not only because of its reputation—which remains formidable, despite its recent well-publicised difficulties—but for its contributions to the country's earnings. Although Lloyd's has recorded record losses in recent years, the fact that it has significant potential for earnings in the future is important.
      Subject to its unique structure, Lloyd's should, in principle and in general, be treated in the same way as any other taxpayer. It should be encouraged but not favoured, and should stand on its own feet. There should be no question of the Government being allowed or encouraged to bail out names who are in financial difficulties. Reports of certain names—particularly those who are Members of
      694
      the House—being in severe financial difficulties and in danger of eventual bankruptcy are somewhat exaggerated. I notice that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) agrees.
      No matter the difficulties faced by those hon. Members, even if in extremis, I am sure that the good and the great who bankroll the Tory party will step in and ensure that they are not disbarred from being Members of the House.
      As to names who are not Members of the House, when they went into Lloyd's they were, by any standard, sufficiently well off to take advice; they knew, or should have known, the risks that they were taking. They were well placed to take the advice which most people would take before joining and becoming names.
      As I have said, I do not believe that Lloyd's names should be given preferential treatment or more favourable treatment and opportunity than those who take risks in other industries. As I understand it, it is not possible for people in similar positions to make a general provision against future losses. Lloyd's names are being treated in a slightly different way from people in other industries. For example, it is not possible for someone running a small business to accumulate money, tax free, against future losses—I am sure that many wish that they could. We should look long and hard before we give a particular privilege to Lloyd's when there is no justification for doing so.
      Amendment No. 21 would subject the funds in the special reserve fund to taxation, which is entirely reasonable. No doubt the Minister will argue that the money can only be used, for the most part, to meet insurance losses. We agree with that. However, on cessation of business, when a Lloyd's name ceases to underwrite and winds up his or her special trust fund, there is a pay-out. I am concerned that, although there is a ceiling of 50 per cent. of profits on the fund, the money could accumulate, tax free—over the years the sum could be quite substantial—and the Lloyd's name could then choose when to cease underwriting to achieve the maximum tax advantage. That is why we raised the matter in Committee and, now, on Report.
      The Minister will no doubt talk about the importance of Lloyd's names being able to make provisions against future losses. He will also make the point, with some force, that many of the difficulties in which Lloyd's names currently find themselves would not have arisen had they made provisions against future losses. All of that is true up to a point. As I said in Committee, we are not against special reserve funds; indeed, as the Minister reminded me in Committee, it was a Labour Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, as he then was, who made that provision.
      Currently, the maximum contribution limit is £7,000. We are proposing a much higher ceiling and it is therefore important to look again at the taxation provisions. That is why we attach so much importance to stopping the special reserve fund from being used as a tax shelter. I believe that to complete the process the assets in the fund should be subject to income tax or capital gains tax, as the case may be, to prevent accumulation.
      Lest anybody feels that we are being unfair to Lloyd's, or discriminating against it, the House should note that the management of Lloyd's has taken substantial steps to put the organisation on a proper footing.
      It is all but publicly admitted that self-regulation has failed and it can be strongly argued that the Lloyd's Act 1982 needs to be repealed and replaced. We know why that

      695
      will not happen. Notwithstanding Madam Speaker's ruling a short time ago, the whole question of the conflict of interest of some hon. Members, as Lloyd's names, would arise were the 1982 Act revisited.
      5 pm
      It highlights the fact that many Tory Members cannot consider the City, in particular Lloyd's, objectively because the wealth of so many of them is tied up in it. That is intolerable and should not be allowed to happen. Lloyd's must be considered in the same way as other companies. Its future should not be influenced by the fact that so many Tory Members have a vested personal interest in it. The fact that the Government have a small majority in the House means that their judgment is impaired because so many Tory Members—not just Back Benchers but at least four members of the Cabinet—are Lloyd's names. We should all pause to consider the fact that the Government would be prevented from looking at the Lloyd's Act again because so many Tory Members cannot make an impartial judgment on the matter.
      Lloyd's management anticipates that profits will return by the 1995 year of account. Together with the measures that it is taking to deal with the pre-1985 losses, that shows that Lloyd's can be put back on a proper footing. Those steps and the taxation measures that we are asked to approve tonight lead us to suppose that, even with the taxation that we propose, Lloyd's names will be treated fairly and need have nothing to complain about.
      The importance of Lloyd's and the fact that its management is trying to put the business on a proper footing must be emphasised. We do not want to discriminate against Lloyd's but to ensure that it will be treated in the same way as other taxpayers, whether corporate or individual.
      The United Kingdom insurance industry must be able to make provision for losses. That is one of its problems in competing against other EC countries. The fiscal regime, particularly in France and Germany, allows companies to make provision against future claims. In this country, it is impossible to do that on the same scale. Although the Government are now consulting on the matter, they have yet to decide what to do. However, it is important that we accept the provision against future claims.
      We must remember that Lloyd's is not a corporation or normal insurance company. The difference is that individual taxation is at stake. I am in favour of allowing provision against future losses but we must be careful when dealing with individual taxation to ensure that, as far as possible, we treat individual names in the same way as other taxpayers engaged in investing their money. It is important not to discriminate against others who try to invest their money in industry, for example.
      Mr. Dorrell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman but seek further precise clarification. If we were to introduce reserving for catastrophe insurance for the corporate insurance industry, does he think that that would validate similar reserving arrangements in Lloyd's?
      Mr. Darling: As I was about to say, a distinction must be made. In general, we would support the principle of reserving for corporations but in Lloyd's there is a difficulty. By the time the Government introduce those measures there may be more corporate members of Lloyd's, in which case their taxation will be akin to that of other insurance companies. The difficulty with Lloyd's is
      696
      that in future there will be two classes of names: first, incorporated capital, with which I have dealt, and, secondly, individual names who will be taxed broadly like individual taxpayers. Naturally, special provisions are made for Lloyd's. That is where the difficulty arises.
      As I said in Committee, I am prepared to allow individual names to make provisions against further losses provided, first, that they cannot use the device to shelter earnings against tax—that matter has already been dealt with—and, secondly, that they cannot accumulate money tax free within the special reserve fund and therefore secure an advantage that is not available to other individual taxpayers. That is what amendment No. 21 strikes at.
      Mr. Beith: In Committee we seemed to agree on the principle that any relief allowed to Lloyd's names should be on a basis comparable to that available in the rest of the insurance industry. The hon. Gentleman has argued that that comparability will not apply under the Bill and that, if it did, he would still not be in favour of names having tax relief on provisioning. I do not understand that.
      Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily confused. There is a distinction between the taxation of corporations, to use a general term, and the taxation of individual taxpayers. Both sides of the Committee broadly welcomed the principle of reserving and we hope that the Government will make proposals for the United Kingdom insurance industry. The difficulty in Lloyd's is that, at present, all its names are individual taxpayers. I suspect that in future an increasing number of its names will be corporate taxpayers. But, so long as they are individual taxpayers, we should accept the principle of reserving, which we do by allowing the creation of a special reserve fund. I am simply concerned that it should not confer an additional benefit over and above what is necessary to encourage reserving. That is why we wanted to close the tax loophole. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was against that.
      We also want to prevent the accumulation of large sums of capital tax free, which is a concession that is not available to others engaged in industrial enterprise. So long as individual taxpayers are Lloyd's names, there will always be a problem. I suspect that, given the sums at risk, incorporated capital will make up most of Lloyd's base in the future. We must wait and see what happens.
      We must not allow individual Lloyd's names to be given tax benefits that are not available to others engaged in a similar enterprise, other than insurance. I trust that that makes the matter clear.
      Mr. Beith: May I pursue the point a little further? The same difference would apply within the corporate sector. If concessions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman and I support are made to the corporate sector, it will make a difference to corporations that put capital into insurance and those that do not. The same will apply to individuals. What they have in common is the peculiar nature of insurance risk and markets. Surely that is an argument in favour of comparable treatment.
      Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman carries his argument a little far. Clearly, depending on the business that a company carries out, certain tax provisions are

      697
      available to one group of companies and not to another. Were we discussing petroleum revenue taxation, which we are not—
      Mr. Salmond: Unfortunately.
      Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). However, oil companies are taxed differently from companies that make rivets, for example. We must accept that insurance companies are taxed on a different basis from oil and other companies.
      A clear distinction can be drawn between the taxation of corporations and the taxation of individuals. I do not wish to labour the point, but I am sure that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accepts the distinction. I assume that, being a Liberal Democrat, he favours the principle of fairness between individual taxpayers. The House must think long and hard before giving individual taxpayers who are Lloyd's names benefits that are not available to other individual taxpayers, while accepting that insurance differs from certain other enterprises.
      I am worried that, if the special trust funds are not taxed, Lloyd's names will be able to accumulate large sums. That will not be necessary to meet insurance losses because the sums would be paid out on cessation.
      Some substantial tax benefit may arise, but that device cannot be used by other taxpayers. I do not want to labour the point, but we should think long and hard before giving such concessions. That was precisely the thrust of my argument in Committee. I am sorry that the Liberal party did not accept the Labour party's argument because the Tories have accepted it. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will reflect that he might have got it wrong. If it is good enough for me, the Financial Secretary and the Labour party, it should be good enough for the Liberal party—perhaps the fact that it is not tells us something about the Liberal party.
      There was an exchange on the subject in Committee. I did not entirely follow what the Financial Secretary said on a similar amendment. He seemed to set some store on the fact that only 50 per cent. of the profits could be put into the special reserve fund—I accept that. However, I am concerned that if up to 50 per cent. of substantial profits were placed in the fund, which remained untouched for a period of years, after 20 years underwriting, a substantial sum might have accumulated. I fully accept that that is secondary to the main issue which I raised in Committee and which has now been addressed. But we cannot leave the matter there because it is important.
      Mr. Dorrell: The argument that I advanced in response to the debate in Committee was the same argument that I shall make in a few moments. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's response. The key factor is not that there is limitation of 50 per cent. on profit earned on insurance in any one year. As I said in Committee, the key limitation is the separate limit of 50 per cent. of premium income—the amount up to which the reserve can be built to protect the interests, not primarily of the Lloyd's names but of the policyholders. That is a key test of the liquidity of an insurance business run by a Lloyd's name.
      Mr. Darling: I accept that there are two tests, but that does not seem to detract from the argument that the funds should be subject to tax—I said that the Minister set some
      698
      store on precisely that. The debate between us is whether those funds should be taxed. I believe that they should. That does not lessen the importance of the argument that we advanced in Committee about plugging the loophole. I hope that the Government will be vigilant and alert to the possibility of a Lloyd's name or another party finding a way to circumvent new clauses 1 and 2, or Government amendment No. 6. I hope that the Government will plug any future loopholes that come to light as a result of the operation of the special reserve funds.
      As I said, the Opposition want to see Lloyd's thrive and prosper. We want it to put its problems behind it, but we want to ensure that Lloyd's names are taxed on a fair basis. We do not believe that is happening at present, and it is for that reason that I want to press amendment No. 21 to a vote.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Hain: I do not wish to—and could not—reopen the ruling that Madam Speaker made earlier this afternoon, but I appeal to those hon. Members who are Lloyd's names not to vote on the new clause—a vote which will probably be taken tomorrow evening. I urge them to follow the precedent set on 24 March 1981 when we were discussing the Bill relating to Lloyd's when—I think—53 names abstained. Although the Government's majority was much greater then and hon. Members could afford to abstain in those numbers, I do not think that they can be excused for failing to do so tomorrow.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), I accept that there is a strong case for tax reform of the Lloyd's insurance market. The establishment of a new reserve fund would put Lloyd's on a level playing field with some of our strongest competitors in France, Switzerland and, above all, Germany—Munich Re is Lloyd's biggest competitor. It would also encourage the prudent management of outstanding liabilities.
      The Bill is a recipe for tax avoidance. Any income arising from assets in the reserve fund is exempt from income tax while it remains there. Amendment No. 21 seeks to address that issue, but any capital gains arising from the disposal of assets held in the fund are exempt from capital gains tax. The amount paid into the fund will be treated as a fully deductible businesss expense although, admittedly, withdrawals will be taxed as profits.
      It is said that, as a sort of balance against those provisions, there is a new basis of tax assessment which treats capital appreciation on invested premiums as income rather than capital gains. That is said to be a disadvantage to Lloyd's names which just about balances the advantages that they receive from the tax privileges they gain from the new reserve fund. I asked the tax department at Lloyd's to justify the Chancellor's assurance that those two changes, running parallel with each other, were, as he said, broadly tax neutral. The department officials were able only to assert that that was the case and were unable to provide figures or costings to prove it. That makes me suspicious that the overall package is a nice little earner for Lloyd's names.
      It is also important to ask why the changes are being made now. It is partly because of the huge losses in the year of accounts over the past three years—1988, 1989 and 1990. But the crisis is not simply about the problems of hurricane Hugo but about City fraud. The crisis is not just about asbestosis problems, but the yuppyitis which

      699
      produced a "money-for-nothing" era in the City—with my apologies to Dire Straits. It seems that the chickens from that era have come home to roost and the Government are seeking to clear up the mess.
      We have had a sad, sorry and sordid tale of working names indulging in insider dealing by dumping loss-making activity and underwriting on external names while maintaining a profitable business for themselves. As a result, many ordinary names became victims of malpractice and corruption. Some victims are numbered among the 44 Conservative Members of Parliament who are Lloyd's names. I am not sure whether the number includes the Attorney-General, the three Cabinet Ministers who are Lloyd's names or the Tory party chairman—all of whom are named in my early-day motion 2299. That is why there is pressure on the Government to bail out Lloyd's. It is tantamount to an abuse of Parliament that a certain restricted and privileged group of Members of Parliament are being bailed out in that manner.
      Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record whether he would regard as an abuse of Parliament the passing by the House of the new clause arid the amendment about which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) spoke or the inclusion of any part of that new clause, amended or not, in the Bill?
      Mr. Hain: The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central improves the Bill and I hope that it is accepted. But my basic argument about the abuse of Parliament is that hon. Members who are names should not be able to vote themselves tax privileges which they will receive from the changes. I am not denying that there is a case for modernising the tax regime.
      It seems that, although it is said that the tax changes are not fully retrospective, they go back to the 1992 year of account for reserving and also to the 1992–93 year of account for tax assessments. There is a sense in which the new regime will enable those hard-pressed names at least to reassure those who are making claims on their resources that they will have better years to come. I wish that the same fairness and equality was applied to the bankrupt individuals and small businesses who are going to the wall in the current recession—indeed, they have been doing so in accelerating numbers during the past few years. Why should they be treated differently and on a less privileged basis than Conservative Members of Parliament who are Lloyd's names?
      Mr. Clive Betts: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the double standards in this area? The House lays down rules by which local councillors have to declare their interests. A councillor with an interest of any kind, not merely a financial one, not only has to declare it but is prohibited from speaking or voting when the subject of his interest is being discussed at a council meeting. Should not the House follow its own rules?
      Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes his point well.
      My amendment No. 29 would require an annual vote to allow Parliament to keep a check on Lloyd's, which is otherwise a law unto itself as it is not subject to any statutory regulation. It is in a unique position and an
      700
      annual vote on the application of the tax regime would allow us to monitor the progress of Lloyd's as it modernises its structure.
      Lloyd's should be subject to statutory regulation, and if it were, many Opposition Members would be more willing to grant the new tax regime proposed, even in a modified way, by the Government. Although the recent reforms by Peter Middleton and David Rowland to restructure and modernise Lloyd's, to separate the market from regulation and to introduce corporate capital were welcome, Lloyd's remains an anachronism and it needs to be modernised and updated.
      In the past two decades Lloyd's has been hit by one scandal after another and each has been followed by an internal inquiry. There was an inquiry by Cromer in 1970 and that was followed by inquiries by Fisher in 1980, by Neill in 1987 and by Sir David Walker last year. Although those inquiries led to reforms that were welcomed at the time, further scandals emerged. The latest reforms are welcome, but why should they provide any more of a guarantee than the others? Those reforms did not provide any guarantee whatever as there were further scandals in their wake.
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: In view of recent events, the Government's proposals, and the question mark over how the company has been managed in the past two or three years, does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a public inquiry? After all, the Government are to give to Lloyd's benefits that they will not give to other insurance companies.
      Mr. Hain: The case for a public inquiry was strong over a year ago when news of the crisis broke. My hon. Friend makes his point well.
      It is fundamentally wrong to give tax privileges to Lloyd's names without the quid pro quo of statutory regulation. If we modernise Lloyd's tax regime and encourage the company to move into the 21st century—I almost said the 20th century—we should require from all the markets a willingness to accept the regulation that only statute can bring. If there were such regulation many people outside and probably many Lloyd's names would have much more confidence in the company's future.
      Mr. Beith: When the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) speaks about this matter I often think of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and his assertion in Committee two years ago when we first debated the matter at length, that the attitude that Lloyd's was a place in which the seriously rich dabble was not at all to be found in the Labour party. He may have had cause to modify that opinion.
      The case for making any kind of special provision for Lloyd's names is certainly not that some people who were very rich are no longer rich, or at least will not be when their accounts are finally cleared. It is certainly not that the Government should respond with tax concessions to the appalling happenings in some of Lloyd's syndicates. Such arguments provide no basis whatever for tax concessions. They do not weigh in this case and they have not persuaded Opposition Members that there is a case for some measures. I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), but it is still not clear whether he is in favour of any measures.
      The case for some provision is so that this country may have a continuing involvement in the insurance market to

      701
      the extent to which Lloyd's has been involved, and so that we may continue to have the earnings that that produces. No other argument would weigh with me because Lloyd's names were aware of the risks. Their money was used not only as a guarantee to Lloyd's but to earn money in other ways in the meantime. They ought to have foreseen what has happened to them, although the catastrophes were not really foreseen by anybody. However, when taking on an insurance risk one must assume the worst case.
      Those names might have been justified in supposing that their affairs would be handled properly and honestly and without insider dealing. However, the fact that that did not happen is not the Government's fault because things went wrong within Lloyd's. The case for making a provision on which there seems to be some consensus within the parties is to ensure future earnings from insurance of the kind that Lloyd's can provide. The principle that seemed to weigh with a number of us was that any provision should be appropriate in the context of the insurance industry and should be available to other participants in that industry. There cannot be strict comparability between all forms of risk because there is not a quite comparable form of risk. Capital may not be put up for insurance if we cannot set out a sensible basis.
      The Government are legislating to deal with the Lloyd's problem but are still consulting and forming their opinion about what should be done for the rest of the insurance industry. That is less than satisfactory. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central expressed the surprising view that a strictly comparable treatment of Lloyd's names and of people who were corporately involved in insurance, whether at Lloyd's or anywhere else, would not meet with his approval. He rested his case on the difference between individual and corporate tax affairs. There are indeed differences, but the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that any of them should be systematically offset to an appropriate figure in some arrangement that combined the two. He seemed to rest a great deal of weight on a structure that would not bear it. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's real reason is to have something to vote on so that the Lloyd's names can be flushed out.
      I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Neath who said that it was unsatisfactory, certainly in the view of the outside world and certainly by comparison with local government, for people with a direct personal interest to be able to vote on their own affairs in a way that can make a large difference to them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those people should abstain and throw themselves upon the mercy of the House, in which case they would depend on Labour votes. Up to a point that might be thought resonable because Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen have said that they are in favour of the broad, main elements of the package in the Bill, especially as all doubt has now been removed by the Government's amendment, which ties up the loose ends from Committee, on the first of the two points about which the Opposition were concerned.
      Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are taking a perfectly reasonable attitude in seeking to get matters right. What worries some of the Lloyd's names is the belief that the hon. Member for Neath and a few other hon. Members are not in favour of having any such measures in the Bill. The reason for a vote on the amendment at some time is not
      702
      because one can logically defend it but because there has to be some sort of vote to show up those Lloyd's names who will vote in their own interests. I shall watch the vote with the same interest as Labour Members, but I am still not satisfied that the position is right.
      One reason for voting against the amendment is that the process has not been completed. We are doing something for Lloyd's names that we have not yet done for the rest of the insurance industry. That is a reasonable ground and I should like the Minister to address it. Throughout I have sought to argue the principle that we are recognising the special character of insurance risk and the need to ensure that it will still be possible for risks to be taken so that we can continue to obtain the substantial invisible earnings that an experienced insurance industry stands to earn for us. Over the years, Lloyd's has played a particular part in that risk operation—a part quite different from the rest of the commmercial insurance industry.
      5.30 pm
      The events of recent years have placed a large question mark over Lloyd's future. We must all hope that the current reforms within Lloyd's will change not only the way that it is run but the way that it is perceived, because a very great deal of damage has been done. My judgment, for what it is worth, is that further damage will be done if there is not some reasonable tax framework, but I want to be sure that that framework is comparable throughout the insurance industry. If the Government cannot say that they are moving towards that, they will cast doubt on their case against Labour's amendment. However, if they can say that they are seeking to achieve comparability, I cannot understand why the Labour Front Bench should not welcome that with open arms.
      Mr. Salmond: I want to pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about public perception and how the debate will be viewed outside the confines of the Chamber. The rush to provide assistance for Lloyd's names and the fact that so many of them are Conservative Members of Parliament will be widely understood outside the House.
      I well recall that when we have debates on Members' salaries and secretarial allowances, Conservative Members—almost unanimously, although there are some exceptions—tell us to be very careful when voting on matters that affect our own finances. Today, they are silent about the care that should be taken in this debate and in the vote on the amendment.
      People outside the House will be appalled by the proposed assistance for Lloyd's names because the Budget will impose severe hardship on whole categories of people. The hardship that those people experience daily is far greater than the hardship that any of the Lloyd's names have yet experienced. Those who will be greatly disadvantaged by the Budget will not welcome the rush to assist a fairly privileged group of people.
      I can think of another comparison—those employed in the North sea drilling industry. Parliament is not providing the time and opportunity to discuss whether their jobs will be lost, but is providing the time and opportunity to discuss the rush to assist Lloyd's names. That brings the House of Commons into disrepute. I am not complaining about that because part of my role in politics is to ensure that the House is brought into

      703
      disrepute. The activities and the self-interest that are so clearly displayed in the debate will considerably extend that process. Whether or not the Conservative Members who are Lloyd's names decide to abstain in the vote tomorrow, they may come to rue the day politically when the whole process was embarked upon with such unseemly haste.
      Mr. Dorrell: To hear the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) talk, no one would believe that the proposal is a revenue-neutral package that will deliver neither benefit nor cost to Lloyd's names in the aggregate.
      The hon. Member for Neath asked me how the proposed figure was arrived at. Of course, it is an estimate. The change arising from the introduction of a special reserve fund will, when it is up and running, have a revenue cost of about £50 million a year, while the extra tax gathered as a result of treating profits on the premium trust fund assets as income will produce a revenue yield of about £50 million a year. Therefore, to talk about the package as a great tax break for Lloyd's names simply does not accord with the facts.
      I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). In the first part of his speech at least, he tried to be constructive and to respond to the issues of tax principle that we discussed in Committee. I welcome the fact that he has accepted that amendment No. 6 covers the concern that he expressed then. Grudging though that acceptance was, I hope that we can take it that that represents the Opposition's endorsement of our proposals to deal with that aspect.
      In Committee, we agreed that two issues of tax principle underlie the treatment of the Lloyd's insurance market. First—and there is no disagreement on this in any part of the Houseߞwe cannot approach a policy for the taxation of Lloyd's names on any basis other than the principles of fiscal neutrality, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central clearly espoused in Committee and repeated this afternoon. As has been recognised by several hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, we are not introducing the proposals in response to short-term considerations at Lloyd's and we are certainly not introducing them out of a desire to create a tax shelter. As I have said, it would be strange if we were to do so as there is no revenue cost associated with the proposals. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of fiscal neutrality.
      I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue that underlies the Government's proposals for the Lloyd's insurance market is the general acceptability of reserving in the context of all insurance business. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he found the argument for reserving persuasive, especially in the context of the comparison between this country's tax system and that which prevails in other countries, notably France and Germany. That is one of the issues that the House will want to take into account when it considers the general issue of reserving for insurance business.
      However, I suggest that the House take particular account not of that argument, important though it may be, but of the argument based on tax policy and tax equity as between one taxpayer and another. The Government have undertaken to publish a consultative document during the summer on the general question of reserving for insurance business. In that document we shall make it clear that the
      704
      issue of tax equity is whether it is sensible to continue to tax insurance business on the basis of an annually declared profit, when some insurance businesses specialise in covering catastrophe risks where it is in the nature of that business that catastrophe claims will not necessarily crystallise in the year in which the premiums are gathered to pay for them. Indeed, it is part of a catastrophe-based insurance business that several years' premiums may be necessary to cover the risk of a catastrophe. Annuality, in the context of such a business, may not be a sensible way of taxing that business. That is the principal argument for introducing reserving for insurance businesses.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the argument applies equally whether the insurer is a company or an individual. I cannot understand the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central about the distinction between an individual and a corporation as the insurer. If reserving is right to cover catastrophe when the insurer is a corporation, it is self-evident that the same must apply when the insurer is an individual. It is because the Government are receptive to that idea, and are proposing to consult on the detail and principle in the corporate context, that we propose the introduction of a catastrophe reserve in the Lloyd's market, where the limiting factor on the right of a name to commit resources to that reserve will be 50 per cent. of the pre-reserving profit and 50 per cent. of the premium limit of the name, the latter clearly being the restraining influence on the total size of reserve that can be built.
      Mr. Salmond: Regardless of whether the Minister is right about the essence of the argument, if he were a Lloyd's name—which he is not—would he consider it appropriate, and in accordance with his conscience, to vote on the issue?
      Mr. Dorrell: In such circumstances, I would accept the advice of the Chair on what was and was not in order.
      The right to reserve is limited by both the provisions that I mentioned, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central recognised. Furthermore, the right to withdraw from the reserve is limited, as the hon. Gentleman has now recognised. The quid pro quo is the commitment to build up a reserve limited by the size of the insurance business that is being done—that is the effect of the 50 per cent. of premium income limit—along with tax-free build-up of the assets within the reserve.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked why the reserve should be allowed that tax-free build-up. There are two answers. The first arises from the reason for the creation of the reserve. It is being created to give extra security to the policy holder, assuring him that the claim he may need to make at some future date will be backed by adequate resources. It ensures that the insurer need not be driven to, and perhaps over, the limit of bankruptcy. That is the key consideration. It arises from the need for a test of liquidity within the insurance business, and the Government's desire not to require insurance businesses to declare profits that later prove nugatory, because when the claims bills come in the profit is found not to have existed.
      We are limiting the right of a name to build up a reserve and limiting the size of the total reserve. We are introducing the reserve because we expect it to provide the policy holder with extra security. I therefore consider it sensible to reach the limit determined by premium income as quickly as possible in order to provide the insured party

      705
      of the insurance business with better security. That is the first tax-principle reason for allowing the reserve to build up without charging tax on the investment return.
      There is a second argument, based on practicality. What would be the practical consequence of taxing the investment return on the build-up of assets in the reserve? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that payments into the reserve will be made before tax and that there will be a tax deduction for them—they will be tax free. Surely all hon. Members would want payments out of the reserve to be taxable income.
      It is difficult to see how, in practice, tax-free payments into the reserve could be subject to tax as the reserve built up and then subject to tax again as payments out of the reserve were made to the names. That would mean taxing twice the investment return secured on the assets in the reserve. Surely it is much more simple and straightforward to recognise that the assets going into the fund should be tax free—that it is in the public interest to allow the fund to build up reasonably quickly to provide better liquidity for the insurance business and better protection for the policy holder, and then to tax withdrawals from the fund in their entirety at the time of withdrawal, recognising that the terms on which assets can be withdrawn are strictly controlled. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has now recognised that.
      I cannot commend the new clause to the House. It strikes me as being wrong in principle, because it counters the purpose of providing the reserve in the first place, and wrong in practice, because it would lead to an administrative nightmare in trying to distinguish between payments out of the reserve that had already borne tax, the investment return, and those that had not, the original capital payments into the fund. There are arguments of both principle and practice against the new clause, and I suggest that the House reject it.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Darling: I am sure the House will accept that there is a substantial difference between the taxation of individuals and company taxation. If we had the choice, we would all love to be taxed as companies: if we all had the option of setting expenditure against pre-tax income, no doubt we should take the opportunity to do so. Anyone who has ever been a schedule D taxpayer—as I have in my time—will know that it is far more advantageous than being a schedule E taxpayer, because of the various allowances. I am sure that both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will accept that we already treat individual and corporate taxpayers differently. That is why I believe that we must be careful to put Lloyd's names on an equal footing with other taxpayers.
      I have some sympathy for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: having backed the Government in Committee, he must feel badly let down on discovering that they are now backing Labour on Report. I was pleased to note that Government amendment No. 6 is phrased in almost identical terms as new clauses 1 and 2, which I drafted in about 40 seconds. I wonder whether the parliamentary draftsman is being paid at the same rate as
      706
      I am to draft Opposition new clauses. I was surprised that the Government met the aims of our new clause as they did, but I am pleased nevertheless.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) were right to stress the position of Lloyd's names who are also Tory Members of Parliament. The rules of the House allow them to vote, but if they speak they must declare an interest. The fact is that most will not speak and will declare no interest; but, when the Division Bell sounds, they will walk into the Lobby along with other Conservative Members to vote themselves a tax concession. It is all very well to say, within the rules of the House, "It is not just them; it is others outside." I am sure, however, that many taxpayers would like their representatives to secure for them the same benefits that Lloyd's names in the House are able to secure for others outside.
      The situation is unsatisfactory, and I consider that Opposition Members are right to draw attention to it. The Government's judgment is tainted by the fact that so many Conservative Members—double the party's majority—are Lloyd's names. Four members of the Cabinet are Lloyd's names: of course their judgment is called into question. When members of the public consider the funding of the Tory party, they are bound to ask whether the Government are fit to run the country when they cannot exercise unfettered, untainted judgment in this regard.
      Mr. Dorrell: Where is the tax break in a series of proposals that are revenue neutral?
      Mr. Darling: I was coming to that.
      The Minister was plainly uncomfortable when I drew attention to the general issue—the difficulty in which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends now find themselves. It is no wonder that, over the past few weeks, the country has been preoccupied with the question of who funds the Tory party, and that so many Tory Members of Parliament have substantial interests outside the House. It is astonishing that some of them find time to be Members of Parliament, given the interests that they have to declare. I think that legitimate and important points have been raised in this short debate—not just about the reserve provisions available to Lloyd's, although it was right to draw attention to that, but about the fact that the Government have and represent so many vested interests that they cannot exercise the objectivity that most people expect of a Government.
      As I have said, we broadly welcome this part of the Bill. It is important to establish matters on a proper footing. That is why we were very selective about the amendments that we tabled. If the Minister had been right, it would have been very tempting for some people to vote against the entire provision, but we did not do that—we wanted to focus criticism where it deserved to be focused. Before the acceptance of our proposal today, a tax shelter was being created. The Government have accepted that that has happened. They have therefore tabled an amendment that closes that tax shelter loophole.
      One remaining matter must now be dealt with, and—
      Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling: No, I am just about to finish. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the entire debate. He cannot expect to walk into the Chamber when it suits him

      707
      in order to raise a matter. If he wants to speak on Report, he can do so when we debate the many other matters that are before us.
      Amendment No. 21 deals specifically with unfinished business. We are not persuaded by what the Government have said; therefore, we shall seek to press the amendment to a Division. I understand that, for technical reasons, the amendment will not come before the House until tomorrow afternoon, so we shall vote on it when we reach it. In the meantime, as the aims of our new clauses 1 and 2 have been fully met by Government amendment No. 6, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 3

      HOME INCOME PLANS (INVESTMENT BOND SCHEMES)
      '.—(1) Where a person has sold since 6th April 1986, more than ten investment bond related home income plans to individuals, the provisions of this section shall apply to them.
      (2) A person falling within the provisions of this section shall be entitled to a reduction in their tax liability for 1993–94 of the amount specified in subsection (3) below if the condition of subsection (4) below is met.
      (3) The reduction in tax liability referred to in subsection (2) above shall be £1.
      (4) The condition referred to in subsection (2) above is that no more than 10 per cent. of the investment bond related home income plans they have sold since 6th April 1986 have subsequently been terminated.
      (5) The Board is empowered by this subsection to issue regulations defining the term "investment bond related home income plans".'.—[Mr. Darling.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a different matter which, as the House will recall, was debated almost exactly a year ago. Indeed, the terms of new clause 3 are almost identical to those of the new clause that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 8 July 1992. We make no apology for raising the matter again. The position has not changed substantially since the House last debated it.
      We want to draw attention to the plight of between 10,000 and 15.000 people, some of whom lost substantial sums of money by purchasing home income plans in the 1980s. The plight of those people is yet another nail in the coffin of the faltering system of self-regulation that was set up by the Government in the 1980s. Those people, most of them elderly, did not want to be such a nail, but their plight highlights the failure of the self-regulatory system and its inability to prevent the sale of manifestly unsuitable products and to provide an effective and efficient compensation scheme.
      This matter concerns Members on both sides of the House. Sales of home income plans were eventually stopped in 1991. The question that must be asked is, why not before? I believe that a proper system of regulation would have done so long before then.
      Let us examine first the poor advice that was offered to these people. No regulatory system can ever make it impossible to sell unsuitable products; what it can do is to make it less likely to happen. Of course, the buyer must beware. He or she should take advice. If, however, the Government set up a regulatory system, members of the
      708
      public are entitled to rely on it and to assume that it works. The problem is that the present self-regulatory system does not work. In the case of home income plans, most people took advice but were given deliberately false advice by some very unscrupulous salesmen.
      It is likely that in future more and more people will have reason to buy financial products, as a means either of saving or of providing a pension for themselves. If we intend to ask people to make such provision for themselves, it is essential that Parliament puts in place a regulatory system that is worthy of respect by the public and the industry. An efficient and effective regulatory system is good for the industry and for the public, but that is not what happens at present.
      The problem is that the self-regulatory system is falling into disrepute, not just in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of the industry and the City. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen the remarks of the chief executive of the Prudential Assurance company, Mr. Mick Newmarch, and others. More and more people are calling for an end to the fiction of self-regulation and for the setting up of an effective, statute-based regulatory system in an area that is playing an increasingly important part in people's lives. That is why we have called repeatedly for a complete overhaul of the regulatory system.
      I believe that we could draw on the experience of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. I do not advocate its importation, but we need a single, powerful, regulatory body—perhaps building on the Securities and Investments Board that we have at the moment—that commands respect and strikes an acceptable degree of apprehension in the minds of all those whom it regulates. It should be free to set up regulatory bodies, as it sees fit. It should ensure, among other things, that there is a compensation scheme that works quickly and effectively. We do not have such a scheme at present. A review of the City's regulatory system, together with the enforcement of the criminal law for market-related offences, is long overdue. The Government should accept that, rather than sit back and wait for something to happen.
      Investment-linked home income schemes were sold in the late 1980s to mostly elderly investors. Many of them have lost everything that they had. The idea was to unlock the capital in their homes, in the hope of earning a large enough return to make the repayments, as well as to provide extra income. Some of the people who bought those plans have told me that they were encouraged to do so by the remarks of Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. She urged people to unlock their savings in that way. They feel especially bitter and let down because the Government's self-regulatory system has left them high and dry, following the failure of those plans.
      Many investors were never told of the difficulties attendant on such schemes. Furthermore, it was not brought to their attention that those schemes were fundamentally flawed because, before any money was invested, the salesmen's fees and commissions were deducted. To illustrate the point, in one case a couple were to invest about £20,000, but subsequently found that over £2,000 had been deducted for the salesman's commission and fees, leaving insufficient capital to generate the required income.
      Some of the schemes were sold by sharks—that is the proper word for them—who should never have been allowed to conduct business under the Financial Services

      709
      Act 1986. To its credit, the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation has made valiant efforts to remove those people who should not have been allowed to trade, but it is a long haul. When the system was set up, more or less anybody who was trading previously was allowed to carry on business, although those people should never have been allowed to do so.
      At stake is not just the character of individuals but the suitability of these people. The role of the regulator in ensuring that mainfestly unsuitable products are not sold must also be considered. A function of proper regulation is, I believe, to ensure, first, that the sales force is properly equipped and regulated and, secondly, that where manifestly unsuitable products are put on the market they are not allowed to be sold or, if they are sold, the circumstances in which they are sold are strictly regulated.
      In this case, following the sale of home income plans in the late 1980s, the SIB received more than 1,500 complaints. I understand that more than £23 million has been paid to just under 2,000 investors. Others, however, are still waiting for compensation.
      It is important to deal briefly with compensation. That is where some of the problems inherent in the present system are now becoming apparent. It should be remembered that, even where compensation has been paid, many people have lost heavily. One pensioner told me that it cost him £7,000 to get out of the scheme.
      One of the difficulties is that the plight of these people depends to a large extent on who sold them their plan. If they were able to go to the insurance ombudsman, until fairly recently they received an extremely efficient service. The ombudsman took a broad view. If we look at his most recent report, we see that he took the view that
      the elements of such Plans can only sensibly be regarded as parts of the same transaction. I therefore ask insurers to deal with the loss on the mortgage as well as that on the bond."
      The ombudsman was prepared
      "to compensate policy holders in respect of any sums withheld from the mortgage funds, or withdrawn from the bond."
      The ombudsman was also willing to make payments in respect of distress. He also, quite rightly, took the view that those who had sought advice were entitled to seek advice and that the cost of their advice ought to be recoverable from the insurer.
      Unfortunately, because of a recent ruling, the scope of the insurance ombudsman's remit has been curtailed. I am not sure that he wanted it to be curtailed, but in a recent finding it was said that, due to technical reasons which I do not want to go into, it is not possible now for the insurance ombudsman to take as wide a view as he previously took about the scope of his powers. The fact remains, however, that we might want to examine the role of the insurance ombudsman. The victims of these schemes who until now were able to go to the insurance ombudsman found that most of, if not all, their claim was met.
      That is not the case with other bodies. If individuals who lost out were able to go to the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, the chances are that they would have received full compensation because there is no ceiling. Indeed, I have received few complaints from such people. If, however, people attempted to attach a building society, many would have encountered substantial difficulties.
      710
      Some building societies eventually proved to be co-operative–1 emphasise the word "eventually" because even some household names have proved reluctant to become involved. They were happy to take the profits that would have accrued had the policy worked out, but they seemed reluctant to become involved in compensation. Others refused to co-operate—for example, the Alliance and Leicester, the Bristol and West, the Chelsea, the Leeds, the National Counties, the Newcastle, Northern Rock, the Staffordshire and the West Bromwich building societies. They trade on their reputation, but the public should be aware that, where those building societies have been found wanting or where people have lost out, they have been reluctant to become involved, or have refused to become involved, in the ombudsman's scheme.
      Unfortunately, the building society scheme is such that it needs the building societies to volunteer to co-operate. When the Government eventually embark on a review of the regulatory system, they should look long and hard at the compensation scheme which depends on the voluntary effort of building societies to co-operate. That seems absolutely intolerable.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I shall deal with this issue later, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Leeds proceeds on a case-by-case basis. I know that it was listed as one of the societies that had refused to become involved, but it has, in fact, been helpful. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the opportunity to set the record straight for that particular society.
      Mr. Darling: I am all in favour of forestalling correspondence that may ensue. The information that I received, which was given in good faith, was that the Leeds had not agreed to co-operate. The Minister tells me that it has agreed, and I am very pleased; perhaps the other building societies will take a leaf out of its book.
      In any event, building societies should not be reluctant in the first place. Everyone agrees that the people whom we are discussing, who are mainly the elderly, have lost substantial sums of money though no fault of their own. I fully accept that a building society might take the view that it is not the prime mover—the real villain of the piece may be the independent financial adviser. However, the building societies became involved. I should have thought that, as a matter of good will, if nothing else, some would be willing to be a little more co-operative than they apparently have been prepared to be until now.
      I repeat that it should not be a question of volunteering to co-operate. A proper compensation scheme should ensure that when people are in difficulties, having relied on advice and been completely innocent victims, they should not have to spend weeks, if not months or years, worrying and becoming involved in considerable expense to get reluctant volunteers to come to their rescue. The Minister will find that that is not the view of the Labour party alone.
      If an investor found that he had to go to the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, which regulates independent financial advisers, and then on to the investor compensation scheme, I am afraid that the chances are that he would have experienced substantial difficulty because the maximum payout under the investor compensation scheme is £48,000. It will not pay compensation for any sums withdrawn, unlike the insurance ombudsman. It does

      711
      not compensate for stress or illness, and those who operate it do not believe that the people involved should have taken legal advice; if they had not done so, the chances are that many would not have received a penny. Of course, the scheme will not pay compensation for those who bought plans before 28 August 1988; nor will it pay if the independent financial adviser did not receive full authorisation. The difficulty in some cases is that the independent financial advisers held themselves up as being full FIMBRA members when they were not. A decent compensation scheme worthy of the name would not have left the victims high and dry.
      I know that the ICS has had its difficulties. It is mindful of the fact that its payouts are an increasing drain on the industry as a whole. Indeed, it is the cost of compensation, among other things, that is holding up the formation of the new personal investment authority because, understandably, those who are to be members are worried about compensation. It is in the interests of the industry to ensure that we have an effective and efficient compensation scheme which does not cause further trouble to people who are in difficulties through no fault of their own but which accepts that, where mistakes have been made, investors should be compensated without making them jump through hoops to satisfy criteria that, in many cases, are unjustifiably stringent.
      I should welcome an effective one-stop shop. Efforts to set it up have been fraught with difficulties. Initially, the Securities and Investments Board, albeit under slightly different management, was reluctant to set up a system. It did when pressurised to do so, but the SIB should reflect on the interests of the industry, let alone those of the public, and ensure that any scheme works and that it does not put investors to undue trouble in the exercise of remedies to which they are entitled.
      Under Andrew Large, the new chairman, the SIB is attempting to clear up the matter, but the House should not be under any illusion: we are by no means anywhere near the end of the road. The fact is that people bought products that should not have been sold to them. Institutions such as some building societies want nothing to do with people who have lost out. Unlike Lloyd's names, who have also been the victims of difficulties, elderly people do not have a Lady Archer to stand behind them. They understandably feel very bitter at the fact that the Government are apparently indifferent to their suffering. That is a further illustration, if one were required, of the need for the Government to establish an effective regulatory system.
      The House will know that there is a plan to set up a personal investment authority, if it ever gets off the ground. There have, however, been two years of horse trading between the vested interests. If trade unions had been left to put their affairs in order, the Government would have passed dozens of pieces of legislation in the intervening period; but, because of vested interests, one suspects, the Government have done absolutely nothing to ensure that an effective regulatory body is put in place to deal with this end of the market.
      I suspect that we shall be told by the Minister that the SIB and others are making valiant attempts to deal with a difficult situation; that the Government intend to do nothing to amend the present law but hope that the industry will set its house in order; and that the industry has another last chance. The Government are very keen on giving people last chances when it suits them. Members of
      712
      the public, and especially the victims of the home income plan disaster, want action from the Government; they do not want platitudes or to be told that it may not happen in the future. They want a firm sign of government.
      The Government have abdicated their role. They are paralysed and transfixed in the glare of growing criticism of the system and of calls for action. We have been calling for change, and the chairman of the London stock exchange has called for a new body to examine the criminal law and the prosecution of market-related offences. As I said, the chief executive of Prudential Assurance has called for an end to self-regulation, and others are doing the same. In today's Financial Times, the Lex column calls for an end to the present system. The 10,000 to 15,000 people who suffered because of the failure also demand action. In the face of those calls, surely we deserve better than another tepid, uncertain response from the Government.
      In an interview with the Financial Times last November, the Financial Secretary threw in the towel and said that there was to be no new legislation. He told the SIB that the Government would not legislate, and I suspect that Lloyd's has been told the same thing. The Government have a role to play in putting the present system to rights. We need a proper system of regulation to deal with such a crucial part of the economy and to protect members of the public. I hope that tonight the Government will at least say that, for a change, they are prepared to change from their present tack of doing absolutely nothing.
      Mr. William Powell: I warmly welcome many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), but when he went into rhetorical flights of fancy about the Government I parted company from him. Nevertheless, his general analysis of the problems faced by those who purchased home income plans was accurate. He is right to say that the unfortunate scandal—and it has been a scandal—has revealed gaps in our regulatory system. I congratulate him on giving valuable time to raising the matter this year, as he did last year.
      I also pay tribute to many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have devoted a great deal of time over the past year to fighting on behalf of their constituents who have suffered grievously as a result of this scandal. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has raised the matter in Adjournment debates on more than one occasion. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who has acted as chairman of the all-party committee on home income plans which set up so many important meetings with the various bodies concerned.
      I pay tribute to all my colleagues on both sides of the House who, in relation to the West Bromwich building society, have contacted me as a result of the way in which their constituents have been afflicted and affected by the extraordinary way in which that building society has behaved in connection with this matter.
      I shall devote my short remarks to the way in which the West Bromwich building society has tried to wiggle and wriggle to avoid its responsibilities in a very serious matter. Many of my comments will come as a shock to those in the west midlands who have trusted in the good name of the West Bromwich building society. I will refer to individuals and to conduct which is criminal in its nature.

      713
      About 800 people took out home income plans which were ultimately backed by cash from the West Bromwich building society. There was always an intermediary and that intermediary was usually an organisation known as Frew Fisher Smith. In effect, it introduced clients to the West Bromwich building society which advanced money. Those of us in this House who have tried to seek some small measure of justice for our constituents have met a brick wall. It would appear that everything was down to the intermediary and had nothing to do with the building society.
      The way in which the West Bromwich building society has behaved and has tried to avoid its responsibilities has been utterly scandalous, deeply shocking and would certainly merit much closer investigation, particularly by the police. I choose my words carefully. I believe that a great deal of criminal activity has been taking place involving forgery and fraud.
      In respect of forgery, I have seen and am quite aware of documents, which have been signed by constituents of mine and of other hon. Members, which have undoubtedly been changed after they were signed by the person who was seeking to borrow money. Incomes have been falsified. There have been greatly enlarged falsifications to justify the pushing out of much larger sums of money than our constituents wished to borrow in the first place. Documents were altered after the event without the knowledge of our constituents. That forgery led to fraud and no doubt very high commissions for those involved in that activity. The result has been misery across the country.
      So far as I am aware, every one of my constituents who took out a home income plan took one out which was backed ultimately by the West Bromwich building society. As I have said, about 800 people are affected across the country. Literally hundreds of hon. Members have drawn to my attention the fact that constituents of theirs have been involved through the West Bromwich building society. Everyone who has lost money and has faced considerable difficulty owes a debt to hon. Members who have pursued the matter, often in circumstances of great difficulty and in the face of the utmost indifference on the part of that particular building society.
      I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who took out home income plans and have grouped together to campaign on behalf of those who have been losers. A dedicated group of people across the country has devoted many hours to fight for those losers.
      The matter has been so serious that, in one case, an elderly constituent of mine committed suicide. There is absolutely no question but that the behaviour of the West Bromwich building society triggered that. As one would expect, that has led to enormous problems for the family.
      As this matter has been going on for so long, we find that elderly people are becoming more and more worried. They see their debts growing and they are extremely worried about how they can meet those debts. They are terrified that the building society will move against their estates and that the modest inheritance, which they hoped to pass on to their children and members of the family, is likely to go to the building society and all those involved.
      Whenever I tried to approach the West Bromwich building society, I met with indifference and a total refusal,
      714
      on the building society's part, to face up to the gravity of the situation. That refusal was exhibited by the chairman, Mr. Baker, and by the chief executive, Mr. Elliott. From my experience of those two gentlemen, I believe that they should not be holding the kind of posts that they hold. Neither of them has shown the slightest interest in coming to grips with what has happened. It is a serious scandal that people who hold positions of trust, as they do, should seek to brush aside what has happened and pretend that it has absolutely nothing to do with them.
      6.15 pm
      I concentrate my remarks on the West Bromwich building society. I have had almost no dealings with any other body. I am aware that, where people have borrowed from other societies, some have had satisfactory outcomes and conclusions, and others less so. However, I know about the West Bromwich building society.
      When my constituents and the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members asked for a holiday on the interest payments while the matter was sorted out, the West Bromwich building society absolutely refused even to contemplate the idea of freezing the interest at the point of the problem and trying to resolve the matter thereafter. As a result, compound interest is being added to the debt and that debt is growing larger and larger. As nearly all the people—if not all—who borrowed through the home income plans had modest levels of savings, they increasingly find that their debts are at least as big as, if not in excess of, the asset that they currently hold. That is obviously desperately worrying for those people.
      That is not the only point which is so scandalous and which makes it necessary for changes in the regulations and the regulatory framework to ensure that that kind of thing can never happen in future. We must also consider the fact that our constituents were told that if they simply signed the document put before them everything would be taken care of. No adequate explanation was ever given about what those people were signing up to in the first place.
      It is worth bearing in mind that many of the people who signed up were exactly the kind of people who needed an explanation of what was contained therein. Responsible lenders, responsible banks and responsible solicitors would have ensured that a copy of the documents which our constituents signed would have been available to them and that the contents were carefully explained, clause by clause, so that the borrowers were aware of what they were signing up to.
      In the case of nearly every one of the West Bromwich building society borrowers, through the intermediary, that did not happen. That is a very serious state of affairs. By lending money on the basis of home income plans and not ensuring that that happened, that is a flagrant breach of the duty of trust which the West Bromwich building society owed to its own depositors. It lent depositors' money in risky circumstances without taking the most elementary steps to ensure that the borrower was aware of the obligation being entered into. I indict the West Bromwich building society for that as well.
      One has to say that there is precious little evidence that the financial status of those people who were buying home income plans was carefully and properly investigated. Indeed, I have already asserted, and believe it to be true and am aware of documents where this has happened, that the financial status was subsequently altered, by forgery,

      715
      after the income had been declared in order to justify the kind of advance which the intermediary wished to obtain with, of course, the commission that went with the much larger loan than might otherwise have been the case.
      It is an absolutely scandalous state of affairs. If anything required police action, it is that each and every one of the mortgage applications to the West Bromwich building society now needs to be examined by the police. There are cases in which there was subsequent forgery of the financial declaration. Those matters need to be investigated and persons need to be brought to trial. If they are found in the intermediary or found in the building society, there should be no hiding place for those who have done this.
      Mr. Darling: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has pursued these matters vociferously and vigorously on behalf of his constituents. Has he reported any of them to any authority, whether the police, a supervisory body or the Government? The hon. Gentleman's allegations are extremely serious and should normally be reported.
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All those matters are available; they have been reported, and they need to be further reported. I have not reported them to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, but I have made others aware. They are matters for the police. There are West Bromwich borrowers—if I may refer to them as that, although the West Bromwich would always hide behind the intermediary, as the hon. Gentleman identified in his own speech—who have been in touch with the police about these matters.
      I hope that, as a result of what is said tonight, there will be a much more determined investigation than has currently been the case. That is precisely why I am taking advantage of the opportunity to ensure that matters which have been clear just below the surface for some time are now brought out in the open. Those who have responsibility for them have to face their responsibilities.
      Although the new clause may not be exactly the right way of proceeding—I am open to argument about that—it paves the way for an important discussion about this matter which has concerned many of our constituent s. We have always been faced with the fact that the West Bromwich building society relies upon the existing methods of regulation. Those methods have been shown to be wrong. It would be absolutely unacceptable to hon. Members if we discovered that people are selling home income plans. I am not aware of it, although there is the suggestion that some intermediaries might be trying to market such plans now, but, in view of experience from the mid to late 1980s, if any financial agent was seeking to market such plans, it would be a matter of the greatest scandal.
      We cannot shut the stable door after the horse has bolted in relation to those who have already purchased, but for new purchases to be taking place, with people not being advised of all the difficulties that there are in law and so on, would be truly scandalous.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman join me and other hon. Members in calling for the Securities and Investments Board to deregister the West Bromwich building society from being
      716
      able to practise investment business, as that organisation has clearly proved itself to be incapable of looking after the interests of people who lend to it or borrow from it?
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. She has been most assiduous on behalf of her constituents who have been affected by the West Bromwich building society. Therefore, she makes her request to me from a position of personal and close knowledge of the way in which that building society has been operating. I very much agree with the sentiments behind what the hon. Lady has said.
      I hope that the building societies' authorities will look extremely closely at this matter. If I had any deposits in the West Bromwich building society, I would be extremely anxious and concerned about the competence of the people who are presently entrusted with looking after those deposits. I hope that the authorities that have overall responsibility for building societies will take close note of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) has said.
      I do not want to go on very much longer; I think that I have said enough to show how deeply unhappy I am at the way in which my constituents have been treated. I know that constituents of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others have been affected. Unfortunately, that disgraceful pattern of events has already taken place. It is obvious that the existing pattern of regulatory law has proved to be too insubstantial to deal with it.
      My experiences of the West Bromwich building society have been so serious that I have felt it necessary to take advantage of this opportunity to try to bring out into the open what I regard as some of the most disgraceful behaviour by people who are entrusted with looking after other people's money that it has been my misfortune to learn about.
      Mr. Alan Milburn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who has amply demonstrated the fiasco behind home income plans. He has made several serious allegations, and I am pleased that he has brought them to the attention of the House. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury not only listened to what the hon. Gentleman said but will say what action he intends to take as a result of those allegations.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) dealt comprehensively with the failures of the self-regulatory system and the need to change that system and learn the lessons of the disaster of home income plans. As he said, up to 15,000 people were caught as a result of the sale of those plans in the mid to late 1980s. The trap that they are now in is certainly not of their making. Some of them have lost their homes, many of them have lost their life's savings, and many of them presumed that the home income plans that they purchased would not only pay off their mortgages but guarantee them a substantial slice of additional income for many years to come. When they were sold those plans, they were told that they were as safe as houses. Home income plans have not only turned out to be unsafe in respect of their mortgages but have cost them a pretty penny.
      As the hon. Member for Corby said, when they were sold, none of the home income plans was issued with a health warning. Many people who bought home income plans are among the most vulnerable members of society. Many were elderly people, looking to pay off their

      717
      outstanding mortgages and for some additional income. The Financial Services Act 1986 has obviously failed to stop the sale of those plans, and it did not ensure that they carried a health warning.
      The chief executive of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, Godfrey Jillings, has called home income plans inherently flawed. He made that statement after the event, because it was not until 1990 that FIMBRA and its counterpart, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, wrote to their members reminding them of their duty to recommend only policies geared to an individual's specific needs. The lack of public health warnings meant that many unauthorised firms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, were able to continue selling to unwitting victims even when it started to become clear that a home income plan scandal was brewing. It was not until a year later that the regulatory organisations effectively banned home income plans.
      The mess was the making of the regulatory organisations and their failure to make clear to the public the inherent dangers of investing in those plans. Clearing up the mess has been as inadequate as the system that created it in the first place. My hon. Friend alluded to the rather different treatment available to the victims of home income plans, depending on whether they bought through an independent financial adviser or from elsewhere. He went into that in some detail.
      The miserly conduct of the investors compensation scheme was thrown into sharp relief recently in a court case when it became clear that the ICS was refusing to pay any compensation on behalf of a victim who had died before the rogue firm was declared in default. That meant that a widow or widower might get only half the compensation that she or he had hoped for, which would not be enough to keep them in their home. According to the solicitor who was dealing with many of the victims, in the two and a half months since the ICS took that decision, it had halved the compensation paid to a surviving spouse in at least 12 cases. He warned that many more people would be affected unless that practice was reversed.
      6.30 pm
      There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the mess. The hon. Member for Corby has called for police investigations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central alluded to the need to change the regulatory system and to introduce reform as quickly as possible. As a result of the home income plan debacle it has become clear that lax regulation costs people their homes; it costs people their lifetime's savings; it leads to a great deal of stress and worry. It even led eventually to one person's suicide.
      Too many independent financial advisers are simply incapable of doing the job and of looking after their customers responsibly. Unless change is made, many of us will be left with the impression that the industry is run by cowboys. I am sure that the Minister does not wish that impression to be conveyed, and that he will have something positive to say.
      We need tighter regulation because many of the people who are sold home income plans are not in a position properly to assess them unless public information is made available. The regulatory organisations are running a
      718
      telephone helpline and making information available through citizens advice bureaux, but it is too little, too late. Information should have been available to people contemplating investing in home income plans before they got into trouble.
      Lax regulation does not work. I hope that some lessons have been learnt from the debacle and that when the Minister replies he will tell us the Government's thinking on compensating the victims and ensuring that they get a decent deal, and on ensuring that this kind of fiasco does not happen again.
      Mr. Nelson: It is not surprising that the debate has evoked strong emotions on both sides of the House. I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks in response to the new clause because I acknowledge that the issue has caused great personal distress to those who have been affected. It has come to the attention of many Members of Parliament who have taken up cases on behalf of their constituents, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to be brought up to date with how those cases are being dealt with, as well as to examine some of the more fundamental issues of supervision, regulation and compensation.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) used the debate—as he has some others—as an opportunity to call for a fundamental overhaul of our supervisory system, and he reiterated his call for a full-blown statutory system. I have expressed my views on the issue and shall not repeat them, save to say that whatever system one has—statutory, self-regulatory or semi-self-regulatory—it does not, of itself, ensure that no losses will arise, that no fraudulent activities will take place and that no bad advice will be offered. One must not confuse the structures with the need to provide adequate supervision and regulation under whatever structure there is.
      Mr. Darling: Will the Minister tell the House whether he and the Government are still wedded to the existing system of self-regulation, and whether there is any hope for any change originating from the Government?
      Mr. Nelson: The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we believe that the structure provided by the Financial Services Act 1986 has been a considerable improvement, and that further measures can be taken to improve the system of supervision provided under that legislation. That was the purpose of Andrew Large's review, and it is the purpose of some of the changes being prepared by self-regulatory authorities.
      I anticipate problems and great damage if any Government were to visit upon the financial services industry the blight of major reorganisation without a consensus as to what should replace the current system, and without confidence that such a reorganisation would result in a better system of supervision. When there is scope under the existing legislation significantly to improve the effectiveness of investor protection, it seems to me that the responsible first recourse of government is to take that approach. That is precisely what we are doing.
      I do not rule out, for the long term, changes in response to events and I am always prepared to have a running review of those issues. However, when I am trying to support moves, for example, for the personal investment authority to get off the ground, it would not be responsible or helpful to suggest that we intend to throw the deck of

      719
      cards into the air and start dealing again, as far as our system of supervision and regulation is concerned. I prefer to address the issues of inadequacies in supervision and regulation where they occur, and not just the structure. It is the human decisions, as much as the institutional structures, which result in good or bad investor protection.
      Many hon. Members have spoken about home income plans. Some home income plans are fairly benign; others have caused very serious problems. Home reversion schemes, whereby the owner of a property sells all or part to the scheme provider for an immediate cash sum and carries on living there until he dies, are sometimes a source of distress to next of kin and inheritors, but they are popular and there is nothing necessarily wrong with them, provided that people are well informed and know what they are entering into.
      Purchase life annuity schemes can be a sensible source of additional marginal income for people. As the House will know, under such schemes the home owner takes out a mortgage loan on the property and uses the cash to buy an annuity, which services the loan interest and leaves an income. As tax relief up to £30,000 is available on the loan used to buy the annuity, the scheme can provide a positive—if modest—income after meeting the interest due on the loan.
      The schemes that have caused most concern are those in which the owner takes out a mortgage on part of the value of his home and invests the proceeds in an investment bond. I understand and fully sympathise with hon. Members' concerns about the plight of home owners—usually elderly—who have been sold unsuitable home income plans. As the House may be aware, action is continuing to deal with the problem and I shall describe a little of the progress that has been made.
      The financial services regulators, the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation., have amended their rules to prevent further marketing of inappropriate schemes and have taken disciplinary action against the firms concerned. To answer the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), therefore, such schemes should not be sold in the future.
      In addition, action is being taken to help those who find themselves in difficulty. Many life offices have made good the damage that investors have suffered. Some investors may alternatively be eligible for compensation, either from the investment company or from the investors compensation scheme set up under the Financial Services Act 1986. Last week I went to see for myself, at first hand, how carefully the ICS staff investigate those cases, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to them. I watched and spoke to the staff, and in my judgment they are extremely thorough and as expeditious as they can be in dealing with the many claims that have been brought to their attention.
      Firms regulated by LAUTRO have now paid out £8 million.
      Mr. Darling: I am glad that the Minister mentioned the ICS. No one is criticising the staff; the system is at fault. Is it not an anomaly that an investor who goes to the insurance ombudsman will get more or less full compensation, including compensation for legal costs, stress and any payments made, while for those who go to the ICS the upper compensation limit is £48,000 and no
      720
      other payments are made? In other words, for the latter there is only partial compensation. Does the Minister agree that it is anomalous for the end result to depend entirely on a stroke of luck or bad luck as to which regulator or authority the investor approaches?
      Mr. Nelson: I acknowledge that there are differences in the overall amount of compensation that might be available—although in the vast majority of cases the amount will be less than the £48,000 for which the scheme provides. I acknowledge also differences in approach. That aspect was subject to judicial review, which ruled in favour of the fair basis of compensation provided by the ICS. It is an inherent problem of mixed-product schemes—and one which legitimately gives rise to concern—that where a number of institutions or intermediaries are involved in packaging a product sold to an investor one may find different acknowledgments of the liability which may be met. LAUTRO has generally been rather fast and, some would say, more generous. Compensation has certainly been paid more quickly than in cases that are the subject of resolution by ombudsmen or the one-stop procedure.
      Each case is different, and many cases are complicated. That explains why a number remain outstanding. Considerable progress had been made in clearing up and resolving cases since the issue was last raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in a similar amendment last year.
      Firms regulated by LAUTRO have paid £8 million in compensation to more than 920 investors, and investors have been restored to the final positioin in which they were before they became involved in the scheme. Between 400 and 500 cases are still being considered by the insurance ombudsman. Many cases are complex and may involve the responsibility of a number of different parties—for example, the financial adviser, the solicitor and the lender.
      The liaison group established by the Securities and Investments Board announced in March 1992 a one-stop procedure for handling complaints under which investors in such a scheme on the recommendation of a FIM BRA member who are in difficulty as a result and who have received no satisfaction can pursue all their complaints through FIMBRA—even if their complaints involve others besides the FIMBRA member. The majority of complaints against FIMBRA members received so far are being handled by the ICS, which deals with cases in which firms are in default. The making of an award under the FIM BRA arbitration scheme can drive a firm into default.
      So far, 15 of the independent investment intermediaries that were members of FIMBRA—that is, most of them—involved in marketing the schemes have been declared in default under the investors compensation scheme. Payment or offers of payment amounting to more than £16 million have been made to more than 1,000 investors with those firms, and a further 600 claims are being considered.
      In many of those latter cases, investors have been told that they are eligible to receive compensation but that their claims cannot be finalised until financial details are received from the various third parties or because the investors have not yet encashed their investments. That might include the insurance company whose insurance bond was used or the solicitor who dealt with the mortgage documents. Some building societies have agreed to co-operate with the building societies ombudsman in using the one-stop procedure. Discussions continue with others with a view to encouraging them to do likewise. No doubt

      721
      those societies and other organisations will note the strictures and comments of hon. Members who contributed to this debate. The Government hope that they will feel able to co-operate in that way.
      More than 120 cases have been processed through the one-stop procedure, 29 cases remain in the FIMBRA arbitration process and 19 are being investigated. The remainder have been settled, rejected or referred to the ICS. Meanwhile, the building societies concerned have made it clear that they want elderly borrowers to remain in their homes, resolve their worries and avoid hardship.
      The regulators are concerned to ensure that no one who took out such a plan is overlooked. On 7 June, the SIB published a fact sheet, "Home Income Plans: Grounds for Complaint", which sets out the characteristics of investment bond based schemes and encourages anyone who has taken out such a scheme and thought that they were given bad advice, or were not adequately informed of the risks, to contact the SIB. It has also established a helpline for two months to advise those who have not complained before on the action that they should take. Since it was established, a further 24 cases have been identified and referred to the appropriate complaints handling body under the one-stop procedure.
      I was amazed that when that fact sheet was sent out and investors were invited to say whether they thought that they had grounds for complaint, and a number completed a questionnaire—when 24 cases were identified as being serious enough to merit investigation—13 respondents wrote to express their interest in home income plans and asked how they could take one out. If anything, that emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby that the public need good advice—whether it is independent, professional or simply sound common sense. Even now, the public are not necessarily aware of the dangers involved.
      6.45 pm
      I have said previously that, although those involved in selling or wrongly selling such schemes must bear the principal responsibility, and although a statutory compensation scheme is available for those who cannot be assisted in other ways, ultimately the public must exercise a degree of buyer beware. They should observe five rules. They must beware, spread their investments or risks, seek good advice, read the small print and not confuse authorisation with compensation. We cannot provide a fail-safe system of statutory regulation or even self-regulation in this or other areas. We can do our best, and we can take action against those who are in default. That is being done, substantial progress has been made, and the remaining cases should be dealt with over a period of time. I hope that all parties concerned, and particularly the institutions, will play their full part in co-operating to bring this sad episode to an end and to ensure the rightful restitution of funds to those who have undoubtedly suffered greatly.
      Mr. Darling: At the start of this debate, I indicated that I had borrowed heavily from last year's amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and, with respect, I believe that the Minister
      722
      has borrowed very heavily from his speech last year. As he spoke, I recognised several passages that appeared in the columns of Hansard in July 1992.
      I emphasise that no one is suggesting that we should throw the existing regulatory system into the air like a deck of cards and wait to see what lands. There is a growing consensus about what needs to be done. I suggest that we build on the present system but remove the self-regulatory element to end the present situation whereby people can pick and choose between regulators. People can decide to do nothing because there is no pressure on them to do anything. Above all, we must get away from the state of affairs that the Minister signalled again today, in which the Government will do nothing because that is to give the green light to those outside who wish to do nothing to put their house in order.
      I remind the Minister that the financial services industry is of crucial importance to the economy, the people whom it employs, and those who buy the industry's products. We are calling for an overhaul of the present system and the establishment of statute-based regulation to protect not only the public but the industry itself.
      I am sorry that the Government will not accept that proposal. I am sure that the 10,000 to 15,000 people who bought fundamentally flawed schemes will be bitterly disappointed. Our proposals are made not in any partisan sense. There is support for change outside the House as well as in it.
      I am astonished that the Minister made no reference to the comments of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) about the West Bromwich building society. I thought that the Minister would say something—even if he only expressed concern. I hope that the Minister realises that concern is felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Earlier this year, I tabled two early-day motions which attracted more than 100 signatures. I was astonished at that level of interest. Conservative Members tabled early-day motions that were slightly different, but they also attracted supporters.
      The Minister must accept that there is concern and that it is not a question of criticising the industry, but a recognition that the industry is of crucial importance. People will want to buy more and more products and it is therefore important that we have a system of regulation and compensation that works. We do not have that at the present time.
      In his tour round the compensation scheme, the Minister might have commented a little more on the anomalies between the various schemes. He said that the ICS scheme was fair and that he was glad that the judicial reviews found in its favour. The judicial reviews are to do not altogether with fairness and objective assessment of the pros and cons of such schemes, but with a narrow interpretation of administrative law, which is not quite the same thing. I hope that the Minister will realise that many people will find it curious that one scheme gives help for legal costs while another does not. There must be something wrong with that system when they are dealing with the same product.
      The hon. Member for Corby and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) have said that one of the problems is that we have mixed-product schemes which allow the various organisations concerned to duck behind one another, saying that it is nothing to do with them. The hon. Member for Corby also made the point, which the Minister must accept, that even if the

      723
      Minister does nothing else and even if everything in the regulatory system needs no alteration, there is something wrong in this area. I am sorry that he did not do anything more.
      By tabling the new clause, I hoped at least to provoke the Minister to say something different. Since the interview in the Financial Times last year, he has a new boss, a new Chancellor—a man of the people, who comes from the industrial midlands, no less. I had thought that with that new broom we might have seen some changes in financial regulation, but we have not.
      My new clause is highly technical and was engineered to produce this debate. I am sorry that the outcome has not been more positive. I can only hope that those who are trying to resolve the situation will redouble their efforts. I am sure that many people long for the day when we have a Government who are prepared to govern in this area. They are keen on interfering in all sorts of trivia, yet when it comes down to such an important, fundamental point, the Government have absolutely nothing to say. I wonder why that can be.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 8

      POWERS OF THE BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE
      '. The Taxes Management Act 1970 shall be amended as follows—

      (a) section 20, subsections (2) and (7A) shall be deleted;

      (b) section 20B, subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b) shall be deleted and replaced with "the Commissioner giving the consent has also given approval to the exclusion.".'.—[Mr. Beith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause seems rather technical and raises a wider issue. It seeks to ensure that the agents of Government charged with collecting taxes are doing so in a fair, even-handed and responsible way. It specifically seeks to guarantee that, when a tax inspector tries to obtain documents or information from a taxpayer or third party, he does so only with the appropriate judicial approval and that the board of the Inland Revenue does not give the impression of acting as judge, jury and executioner.
      Section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 deals with the powers of inspectors to demand the production of documents from a taxpayer and third parties. Under that section, an inspector who believes that he needs access to a document in the possession of the taxpayer or some third party, for example a bank, can get an authorisation to serve a notice for material in two ways: by seeking the approval of the board of Inland Revenue itself to serve the notice, or by asking for the approval of a special or general commissioner. That appeal, whether to the board or the commissioner, is heard in private. The taxpayer need never be told of anything said about his tax affairs and has no chance to put his case against the inspector. The commissioner is under no obligation to keep minutes of the hearing, so often it is impossible to verify what has been said.
      There are circumstances in which a degree of secrecy may be necessary. A crooked taxpayer could take advantage of the advance warning of notice. That is all the
      724
      more reason why the process should be seen to be completely above board and should carry the most stringent checks on the correctness of its application.
      There is a further reason why the process is of importance to certain innocent taxpayers. There is increasing evidence that section 20 actions are being used by banks as a reason to limit and even to withdraw credit or access to banking facilities. We all share the anxiety that, if some inquiry were made about us for no reason by a credit reference agency, it might panic our bank into not treating our account in the normal way. That inquiry becomes a real fear when it comes to light that there are cases where banks have ceased to operate an account in the normal way or have not allowed the taxpayer to do so when the section 20 notice comes to them. The bank might not even tell the taxpayer, the small business man or whoever why it is doing that, because it does not wish to alert him to the Inland Revenue's action and it would not be proper for it to do so. Suddenly the business man, who has already been adversely affected by his protracted arguments with the Revenue, finds that his bank is not operating in the normal way for no apparent reason. It is hard to imagine anything more likely to give someone a persecution complex.
      In that context, it is not acceptable that the Inland Revenue should be able to act alone and without regard to outside control. The new clause removes the powers of the board to issue its own notices so that, in future, the only way in which an inspector could get a notice under section 20 would be to seek the approval of a commissioner acting in a judicial role or independently of the board.
      It is not that tax inspectors are crooked or that they engage in anything other than proper tasks on our behalf, but occasionally there is an excess of zeal, as Ministers know from the cases in their constituencies, where power seems to have been used in circumstances that are not merited and which represent an unfair imposition on what turns out to be an innocent taxpayer.
      It is equally important that the work of the Inland Revenue be seen to be carried out in a fashion that is transparently honest and fair to the taxpayer. That is part of the process of maintaining confidence in our system.
      There is another aspect that has been brought to light, as so many things have been, by the Asil Nadir case. What a lifting of the stone that case was and how many things were found beneath it. One thing that curiously came to light was that tax officials had given details of Mr. Nadir's tax affairs to the stock exchange. Although few Opposition Members have any sympathy for Mr. Nadir, it raises the possibility for other taxpayers that there may be unauthorised disclosure by the Revenue of documents to somebody or some agency through which they might pass to a business competitor, to a potential creditor or to someone who in some way might, with no proper legal authority, use that information to the detriment of the taxpayer. The discovery that the Revenue is not above disclosing information in a way in which it is legally precluded from doing must add to the arguments for proper protection when the procedure is used to obtain documents.
      There are reasonable ways in which that protection can be achieved by following certain procedures. First, hearings for the approval of an inspector's request for notice should have to be properly recorded and the taxpayer should be given a right to see what was said about him and his affairs at any later appeal.

      725
      Secondly, looking back to the House of Lords decision in 1991 in the case of T. C. Coombs and Co., to authorise a notice, the commissioner should be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the inspector is justified. There is an implied duty on the inspector to divulge all relevant information, even if it does not support his case.
      With that case in mind, we should ensure that both aspects are guaranteed. The first is guaranteed in section 20, but the second is not. There is no guarantee that the implied duty to divulge all relevant information will be exercised. If that were to be made a statutory requirement, and if the taxpayer were given the right to discover what had been said, it would be a reasonable safeguard.
      Thirdly, we should ensure that when a commissioner hears a case for a notice under section 20, he should not be able to hear a future appeal relating to that taxpayer. It is not clear how often, if ever, that actually happens. The Minister may know how often the commissioner who hears an application for notice under the existing procedure turns out to be the commissioner who deals with that taxpayer's affairs at a later date. If a commissioner has already heard in private and without challenge many arguments of detail about that taxpayer's affairs, it may not be proper for him to be the person judging independently at a later stage that taxpayer's affairs. We believe that we should have such a safeguard. To what extent it is a safeguard observed in practice at the moment we do not know. The Financial Secretary may know the answer.
      Those are the grounds on which we tabled the new clause. We believe that an important principle for the protection of taxpayers is involved even in the limited area in which, we all recognise, there may need to be the use of powers for the disclosure of documents so that fraud and evasion of taxes are not allowed to continue.
      7 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: I of course agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the question of the powers vested in the Inland Revenue to secure the proper collection of taxes is a proper concern of civil liberties and that we have to ensure that the balance between the powers of the Inland Revenue and the rights of the taxpayer is maintained. However, it is important to be clear about the circumstances in which an information notice can be served on a taxpayer.
      The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are two routes by which an information notice can be served on a taxpayer. Either—this is the normal case—an inspector applies to the commissioners for an information notice and the commissioners grant it in the normal conduct of their duties—that is, on the commissioners' authority on the initiative of the inspector—or there is a power for the board to issue an information notice on its own authority without needing to go to the commissioners.
      The right hon. Gentleman did not draw the attention of the House to the provisions in the Finance Act 1990 that limit the circumstances in which the board may legitimately use that discretion to circumstances in which the board can be satisfied that completion of the normal process—that is, applying to the commissioners—would lead to the danger that the right of the Revenue to collect
      726
      tax that is due would be prejudiced. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a legitimate concern and that the due process can on occasions lead to delay. Where there is a danger that the delay caused by due process would lead to a taxpayer avoiding tax that is legally due, it is reasonable for us to have a special process to avoid that happening.
      The Inland Revenue has in place a code of practice which ensures that the power that is vested in the board of the Inland Revenue to issue information notices in such circumstances is delegated only to a very few senior officials. The inspector who seeks an information power has a choice between applying to the commissioners as an independent body or applying through the internal processes of the Revenue to one of the senior officials who has the power to issue the information notice only if he is satisfied that the conditions of the 1990 Act are satisfied, which is the key point.
      That process achieves the objective that I set out at the beginning, which is that we need to maintain a proper balance between the right of the Inland Revenue to secure the information that it needs to collect tax that is properly due and the proper right of the taxpayer to insist that his interests are safeguarded. I shall consider the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the ability to go back to examine records of decisions made by the commissioners and by senior officials at the Revenue in these circumstances. But I would not be in favour of the further legislative constraints which the right hon. Gentleman envisages because I am satisfied that the existing arrangements provide proper safeguards and maintain the balance that all in the House want to see.
      Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for agreeing to look at some of my specific suggestions, some of which could be implemented without following a statutory route. His reply on the main point had the blandness that one associates with Revenue defences of its existing powers. I cannot imagine a situation in which an official of the Revenue conscientiously going about his duties would not believe implicitly that he should not fail to use the most expeditious power—in this case, the power to go to the board of the Inland Revenue rather than to a commissioner. He would believe implicitly that that power was being exercised to avoid loss to the Revenue of tax that it should properly collect—collection that might be prejudiced by any further delay. Inland Revenue officials go through life suffused with confidence that they are acting on that principle. It was some external check on the exercise of that power which I sought and which I still think desirable.
      Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman should take note of the fact that the senior officials of the Inland Revenue have been satisfied that the test is passed only in roughly 15 to 20 cases a year.
      Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that clarification, which is some reassurance. I hope that when he considers my detailed suggestions, he will bear in mind not only the point about unauthorised disclosure, which I hope causes people in the Inland Revenue to think again, but even more my point about the effect on banks and financial institutions of such notices. If the procedure is exercised at all, it could prejudice the conduct of the taxpayer's affairs and it might do so in circumstances in

      727
      which the taxpayer is wholly innocent. I hope that the Financial Secretary will bear that point in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 11

      ENGLISH WINE SALES (RELIEF OF DUTY) (No. 1)
      '. In section 56(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Act 1979 (Power to regulate making of wine and made-wine provide for charging duty thereon) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
      "(f) relieving duty on sales of wine bought directly from vineyards by way of farmgate sales ".'.—[Sir Anthony Grant.]
      Brought up. and read the First time.
      Sir Anthony Grant: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 12—English wine sales (relief of duty) (No. 2)—
      '. In section 56(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Act 1979 (Power to regulate making of wine and made-wine provide for charging duty thereon) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
      "(g) relieving duty from wine sold in vineyards of under 10 hectares of production.".
      Sir Anthony Grant: I did not expect to move the new clause, although I wholly support it. I know that some of my hon. Friends will wish to speak at rather greater length than I do, so I shall not detain the House. The new clause is designed to rectify the grossly unfair position in which English vineyards find themselves. I have in my constituency a vineyard called Gamlingay. It produces on a fairly small scale a very nice dry white wine which I commend to hon. Members and to anyone else who likes to participate.
      One reason why the vineyard has difficulties is the imposition of duty. The producers sell the wine for £4·50 a bottle, of which approximately £1·20 is duty. If it were sold in France, in Germany, in Luxembourg, in Portugal, in Italy, in Greece or in Spain, the £1·20 would not arise. If our producers were on a level playing field, they could sell the wine for £3·30.
      This problem applies not only to that vineyard, but throughout the British wine trade. If an Englishman, a Welshman or a Scotsman buys 10 cases of wine by direct sale from a vineyard in any of those European countries, he would pay no excise duty. If he bought the wine in France, the duty would be about 2p a bottle, which is negligible. He could bring that wine back home to the United Kingdom without having paid any duty. That same person buying at an English or Welsh vineyard, whether Gamlingay or anywhere else, will pay £1·16 or £1·20 a bottle in duty, or as much as £1·92 if the wine is sparkling. That is patently unfair to English vineyards. We talk about a level playing field in Europe. That should apply to everything, and certainly to wine.
      It is with absolute confidence that I move the new clause. I believe that Treasury Ministers wish to support British wine as well as to consume it. I believe that they wish to encourage the trade and that they want to put us on the basis that applies in Europe. There is no excuse for discrimination, and the sooner that it is got rid of the better. One way to do that is to accept the new clause with pleasure and with alacrity.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: We have heard an enchanting case for the merits of English wine and the prospect of the garden of England being bedecked with new vineyards. I can see the case which is being made, but the new clause amounts either to a plan to subvert EC fiscal legislation—I can well understand why some hon. Members want to do that—or to an invitation to open a Pandora's box of delights concerning the consequential effects on other alcohol taxation.
      Unless the Paymaster General tells us to the contrary—I fear that he will not—we will be told that, first of all the new clause runs foul of the agreements on harmonisation, which the Government signed with other European countries, and that if the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire South-West (Sir A. Grant) and his right hon. and hon. Friends wish to have the new lower duty on English-produced wine they will have to have that duty on all wine sold in this country.
      Although we suggested in Committee that there was a need for some adjustment in the relative fiscal scales on alcohol taxation, I do not think that anyone suggested reducing the duty on wine in this country to the same level as that of some of our European neighbours.
      One of the new clauses would make farm gate sales free of duty; the other would exempt from duty smallholdings smaller than 10 hectares. If the change is applied to wine, why not apply it to beer or spirits? That would invite small-scale duty free sales of home-distilled brews across the country, which may have many attractions but would subvert the basis of charging duty on alcohol and would give rise to a curious distortion in the structure of the industry, as our breweries and distilleries had to get themselves down to the farm gate sales threshold, or the 10 hectares, to take advantage of selling cheap booze.
      Although the hon. Gentleman's move to give a special boost to English wine is attractive, I fear that the Paymaster General will have no alternative but to knock it firmly on the head.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I have a constituency point that causes me to support the new clause. I also support in general the need to make English vineyards as competitive as possible. Although they make fine wines, they do not compete on price. Much of that is a result of the burden of over-regulation and excise duty.
      My point relates entirely to our new clause on farm gate prices. The custom of the vineyards in my part of Sussex had dropped dramatically as a result of the single market. I am not criticising the single market—thank goodness for it—but it is having a definite effect on the vineyards in east Sussex because they are not able to sell wines—as they have done—from the vineyards. We must encourage them to be as competitive as possible vis-a-vis the French vineyards. One has only to spend a brief period on holiday in France and see how much of its product any vineyard will sell to people who turn up at the farm gate to notice what a substantial part of sales it is for many vineyards and how much it contributes to their annual output and hence their profit.
      I hope that the Paymaster General will, in a general review of English vineyards and the Customs regime to which they are subject, have a good look at helping to make English vineyards considerably more competitive, particularly at the farm gate.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Anthony Steen: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, over a topic about which I have spoken in the House for the past 15 years. On one occasion—I want to assure the Whips that this will not be such an occasion—I had the Adjournment debate at 10 o'clock. As the business of the House had collapsed, the debate started at 4.30 pm. I had a wonderful three hours—4.30 pm to 7 pm and then from 10 pm to 10.30 pm. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was engaged in that operation with me and I am pleased to see him here tonight.
      I should declare an interest at the outset. I was interested in English wine long before the English Vineyard Association was even thought about, and before we had an English vineyard industry. I now advise the association, which has 400 commercial vineyards in membership. I do not think that many hon. Members realise that there are 400 commercial vineyards in this country. They now produce just short of 25,000 hectolitres of wine a year, some of which is very good.
      The trouble is that English wine is out of the reach of the majority of the population, not because it is too difficult to get down in a glass, but because it sells for too much. For most people, the average price of a bottle of wine is £2·99 or less. As the duty on a bottle of English wine is £1·16, one can see that that leaves only £1·83 for a bottle of wine to be produced, marketed and retailed.
      I have to declare a second interest, as I have five vineyards in my constituency, and they are very good indeed. I make it a point to visit them to ensure that they are doing what they should be doing and in the way in which we would like it to be done. Devon has 10 vineyards. Somerset has 10 vineyards. Norfolk has only four, but Kent has 170 acres of vines. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) there is one vineyard of more than 200 acres. The industry is quite big now.
      The vineyards in Britain are so far north that they do not yield as much wine as the French or Spanish vineyards. They need help from the Government—
      Mr. Andrew Smith: And sunshine.
      Mr. Steen: Sunshine, yes, but they can be helped with the duty as well, which is what this issue is about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) quite rightly said, people go to France, not only in charabancs but in large transit vehicles, and they can buy any amount of still and sparkling wine at the French level of duty, which is 2p on the bottle. Much more significantly, if they go to any vineyard in Germany, Italy, Spain or Greece and buy over the gate, which is what the new clause is about, there is no duty at all.
      Only one country apart from Britain imposes duty on farm gate sales—France. France imposes a duty of 2p a bottle, which includes VAT. In Britain, the duty is £1·16 a bottle, including VAT. There is thus no incentive for British vineyard owners to show tourists around their vineyards because those who would like to take away a little souvenir bottle of wine discover that there is a large amount of duty to be paid on each bottle. In any other European country apart from France such bottles are excise duty free because they are counted as farm sales for personal use. In France people can take six cases of wine, sparkling or otherwise, from a vineyard and pay only 2p a
      730
      bottle duty on it. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece or Germany cases of wine can be bought without paying duty on them—or VAT.
      The new clause tries to establish a level vineyard across Europe. I look forward to hearing what the Paymaster General has to say about this. He will probably say that he has not appreciated that there was a problem. We are, after all, talking about a drop in the ocean—the amount of duty involved, to mix a metaphor, is no skin off the Treasury's nose. We are talking about a few pence at most.
      The present injustice hurts vineyards in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). Many people cross the channel and then drive along the coast. The French, who are understandably rather careless of English wine, drive into vineyards on the Sussex coast and get the shock of their lives when they find that they have to pay £6 for a bottle of wine when they can buy as good wine for a third of the price in France or elsewhere—
      Mrs. Lait: Half the price.
      Mr. Steen: Quite so.
      The new clause is only about farm gate sales and is designed to deal with our Government's discrimination against our own vineyards. The Government have shown clearly that they realise that we must back British goods, and it would help vineyards' commercial viability—they are experiencing difficult times—if they were not charged for farm gate sales to people who buy wine for their own use. Accepting the measure would do such vineyards a great service.
      New clause 12 has to do with relief of duty on wines sold from vineyards of under 10 hectares. Most of our 400 commercial vineyards are very small, and it would be marvellous if the Government gave them some relief. There is a precedent for this: the arrangement giving those who produce wine a growers' allowance. I do not know how much they are allowed to consume without paying excise duty, but the point remains the same.
      I should have thought that the Government could easily accept this new clause, which would merely give statutory form to the growers' allowance, which is already well established here. Cider producers also enjoy some arrangement allowing them to produce some cider for their own consumption without paying duty on it.
      I hope that the Minister appreciates the great interest in the House in English wine. Certainly Conservative Members have a great many vineyards in their constituencies. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), who runs his own vineyard and who can speak with experience. We also look forward to hearing other hon. Members speak—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Which other Members are called is entirely the choice of the Chair. It is not up to the hon. Member who is speaking.
      Mr. Steen: I apologise without reservation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, of course, choose the speakers. I was just hinting that you might choose a speaker who happened to own a vineyard.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: I am very interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the wine industry, and I have great sympathy with what he is saying. I only hope that the farm gate price

      731
      of whisky can come down too, so that Scotland can enjoy some of the stuff that we produce more cheaply—but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. Steen: What the hon. Gentleman says is precisely what I feared—the Minister will say that he cannot give way on wine because other people will start saying that the same should be done for whisky. There may indeed be a case for that. We are anxious to be fair to those who produce our wine. At the moment wine producers operate with both hands tied behind their backs—we seem to be shooting them not only in the foot but in the brain. We are not allowing them to encourage tourists to visit their vineyards and leave with bottles of wine, because we are tripling the amount that they have to pay for it.
      Many other Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. If the Minister gets this one right, he will perform a great service to the nation—and solve a lot of problems.
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I begin by declaring an interest. On my farm in Suffolk we have a vineyard, which we planted five years ago. We planted seven acres with 12,000 vines, and we are proud to be part of a new and, we hope, growing industry in the United Kingdom.
      I was appalled to hear the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) talking about cheap booze. That just shows how little he knows about the quality of wines that can be produced in England. The closer a producer is to the geographical extremity of where a fruit can grow, the better that fruit can be. Even though the process is more risky, the longer maturing period enables production of a better quality fruit.
      We in the countryside have all been encouraged to diversify, and this is a diversification—not to mention a large investment, which I and many others who have tried to make a living in the countryside have made. The industry needs encouragement: not help, but fair competition.
      The industry also creates employment. By the time we have looked after our vines and made and marketed the wine, our little venture employs six people, part or full time. It thus makes a contribution to local prosperity—another point for the Minister to bear in mind.
      What we produce is drunk and enjoyed in this country. It substitutes for imports, another laudable achievement. We do not want help; we just want fair competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) made a good point about that. At present, vineyards near France suffer greatly from unfair competition owing to the new regulations.
      Mr. Steen: Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend's very small vineyard has been extremely successful of late?
      Mr. Carlisle: That remains to be seen. We have entered a competition and I look forward to hearing the result. I am hopeful that we have produced good quality wine.
      I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments. The wine industry is not a big one, but it is developing. It is a serious industry, which is becoming more professional and capable of producing good wine. Given a level playing field, we are confident that we will not only create employment in rural areas but help to cut imports.
      Mr. Graham: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I have a lot of sympathy with what hon. Members have said, for example, about employment, which is very important.
      I understand the rules that apply in other parts of Europe, and I agree that we should have a level playing field. I would like to extend it to the social chapter and other areas, but that is not the point.
      7.30 pm
      For years one tremendous growth industry in Scotland has been the tourist trail to distillers. As many hon. Members are aware, people from all over the world visit the distilleries to take a wee dram and encourage them to buy whisky when they get back home. I understand the point about possible visitors to the new wineries in England, or whatever they are called, and how that could be a new growth industry in tourism.
      Last night I was reading a book about the history of Great Britain, starting with the Roman times. There was a paragraph about the wine that was produced in those days. Some of the finest wine in the Roman world was produced in Britain. Apparently, the climate then was slightly better than it is today. I came here from Scotland today, and I know how different the weather is in Scotland. I think that, given the heat down here, not only grapes but bananas can be grown.
      On a less frivolous note, I think that what hon. Members have said tonight is very serious. I believe in a level playing field and if wine can be bought duty free at the farm gate in France, Germany, and other countries, that should be possible here.
      I genuinely believe, based on historical facts, that we can produce wine as good as that produced by any other country. I would encourage the folk in England, who are lucky enough to have the right weather, to produce the wine. The Government could take a wee lesson and give strong support to the new flourishing art—or rather ancient flourishing art—of wine making in Great Britain.
      Like every other hon. Member, I like a wee glass of wine. I do not know a good wine from a bad one. I would follow the advice of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who seems to have visited all the vineyards. Next time perhaps he would like to take me and my family with him.
      Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for the new clauses to which I have put my name. Perhaps we could have a useful twinning association and organise exchange visits to the vineyards in Sussex, Kent or Suffolk and the distilleries that are near the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle)—and this is an unsolicited comment: I have drunk his wine and it is excellent. I hope that soon the Chairman of the Catering Select Committee will ensure that it is available in the Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms.
      I am happy to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I spoke in support of him a number of years ago in the debate to which he referred. In my part of the world, in the county of Sussex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and

      733
      Rye (Mrs. Lait) has already said, vineyards are a growing business. That is a bad pun, but the fact is that tourism has always been immensely important to Sussex.
      In recent years, coastal towns such as Hastings, Eastbourne and Brighton have not found it easy to develop their tourist industry. One of the good recent developments is the vineyards, which are increasingly flourishing. Those on the downs in my constituency, inland from the coast, provide a pleasant stopping place during the day for tourists who have been to Brighton, Eastbourne or Hastings. In the afternoon, tourists and their families can go to somewhere like Drusilla's vineyard, where there is a wine shop that sells farm produce as well as English wine.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams has rightly pointed out, there is an anomaly. We want to sell more English farm produce and English wine from our local shops, but the duty on English wine sold at the farm gate is £1·16 a bottle as compared with 2p a bottle in a comparable establishment in France, or nothing at all in other comparable continental establishments. I am sure that my right hon. and good Friend the Paymaster General will say something encouraging about that when he winds up the debate.
      Many people in Sussex now take their cars on the ferry over to France from Newhaven, which is next door to Hastings and my constituency. They fill their car boots with dozens and dozens of bottles of wine at the hyper in Dieppe or Pas de Calais. I am a great supporter of the single market, but it is wrong that there should be such a tax differential against our English wine.
      Mr. Graham: Is the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) aware that coach loads of people come down from Scotland every week, or every day, and go over to France to buy wine? They could possibly stop in his area, load up there with wine and save the cost of the petrol necessary to go to France. That would increase the amount of money that would go to the Exchequer.
      Mr. Renton: I am delighted that Scotland is so prosperous under a Conservative Government that so many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are able to take a bus down to fill up with wine in France. I hope that they will also stop at our wine shops in Sussex on the way back.
      The tax differential poses a serious problem in Sussex. It is not a frivolous matter. Wine growing is an important young industry and we wish to be able to compete against our continental neighbours on a level vineyard, to use the memorable phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams.
      Sussex has often prided itself on the slogan "Come to Sussex, Sussex by the sea". We would like to add a word in the middle of that. We would like people, when they come, to drink Sussex "Sauvignon" by the sea.
      Sir Roger Moate: I should like to endorse everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has said, which applies equally to the vineyards of Kent.
      I do not think that it is up to the Chairman of the Catering Select Committee to decide which wines are supplied in our Dining Rooms. All I know is that the excellent Syndale valley wine from my constituency—it is produced close to my home—got on to the wine list. I was
      734
      privileged to be a member of the Select Committee when it tasted the wines. It was done without any knowledge of the origin of the wines, but that local wine still got on to the wine list. That is a tribute to my local vineyard and explains why I wish to add my voice to the powerful voices that have been heard today in support of the new clause.
      Mr. Steen: I am a member of the Catering Select Committee, and I can inform the House that there are moves afoot to remove English wine from the list. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should resist that with all the enthusiasm that we can muster?
      Sir Roger Moate: It would certainly be sad if that happened. The important thing is that consumers should be allowed to make their choice.
      There is tremendous international competition to supply the wine drinkers of this country. The English vineyards do not produce volumes of wine and cannot compete easily with the flood of high quality wines that now come into this country. What is of tremendous importance is that they can compete by offering tourists and others the opportunity to visit vineyards that are found in some of the loveliest parts of the countryside.
      I urge my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and his colleagues, when considering the new clause or other proposals, to remember that the fact that people can go into the countryside, visit the vineyards and buy wines there is a tremendous and fast developing asset. That is the key point. It is even more important because of the international competition.
      If it is true, as we are informed, that virtually no excise duty is charged at the farm gate in France, and that in most other European countries no tax is imposed, what is the justification for imposing it here? It cannot be because of the revenue raised because the amount collected must be very small. But if we can encourage tourism, diversification, conservation and the improvement of the countryside, I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would accept our overwhelming argument.
      The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I, too, like English wines. Indeed, I have a constituency interest in the form of a small vineyard at Thornbury castle. I understand what my hon. Friends are trying to achieve in tabling the new clauses, which are designed, as their title suggests, to assist English wines. However, they do not do that. They demonstrate my difficulty in distinguishing between English and other wines under the tax system.
      The basic principle of international trade was laid down many years ago, after the war, in article III of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which says:
      "the products of the territory of any Contracting Party should not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products."
      Since 1947, there has been a lot of case law on that and it covers the matters that we are discussing. Under GATT we are not permitted to distinguish in favour of English as opposed to imported wines. The principle behind it is that no country's tax system should discriminate against imports. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was doing his best the other day to achieve improvements in GATT and to lower all sorts of trade barriers.
      It is also against article 95 of the treaty of Rome and European law to distinguish between products in that way.
      Dr. Godman: Is the Paymaster General confident that his decision to reject the new clauses is compatible with European Community law and hence not challengeable in the European Court of Justice?
      Sir John Cope: Yes. I have just quoted the GATT article and mentioned the treaty of Rome and subsequent bits of European law.
      In trying to get around the problem of not contravening GATT or the treaty of Rome, my hon. Friends have hit on two ideas, which are incorporated in the new clauses: first, so-called "farm gate sales"; and, secondly, the 10 hectare suggestion.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The Paymaster General has given the answer that I expected about European and international law, but how would he reply to the argument that in other European countries, with the exception of France, those farm gate sales are not charged duty?
      Sir John Cope: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I apologise to the House for having done so because I was just coming to that point.
      New clause 11 deals with farm gate sales, or rather vineyard gate sales. There is no difference in any European country between duty at the gate of a vineyard, or within a vineyard, and duty at a supermarket or anywhere else, nor can we introduce a difference under European law. The overall duties on wine imposed by France are less than that imposed by this country, and other European countries impose no duty at all. But that is true across the board; it is no advantage to sell wine at a vineyard, nor can we introduce such an advantage.
      It is a question of the difference in excise duties between this country and the other countries named by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). Our neighbours in other directions, such as Ireland, impose a duty similar to or higher than that imposed by this country. We have often discussed the difference bei ween our excise duties and that of other countries. My hon. Friend discussed a direct function of a much wider argument about excise duties, particularly in the light of the single market.
      Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir John Cope: I should first like to discuss new clause 12, which deals with the 10 hectare limit.
      Sir Roger Moate: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, may I say that the English Vineyards Association informed most hon. Members that all those other European countries pay no excise duty at the vineyard? Is my right hon. Friend saying that that is simply because they pay no excise duty at all on all wine sales, or is our information wrong?
      7.45 pm
      Sir John Cope: I am saying exactly what my hon. Friend suggests. No excise duty—in some cases, VAT is charged—is payable on wine in the countries named, apart from France which imposes a small amount of excise duty. The rate of excise duty and VAT is exactly the same for sales at vineyards and in supermarkets or anywhere else in France and other European countries.
      New clause 12 suggests that we should discriminate on the basis of size, but 10 hectares is far too large for discrimination to be of value. The vast majority of
      736
      vineyards throughout the continent are under 10 hectares. I am told that most premier cru Burgundy comes from vineyards of under 3 hectares. Those small vineyards have a small production because they believe in being exclusive to maintain their markets. There are approximately 1.9 million vineyards on the continent, of which only 90,000 measure more than 10 hectares. Therefore, the difference of 10 hectares would be of little use and the same would be true if we changed that figure to 5 hectares or fewer.
      Because of the international agreements that 1 mentioned earlier, we would be unable to distinguish between European and English wines in that way. If we said that the produce of small vineyards under 10 hectares or some other size should carry a lower rate of duty, we would have to apply that rule to continental vineyards of the same size, which is the vast majority of them. It is another way of saying that we would reduce the rate of excise duty on wine from almost anywhere in the world. Under GATT, an Australian vineyard of over 100 hectares or a large Californian vineyard would have to be treated in the same way as we treat our most favoured vineyards. We would have to offer the 10 hectare rate even to the most enormous vineyards imaginable, provided that they were overseas. It would discriminate only against large United Kingdom vineyards, not against large vineyards elseshere.
      For all those reasons, I do not think that either of the solutions offered by my hon. Friends provides a way forward for us. I believe in free international trade; I also believe in the single market. I recognise the problems caused by the difference in duty rates, which is not confined to wine, but is a wider issue. In the circumstances, it is not possible to use a duty device to benefit English wine. I hope that the trade flourishes. The best way to ensure that is by improving marketing techniques and by extending the ways in which grapes are grown and wine is produced and marketed. We cannot ensure that the trade flourishes by trying to seek duty advantages, which would cause immense difficulties.
      Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the English Vineyards Association is planning to set up stalls in French ports to sell English wine to English travellers returning from France so that they can buy English wine at £1·16 a bottle less than in England? It is crazy for English people to go to France to buy English wine to bring back to this country because it is cheaper in France. If the new clauses are incorrectly drafted, can my right hon. Friend help us to table some helpful new clauses?
      Sir John Cope: I do not believe that there is a method of distinguishing, through the duty, in favour of English wine. Perhaps somebody else can find a way, but I have not found a method consistent with GATT or European Community agreements that benefits English wine through the use of duty.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams has mentioned a marketing method. I was commending innovative marketing methods, and my hon. Friend has drawn attention to just such a scheme. I recognise the difficulties of which he has spoken, but it is true that English wine or any other wine bought in France for personal consumption and either brought back to this country or drunk in France bears French duty. The important factor is the country in which the wine is

      737
      bought; it is not the specific farm gate or place where the wine is bought or where it is produced. I cannot accept the new clauses.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 23

      TAXATION OF FISHING VESSEL DECOMMISSIONING GRANT
      '(1) Any grant received under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993, shall be taxed in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) below.
      (2) For the purposes of capital gains tax, a sum payable to an individual by virtue of the scheme referred to in subsection (I) above shall not be treated as part of the consideration obtained by him for, or otherwise as accruing to him on, the disposal of any asset.
      (3) Where a vessel is scrapped in compliance with grant conditions under a scheme referred to in subsection (1) above, then for all the purposes of capital allowances legislation, and in particular Part II, Chapter II of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, the disposal proceeds to be brought into calculation of the balances adjustment for the purposes of section 24 of the said Act and the value attributable under section 26 of the said Act or otherwise shall be deemed to be nil.
      (4) No part of a sum payable by virtue of a scheme referred to in subsection (1) above shall be treated as a trading receipt in the Schedule D Case/computation of profits of the applicant.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will remain in the Chamber as she said in last Wednesday's debate on decommissioning that she was very much on the side of the fishermen, and I think that today's debate will give her the opportunity to reaffirm that. Last Wednesday the House approved the decommissioning scheme for 1993–94, which is expected to be the first of three annual decommissioning schemes amounting to £8·4 million per annum.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I am not sure that the order says £8·4 million per annum, but it says £25;million over three years.
      Mr. Wallace: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that the order specifies the amount, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated what the amount was likely to be over three years. In the present year the figure is expected to be £8·4 million, and the same in each of the two succeeding years.
      An official explanatory leaflet sent to people in the industry stated that, in order to qualify for a decommissioning grant—for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for many years—three specific conditions must be met. First, the vessel must be scrapped—permanently broken up or disabled so that it is incapable of going to sea. Secondly, registration in the register of fishing vessels must be cancelled. Thirdly, all valid fishing licences must be surrendered.
      The leaflet comments on the tax treatment and states:
      "Decommissioning grants are taxable in the same way as other grants to the agriculture and fishing industries".
      That is an unilluminating statement which begs the question of what prompted the new clause. I hope that the Treasury team will be prepared to accept what I believe to
      738
      be the most favourable taxation treatment of decommissioning grants. If that is not acceptable, it would be helpful to those in the industry if the Treasury team could state how decommissioning grants are to be taxed.
      The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) have all taken part, over many years, in debates on decommissioning. I think that they, like me, will recall that when we have tried to do the sums, the Fontainebleau agreement has often been introduced into the debate so that it becomes unclear how much the scheme will cost the Treasury. We have always asked what sum will be taken back from the fishermen in tax. I do not recall fisheries Ministers ever giving a clear answer to that question. There is an opportunity this evening for Ministers to clarify the position.
      We are asking businessmen to submit tenders and make serious business decisions to scrap their vessels when a key element in the calculation is unclear. I very much hope that tonight we can do something to clarify the position, not least because it was announced last Wednesday that fishermen have until the end of this month to make their submissions for decommissioning grants. Any further information that can be given this evening will be most welcome.
      Dr. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the scheme will not be hogged by Humberside trawlers in the same way that the previous scheme was so manipulated?
      Mr. Wallace: The previous scheme was much criticised, not least by the Public Accounts Committee, and we shall want to watch how the new scheme operates. We do not want money to go only to one port. I shall be ruled out of order if I become too embroiled in a debate on the merits or otherwise of the decommissioning scheme. Many of us would argue that money is not enough, but this evening we are concerned with the tax consequences.
      It appears that there are four ways in which the sums can be taxed. First, the receipts could be taxable as trading income. Although nothing in the scheme requires the applicant to cease trading, it would, for the most part, seem reasonably self-evident that if a person scraps his boat, he is unlikely to carry on trading. Such a method will probably not commend itself to the Treasury, particularly, as has been said, if the licences have been returned. Secondly, the receipt could be considered to relate solely to the scrapping of the vessel and accordingly to be taken into account when calculating capital allowances. I suspect that the Treasury may wish to pursue that policy.
      Thirdly, the receipt or part of it could be treated as a capital gain. In addition to receiving compensation for the vessel, it could be argued that the value received also includes an element for the surrender of a precious stock licence and the forfeiture of the right to fish with that vessel. I believe that there is case law to support the argument that payments for those items—which amount to goodwill attached to the vessel—could be regarded as capital receipts.
      When a grant is allocated, no indication is given as to the amount awarded in respect of the vessel and the amount awarded in respect of the licence. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department may consider that no value is attributable the licence on the basis that nothing was paid for it. I understand that in the north-east

      739
      of Scotland the Inland Revenue routinely pursue a policy of attributing value to a licence as a capital asset when a vessel is sold. It is possible that a grant in excess of the vessel's current market value could be treated by the Revenue as capital.
      Fourthly, it could be accepted that no tax is to be paid on the grant—a proposal that I commend to the House. I believe that that may have been the case in some previous decommissioning grant schemes, although the status of some of those grants has not been made clear from the commissioners' decisions. Perhaps the Ministers will tell us about the operation of decommissioning grants under previous schemes.
      8 pm
      The new clause has no implications for capital gains or income tax and it has some precedent. I refer the House to the tax treatment of grants under section 27 of the Agriculture Act 1967. That Government grant was to encourage people to reinquish the occupation of uncommercial agricultural units. The parallel between relinquishing such units and the decommissioning of fishing vessels is immediately obvious. Section 249 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 states:
      "For the purposes of capital gains tax, a sum payable to an individual by virtue of a scheme under section 27 of the Agriculture Act 1967 (grants for relinquishing occupation of uncommercial agricultural units) shall not be treated as part of the consideration obtained by him for, or otherwise as accruing to him on, the disposal of any asset."
      The leaflet from which I quoted said that the method of taxation would be similar to that which applies to other agriculture and fishing grants.
      I have given an example of an agricultural grant that is not included for the purposes of capital gains tax. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is aware of other agricultural grants such as those payable under sections 9 and 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. Section 9 deals with grants for reorganisation compensation. When dealing with it the then Minister of Agriculture, Fred Peart, said:
      "This is a difficult matter, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to ask whether the new payments will be liable to Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax or betterment levy.
      Tenants will not be liable for Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax or betterment levy on sums received under Clauses 9 and 12. These sums do not constitute a capital gain or, in the Land Commission's view a realisation of development value, nor do they constitute part of the tenant's taxable income."—[Official Report, 21 February 1968; Vol. 759, c. 473.]
      That is another example of agricultural grants not being taken into account for tax purposes.
      The new clause seeks to have the grant accepted as non-taxable and to permit the balancing allowance to be granted on the vessel. I do not purport to be an expert in understanding how balancing allowances and balancing charges work. However, they may be of little practical use to taxpayers who have applied for a grant and who have accumulated trading losses in recent years. It would preserve a measure of equity between those who have claimed allowances to augment losses and produce relief against other income and taxpayers who have sought to preserve the tax value of their vessel to set against future taxable balancing charges on a sale.
      The share fishermen system operates in Scotland and there are differences throughout Scotland. Unlike parts of the north-east of Scotland, the practice in my constituency for a new person joining a partnership is for continuation
      740
      elections to be signed when there are partnership changes. The effect of that is that the new partner takes on a share of the tax written down value of the vessel which reflects previously granted allowances. Subsequent allowances do not reflect the price that he pays for his share. There is always the possibility of that person having to pay tax on a balancing charge in excess of the allowances to which he may have been entitled. That means that there may well be a disincentive to Shetland fishermen applying for grants or at least to gross bids up more than would otherwise be the case.
      That brings us to the purpose of the grants. The primary obligation is to reduce capacity to meet multi-annual guidance programme targets. Value for money can be measured in how much capacity can be taken out of the fleet. Many of us would have liked to see more money for decommissioning, but surely the effect of the small amount that has been made available should be maximised. An applicant must include the tax impact of accepting a grant in his calculation. If the effectiveness of the scheme is to be judged on catching capacity taken out, the clear efficiency argument says that if no tax is levied on the receipt there will be lower tenders and, therefore, more bids accepted and more capacity removed from the fleet. There will be greater value for money. I accept that that may not mean so much revenue for the Treasury, but it would be pleasant for once to see the Treasury trying to support the policy of another Department rather than trying to frustrate it.
      Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the developments that we wish to see with a sensible decommissioning scheme in some of our ports is the pulling out of the older vessels so that the fleet can remain fairly modern? Does the new clause encourage that development?
      Mr. Wallace: I suspect that it would certainly help. If I recall correctly, it was said in the debate on Wednesday that vessels had to be at least 10 years old.
      If a person applying for a tender has to gross up to take account of the tax that he must subsequently pay, fewer vessels will be taken out of the fleet and the relatively small amount of money will not go so far in reducing capacity. Making the grant tax free would be the best contribution towards achieving the object of the exercise. Those who are engaged in the exercise should know where they stand on taxation before making important business decisions.
      Mr. Salmond: I should like to be associated with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He has presented the detail of the technical argument and I shall concentrate on why the industry needs some additional tax incentive as part of the decommissioning package. It is highly appropriate that this matter should be debated during consideration of the Finance (No. 2) Bill because many of the decisions, not just for the fishing industry but for all resource-based industries, have been Treasury and Revenue led. That is true for oil, gas and whisky and it is certainly true for fishing.
      The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has argued for some time that its original two-year decommissioning scheme was extended to three years with no more money because of pressure from the Treasury, perhaps from the Financial Secretary himself. In a debate on fishing on Wednesday, I quoted an example given to me

      741
      by Mr. Hugh Allen, the secretary designate to the Mallaig and North West Fishermens Association, on the precise detail of the proposal by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
      I do not propose to quote the example again because it is available in Hansard. Mr. Allen reasonably set out a case study whereby a fisherman putting in a decommissioning bid of £150,000 on a 15-year-old capital asset that might be worth that amount would be left, after the operation of taxation and other obligations on the decommissioning grant, with a grand total of £4,000. That money would have to be disbursed among four members of his crew.
      If that is the current taxation system, it will severely inhibit a successful decommissioning scheme and will lead to one that is designed merely for the convenience of the Treasury. In the past few years, virtually every other fishing fleet in Europe has had access to substantial structural funds of hundreds of millions of ecu. Only the United Kingdom fishing fleet—the fishing fleets of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales—has not had access to that sort of structural funding. I hope, and it would be a triumph of hope over experience, that when the Financial Secretary replies he will go beyond the narrow Treasury accounting view of what is absolutely convenient and look to the possible success of the decommissioning scheme.
      It has not escaped those of us from fishing constituencies that when Ministers argue about the costs of a decommissioning scheme, they always take the costs net of the deduction resulting from the Fontainebleu agreement—for example, even a scheme that is financed 75 per cent. from the European Community would have an impact greater than that on Treasury revenues because of the deduction from the United Kingdom rebate under the Fontainebleu agreement. Yet those same Ministers have always refused to look at the scheme net of taxation and net of the effect on the Treasury of taxation. That argument has been used to produce a very modest decommissioning package for the fishing industry.
      Surely, tonight, the Financial Secretary should show that he appreciates that, without some tax concession, the decommissioning scheme could flounder and not have the effect that we all want, which is to bring capacity in the fishing industry into line with catching potential.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: For some years, the Labour party and the fishing industry have urged the Government to introduce a decommissioning scheme. Despite the existence of European Community funds towards the cost of national decommissioning schemes, the Government have repeatedly declared their opposition to such schemes. In February 1992, they announced that £25 million would be made available for a two-year scheme. That scheme is now to last for three years, but the money being made available—which includes EC grant—is unchanged.
      That money is quite inadequate for an effective decommissioning programme. Indeed, the House of Lords Select Committee on European Affairs concluded that the £25 million
      "is not even enough to prevent the fleet from expanding; four or five times that amount is now needed to make up for the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the United Kingdom during the last decade."
      742
      Given the wide agreement that the Government are putting forward too little money for decommissioning, the House should not reject the opportunity to lighten the tax burden on decommissioning grants.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) accurately said that this evening we are here to discuss the tax treatment of decommissioning grants, not their level or nature or the rules surrounding the scheme. The issue of the tax treatment of payments under the scheme is relatively simple. Tax law provides that those payments should be treated in exactly the same way as any payment that a boat operator would have received had his boat been sold. That is the principle that needs to be applied.
      On the sorts of specific tax charges that might arise, the main case is that of fishing boats being sold at less than the full new value paid by the operator. In that case, as with any other capital asset sold by a trading entity, if it is sold for less than the tax written down value, no tax is payable; if it is sold for more than the tax written down value, a balancing charge is made. That is the usual provision in income tax for an individual or in corporation tax for a corporation when a capital asset is sold.
      If a boat were sold for less than the new price paid for it by the business, that is the only circumstance in which tax would not be payable. If, however—I suspect that it would be relatively unlikely—a boat were sold for more than its original cost, there would be a balancing item because it would have been sold for more that the written down value. Potentially, a capital gains tax charge would be payable and the normal capital gains tax would apply. In calculating the charge to capital gain, the first consideration would be the new price paid for the boat, and then that would be indexed in accordance with the usual indexation provisions. If the boat were sold for an amount greater than the index-based value, once again—in exactly the same way as is with all other businesses operating in the economy—a capital gains tax charge would be payable.
      8.15 pm
      Dr. Godman: Given the seriousness of the issue and the good sense of the new clause, will the Financial Secretary tell us whether his officials have costed the proposal? It is an important matter. If the hon. Gentleman rejects the new clause, many fishermen may reject the decommissioning scheme.
      Mr. Dorrell: Every time a proposal is made to us, we estimate its cost. The cost of the proposal in the new clause is not just the cost that would arise from the benefit to the fishing industry; it is the cost of establishing the precedent of treating Government grants as tax-exempt payments and the distorted incentives that would be built into the system. It would not be rational to build into the system a set of rules to provide that a payment under the decommissioning scheme was tax free, whereas if a boat operator had sold his boat on the open market he would incur a tax liability. That would build in all sorts of distortions, almost all of them undesirable.
      In the circumstances surrounding the decommissioning scheme, the main case is not the capital gains tax charge that I described, although that is the law, but the fact that a boat operator is likely to be selling the boat for less than

      743
      he paid for it, in which case all we are talking about is a balancing charge. That is familiar to any practising accountant dealing with business accounts.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Having considered the provisions of the decommissioning scheme and the likely price of the vessel if sold, has the Financial Secretary calculated what that would mean for the Treasury? Although he says that most accountants can understand the matter, those who have to make the decision do not necessarily understand it. Will the Treasury issue guidelines in clear language that everyone can understand?
      Mr. Dorrell: I understand that the calculation of the balancing charge can sometimes be complex, but it is a well-established concept of tax law. We are not dealing with circumstances that differ from the circumstances of a farmer or any operator of a manufacturing or other trading business.
      Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister done that calculation? Given the great importance that everyone in the fishing industry attaches to the decommissioning scheme and the paramount need for the scheme to succeed, will the Treasury issue letters of guidance so that the matter is clearly understood and no one is under any illusions about the exact position?
      Mr. Dorrell: I have tried to set out the position in very clear language. It would not be clarified further by issuing what would be represented as a special guidance letter. I have said that, in determining whether a tax charge is payable on the disposal of a boat under the decommissioning scheme, the tax rules that would apply are the general rules that apply to all trading businesses when they sell a capital asset that has been employed in their trade.
      Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way, but I sense that the House wants to get on to the next business.
      Mr. Harris: I appreciate the pressure on my hon. Friend, but we are discussing important matters. I want to ask him two questions. First, will he deal with the point fairly raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that an operator selling a boat is not just selling a capital asset; in most cases, he is going out of business? Secondly, will any allowance be made for the considerable cost of scrapping the boat? According to last week's debate, as much as £10,000 might be involved in the disposal of the asset. It is not just a question of a sale to someone else; the seller must then physically carry out the scrapping—or, in most cases, get someone else to do it.
      Mr. Dorrell: Obviously, I shall need to take specific advice. As I have conceded to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), these issues are not 100 per cent. simple; however, I assume that, if the business received a payment for the disposal of the boat under the decommissioning scheme and then incurred a cost, scrapping would be an allowable expense. It appears that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I emphasise, however, that those rules would be applied in the general case of
      744
      traders disposing of a capital asset, whether in the course of their trade or on the day on which they closed down—which, sadly, is not unknown in the fishing industry.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Dorrell: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman; then I will end my speech.
      Mr. Hughes: I think that we would all feel reassured if the Minister would state specifically that the Treasury was not banking on obtaining revenue from the scheme.
      Mr. Dorrell: I have clearly stated that the amounts involved are extremely small from a tax-revenue point of view. However, if we are talking about establishing a precedent and about a sense of grievance among other traders in precisely similar circumstances, I do not believe that a tax-principle case has been established for departing from the general rules that any fishing boat operator would be able to secure from any practising accountant.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister's reply was very disappointing. He does not dispute any of our arguments; he does not deny that the new clause would be the best way in which to maximise the effect, and the objective, of the decommissioning scheme. He has virtually conceded that the cost to the Revenue would be minimal, possibly nothing. He seems to have based his argument on unwillingness to set a precedent; yet in his speech—in which he refused to give way to me—he singularly failed to address the precedents that I cited in my speech.
      Fishermen should know that the tax treatment to which I referred applies to any other trader. As I said, the official leaflet sent to fishermen referred to taxation that applied in the same way to other agricultural and fishing grants; however, I referred to two—if not three—agricultural grants involving no tax treatment. Section 27 of the Agriculture Act 1967 contains a concession that was re-enacted as recently as last year. The precedents are already there; those in the fishing industry, hard pressed as they are, will wonder why on earth they cannot be given a little additional help, at virtually no cost to the Treasury.
      Mr. Salmond: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will agree that some hon. Members are better briefed than the Minister in this regard. It is clear that the Minister still does not wish to contradict the interventions that have been made.
      The Minister said that small amounts were involved, and that he was not very worried about that aspect. We have been given to understand that Treasury pressure turned the decommissioning scheme into a three-year scheme rather than the two-year scheme that was originally proposed. How do the two propositions sit together?
      Mr. Wallace: It is not for me to try to understand that; I do not entirely understand it either. The opportunity to explain exists; the Minister has clarified the law as he sees it. However, we are here to legislate. The House had an opportunity tonight to change the position at no cost to the Treasury, but the Government have not sought to take that opportunity. I believe that the hard-pressed fishing communities on our coasts will notice that.
      Dr. Godman: I, too, find the Minister's response disappointing. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) claimed—with considerable confidence—

      745
      that such tax-free concessions were not unknown in agriculture; if that is true, his claim that we must not distort the tax system does not hold water. I feel that a general principle is involved. Let us suppose that several fishermen own a vessel, that they are involved in a share arrangement. They may well feel reluctant to give up that vessel for scrapping if they are not to receive such a concession.
      The object of such a scheme is to reduce the capacity of the fleet. Without such small concessions, fishermen who—in many instances—have no alternative occupations to turn to in the community may be deeply unwilling to agree to a decommissioning scheme. We shall then be forced to continue with a fleet that is far too big for the stocks on which it relies.
      I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's rejection of this sensible and fair-minded proposal.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 42

      FUEL AND POWER FOR DOMESTIC OR CHARITY USE
      Mr. William Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 24, leave out lines 3 to 26.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments.
      No. 22, in page 24, line 6, leave out 'supply:.
      No. 23, in page 24, line 6, leave out ', acquisition or importation' and insert 'or acquisition'.
      No. 24, in page 24, line 6, leave out ', acquisition'.
      No. 2, in page 24, line 7, after 'place', insert—
      '(a) in the case of a qualifying use within the meaning of Note (1)(a) of that Schedule (domestic use)'.
      No. 1, in page 24, line 7, at end insert
      'where the supply, acquisition or importation is for a qualifying use within the meaning of Note (1)(a) of that Schedule (domestic use)'.
      No. 3, in page 24, line 7, at end insert
      'and
      (b) in the case of a qualifying use within the meaning of Note (1)(b) of that Schedule (use by a charity), on or after 1st April 2004'.
      No. 25, in page 24, line 7, at end insert
      'and
      (b) in the case of a qualifying use within the meaning of Note (1)(b) of that Schedule (use by a charity), on or after 1st April 1988.'.
      No. 5, in page 24, line 9, at end insert
      'as respects supplies of the descriptions specified in Group 7 of Schedule 5 to that Act which are made for a qualifying use within the meaning of Note (1)(a) of that Schedule (domestic use)'.
      Mr. Powell: One of the fascinations of Finance Bill Committee and Report stages is the huge variety of subjects that we manage to discuss in a comparatively short time. This afternoon, we have discussed home income plans, English wine, decommissioning of fishing vessels and other matters. Amendment No. 7, however, takes us to the heart of political controversy—a matter raised in the Budget speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). We discussed the matter fully in Committee, when I was lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair: some of my speech caused some controversy.
      746
      Let me repeat the central assertions that I made then. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames made a serious error of judgment in advancing this proposal in his Budget speech; moreover—as I said in May—I personally feel ashamed that my party could have introduced such a proposal.
      A good many things have happened since May. Perhaps the smallest development is this: I have received hundreds of letters from all over the country about the justice of this proposal. I had received such letters before, of course, but I believe that the debate in May promoted much more discussion in the country. I have engaged in much debate with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the subject, and I am confident in asserting now that Ministers realise that the Budget proposal resulted from a serious error of judgment. I regret that, so far, we have seen no sign that they are prepared to accept that in public.
      The truth is that all of us, from time to time, make errors—often serious ones. However, when we realise that we have made such errors—perhaps not at first, but on subsequent examination—the best course is not to persist, but to own up and withdraw what we said initially. I oppose clause 42, which my amendment would strike out lock, stock and barrel. If my amendment is carried, the proposal for VAT to be extended to heating and cooking, fuel and power would go. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is, I know, under no illusions whatsoever, but if any hon. Member imagines that at the end of the debate I shall ask for permission to withdraw the amendment. I must point out that I have no such intention.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend intends to accept amendment No. 7. I shall have no hesitation in voting for it, just as I voted against clause 42. Although the Finance Bill contains many excellent provisions, I feel so strongly about this issue that it will not be possible for me to support my right hon. Friend in the Division Lobby in favour of giving the Bill a Third Reading if this provision remains in it.
      8.30 pm
      The reason for my strong opposition to clause 42 concerns social justice. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely within his rights to come forward in his Budget speech with proposals to raise taxes, if he felt that the public sector borrowing requirement made it necessary for him to include proposals to narrow the PSBR gap over a period of time. I understand that it was his hope to raise more than £2 billion a year when this tax is running at the full rate.
      My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General may recall that when he said why the extra £2 billion had to be raised by extending VAT to heating and cooking, my right hon. Friend's answer included no justification whatsoever for it. Every hon. Member can identify other ways of raising £2 billion or more a year. Some of us might even be prepared, in certain circumstances, to allow the VAT base to be extended.
      One of the proposals which I very much welcomed in the Budget was that changes should be made to the VAT rules to enable our bloodstock industry to overcome the terrifying fiscal disadvantages with which it was faced. A benefit was therefore given to racehorse owners in the Budget. I am a keen follower of the turf, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends know. I welcome that provision. When it comes to social justice, however, the

      747
      imposition of a £2 billion a year tax increase on heating and cooking while allowing a fiscal advantage to the owners of racehorses, not all of whom are British. is an extraordinary statement of social priorities.
      If VAT has to be extended, I should find it much easier to justify extending it to newspapers and magazines. I enjoy reading Country Life, and I enjoy reading the articles by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (M r. Budgen) in Horse and Hound, but it does not seem to me that there is a compelling reason for not imposing VAT on magazines. That would be preferable to imposing VAT on heating and cooking.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming necessity to reduce public borrowing? Somebody has to pay for the enormous losses that were incurred on white Wednesday. My hon. Friend will recollect that Sir Samuel Brittan, as he has now to our great pleasure become, is a great supporter—though perhaps not so great a supporter as Mrs. Hogg—of the exchange rate mechanism. Sir Samuel estimates that the cost to the public finances of white Wednesday is £2·5 billion. We can therefore assume that it is at least that sum and that somebody has got to pay for it. It is not a matter of social justice. It is a matter of a near bankrupt Government trying to find somebody to pay for this appalling mistake of being in the exchange rate mechanism.
      Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own distinctive and interesting way, but he has not taken on board the central point that I am making: that he and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer were entitled to say that taxes should be increased by £2 billion, or whatever the sum is, but that to select heating and cooking as the essential and necessary way of imposing that tax increase was a most bizarre social judgment. I have already pointed out that if it has to be done through VAT, why not do it by means of Horse and Hound or by means of newspapers? If The Sun is so confident today about its market position that it can reduce its price to 20p on a daily basis, it may be able to absorb a 17.5 per cent. VAT imposition and still be able to reduce its price.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend not forgetting his European obligations? Does he not recall that under the Single European Act, repeated at Maastricht, we have accepted an obligation to harmonise indirect taxation? Is he not aware that at the ECOFIN meeting that took place as recently as July 1992, we accepted the legal obligation to remove all zero rates by the end of 1996? Although I understand and fully appreciate the important point that my hon. Friend makes, does he not appreciate the Euro-obligation that he has taken on?
      Mr. Powell: I was confident that my hon. Friend would raise that point before very long. I had hoped, however, that I might be able to deal with it in such a way as to make it unnecessary for him to intervene. His impatience was such, however—I do not blame him for this, for I have been on my feet for longer than I intended—that he felt that he had to raise the point in the way that he did. The European aspect is one of the most unfortunate and regrettable aspects of the issue. If the Bill contains this appalling clause 42 when it receives Royal Assent. I am afraid that it will be impossible for us to correct the error
      748
      that was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced the proposal in his Budget. This therefore, is our last opportunity to say no to it.
      Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Powell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will contain himself for just a moment. I want to make progress, for other right hon. and hon. Members may wish to speak in the debate. There will be a terrifying finality about this proposal, if we allow clause 42 to reach the statute book. That is why we must take this opportunity to say no to it.
      I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of clause 42 in the Bill on the ground of social justice. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought in the past to reassure the House that those who are most vulnerable will be compensated through the social security system for the increase in their tax, which is estimated to be £1 a week in the first full year of its operation and £2 a week in the second year, when the tax will be running at 17·5 per cent.
      One of the most striking features of our community, however—every hon. Member has constituents who are in this position—is that many people with modest incomes are not in the social security system. They have modest savings. They may own their own homes. It is not enough to say that the housing benefit system will compensate them, or that they will receive council tax rebates, an argument upon which my right hon. Friend has sought to rely in the past.
      Millions and millions of people of modest means have seen their incomes fall substantially in the past few years. Until fairly recently, people derived income from savings at the rate of 15 per cent., greatly to the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Interest rates then fell to 6 per cent. and, like me, my hon. Friend wants them to come down further. However, people found that their income from their savings also fell. It is not a question of the increase in their incomes failing to meet inflation; it is a question of an absolute decline in income, and yet people have to pay their fuel and water bills and all the other essential bills for living.
      Mr. Budgen: To do justice to his argument, which he is making with such force and eloquence, would my hon. Friend like to expand on what he said about the European element being one of the most unfortunate? All of us who have admired him and his tremendous support over the years for the President of the Board of Trade know of his tremendously progressive European idealism. It has generally been thought that the European ideal demanded a common system of taxation in all subordinate countries. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been grateful for the surveillance of the European superstate in ordering us to impose value added tax on some of the items that have hitherto passed unnoticed by our European masters. I hope that he is not saying someting inconsistent with the role that he has adopted so forcefully in the past.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman should be making not a speech but an intervention.
      Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend has allowed himself to get into a little rut about this matter in recent months. He has had many opportunities to make that intervention and I shall not hold against him the fact that he has chosen me

      749
      as his sacrificial victim. I enjoyed what he had to say about hunting in Horse and Hound much more than his repeating the point about VAT for the 200th time.
      I was on the theme of social justice.
      Mr. Graham: Up to now, I have thoroughly enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech and have agreed wholeheartedly with it. The people that I know who are on low pay have no savings and have never had any savings. Some of my constituents live from day to day. They receive their pay on Thursday or Friday, but use it to repay what they spent in the previous couple of weeks. The Government's proposal to increase VAT will drive these folk into an early grave.
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but I do not wish to take it up in great detail because my right hon. Friend will remind the House yet again how the social security system will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents to the most generous extent possible. We can all make up our minds as to how generous "generous" will be in those circumstances.
      In dealing with social justice, one must also have regard to those who will undoubtedly be affected by the proposal but who will receive no assistance through the social security system. They will face the increase next year and the following year without the possibility of any reimbursement, compensation or whatever one likes to call it. Many such people have modest incomes; many are elderly, or widows. They feel strongly that the Government for whom many of them voted have let them down badly.
      I represent very few people who are affluent and still fewer who are wealthy, but I represent many tens of thousands of people who will be severely affected by the proposal. Some are puzzled and some are deeply angry. Some, of course, have political motives for rejoicing at the large, deep hole that the Conservative party has dug for itself by making this proposal. Others who are and have always been Conservative voters remain puzzled as to how a Conservative Government could possibly make such a proposal which is not only unjust but, even more important, is perceived to be unjust.
      You will be relieved to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am drawing my remarks to a close, but I wish to make two further points. When we debated the issue before, there was no question but that the House was influenced by the result of the Newbury by-election and the county council elections. The Government's business managers confidently told us that the worst was behind us. Of course, I and many of my hon. Friends told them that they could not have been more wrong.
      8.45 pm
      One has only to consider how public opinion has changed in the past two months to realise that the Conservative mavericks—a word that many on the Treasury Bench are keen to use from time to time—are those who persist in pushing this proposal rather than recognising that they were wrong. Unwelcome though it will be to hundreds of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I make this confident assertion: because the Government will not withdraw this proposal, the Conservative party will lose the Christchurch by-election. One could not imagine a constituency—
      Mr. Budgen: A very helpful speech.
      Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend has a considerable imagination. One could not imagine a constituency with more voters who were likely to be adversely affected by the proposal than Christchurch. It is a misfortune that such a by-election has to be faced, but one of my hon. Friends was heard to use a phrase, which has been adopted—and I apologise for the fact that I am not its author—to the effect that the Government appear to have a death wish. This proposal comes closer to asserting the truth of that than anything else. It is a disgraceful proposal, but I add one gloss.
      From time to time, I have mentioned the impact of VAT in the charitable sector as it will affect village halls. It is a subject close to my heart. Village halls will find raising money for voluntary associations—
      Mr. Budgen: Now he will say that we are skint as well.
      Mr. Powell: Well, they are and I can give my hon. Friend many examples, most of which are run by Conservative supporters who are simply aghast at the extra fund raising that they will have to do because of the proposal.
      I have said enough. The proposal should never have been put before the House. Having been made, it should be withdrawn. I hope that my right hon. Friend can yet find the courage to withdraw it. The proposal has done, is doing and, if it remains, will continue to do enormous damage to the Conservative party. It should be, rejected.
      Ms Harriet Harman: The House will recognise the truth behind the words of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) when he said that the Tories' fortunes in Christchurch will hang on whether the Government press on with the vote on VAT on gas and electricity tonight. He addressed himself to Treasury Ministers. However, he should also address his comments to his fellow Back Benchers because they have an opportunity tonight to do what Government Front Bench Ministers do not have the honesty or courage to do and withdraw the proposal on VAT for gas and electricity.
      When it was first announced in the Budget statement on 16 March that the Government planned to put tax of 8 per cent. and then 17·5 per cent. on gas and electricity bills, there was a sense of shock that the Prime Minister had felt able to break his promise not to put VAT on gas and electricity which was so clearly made in the general election campaign.
      There was also dismay at how it would hit hardest those who could least afford it. There was incredulity that the Government should seek to justify it as a measure merely to help the environment. All that was nearly four months ago. Since then, it has become clear that the shock and dismay expressed in the House when that announcement was made is felt around the country.
      The opposition to VAT on gas and electricity has grown. It was expressed in the Newbury by-election and it was one of the reasons why more than 400 Tory councillors lost their seats in the May county council elections. The Prime Minister said then that he would listen and learn and he brought in a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, VAT on gas and electricity is still in this Finance Bill.
      The Labour party and the other Opposition parties have been clear and unequivocal in their opposition to this

      751
      provision. It is now time for Tory Back Benchers to think again and to use their votes tonight to make their Government think again. I say to Conservative Members, "Remember the elderly in your constituencies. Remember those who are just above income support levels, but who will have to pay this tax in full. Remember what you said in your election address about cutting people's taxes. Listen to what people in this country are saying. Even Conservative councillors are voting against this measure at local level. They will not support it. Heed the warning today of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has stated that to compensate the poorest, the Government will have to put an extra £400 million into benefits."
      Tory Back Benchers must know that if they vote tonight to impose VAT on gas and electricity, they will be whistling in the wind for a compensation scheme. Can we not just hear the Chancellor saying, "Of course I planned a compensation scheme, but I didn't realise that growth would be so low. I didn't realise that the PSBR would carry on getting so big. My hands are tied." Do Tory Back Benchers really think that the Government, already looking for ways to slash the social security budget, will add another £400 million to it—the figure that the SSAC states is necessary just to protect the poorest?
      Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the winter months are already a nightmare for so many pensioners on income support level and just above it? The cold weather payments are made only if the weather has been freezing for seven consecutive days. Is it not therefore obvious that for so many of our elderly constituents the situation is already a nightmare and tonight's proposal will simply make the situation worse?
      Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that point was reinforced in today's report by the SSAC. Government Back Benchers may not always feel that they have much power. Indeed, they complain about that. However, public opinion will be firmly on their side if they vote tonight to tell their Government that they have got it wrong and that they must think again.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: As the hon. Lady is speaking so eloquently about manifestos, how would she finance closing I he £50 billion deficit gap and then pay for all the promises made in the Labour party manifesto?
      Ms Harman: We tabled 14 new clauses and amendments to the Finance Bill which would have closed tax loopholes and dealt with tax abuse. They would have raised more money than the VAT on gas and electricity. But the Government were not prepared to end tax relief for private health care—they would rather put VAT on gas and electricity. The Government were not prepared to make the privatised water, electricity and gas companies pay corporation tax—they would rather make the elderly and the poor pay tax on their electricity bills.
      The simple fact is that the Government are not prepared to close the tax loopholes, which would bring in more income than the proposal would raise, because they would much rather protect the vested interests of their friends who donate to the Tory party and make the pensioners, poor, elderly and disabled pay the bill for the Government's economic incompetence.
      752
      The issue of VAT on gas and electricity is a question of the integrity of the Government. The Prime Minister promised in the clearest and most direct terms, using his familiar "honest John" style, that he would not put VAT on gas and electricity. During the election campaign, Labour's then shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), constantly warned that a Tory victory would mean the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity. That was brought to the public's attention through the "VATman" campaign.
      Those suggestions were met with denials and injured outrage from Conservatives and with accusations of scaremongering. The Prime Minister was forced to respond and say, in his "honest John" style:
      "I've made the pledge in the past, I've made it clear. We have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT."
      That in itself should be enough for Tory Members to vote against VAT on gas and electricity because it breaks such a clear promise.
      Even if Conservative Members are not moved to vote against the measure because it breaks an election pledge, they should certainly vote against it because of its effect on the elderly, the poor and the disabled. Pensioners up and down the country have signed our petition against VAT because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, they already struggle to pay their gas and electricity bills—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions and a few private conversations.
      Ms Harman: For those who need extra heat, such as the housebound and the disabled, fuel bills are a major item of expenditure. Their health is at risk if they have to cut back on the heat that they need. The reason why people have queued to sign our petition against this tax on domestic fuel is that they know that it is unfair. The SSAC report published today bears out their concerns.
      The facts are these: the poorest 20 per cent. of households spend more than three times the proportion of their income on fuel as the richest 20 per cent. spend. This tax will hit everyone, but it will hit the poorest hardest. Tory Members must not lull themselves into a false sense of security about compensation for those who will be hit by the tax. The Government have yet to make known what their compensation scheme will be. They have not revealed how much the compensation will be. The only thing that the Government have made clear is that even for the poorest, those on means-tested benefits, there will not be full compensation. Even the poorest will have to pay some of this tax from their benefits.
      It is equally clear that those who are not on means-tested benefits will receive no help to pay the tax. I can tell Conservative Members that those with small occupational pensions, who are just above income support level, will be writing to them. They will attend Conservative Members' surgeries and ask how on earth they can manage to pay this tax. There will be 17·5 per cent. on heating and cooking bills for elderly people just above the income support level. Before voting tonight, Tory Members should think about what they will say to those people. They will not be able to sympathise with them because they will have done it to them. It is already clear that the compensation scheme will not reach some of the poorest—those who are entitled to income-related benefits but who' do not claim them.

      753
      Of course, it is not a green measure, either. Birmingham city council, when passing a resolution to write to the Chancellor asking him to think again, commented that it is not so much the Government turning green as the poor turning blue. It is important, of course, to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. The way to do that, however, is not to put up fuel prices so that more elderly people die of hypothermia but to have a comprehensive home insulation programme, as Labour has suggested.
      VAT on gas and electricity will raise for the Treasury £950 million next year and £2·3 billion the year after, but all the VAT on gas and electricity will pay the unemployment bill for just six months for the south-east alone. The Government cannot turn to pensioners and expect them to rescue public finances from a problem created by the failure of the Government's economic policy. That is not fair and it will not work. VAT on heating is nothing more than an unfair way of trying to finance the growing dole queue. However much pensioners dip into their pockets to pay tax on basic essentials, public finances will simply get worse until the Government sort out the economy.
      9 pm
      The county council elections saw 472 Tory councillors lose their seats. They know that VAT on gas and electricity was one of the reasons why people simply would not vote for them. It is no wonder that the Tory councillors who are left will not support it. A survey that I did of some local councils shows that Tory councillors are voting against VAT on gas and electricity. Some examples are Sandwell borough council, Bedfordshire county council, Dover district council, Bath city council, Darlington borough council, Solihull borough council, Devon county council and Berkshire county council. In all those councils, and in numerous others, Tory councillors have voted against VAT on gas and electricity. In the city of Glasgow, Tory councillor Baillie Young described it as an iniquitous tax, and in North Kesteven a resolution to write to the Chancellor opposing VAT on gas and electricity was seconded by a Tory councillor.
      Tomorrow, my hon. Friends and I will present to the Chancellor at No. 11 Downing street a petition containing tens of thousands of signatures. The Government have failed to make a case for VAT on gas and electricity, even among the Tory party's own members. It is not enough, of course, for the Prime Minister to say that he has listened and that he has learnt. It is not enough for him to change the Chancellor, either. The Government must do more than listen to people's concerns. They need to act on them, and they have failed to do that. Tory Back-Bench Members have a choice tonight: they can either stand up for their constituents or follow a discredited Government through the Division Lobby.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept absolutely that it would be very unpopular indeed to vote for VAT on gas and electricity. Some people would not vote for us and would condemn us—there is no question of that. However, hon. Members must appreciate when the Government are in an appalling financial situation for all kinds of reasons. The money has to come from somewhere. We would be running away from what I believe is a responsible attitude
      754
      to say that it should not come from somewhere. The obvious alternative would be income tax, but, when we have more than 3 million people effectively unemployed, an increase in income tax would almost certainly prevent the recovery for which we hope.
      I wish to make four brief points. I advise members of the Labour and Conservative parties that nothing makes me more sick than hearing them talk about the problems of poor people when most of them have supported a policy which is forcing the average working-class family—the average family on low incomes—to spend an extra £20 a week on their food and which has forced the taxpayer to pay hundreds of millions for the dumping and destruction of foodstuffs. It would make me a lot happier if the people who were concerned about the poor and the underprivileged showed some concern for something over which we have some control.
      Nothing sickens me more than hearing hon. Members complain bitterly of the consequences of policies that they have voted for. Why the blazes do we have VAT? It is not because it is a good idea. We know that VAT, compared with purchase tax, is cruel to poor people—inevitably it is. It is an across-the-board tax, but it was one of the necessary consequences of membership of the EC which some hon. Members have consistently voted against. Those who voted for the EC have no right to complain about VAT.
      I remind hon. Members that it is pure hypocrisy to complain about VAT on gas and electricity when they voted for the Single European Act and for the Maastricht treaty which commits this country absolutely and completely to the harmonising of VAT in so far as is necessary to complete the internal market. That is clearly and precisely laid down.
      Will the Government state the consequences of the ECOFIN meeting in July 1992? According to information provided by the Library that backs my own belief, we accepted an obligation—subject only to one definition—to remove our zero rate by the end of 1996. Either that is true or it is not.
      Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the July 1992 agreement. It did not oblige us to abolish our zero rate, as he suggests—on the contrary. We are of course committed to negotiations on moving on to the so-called origin system, hopefully by 31 December 1996. However, our zero rate is entirely preserved in the 1992 agreement, as it was in all previous agreements. Part of the July 1992 agreement was that our standard rate should not fall below 15 per cent. for four years from the time that it was made, but that is a different matter. In any case, that has nothing to do with the position after that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear, but I assure him—having received clarification of the position in writing from the Library, but I will check this again—that under the July 1992 agreement, although it was accepted that the definition of origin had to be resolved, there was a clear obligation, subject to definition of the origin system, to remove the zero rate by the end of 1996, if not necessarily operate a rate of 17½ per cent.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Now that the hon. Gentleman has received the Minister's clarification, and given that he is totally opposed to the House of Commons giving any power away to Europe,

      755
      how does he intend to vote tonight? There can be no doubt that, if zero rating is removed tonight, it can never be reintroduced.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The same as I voted before. If one's country is bust and it has a £50 billion deficit, that is partly because of exchange rate mechanism policies for which right hon. and hon. Members voted. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have voted against every European treaty against three-line Whips. We are effectively handing over a power of this place. There is nothing more hypocritical than for Labour Members to go on platforms and to say, "We'll stop this dreadful tax" when it is clear that, once the decision has been made, they can do nothing.
      There is no doubt that we have secured some reasonable concessions. We have received an assurance that every person on benefit will get something on l April next year, before the first bill arrives, and that pensioners will get something because the tax will be taken into account in the cost-of-living index.
      As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). mine was one of the few constituencies in England that held every one of its Conservative council seats with a good majority. I assure the hon. Lady that Conservative councillors did not lose everywhere.
      It is nonsense to pretend that we can stop the march forward of VAT. Under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, we have a clear and precise obligation to achieve harmonisation in so far as that is necessary to compete in the internal market—and that is impossible without total and complete harmonisation. The House is kidding itself. It is sad to hear people complain like mad when we come up against the consequences of our own decisions, in voting for measures wrongly and against the public interest.
      Sadly, we have to accept that VAT is here to stay. There is no doubt at all that, effectively, VAT is to be part of our style of life. Unless we do something, and do something quickly, all such debates will be pointless, a waste of time and at best will buy us just a little more time before we are taken over by an unjust and unfair system that will hit the poor of this country. I hope that those who complain about the impact of VAT on the poor will ask themselves how they can justify the accursed, filthy system that puts £20 a week on the average family's food bill and spends hundreds of millions of pounds dumping and destroying food that should go to help the poor and to help those on low incomes.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) is simply playing rotten in seeking to argue that the Government have been obliged to levy first 8 per cent. and then 17·5 per cent. VAT on fuel as a result of our membership of the European Community or our signature on the Maastricht treaty. If that was so, I am sure that the Government would be rushing to say that it was so. That would at least give them some sort of alibi to use in by-elections, county council elections and everywhere else.
      However, as the Minster has already pointed out, that is simply not so. To start with, the Government are under no obligation t o levy 17·5 per cent. VAT at all. That figure arose from the Government's difficulties over the poll tax. It seems especially absurd that pensioners will now face 17·5 per cent. VAT on the standard charge on a gas bill when we had 17·5 per cent. VAT in the first place only as
      756
      a consequence of the Government's poll tax chaos. There is no move whatever to advise the Government to levy more than 15 per cent. VAT, for example, or not to have a lower rate—for the first year there will be an 8 per cent. rate. Why not have a lower rate still? There is nothing to prevent the Government from abandoning the whole venture and retaining zero exemption.
      Several hon. Members from different standpoints have been right to warn the Government that, if they give up the zero rate tonight, it will be gone for good. If the hon. Member for Southend, East had chosen to make that point, he would have been right. We should place ourselves under a European legal obligation not to reintroduce that rate.
      That is what I find so surprising about the Government's supposedly sturdy defence of our standard rate. As the Minister pointed out, at every ministerial meeting the Government have stood up for zero rates and the right to retain those existing rates. Why has the Minister gone to such trouble if he is prepared to throw away the most important rate in terms of its impact on poor families and pensioners? The defence of that rate will seem a vain exercise—a battle fought for little purpose, when the Government have thrown away the use of that zero rate in an area in which it is most important and have done so permanently with no chance of ever reintroducing it.
      The zero rate affects not just gas and electricity, but anything bought for use as a domestic fuel: gas, electricity, oil, wood, coal and even peat. Some consumers have relatively little choice over what fuel they use. For example, some consumers do not have access to gas for their domestic heating or cooking and often have to use more expensive means of providing heat for their homes. In parts of my constituency, some do not even have access to electricity.
      Many of the families who are most likely to be adversely affected by the measure have no choice in the matter and no help with the energy efficiency of their homes. Any Government who sought to increase energy taxation on environmental grounds ought to ensure that those who have modest incomes and face an increase in fuel bills have access to help with making their home more energy efficient. So many of the people affected are either unable to command the resources to make their home more energy efficient or have no choice about the kind of home in which they live, whether it is a badly insulated council house or a privately rented house, because they have no means of moving into a better and more energy-efficient house. They may have bought their houses in the turbulent housing market of recent years. They now cannot sell those houses, so they cannot exchange them for more energy-efficient houses. They find it impossible to sell their houses at anything like the prices they paid for them. A lot of people are trapped, for one reason or another, in their houses. They do not command the resources to make those houses more energy efficient. They will be hit very hard by the measure, and they will be hit in two stages.
      9.15 pm
      The Government have already felt the wrath and anger of the people at Newbury and in the county council elections. That has happened before the bills have come in. The 8 per cent. and 17·5 per cent. stages are yet to come. The story will run and run, and it will not end with the Christchurch by-election, unless the policy ends at the time

      757
      of that by-election, just as it did not end with the Newbury by-election. The policy will have to be changed if perceptions of the Government are to be changed.
      The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who moved the amendment so eloquently and in such a determined way, was right to stress that Governments should recognise when they have got it wrong, when they have made a mistake and when their policy is not only impossible to sell, but cannot be justified in its own terms.
      If the Government try to justify the measure as an environmental tax, we must ask what changes in behaviour it will lead to. It will not lead to people at the poorest levels saving on energy consumption unless they do so at the risk of their own safety and health. We are talking about people who simply do not have the means with which to provide alternative forms of heat or with which to heat their homes more efficiently. We know that the disabled, the poorest and the unemployed spend a larger proportion of their time at home and that they are more dependent on the heating of their homes for their basic health. We know that families with young children are also in that position.
      Ms Mildred Gordon: I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, it is a matter not just of heating, but of lighting. Elderly people whose eyesight is failing need a bright light to enable them to read, even in broad daylight. People whose memories are failing often leave the lights on because they have forgotten to turn them off. People may leave the lights on when they leave home to prevent the house from being robbed because they cannot afford burglar alarms and safety locks. Their energy consumption is much higher than that of people with greater means and with better health.
      Mr. Beith: That is an important point which enables me to say how much better it would be if the Government said that they would make a scheme available under which elderly people could have access to low energy-consumption light bulbs at a cost far lower than the present high capital cost. If the Government wish to have an environmental policy based on tax, if would be better to have such a measure so that elderly people could reduce their energy consumption in a way that they are not able to do when they face the cost of £15 for a low energy-consumption bulb as opposed to the cost of ·1 or so for an ordinary bulb. Such an option is not open to them out of their weekly pension.
      I was referring to the groups of families who would be adversely affected. I asked what change in behaviour would be made. One thing that will not happen as a result of this form of taxation is that there will not be a switch from polluting and environmentally damaging sources of energy to less polluting or less environmentally damaging sources of energy because it makes no distinction between them. It does not separate wind power or tidal power from coal, from oil or from orimulsion. All fuels along the spectrum of pollution and resource depletion are treated identically under the measure. It is not an environmental tax measure in that sense. It is not an effective environmental tax measure in its focus because it will not lead to behavioural change.
      A stronger argument is that behavioural change could be brought about by changes in petrol taxation. Such changes would have to be accompanied by compensating measures. We can see the prospect for behavioural change
      758
      by people on reasonably adequate incomes in that area. I cannot see much prospect of change for some of those on modest incomes who will be so adversely affected by this tax.
      The Government have not only made a mistake, but have put a lot of fear into the minds of many elderly people and of many families. Of all the issues about which we have received correspondence recently, this is the one about which people are, according to their letters, most filled with fear and anxiety. As the hon. Member for Corby pointed out, that is especially true of those who know that they are just above benefit levels. They do not see how they will meet the costs or how they will cut their energy consumption. They know that they will get no benefit. They already have to put up with the fact that alongside them are people who, for one reason or another, have no savings at all and who therefore get housing benefit and council tax benefit. They see themselves getting none of those benefits and facing extra costs while their income, if based on a little savings capital, is declining.
      There is real fear in people's minds over the issue. This is the Government's last chance to put an end to that fear. They show no signs of doing so, so the House must take its last chance of putting an end to that fear and force the Government to drop the proposal.
      Mr. Peter Fry: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but such is the extent of public feeling—certainly in my constituency as I know from having spent the morning speaking to a large number of pensioners—that I think that we must express much more vividly the great disillusionment that there is about the proposal.
      When I listened to the Budget speech by the previous Chancellor, I was appalled by the suggestion that we should apply VAT to domestic fuel. It is a great pity that the present Chancellor and the Government are now, in effect, laden with the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).
      The debate is useful in other respects. We must address ourselves to the reason why the large increase in tax, which is what it is, was decided. The answer is simple—the enormous borrowing requirement that the Government face.
      Those of us who are honest must accept that there has to be a considerable increase in taxation of one form or another if the Government are to be credible in the eyes of those for whom the strength of sterling and our international financial situation depends. That is why the Chancellor effectively gave a future hostage. He did not increase taxation in the present Budget. He offered a considerable increase in the next year and the year after. In that sense, he was quite clever, because he put off paying the price for trying to keep international confidence in this country.
      Unfortunately, clever though it was, as I have made abundantly clear, it was not a clever political choice, hence the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and one or two other of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members.
      I find myself in a tremendous dilemma. I do not like VAT on domestic fuel. I have said so publicly and refused to vote on the issue when it was last before the House. On the other hand, I hope that I am a realist and know that the Government have to do something about the enormous borrowing requirement.

      759
      What would happen if we voted against the increase and it did not go through? There would be a great hole in the Government's strategy to keep international confidence, because the increase in taxation, which the Bill contains, would be swept away. Therefore, we would put my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in a situation where he would have to try desperately to fill that gap. That gap could not be filled at a moment's notice.
      I do not like the proposals. On the other hand, I do not want the Government's credibility to be totally undermined.
      Mr. Beith: If the amendment is carried, surely it is open to the Chancellor to announce tonight that he intends to ensure that the tax hole is filled and that he will announce in the November Budget the precise means by which that is to be done, but to leave no doubt about it. Because the tax does not come into force until next year, he has the opportunity to do that.
      Mr. Fry: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to come forward with an alternative strategy at a moment's notice is asking too much.
      Let no one be under any illusion. This VAT application is a tax increase. It is an indirect tax increase but it is a tax increase. Therefore, we should move it a step away from the people who will be hurt most, or at least apply ourselves to the effect of that tax increase on various sectors of the community. I say bluntly that those of us who are on better incomes must accept that tax increase as part of the price of trying to get the Government's borrowing requirement down. Unlike some hon. Members, I also accept that those who are on related benefits will obtain substantial assistance. I am worried about a group that has already been mentioned—those who are just above the level of any income-related benefit, who will suffer tremendously. Already, they have seen their water rates soar out of comprehension. They are the ones who are most anxious.
      I hope that I am not one of those people who just mentions a problem and does not offer any solutions. As with any taxation system, it is necessary to soften the effect on those who will be hit hardest and there is a solution that will enable the Government to get out of their dilemma. I do not honestly expect my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to get up.at the end of the debate and say that he will not proceed with the implementation of VAT on fuel. Indeed, I would rather that he said that he would apply it to newspapers—I do not see why the Government are so terrified of doing that.
      However, the Government could say that they will increase benefits to those who are worst off and, above that, they recognise the problem of many people—perhaps 3 million or 4 million—who have small occupational pensions or a few thousand pounds, usually in a building society, and who have seen their net incomes drop dramatically over recent months with the decrease in interest rates.
      The Government should look closely in the autumn Budget at increasing the basic retirement pension by rather more than the retail prices index. I do not want that increase to be paid for out of the borrowing requirement. I want us to accept squarely that the only way to pay for it is through a higher contribution from the rest of the working population. I return to a point that I have made
      760
      already. We are talking about a tax increase. In all justice, it should be borne by those who are still in a position to earn and are better able to afford such a tax increase.
      If my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will give me the assurance that the Government will look closely at the uprating of the basic retirement pension this autumn, above the RPI, he will get me into the Government's Lobby tonight. Without such a statement, the credibility of the Government and belief in what they say, certainly in my constituency, will be greatly undermined. I am not asking for specific promises about amounts of money. I am asking for consideration of that group of people who proudly say that they are not dependent on state handouts, who have saved a few thousand pounds and who, frankly, feel that they have been kicked in the teeth. We have expected them to support us as a political party, and they have been the bedrock of our society. To say to them and to future generations that the only way that they will avoid such an increase in the future is to fritter away their money so that they are totally dependent on state handouts gives the wrong message.
      I understand the Government's dilemma. I have much sympathy over the need to provide funds to cover the borrowing requirement but a message needs to go from the House that we understand the problems and fears of a vulnerable section of our community.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred to the public sector borrowing requirement. The Government should be under no illusion—our constituents see an incompetent Tory Government who have managed to run tip a PSBR of £50 billion and who now expect people on low incomes to pay for that deficit.
      Like many other right hon. and hon. Members. I have been inundated with letters from constituents on this issue. I should like to quote from some of those letters which say it all much better than I can. I have questions like, "Why is it that the unskilled, low-waged manual work force bears the brunt of the tax burden to prop up the country?"
      Another pensioner said, "I know that we have to set the country back on its feet, but do OAPs have to be hit so hard?" An old person aged 81 years wrote to me saying, "I shall have to cut off my central heating. I will not be able to pay for it. My gas bill last April was £133 and 1 cannot afford any more."
      9.30 pm
      An Age Concern report has found that 81 per cent. of the elderly people surveyed had a living room temperature below the World Health Organisation recommended level of 20 deg C. More than a third—34 per cent.—do not heat their bedrooms at all. Britain loses more old pensioners in winter than any other European country. That is not because our winters are colder, but because we pay the worst state pension in Europe. The Government are now telling those people who are struggling desperately that they must pay VAT on domestic fuel and power.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: The hon. Lady provided statistics alleging that the United Kingdom pays the worst state pension in Europe. Does she agree that those statistics do not add up when contributions are considered or, in other words, when one compares like with like? Does she agree that when contributions are taken into account, the British pension is not the worst by any means? Does

      761
      she further agree that, while the German state pension is larger, the German contributions are proportionately greater?
      Mrs. Campbell: I know that my constituents who are existing on the ordinary state pension are badly off. Nowhere in Germany, France or any other European country do pensioners live in poverty as they do here.
      I was visited recently by a constituent who was, until recently, a loyal Tory voter. He has now retired and manages a small charity trust for the company for which he used to work. He made the point—as did the hon. Member for Wellingborough—that those people who are just above the income support level will be hardest hit by the proposal. My constituent cited cases of pensioners who have written to him in utter desperation. Those included one who was already reduced to heating one room only. He said, "To meet current fuel bills and repairs to our boiler, my wife and I are now going short of food."
      My constituent also said, "I have already had two old folk on the phone, both saying that they hope that they will die before the 17·5 per cent. increase comes in, as they fear the cold so much." It is a terrible indictment of the sort of society in which we are living when we cannot afford, as a society, to tell pensioners that they need not pay any more money.
      Last week I visited three residential homes run by Mencap for the mentally and physically handicapped. Many of the residents of those homes have severely restricted mobility, and need consistently high levels to be maintained. The added burden of VAT on that vital provision cannot be accommodated by current care budgets that are already suffering at the hands of the Government.
      I do not intend to detain the House for long. Much of what I wanted to say has been said by hon. Members on both sides. I would like briefly to draw attention to the position of Lupus sufferers. Lupus is a chronic, non-infectious, auto-immune disease, mainly affecting young women of child-bearing age—between 13 and 45. The symptoms of Lupus are many and varied, but one symptom is called Raynaud's Disease. Sufferers are, in general, extremely sensitive to changes in temperature. Those can affect the blood flow to fingers and toes and can cause constant pain in severe cases. There is great concern about the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel costs in view of the fact that, for those sufferers, heat is not a luxury but an essential commodity.
      When these sufferers experience an attack due to the change of temperature, cumulative tissue damage may occur, and that in turn may lead to more severe forms of the condition—ulceration, gangrene and, at the very worst, an amputation may be required. It is important to minimise the number of attacks and to minimise the tissue damage and the resulting intense pain.
      The problem is that many of these sufferers are not eligible for state benefits and will not benefit from any increase in them introduced as a result of the imposition of VAT. So the promised increase in benefits to counter balance the VAT increase will have no positive effect.
      In the course of proceedings on this Bill we have been able to present Ministers with many ways in which they can close tax loopholes and raise the £2 billion which they say this measure will generate. They can raise the money
      762
      in a much more humane way. I join Conservative Members who have promised the Government that if they carry this measure through they will almost certainly lose Christchurch and any other by-elections that take place in the next few months and years.
      I sincerely hope that the Government will rethink their proposal, and that enough Conservative Members vote against it to defeat it.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who moved the amendment in his eloquent style. I endorse most of what he said, even though he and I find ourselves in different camps when it comes to Europe and the Maastricht treaty—fortunately, we are not debating that tonight, and I hope that you will ensure that we do not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I commend the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). His speech was made in a non-partisan way; he merely presented the issues, and I am delighted to support what he said—not only because his family used to live in my constituency for many years but because he went to the famous King's school in Macclesfield.
      I deeply regret the fact that the Government have gone back on many election pledges by widening the scope of VAT. I never thought to see a Conservative Government and Chancellor doing that. Over two years we are to introduce a tax at 17·5 per cent. on two essentials of life: heat and light. They are, of course, particularly essential to the vulnerable groups mentioned by other hon. Members this evening.
      What is so grossly unfair is that this charge will be levied not only on the consumption of gas and electricity but on the standing charges for them. Many of us believe that those charges are already grotesque and appear to have been mainly used to increase the salaries of the directors, chairmen and senior executives of the public utilities that have been privatised.
      I endorse the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. This tax is perceived to be socially unjust, and it is quite wrong that the most vulnerable people should have to pay so much for mistakes made by the Government.
      I believe that it would be far better, far more honest and far more honourable—we are all honourable men and women here—if Ministers were prepared to increase the standard rate of income tax to raise the necessary money: £950 million in the first year, and £2·3 billion in a full year when the rate is 17·5 per cent. I do not believe that we should seek to mislead people by saying that we are not increasing taxation. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), we are increasing taxation, so why mess about as to whether it is indirect or direct?
      The people of this country believe that the fairest and most appropriate way in which to help the Government balance their books and reduce the Budget deficit is to increase direct taxation. In November, I would, at a stroke, increase the 25 per cent. standard rate of tax to 28 per cent. for two years only. I would also increase the top rate of tax from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. The people would then see that those who are in the best position and most able to pay would be making the major contribution to reducing the Budget deficit, which is causing the Government so much difficulty.

      763
      As my hon. Friends have rightly said, the present proposals are perceived to be grossly unfair and impinge mainly and most heavily on the most vulnerable groups—the elderly, those on low incomes and, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, those who are just outside any form of state income-related benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough should note, however, that I do not think that giving an assurance that the old age pension will be increased by an amount above the retail prices index adequately reflects the concern that is felt in this country, nor will it provide the money that those in the vulnerable groups need for a reasonable quality of life.
      My own women's association gave me 100 per cent. support in a motion that it submitted to the Conservative women's conference recently. It was not selected, of course—I do not think that the association expected that—but the grave and serious opposition to what the Government seek to do was reflected at national level on the agenda of the women's conference of the Conservative party. The one mistake that my women's association made was to ask the Government—if they were insistent on implementing the measure—whether, after the Budget deficit had been reduced, they were prepared to remove it. As has been said by my hon. Friends, however, once the zero-rated exemption has gone, we can never restore it.
      It is wrong to extend a tax to the essentials of life such as heat and light. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, is extremely assiduous and hard working and has had considerable responsibility for social security matters. He knows that the Government: have given no guarantee that the position of those on benefit, pensioners and those just above any form of income-related benefit will be fully protected by any steps that the Government may announce before the implementation of the VAT extension to heat and light.
      The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is absolutely right; to make the excuse that this is being done as our contribution to improve the environment and reduce carbon dioxide emissions is an absolute nonsense. It will have absolutely no effect. It is extraordinary that no proposal has been made to introduce an ambitious and helpful home insulation scheme to go with the Government's announcement.
      I will not make as many unhelpful remarks as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby about the political implications of what the Government are doing. All I can say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that I have not had a single letter from any person in favour of extending VAT to heat and light. I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents—my area is relatively well off compared to those of some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members—who perceive the measure to be unacceptable.
      9.45 pm
      The Government would lose nothing by saying tonight, as the Prime Minister has said, "We have listened to the people of this country." He should go on to say, "Clearly, they are hostile and overwhelmingly opposed to what we seek to do. We will come back to the House in November"—as is absolutely possible—"with a proposal to plug the gap in the Budget to ensure that the Government's overall economic strategy is not undermined."
      764
      Like those of my hon. Friends who belong to the No Turning Back group, I want us to bring our budget into balance, but I do not want to do it on the hacks of the vulnerable, the elderly, the low-paid, the handicapped, the mentally ill and all those groups of people who will suffer as a result of that misguided measure. We have heard little about the impact that the measure will have on private residential establishments that cater for some of those people. They will have to increase their fees to meet that additional charge.
      If my right hon. Friends want a further Conservative Government after the next election, they must listen not only to the people of this country but to Conservative Back Benchers because the measure is fundamentally flawed and extremely damaging and will hurt the most vulnerable groups in our society. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General would receive immense support from the House—perhaps more than he thinks from Conservative Back Benchers—if he were prepared to think again about that measure.
      Why are we so against increasing direct taxation? Why must we dishonestly say that we are not increasing taxation, when we are widening the scope of VAT and increasing contributions under national insurance, which is also something that we said we would never do? What is so sacrosanct about direct taxation? If we raised it for only two years, we would have to seek a renewal if the budget was not in balance. What is wrong with that?
      The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North—and I were with a group of members of the Confederation of British Industry on Friday. Surprisingly, many of those at that meeting would have been perfectly happy to see the Government increase the standard and 40 per cent. taxation rates to get the country's economy right.
      I am honoured to have represented my constituency for 22 years in this place—rather longer than the overwhelming majority of the Cabinet—[Interruption.] When Disraeli was heckled during his maiden speech in the House, he said:
      "There will come a time when you will listen to me."
      There will come a time when my right hon. Friends will listen to me.
      Mr. Graham: I have never heard such a tremendous fighting speech from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I am delighted to speak after him.
      Time and again I have asked the Minister to tell us the price of a bottle of paraffin or a hundredweight of coal and how much it costs to heat a house, and he has never attempted to answer. How can the Government understand the suffering that they are inflicting on the good people of Britain—the people whom they expect to vote for them? Yet they put VAT on fuel. The people of this country know that the weather in Scotland is different from that in England. In recent months, the south has been sweltering in the heat, but in Scotland there have been various weather conditions. When I left home this morning, my wife had the fire on. I wonder how many elderly and disabled people in Scotland can afford to put on a fire in the morning—not very many.
      One of the reasons for the fighting fury in Scotland—and, I am sure, in the rest of the country—is the Government's disgraceful commitment to putting 17·5 per cent. value added tax on fuel. One hon. Gentleman said that he would support the Government as they would

      765
      otherwise lack credibility. That is nonsense—we have been elected to fight and campaign for our constituents, and to ensure that the Government run the country for the good of our constituents. We should not support bad government.
      Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Graham: I shall give way in a minute.
      Hon. Members are here to represent our people on a burning issue. Many of our constituents will not be able to light fires or light their homes in winter when they are dark. Back Benchers on both sides of the House have a golden opportunity to join together to ensure that VAT of 17·5 per cent. is not imposed.
      I have deliberately spoken to many of my pensioners about the issue. The Government have got away with plenty of things, but one thing that they will not get away with is the imposition of VAT on fuel. I have spoken to people on low pay and I remember the days when I was on low pay. I remember the difficulties that I faced in heating my house to ensure that my two sons went to school warm in the morning and came home at night to warm food and a warm house.
      I had difficulties paying my fuel bills in Scotland. Some weeks, 25 per cent. of my income went straight into heating the house. Many hon. Members present tonight do not know the cost involved. I had to heat the house with paraffin as I could not afford the high cost of electricity. Ultimately, I had to use calor gas because paraffin was not good for my two children, who suffered from asthma.
      Does the House realise that there are thousands and thousands of people who do not heat their houses as they would wish? They do not heat them to maintain their health because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy. When I look at the Government Front Bench team I do not see an ounce of compassion. I heard the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) make an impassioned plea, which I totally supported. I also heard the hon. Member for Macclesfield make a speech which was absolutely bang on the button.
      Tonight, the Government have a chance to show some heart, but I am afraid that they will be hard-headed, and show a hard, cold face. The caring face of Government will be shown tonight as Government Members march through the Lobby and inflict damage and suffering on the elderly, unemployed, disabled and those on low pay. The Government do not have the guts to say that the previous Chancellor was wrong. They bumped him out into the cold, but at least he will be able to heat his house. Our folk, our constituents in Scotland and other regions will not be able to heat their houses.
      Will the Minister find out the price of paraffin, calor gas and a bag of coal? Will he find out what it costs to heat a house in Glasgow, and what that costs a family in which one person is on low pay and the rest are unemployed? There is no benefit good enough for the dignity of mankind in Britain. We are all entitled to the dignity of having a warm house and hot food, and seeing in the dark. Let us give our folk their dignity, not impose VAT on fuel. I hope that many Conservative Back Benchers will support us tonight.
      Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: I am one of the Conservative Members who
      766
      has a reputation for being loyal to the Conservative party. That means that when I speak out against my Government it carries extra currency. When I first came to the House, I voted for tougher immigration controls and tougher trade union reforms, and in their little grimy books, which they are writing in at the moment, the Whips wrote one word about me—unpromotable. They were right, but by the time I have finished my speech perhaps they will wish that they had promoted me.
      I support my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Never in my experience have I seen such a politically naive, unfair and unjust measure. It is common knowledge that we have to find some money. The world recession has gone on for longer than all the industrialised nations had thought it would, but there is no disgrace in telling people the truth about that. If that causes us to break an election promise, it is not the end of the world, as long as we explain carefully to people why we are breaking that promise.
      I guess that the Government thought that it was clever footwork to put VAT on fuel because they were not raising VAT but introducing another category. It was not a rise in direct tax and therefore did not place the Government in conflict with the electorate, as the Government did not have to say that they had broken a promise. If it is necesary to break a promise to straighten out the nation, the Government must do so, but people must be told why that is being done and it must be done fairly. To do it unfairly is inexcusable.
      How will this affect young families? A young man who is a rising executive in his company may not have much money but may earn too much to qualify for income support. If he has a young wife and children, the washing machine will be on the go all day. Heating will also be on all day because the house must be kept warm for young children. The family is too rich to get benefit but too poor to pay ever-increasing costs, some of which we are inflicting on it.
      Hon. Members have mentioned the elderly and people in other categories who are too rich to get benefit but too poor to pay ever-increasing costs. Many pensioners have had to take early retirement because of unemployment in their companies and have not even reached the state pension age. Out of the small amount of interest on their savings, which has been decreasing, they will have to pay extra fuel costs. That is inexcusable.
      As hon. Members have said, there are other ways to raise money, and if hon. Members want me to list them, I shall do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) listed about four or five different ways and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) suggested a basic tax rate of 28 per cent. and a higher rate of 45 per cent. That would be fairer than what the Government propose. VAT could be increased to 20 per cent. rather than nibbling at fuel costs. Many options are available to the Treasury, but I shall not detain the House by listing them further.
      It is strange that in Tokyo we were able to offer President Yeltsin millions of pounds to help his country, but when we need money for our own country we cannot find it. We were able to find it to send an armada to the Falklands and we can send military aid to Bosnia and take part in the Gulf war, so there must be a contingency fund somewhere. We cannot be absolutely broke, because we seem to be able to find money from some source. Where is the money and how deep is the contingency fund purse?

      767
      I want the Government to withdraw the stupidity of VAT on fuel. It is unfair and unjust and we shall rue the day that we impose it. I did not go to university and I know that it sometimes shows. I did not rush out to advise Ministers with two firsts from university. I attended the university of life. The university of life does one thing above all else—it makes one streetwise. If only Ministers and civil servants had consulted a few streetwise Back Benchers, they would never have pursued such stupidity.
      10 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). I am sure that he is aware that, as shown in the Order Paper last Thursday, I tabled an amendment along similar lines to his. I know that we share a deep concern about the issues at stake.
      I am aware that there is no requirement for the House to vote at 10 o'clock. When hon. Memberrs want to register their views on an important issue, they should be prepared to stay in the building to enable all hon. Members to do so. In that way, our constituents can judge how we feel about the issue.
      It is almost with a sense of despair that yet again i speak about fuel poverty. I have been in the House since 1974, albeit with an interim absence. In the 1970s, I raised the question of fuel poverty and the problems faced by many of the elderly, the disabled and those on fixed incomes. I watched the actions of the Labour party when it was in government and the actions of the Conservative party when it was in opposition. I do not say that with any sense of immodesty.
      My concern is that the House has never objectively addressed the issue of fuel poverty, especially against the background of the wealth from North sea oil, Scottish oil and gas and all the natural resources throughout the United Kingdom. The House has never drawn up a strategy or a policy—[Interrruption]—to ensure that no one has to face the realities that were so eloquently described—[Interruption)—by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but there is now a general buzz of conversation such that it is not easy to hear her. That is extremely discourteous and I ask the House to be very much quieter.
      Mrs. Ewing: I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that hon. Members from the two main parties assumed that there would be a vote at 10'clock. They have come here specifically for the vote, rather than to listen to the arguments.
      There has been a great deal of argument about the political implications of imposing VAT on domestic fuels. I have registered my view on that during previous debates on the Bill. It may be that fear has been struck in the hearts of many people, from Basildon to Brechin, from Newbury to New Pitsligo, from Christchurch to Cullen. The vote tonight should not be about votes for political parties: we are voting on something that will affect the lives of individuals, people who are citizens of our constituencies and of the United Kingdom. I urge all hon. Members to search their consciences before casting their votes.
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde spoke about the need to define the cost of fuel for each and
      768
      every individual. We have already done a great deal of research on that. I do not believe that it is an issue only of wealth; it is also an issue of climate. We must recognise the differentials in that regard between the north and the south of the United Kingdom; indeed, I have introduced several Bills to that effect.
      Let me remind Ministers that it costs 36 per cent. more to heat a house in Dundee, Edinburgh or Glasgow than it costs to heat a house in Bristol. It costs 38 per cent. more to heat a house in Inverness and Stornoway, 48 per cent. more in Aberdeen, 60 per cent. more in Lerwick and 74 per cent. more in Braemar. Those statistics were produced by the Department of Energy, and they underpin the need to review our attitude to ensuring that those on low or fixed incomes—for instance, the disabled—can fulfil their requirement for a decent, warm house.
      A dry, warm house is not a luxury; it is the right of every individual. Far too many of our people wake up to find condensation running down their windows—or, in winter, ice on the insides of their windows—and fungus creeping up their walls. This is not a commitment to Rio; it is a penalisation of the most vulnerable members of society. If the Government really want to meet the environmental requirements made at Rio, they should consider releasing the capital receipts of local authorities to ensure that they can implement the energy efficiency needs of our housing stock. They should ensure that all new build meets the requirements necessary to ensure decent insulation and heat conservation.
      I believe that, if the Government proceed with their proposals, they will not only lose votes—possibly—in by-elections here and there; they will have on their conscience the lives and, ultimately, the deaths of many people in our society.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: My purpose in tabling amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5—which are grouped with amendment No. 7—is much more limited than that of my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Indeed, I differ from them. I accept, reluctantly—how could I do so other than reluctantly—the Government's main argument for the extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power; I recognise the need to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and, indeed, the need to reduce global warming. My aim is to exclude charities from the requirement to pay VAT on fuel and power, and I have tabled a number of amendments that seek to approach that objective from different angles. I do not mind which my hon. Friend the Minister chooses, as long as he chooses one of them.
      The Government have promised to protect the needy from the burden of the additional charge on heating and cooking. My right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that in his Budget statement, and the Government were right to make the commitment. I simply ask the Government to be consistent. They intend to help the needy directly; correspondingly, they should help the charities whose purpose is to help the needy.
      I am talking of charities whose role is supportive of the state, or complementary to the state; charities, for example, that care for the elderly and the disabled. These are among the areas of growth in social expenditure where the Government are particularly worried about how they are to finance meeting the need that they foresee. Charities operate in these fields sensitively, in two senses. They

      769
      target need more accurately than state agencies commonly do; and they approach their human dealings in a sensitive manner. They are also cost effective, tending to have lower overheads than public agencies, and they mobilise voluntary energies.
      In his excellent Mais lecture, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security set out some of the principles that he thought should govern the reform of social security. One was the principle that policy must harness popular energies. Charitable activity certainly does that, on an enormous scale.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind those hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber that it is grossly discourteous to chatter away while somebody else is seeking to make points that are important to him.
      Mr. Howarth: Those who give money to charities may ask why, if the Chancellor is to take away money from charities by extending the burden of VAT on them, they should give money. Those who work for charities may ask why they should work for charities if the Government make their task harder by increasing their costs.
      I shall give one or two examples of what the costs to individual charities will be as a result of extending VAT to fuel and power. Methodist Homes for the Aged will have to pay an extra £143,000. Barnardos will have to pay an extra £122,500. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children will have to pay another £31,000. The Royal National Institute for the Blind will have to pay another £126,500. Mencap will pay an extra £170,800. The National Children's Home will pay another £100,000. Those are significant additional burdens on charities that are acting in partnership with the state to provide very basic social support.
      The Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund gives a third of its grants to sick people who face additional fuel costs. Applications to that fund and to other grant-giving charities will undoubtedly increase as people find it more difficult to cope with the increase in the cost of domestic fuel and power.
      The Government have said that they want the needy to be helped. Why, then, do they intend to make it harder for charities to help those in need?
      The Government increasingly want charities to do things. The problem with VAT is that it penalises charities that do indeed do things. The inequalities of the VAT system hit charities discriminatorily. It is a mistake to extend its scope. It would be much better to remove the existing £300 million burden of irrecoverable VAT that charities already carry. If the Government feel unable to exempt charities from having to pay VAT on their non-business activities, they should provide a VAT refund scheme.
      It is important for the Government to think carefully about how to achieve a better balance in their fiscal policy relating to charities between relief on giving and relief on expenditure. I received a letter today from Mr. Peter Berresford of Mencap, who said:
      "Assuming we receive tax relief on all our voluntary income, we actually receive tax relief on 7 per cent. of our activities!"
      I can quote figures that have been supplied by other charities that face heavy VAT burdens on the activities which they undertake—activities which, surely, we all
      770
      want them to undertake. The Royal National Institute for the Blind incurs £1·2 million of irrecoverable VAT. In its last financial year, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had to pay £615,000 of irrecoverable VAT. Methodist Homes for the Aged currently pays £405,000 worth of irrecoverable VAT.
      The Government have not put forward strong arguments to support their case for extending the imposition of VAT on charities. They argue that charities should make their contribution to reducing global warming, but the charities most affected by this change would not be able to do so. They are already energy efficient. Those for whom they care—the old, the ill and the disabled—need more heating.
      Charities have a duty of care to look after those who depend upon them. The Government require charities to do so—for example, under the Registered Homes Act 1984. The Act requires charities running residential homes to maintain temperatures at a certain level. It is inappropriate to tax charities for complying with the Government's legal requirements. It is also discriminatory to do so, because of their inability to recover VAT.
      The Government argue that the extension of gift aid and payroll giving will provide compensation, but it will not compensate the same charities, nor will it do so to a sufficient extent. The National Children's Home tells me that at best it would gain £10,000 from the extension of gift aid and payroll giving that is provided for in the Finance Bill. At the same time it will have to pay an additional £100,000 in VAT on fuel and power.
      The Government also argue that charities already pay VAT on their business use, but it is not a good idea to establish further precedents. If we remove this zero rate, for which the Government fought, we may well create a precedent and encourage the attitude that, if charities pay VAT on fuel and power, why should they not pay it on their new buildings or building alterations for disabled people?
      It is estimated that the Exchequer will gain £27 million from this extension of VAT to charities, but the net benefit to public funds will be very much less because, on a reasonable estimate, about three quarters of that will come back as a charge on public funds through increased fees charged by charities. It is disproportionate to abolish the zero rate for such a token gain to the Exchequer. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to exclude charities from this extension of VAT. If he feels unable to do so, I ask him to make a positive commitment to consider constructively the possibility of introducing a VAT refund scheme in the autumn Budget.
      10.15 pm
      Sir John Cope: We have today covered much of the ground that we covered in our debates on the Budget, on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House when we debated the clause stand part motion to which the amendment relates. Very little that is new has been said today, and I do not suppose that my response will change much.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) mentioned charities in which I know he takes a great interest. Other hon. Members, too, expressed concern about their charities under this legislation, especially those involved in residential care. I acknowledge at once that charities provide a valuable service and I pay

      771
      tribute to them. Charities in general provide many useful services in the community, which is why we already grant them large tax reliefs—especially, as my hon. Friend said, on charitable giving. Tax reliefs have been increased elsewhere in the Bill. I regret, however, that we cannot exempt charities from the national need to conserve energy; nor can they be immune from the problems of national financing.
      Besides, charities are not alone in providing residential care. The amendments would disadvantage commercial residential care., which also provides a valuable service. They would also disadvantage the elderly at home, thus cutting across the care in the community policy. I would not want to introduce a measure that would encourage people to put the elderly into homes. In addition, because of the way in which the amendments are drafted, they would make some difficult and probably unintended distinctions between individual charities that provide residential care. Of course, we keep all such matters under careful review and will be reviewing taxation of charities again, as we always do, before the next Budget.
      Mrs. Ewing rose—
      Sir John Cope: I must make some progress in dealing with the general points which the hon. Lady and others have raised.
      The House knows very well, because we have said it over and over again in the debates to which I have referred and elsewhere, that the clause was included for two reasons: first, to help to deal with the public sector financial deficit; and, secondly, to contribute towards meeting our Rio commitment. Both reasons remain valid and important.
      Contrary to what has been said this evening, the clause is not the only way in which we are dealing with either of the problems, but it will make a contribution in both cases. From the Budget speech onwards, we have made it clear that we would make additional help available, through the benefits system, for those hardest hit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce more details in the usual uprating statement in the autumn. That will allow increases to be put into effect when the VAT increases also come into effect.
      There have been arguments, which I have observed today and on previous occasions, about whether we should tackle the public sector deficit by restraint on public spending or through tax increases. The fact is that we are tackling it by both methods and both are necessary given the scale of the deficit.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) seemed to think that we were somehow denying that this was a tax increase. We are not: it is a tax increase and we accept that. We have been asked to choose between direct taxes and indirect taxes. We are increasing both in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield quoted Disraeli's maiden speech. My hon. Friend should note that Disraeli said those words in his maiden speech and not after he had been a Member for a very long time—longer than I have been here, and I have been a Member for only 19 years.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who moved the amendment, said that it was a matter of judgment and responsibility. I accept that. My right hon. Friends and I have not claimed that this is the only option. Of course it is riot. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby
      772
      seemed to think that it is, but, as I have made clear, we had to choose and this is the way in which we have decided to make a contribution in both cases about which I have spoken. During this debate, we have been urged constantly by my hon. Friends, and even those who have spoken against the amendment, to tackle the deficit and that is what we are doing. That involves difficult decisions. We realise that those decisions are difficult; nevertheless, they are necessary.
      We have been reminded again this evening that it has become a sackable offence on the Labour party Front Bench to say anything in favour of a tax on fuel. Lord Desai discovered that the other day. Perhaps his real offence was embarrassing the Leader of the Opposition during Question Time. That is, after all, quite a recent position for the Opposition. The Opposition's policy document of May 1990 entitled "Looking to the Future" contains the heading "Value Added Tax". They promised to keep many of the zero rates, but they did not promise to keep this one. That document states:
      "We will also use the tax system… to help protect the environment."
      Exactly so, and that is what we are doing. The present leader of the Labour party made environmental taxes part of his leadership platform.
      The Liberal Democrats have, in their time, also spoken in favour of taxes of this kind. In one of their policy documents in August 1991, they said:
      "The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on domestic fuels."
      Of course the Liberal Democrats say different things now—that is politics. We must take the difficult decisions and that is what we have done. That is why I commend clause 42 to the House.
      Mr. William Powell: This has been, to say the least, a lively debate. None of us who listened to it will forget the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) stimulated the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) in his contribution.
      I want to make two very brief points. First, there is absolutely no doubt that the Conservative party and our leader gave an unequivocal promise to the electorate during the election campaign that we would not extend VAT in this way. I also gave that promise to my constituents. I meant it and I propose to keep it.
      Secondly, this debate is not about whether there should be a tax rise. It is quite obvious that, in the proposals which were made, the Government accepted that there would be a tax rise. The question is, what is the priority in imposing that tax rise? I opened the debate by saying that the chief criticism which could be made was that it was socially extremely harmful. I have to say that, after all the hours of discussion on different occasions, I remain absolutely perplexed as to how anybody could select this as the socially most just way of raising tax. It is the most bizarre decision that could be made. I know that, although many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join the Government in the Division Lobby, they, too, are thoroughly perplexed as to how this selection came to be made.
      I note also that, although my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General justified the rise in tax—I do not criticise him for that, and I praise the way in which he faced that matter absolutely directly—he made no attempt whatsoever to justify to the House why this method had been selected, in terms of where the increase should fall,

      773
      and not some other option. Quite obviously, every hon. Member could put forward two dozen options that would raise the same amount of tax and would be perceived by our constituents to be socially far more justifiable than the option that is presently before the House.
      As my right hon. Friend said, we have not made much progress. The House has debated this matter fully. I simply ask right hon. and hon. Members to join me in the Division Lobby in supporting the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 307.

      Division No. 327]

      [10.25 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cox, Tom

      Ainger, Nick

      Cryer, Bob

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cummings, John

      Allen, Graham

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Alton, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashton, Joe

      Davidson, Ian

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Battle, John

      Denham, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dewar, Donald

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Beggs, Roy

      Dixon, Don

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dobson, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benton, Joe

      Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Eastham, Ken

      Betts, Clive

      Enright, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Boateng, Paul

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Boyes, Roland

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bradley, Keith

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Flynn, Paul

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Garrett, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      George, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clapham, Michael

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clelland, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Graham, Thomas

      Coffey, Ann

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Connarty, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Gunnell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hain, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hall, Mike

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hanson, David

      774

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Harvey, Nick

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Henderson, Doug

      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)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hood, Jimmy

      Olner, William

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Hoyle, Doug

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pope, Greg

      Hutton, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Illsley, Eric

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Prescott, John

      Jamieson, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Janner, Greville

      Purchase, Ken

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Redmond, Martin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rendel, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Richardson, Jo

      Keen, Alan

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rogers, Allan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leighton, Ron

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terry

      Ruddock, Joan

      Litherland, Robert

      Salmond, Alex

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Loyden, Eddie

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Short, Clare

      McAllion, John

      Simpson, Alan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Macdonald, Calum

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

      McKelvey, William

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

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Snape, Peter

      Madden, Max

      Soley, Clive

      Mahon, Alice

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mandelson, Peter

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Marek, Dr John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Stott, Roger

      Martlew, Eric

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Maxton, John

      Straw, Jack

      Meacher, Michael

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Milburn, Alan

      Trimble, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Turner, Dennis

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Tyler, Paul

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Vaz, Keith

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Morley, Elliot

      Wallace, James

      775

      Walley, Joan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wise, Audrey

      Wareing, Robert N

      Worthington, Tony

      Watson, Mike

      Wray, Jimmy

      Welsh, Andrew

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Day, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Ancram, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dicks, Terry

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Ashby, David

      Dover, Den

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baldry, Tony

      Eggar, Tim

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Elletson, Harold

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bates, Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evennett, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Faber, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fabricant, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      French, Douglas

      Bright, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Garnier, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gill, Christopher

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Burns, Simon

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butcher, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butler, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Butterfill, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Cash, William

      Hague, William

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clappison, James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Coe, Sebastian

      Harris, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Congdon, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Conway, Derek

      Hawksley, Warren

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heald, Oliver

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Couchman, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cran, James

      Hendry, Charles

      776

      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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

      Pickles, Eric

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richards, Rod

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sackville, Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Legg, Barry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lidington, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sproat, Iain

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stephen, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Allan

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Streeter, Gary

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Sumberg, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mans, Keith

      Sykes, John

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thomason, Roy

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mills, Iain

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moate, Sir Roger

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      777

      Watts, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wells, Bowen

      Wood, Timothy

      Whitney, Ray

      Yeo, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 78

      RATE OF ADVANCE CORPORATION TAX AND TAX CREDITS
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 54, line 38, at end insert—
      '( 1A) The amendment made by subsection (1) above shall not have effect as respects so much of the amount or value of any distribution as is payable to a section 505 body which, in accordance with regulations made by the Board, supplies a certifcate to the company making the distribution to the effect that it is such a body.
      (1B) A body is a section 505 body if it is—

      (a) a charity (as defined in section 506(1) of the Taxes Act 1988);

      (b) a body mentioned in section 507 of that Act (heritage bodies); or

      (c) an Association of a description specified in section 508 of that Act (scientific research organisations).

      (1C) The Board may by regulations make such incidential consequential, transitional provision as they consider necessary or expedient in connection with subsections (1A) and (1B) above (including provision amending any provision of the Taxes Acts).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 54, line 41, at end insert—
      '(2A) The amendment made by subsection (1) above shall not have effect as respects so much of the amount or value of any distribution as is payable to a section 505 body which, in accordance with regulations made by the Board, supplies a certificate to the company making the distribution to the effect that it is such a body.
      (2B) A body is a section 505 body if it is—

      (a) a charity (as defined in section 506(1) of the Taxes Act 1988);

      (b) a body mentioned in section 507 of that Act (heritage bodies); or

      (c) an Association of a description specified in section 508 of that Act (scientific research organisations).

      (2C) The Board may by regulations make such incidental, consequential, transitional and supplemental provision as they consider necessary or expedient in connection with subsections (2A) and (2B) above (including provision amending any provision of the Taxes Acts).'.
      No. 9, in page 57, line 24, [Clause 80], leave out from beginning to end of line 25 on page 58.
      Mr. Brown: It is appropriate that, having discussed one tax rise, albeit an overt tax rise, we now proceed to discuss a substantial concealed tax rise, and one which bears in a most unfair way on charities—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would either listen to the hon. Gentleman speaking to the amendment or retire quietly from the Chamber.
      Mr. Brown: Conservative Members, whose consciences must already be pricking them, should stay and listen to my exposition of what is intended to be a relieving measure
      778
      —[Interruption.] They shout and jeer. suggesting that they are not sympathetic to the cruel and unfair position in which charities find themselves.
      Those Tory Members who served on the Committee considering the Finance Bill will be aware that we have received a substantial number of written representations about the point. It would probably do Tory Members some good—at least it would inform them—if I read each and every one of those representations into the record. It would take some time. However, they might prefer it if I broadly outlined the Opposition's case, and if I were heard in silence it would be easier for me to do so. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) is already seized by my remarks and wishes to make a contribution. Would she like me to give way to her?
      Dame Peggy Fenner indicated dissent.
      Mr. Brown: No. I am sure that it is shame that keeps her seated.
      When the former Chancellor addressed the issue of advanced corporation tax in his Budget speech, he promised us a measure which would, on the one hand, help all dividend-paying companies. That sounds like good news. He said that he would provide help in a way that would also raise considerable revenue. That should have set the alarm bells ringing, as of course it did, among two interest groups: pensions and charities, especially charities that rely on income from equity investments.
      10.45 pm
      To some extent, at least, the Government realise that the impost is shameful because they have provided for transitional arrangements to ease in the tax. The arrangements grant temporary relief to charities, so the Government clearly realise the harm that they are doing.
      The impact on charities is bound to be severe and bizarre because the extra tax will come directly from the money that charities use for charitable purposes—in effect, a shift of money from those purposes to the Exchequer, for the Chancellor's purposes. And those purposes, according to Conservative Members, are to do with reducing the deficit.
      The irony lies in the fact that the work that the charities which have written to us are doing is often financially assisted by the Government. Charities make a part payment towards certain projects, and the Government make another payment towards them. Some of the projects jeopardised by the extra tax are the very ones on which the Government have looked favourably—in some cases, they have even helped them by way of partnership.
      Certainly, the charitable purposes of the organisations that have sent in representations are approved by the Government. The work that they do often substitutes for public provision. The organisations say that the Government are transferring responsibilities from the public sector to the charitable organisations at the same time as withdrawing funding from them through the tax system. They are also withdrawing funding through local government sources, inner city partnerships and other schemes.
      Charitable organisations tell us that they expect to lose about £100 million eventually under these changes. They expect to lose £130 million from the VAT impost; and to offset all that, they expect an extra £31 million in gift aid and payroll giving—nothing like enough to make up for their losses.

      779
      This has been a bad year and a bad Finance Bill for charities. That is not just my view; it is also the view held by the Charities Tax Reform Group. Ministers are attempting to breach an important principle here—that charities should be exempt from taxation on their incomes. We seek to remedy that state of affairs by means of our amendments.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: The proposed tax change to advance corporation tax in the Budget has not hit the headlines, but it represents the most important change for charities.
      The way in which the change will affect four charities illustrates the seriousness of the damage that will be caused to charitable income. Once the new system is fully operational, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution will lose £250,000 a year as a result of the reduction in tax relief on dividend income. The gravity of that loss should be measured in comparison with the £80,000 that that charity will have to pay as a result of the imposition of 17·5 per cent. VAT on fuel and power. Barnardos will lose £200,000 as a result of the loss of tax relief on dividend income, while it will have to pay out £122,500 as a result of the VAT imposition.
      The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation will have to pay an additional £460,473 in tax on dividends compared with £15,556 on VAT on fuel and power. The most spectacular figure, if I may use that adjective, is the amount of the burden on the Wellcome trust, which will have to pay no less than £10 million additional tax on dividend income compared with £70,000 in VAT on fuel and power. Those figures illustrate the importance of the issue.
      The cost to charities of the reduction in the value of tax credits on dividends by the end of the transition period will be, on the Government's admission, not less than £50 million and the Charities Tax Reform Group calculates that the sum cannot be less than £100 million.
      I tabled amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to protect charities from this proposed change. I did so after careful discussions with the Charities Tax Reform Group, which itself took advice from a parliamentary draftsman. I was therefore rather surprised when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) lifted my amendment No. 8 and retabled it some three lines further forward in the Bill. Some people would call that pilfering; I would call it plagiarism. Plagiarism is a weakness displayed by people who want the world to be impressed by what they do, but who do not produce their own ideas, and lack candour, courtesy and shame. It is a pity that the hon. Lady could not support my amendment. Policy towards charities should not become another arena for party political opportunism.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
      Mr. Howarth: I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Peckham if she cares to defend her conduct. Does the hon. Lady wish me to give way to her or would she prefer a knight errant in the person of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to champion her cause?
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should not be too chirpy about all of this. He spent the first part of his speech whingeing about his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and now he is whingeing at my colleagues on the
      780
      Opposition Front Bench. He should be grateful for our support. If he refers to the Committee proceedings, he will discover that our position is entirely consistent.
      Mr. Howarth: It is just a shame that once again the Opposition have been unable to produce their own ideas about how to deal with the problem.
      I appreciate the Government's need for increased revenue. I also appreciate why my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor considered the possibility of improving the Government's revenue from taxation of investment income, and I am grateful for the transition period that the Government propose to allow to charities.
      The Government say that the transition period will allow charities time to rearrange their portfolios, as if to suggest that charities might, by and large, escape the impost. I fear that matters will not be so simple. Responsible trustees will need to keep a balance in their investment portfolios and I am far from optimistic that charities will be able to escape from more than a limited proportion of the new tax burden. My amendments therefore call on the Government to convert the transitional relief into permanent relief. Technically, there would be no difficulty about doing that and I believe that my amendments would achieve that purpose.
      Why is it so important that charities should be given permanent relief from the new taxation? The Government need a clear and consistent strategy in relation to charities. They are asking charities to do more and more. With care in the community, they are inviting charities into a new, more formalised and more extensive partnership with the state. It is right that they should do so. State agencies can only do so much. We are bumping up against the limits to which the Government can tax and borrow. State bureaucracies are relatively clumsy; indispensable though they are in social provision, they lack sensitivity to the infinite variety of personal human need.
      Charities have entrepreneurial qualities; they are innovative, with a capacity to respond flexibly to new needs as they are identified. They are also highly cost effective as they lever voluntary energies. We need what Beveridge described as a comprehensive policy of social progress, which means harnessing all the resources of society. The Government should develop a new partnership with charities so that we can mobilise society's generosity. Charitable activity benefits not only the recipients but the givers, and strengthens our society's bonds.
      For those reasons, the Government need a fully considered, clear view of the role of charities and the nature of the partnership that they want with charities and voluntary organisations. That implies that they should consider the range of their policies systematically to ensure that they are consistently supportive of charities. It means, for instance, that a national lottery intended to raise additional money for good causes should not be so designed as to generate a net financial loss to charity. I am sorry that my amendments on that subject were not selected, but I will say no more on the matter as I would be straying out of order if I did.
      Cumulatively, the tax concessions for charities introduced by the Government during their period in office had, before the Budget, reached the impressive total of between £900 million and £1 billion. Sadly, the Budget will

      781
      reduce that total by not less than £100 million once all the measures in it are fully operational. Of those, the ACT change is particularly important.
      Mr. Dorrell: I am listening to my hon. Friend carefully. Will he enlarge on the calculations leading to the estimate that when the ACT changes have run their full courses they will cost the charities world £100 million? Charities currently receive tax credits to the value of approximately £200 million. I do not understand, in simple arithmetic, how reducing the tax credit rate from 25 to 20 per cent.—a reduction of a fifth—can lead to a reduction of a half in the value of tax credits received by charity.
      Mr. Howarth: I do not have all the figures to hand to assist my hon. Friend with the details of the computation. However, I am sure that he will respect the Wellcome trust as a source. The Wellcome trust considers that the measure will cost it an extra £10 million. If my hon. Friend considers the other large charitable foundations which we are fortunate to have in this country, and the totality of registered charities with investment income of widely varying levels throughout the country, he should not be surprised. The Charities' Tax Reform Group, which has a reputation for integrity and a high level of competence in policy analysis and how it develops its recommendations, has suggested that figure, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be willing to accept it as a serious estimate.
      At a time when the Government are asking charities to do more, when private donations to charities have been depressed as a consequence of the recession, and when central Government and local government grants to charities have been under pressure, the Government have chosen to present a Finance Bill reducing the overall value of the tax concessions that they provide to charities. The Government should be more systematic and consistent in their relationship with charities and their policy towards them.
      Let us consider the case of the Wellcome trust. The Government are looking to medical charities to support a larger proportion of the cost of medical research in this country. As it is, medical charities contribute more to those costs than the Government's directly funded Medical Research Council does. I make no complaint about that. But it seems to be an instance of where the left hand in Whitehall is not very clear about what the right hand is doing. The Government want medical research charities to do more to support medical research, but then reduce their capacity to do so.
      11 pm
      It is time that the Government reconsidered the balance of reliefs between giving and expenditure. Given the background of the large public sector borrowing requirement, the 20p basic rate which my right hon. Friends have held out to us for some time past still seems a good way off in the distance. The treatment of ACT can, however, be seen as a straw in the wind and a prelude to the 20p basic rate. As the Government are successful over the years in reducing levels of income tax, the value of income tax concessions and of relief on giving falls. Charities receive less money back as the rates of tax become lower, and as it becomes less tax efficient for donors to give to charities it becomes less attractive to them to do so, so income to charities on that side will tend
      782
      to fall. At the same time, for good economic reasons, the Government have chosen to switch the burden of taxation to indirect tax so that the rates have increased. The extent of the application of indirect taxation is also increasing. It is timely that my right hon. and hon. Friends should reconsider at a fundamental level their strategy for fiscal support for charities.
      I hope that the Government will be able to reconsider their policy on ACT in relation to charities.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe(Mid-Kent): Is there not another important argument? If the Government demand more and more from charities and the income to charities from donors falls, there will inevitably be a demand for the shortfall to be made up by direct grant from public sources? The danger of that process is that more and more charities will be pushed into becoming service providers to a monopoly purchaser. Charities would then lose much of their principal value—the fact that they have considerable freedom to choose whom they will help and how they will help them.
      Mr. Howarth: With his deep knowledge of the charitable world, my hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. The Government must be wary that their tax policies do not result in their cutting off their nose to spite their face, to use a rather inelegant phrase.
      Will my right hon. Friends rethink the ACT measure as it bears on charities? Will they give careful thought to the scope for a VAT refund scheme? It is extremely important that before we reach the autumn Budget some searching and radical thought should be given by my right hon. Friends across the range of Departments on what they expect of charities and how they are to support them.
      Mr. Dorrell: In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) drew attention to the language that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) used in introducing the change in the Budget speech. He made it clear that the purpose of the advance corporation tax change in the round was, first, to help dividend-paying companies and, secondly, to raise revenue. There has never been any doubt that that has been the effect of the slightly complex changes in ACT and tax credit rates.
      The policy injects £1 billion this year and £1 billion next year into British company balance sheets. In the third and subsequent years, it delivers £1 billion into the Exchequer as a revenue-raising measure. Therefore, it both helps dividend-paying companies and raises revenues, as the Chancellor made clear that it would when he introduced the change.
      The effect of the amendment would be to maintain a 25 per cent. rate of ACT and associated tax credits where the shares of company are held by a charity. That proposal was also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). It is not difficult to see why that course does not commend itself to the Government, bearing in mind the practical effect of that tax change. It would discriminate between shareholders when determining the tax consequence of paying a dividend. The amendment requires that when a company pays a dividend it would first have to find out whether a share on its shareholders' register was held by a charity. If it was, the company would be required to pay 25 per cent. ACT rather than 20 per cent. to allow the charity to reclaim a 25 per cent. rate of tax credit on the dividend.

      783
      The proposal is extremely complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that it would be possible to implement it. I cannot argue that it would be impossible, but it would certainly be complicated. Companies would be denied the benefit of the change, at least those with charities on their shareholders' register, and in the worst case it might make the charity undesirable and unwelcome as a shareholder. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East seems to be learning the lesson of his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor because he is building for himself a lectern on the Opposition Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] I hope that he will not read it all.
      I have illustrated why I do not find the proposal by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon attractive. That should not be taken to undermine in any way the Government's commitment to charitable enterprise and to providing the broadest possible support to charitable activity.
      I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon about the importance of encouraging charitable activity and its value to the person receiving it and those who are engaged in providing it. My hon. Friend was right when he said that charitable activity is part of the bond that binds society. It is precisely for that reason that we have proposed for the various organisations that will be affected by the change in ACT a long transitional arrangement. That will shield charities from the immediate consequences of the reduction in the rate of income tax on dividend payments from 25 to 20 per cent.
      However, they cannot be shielded from that change indefinitely, nor is it right that they should be, especially when we remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon acknowledged, that charities have
      784
      already felt the effect of the reduction in the standard rate of income tax and therefore of tax credits and ACT from 33 to 25 per cent. The Government are committed to a further reduction to 20 per cent. We have given notice of the effect of the reduction in the value of tax credits. We are committed to it and when the transition provided for in the Bill has run its course, charities will face the new situation. As I have said, that does not reduce the value that the Government attach to charitable activity. However, we recognise that the inevitable consequence of a reduction in the standard rate is that the associated tax credits will also reduce in value. I cannot commend the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 107

      INDEXATION OF ALLOWANCES ETC. FOR 1994–95 ONWARDS
      Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 76, line 36, at end insert
      'and accordingly, in subsection (4) of that section for "subsection (5)" there shall be substituted "subsections (5) and (5A)".'
      This is a minor drafting amendment to insert a missing cross reference in the amendment made by clause 107 to section 509C of the Taxes Act 1988.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Wood.]
      To be further considered tomorrow.
      Bill, not amended (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered tomorrow.

    International Development Association
    11.10 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
    That the draft International Development Association (Tenth Replenishment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21 June, be approved.
    The International Development Association—IDA—is part of the World bank. Its aim is to help improve living standards for the world's poorest people. It provides loans on highly concessional terms to the poorest countries. IDA's central objectives are poverty reduction, economic reform and sustainable development. Those aims complement, and are mutually supportive of, the priority objectives of the United Kingdom aid programme. The World bank has an important leadership role in policy dialogue with developing countries and in promoting sound economic management. It also plays an important role in co-ordinating the efforts of other donors, especially in Africa under the umbrella of the special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa.
    The United Kingdom, therefore, has always been a strong supporter of IDA from its inception in 1960. In concert with other donors, we have played an influential part in shaping IDA's evolving role in response to the changing needs and priorities in the poorest countries. MA's resources are replenished periodically, and the negotiations provide an opportunity for donors to agree the policy priorities which should guide IDA's operations, to supplement the day-to-day policy guidance offered by the bank's board of directors.
    The purpose of today's order is to authorise a contribution of £620 million to the tenth replenishment of IDA. Negotiations were concluded last December and donors pledged a total of 13 billion special drawing rights—about $18 billion. That maintains the value of IDA-9 in real terms and will cover commitments over the three years beginning this July. Taking account of the recycling of loans repaid by IDA's borrowers, the total amount available over that period will be about $22 billion.
    IDA has received a mandate to continue and to increase its efforts in the key areas of poverty reduction, economic adjustment and environmental protection and improvement. I welcome the attention being paid to those important areas. Development will not happen if people are uneducated and unhealthy and have insufficient access to resources. Development will not be sustainable if we do not take steps to protect our environment. I am particularly pleased that more attention is to be devoted to bringing down the rate of population growth—a better life for all is not possible if economic growth is outstripped by population growth. Nor can prospects for sustainable development be enhanced when over-population leads, as it so often does, to environmental degradation.
    The central objective of the World bank is to reduce poverty in developing countries. The bank is following a two-prong strategy, combining economic growth with the development of human resources through expanded social services. IDA is currently undertaking poverty assessments for all active borrowers. The assessments provide the basis for IDA's lending operations and help to determine a country's commitment to poverty reduction. An increasing feature of IDA's country assistance
    786
    programmes is that a Government commitment to poverty reduction warrants increased lending, while the absence of such a commitment leads to a lower level of activity. We have given strong support to IDA's bias in favour of support for those countries that are genuinely attempting to raise the standard of living of their poorest citizens.
    In recent years, there has been an increased awareness among the donor community of the need to promote environmentally sustainable development. IDA has promoted and will continue to promote environmental protection and improvement throughout its operations. A key component of its strategy is the production of national environmental action plans for borrowers. The plans provide the basis for IDA's dialogue with borrowers on the means of securing sustainable development based on actions that have no adverse effects on the environment.
    In addition, IDA produces environmental assessments for all projects when there might be cause for concern. The assessments made available to affected groups locally contain a full analysis of any significant social and environmental impacts. There are many examples of the increasing attention being given by the bank to environmental issues, not least the work being undertaken in such important areas as energy efficiency, water resources management and involuntary resettlement.
    We have pressed successfully for good government—including respect for human rights—to be an important part of the development agenda in both bilateral and multilateral discussions. By good government, I mean competence in pursuing sound development and economic policies, legitimacy and accountability of public institutions and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
    We have welcomed the attention to be given under IDA-10 to the economic aspects of good government—essentially, features that have long-term implications for a country's capacity to initiate and sustain programmes for effective poverty relief and environmental sustainability.
    Another important area covered in the deputies' report is the need to strengthen the bank's project performance. Last year, the president of the World bank set up an internal task force to examine why the proportion of successful projects—although still high—was decreasing. The bank has prepared an action plan based on its recommendations: the plan was endorsed by the bank's board of directors last week. The bank will also publish a booklet outlining the steps that it is taking to improve performance.
    I am confident that, with the active support of its members and borrowers, the bank's performance will improve in the areas under its control. It will be especially important for borrowers to commit themselves to the ownership of the projects in their portfolios.
    In IDA-9, it was agreed that up to 50 per cent. of lending should go to Africa. This allocation will be maintained under IDA-10. We welcome that, as well as the recognition given to the needs of Asia, where more than half of the world's poor live; but it is in Africa that some of the greatest challenges in tackling poverty lie. IDA has played a leading role in supporting the efforts of countries in the region to put in place measures that will lead to a resumption in growth.
    We have been strong supporters of the structural adjustment programmes, and have provided funds from bilateral aid programmes to supplement the efforts of the World bank. The special programme for Africa, to which we have committed £550 million, is intended to ensure that

    787
    reform programmes in low-income African countries do not fail for lack of finance. The programme has also increasingly devoted attention to protecting expenditure on the social services, and more generally to addressing the needs of the poorest. However, donors have recognised that more needs to be done to protect the poor during the implementation of adjustment programmes. Increasingly, IDA-supported adjustment programmes incorporate measures to protect public expenditure in such areas as primary health care and education.
    IDA faces many new challenges. The association will need to address the requirements of new members, particularly countries that have emerged from the former Soviet Union and other countries that have rejoined the association. It will need to give increased attention to such areas as poverty reduction and environmentally sustainable development and it will need to implement measures that will improve its performance. IDA will therefore need the full support of its donors. In commending this order to the House, I can give an assurance that we shall be monitoring the activities of the World bank closely to ensure that the objectives set out in the deputies' report are met.
    In summary, we are glad to support IDA's central aim of alleviating poverty and its concentration of resources in key areas, including environmentally sustainable development. We welcome its action to tackle the problems of the poorest, and particularly the poorer indebted countries in Africa. We support its attempts to help those countries improve their co-ordination of aid from all sources. We play a vigorous part in such co-ordination.
    The World bank and IDA are the world's leading development institutions. They constitute the cutting edge for change and for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries. Successive British Governments have supported the World bank and our commitment is as firm as ever. I commend the order to the House.
    11.20 pm
    Mr. Michael Meacher: We have just listened to a typically anodyne canter round the course from the Minister, who did not seem even to notice that all his worthy and wordy platitudes, such as environmentally sound projects, the international rule of law and priority for poverty alleviation, are all belied by events and by the evidence that is before us. He did not appear even to notice that all these issues have been the subject of profound criticism, none of which he answered—not least, I might add, the British Government's monitoring, if one can use that word, of World bank activities. As I shall go on to show, that is ostentatious by its absence.
    When an ODA resolution seeking support for several hundred million pounds for development projects comes before this House, one normally gives it a strong welcome. In this case, however, the tenth IDA replenishment, the criticism of IDA procedures runs so deep that, contrary to the whole tenor and content of the Minister's speech, with breaches of World bank policy so flagrant and results so often counterproductive, it is doubtful whether this order should be approved at all. On balance, I believe that the order should be approved, but only on the basis of far stricter accountability than the lax and complicit record of ODA Ministers in handling World bank projects would suggest so far.
    788
    At the heart of this debate, which the Minister did not even mention, is accountability, according to financial, environmental and developmental criteria, for the huge sums devoted to IDA and the World bank by donor countries, including Britain which will be contributing £620 million under the order. A significant proportion of IDA funds is directed towards big top-down projects that forcibly displace local populations, forestry projects that contribute to deforestation, large-scale energy projects that are highly pollutant and do not improve conservation, and structural adjustment programmes that worsen poverty and degrade the environment. They favour export promotion and unregulated business activity.
    As I listened to the Minister, I wondered whether he existed on the same planet where all these things are taking place. There is no record of resistance by British Ministers or British representatives to these anti-social and anti-development policies of the World bank—not in every case, but in so many cases. On several occasions, the voting record shows that the Government colluded in and actively encouraged such policies.
    As everyone knows, the Government have gone on and on about value for money in the case of the health service, ambulance workers, teachers, local authorities and, most recently, the police. However, in the face of overwhelming evidence that IDA lending can have damaging social and environmental effects, that project quality is deteriorating and that World bank policy and loan agreement conditions are ignored, Ministers have made no public protest. If I am wrong, let the Minister correct me.
    Why did the Government not make known, for example, their intense dissatisfaction when the recent Wapenhans report revealed that 37 per cent. of World bank funded projects failed to meet the bank's own criteria? That compares with only 15 per cent. in 1981, and deterioration has accelerated in the past three years. The Wapenhans report states that pressure inside the bank to lend money and promote projects overwhelms all other considerations. As a result, poor project design, poor appraisal practices and a failure to enforce loan agreements are widespread in the bank's operations. If that is so, why do the Government continue to lend hundreds of millions of pounds without insisting and without checking that such major defects are rooted out? The Minister's speech was a travesty; some serious questions, involving large sums of taxpayers' money, need an answer, but we have not remotely begun to hear one. I should be glad to give way if the Minister could tear himself away from writing or reading his latest brief and perhaps deal with some of the problems.
    How does the Minister justify the huge programmes of forced resettlement which World bank projects have often caused? In the 1980s, about 95 World bank supported projects caused the forcible displacement of more than 2 million people. The World bank policy objective is that those people are afterwards
    "afforded opportunities to become established and economically self-sustaining in the shortest possible period, at living standards that at least match and if possible improve on those before resettlement".
    That is a quotation from page 19 of World bank technical paper No. 80. However, the bank has not documented one single case anywhere in the world where a large number of people displaced by one of its projects have improved, let alone regained, their standard of living.

    789
    These projects have often resulted in hundreds of thousands of poor people being made homeless and destitute.
    Perhaps the most notorious case is that of the Narmada dam. I hope that the Minister has heard of it—it is in India. The World bank approved $450 million for that power and irrigation project in northern India at the expense of forcibly displacing more than 200,000 of the rural poor. After years of controversy, the World bank was obliged to set up an independent review team, whose conclusion is highly relevant to the debate. Its conclusion was that the the projects were
    "flawed, that resettlement and rehabilitation of all those displaced … is not possible under prevailing circumstances and that environmental impacts … have not been properly considered or properly addressed."
    That is a pretty damning indictment. The team argued that the bank should consider the projects "afresh".
    In fact, the World bank's management decided to ignore the independent review's advice. However, at the crucial meeting of the bank's executive directors in October 1992, an unprecedentedly high 44 per cent. of directors, including representatives of the United States, Japan, Canada, Scandinavia, Germany and Australia, voted to suspend funding, despite the management's advice.
    Britain held a decisive vote at the meeting, which it used to support the project and to recommend the loan of more money. I submit to the House that that was a shameful decision by the British representative, who must have been acting on instructions from the British Government.
    Perhaps the Minister will now tell the House how he justifies that decision. I would be glad if the Minister would take time from my speech to answer that point. I would prefer that to the glib platitudes that a civil servant has written for the Minister. I would like the Minister to answer a few relevant points about accountability—[Interruption.] May I have the Minister's attention? I am very concerned to have an answer to this point. I hope that we shall not hear the same kind of ridiculous travesties that we heard in the Minister's opening speech.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was making a speech. With the leave of the House, I shall have an opportunity to respond in the usual way to any points that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Members wish to make. I think that the hon. Gentleman should leave the matter there.
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly not going to leave the matter there as I am sure that in the last five minutes of this extremely short debate we shall hear a few more platitudes which make no attempt to answer any detailed questions.
    The point that I have raised is probably the most serious event in the past year in terms of World bank policies in so far as they affect Britain. How does the Minister justify the decision that was taken in respect of the Narmada dam when all the other major countries voted to suspend funding and Britain alone tipped the balance? That project produces the forcible displacement of 200,000 people. How can the British Government possibly justify that?
    Will the Minister confirm that he will answer that specific point when he replies to the debate? I am prepared to continue if I am assured that I will receive an answer
    790
    later. I am not prepared to leave the point so that it is just swept aside in the last minute of this debate. Will the Minister assure me that he will answer the point about the British Government's culpable responsibility for the continuation of the Narmada dam project?
    It is a particularly disreputable episode when the Overseas Development Agency's press release, which was issued at the same time, admitted:
    "there has been no effective consultation with those affected by the project, and there is insufficient baseline data to measure the impact of the project."
    The press release continued:
    "The World Bank's own guidelines on resettlement have been repeatedly ignored."
    In that case, the House will want to know why ODA Ministers gave their support to continuing that project. We want an answer to that tonight.
    Nor is that saga an isolated case. The independent review team report states:
    "Problems besetting the Narmada project are more the rule than the exception to resettlement operations supported by the bank."
    Similar results in fact happened elsewhere in India, Rwanda, Brazil, Indonesia, Argentina and Malawi.
    Because forced resettlement on a mass scale is resisted on the ground, the policies that the Government are supporting have led to human rights violations and widespread disregard of international law. It is astonishing that the Minister can stand before the House and parrot words about respect for the international rule of law. Has he looked at any evidence of what is actually happening with the money that we provide to the World bank?
    Since 1990 in the Narmada valley, for example, there has been a dramatic increase in beatings, arbitrary arrests and illegal detentions of the people to be displaced and their supporters. Does it not give the Minister just a little cause for thought that that is supposed to be in the cause of development? To take another example of human rights, in June 1992, when other donors world wide were refusing funding to Malawi because of recent human rights violations, why did the British Government support a highly questionable $55 million IDA loan for Malawi's power sector? Will the Minister, in his five minutes at the end of the debate, explain that?
    How can the ODA piously say, as it does, that it is cutting off aid to Malawi because of human rights violations when at the same time it instructs its representative in Washington to support a major capital project for Malawi? How do the Government justify increasing IDA forestry lending when so much of the expenditure leads to deforestation? Again, the Minister uses the simple words "environmentally sound projects". I should like to know the evidence. A $23 million forestry and fisheries management IDA project in Guinea, for example, was supposed to protect the country's remaining primary forests, but by supporting the construction of 45 miles of road around two rainforest reserves it opens up 100,000 hectares in that area to logging. Why did the British Government support that? There are many examples, especially in India, but IDA's social forestry programmes in Peru, west Africa, Colombia and the Philippines have all benefited commercial interests rather than the poor.
    I come to the point of the debate. As the World bank is now asking donor Governments for $18 billion replenishment and $5 billion for the so-called earth increment, which the bank would use for increased

    791
    environmental lending, how can the British Government trust the bank to use that much more taxpayers' money for environmental projects when the bank's current portfolio is so highly destructive to the environment?
    My final main charge against the Government's lax and, to put it very politely, over-ready support for World bank policies, even when they are patently damaging in some cases, is that although one of the principal objectives of IDA is stated as poverty alleviation—I give full credit to the bank and to IDA that they have made that their primary objective—nevertheless a substantial proportion of IDA credits underwrite products that actually harm the poor. In particular, IDA-funded structural adjustment programmes, which absorb 30 per cent. of IDA lending, have worsened conditions for women, children, poor workers and small producers, have increased environmental degradation, and have led to austerity programmes that cut public expenditure on health and education. Why do the Government—again, I should like an answer and I do not see why I cannot have one now, although no doubt it will not be forthcoming from the Minister—continue to ram Thatchente economics down the throats of developing countries when they have abandoned the medicine here because it is too painful and too damaging and because it leads to spectacular failure?
    Mr. Michael Fabricant(Mid-Staffordshire): I have been listening to the debate on the Floor of the House and in the Strangers Gallery. If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the order, because he considers it to be flawed, why did he say at the outset that he supports it?
    Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that I supported it on balance and with great reluctance. I still think it right that £600 million should be given to the World bank—but I made it clear that it was only on condition of tighter and more rigorous accountability than anything seen so far. If nothing has changed by next year and we hear the same travesty of an opening speech from the Minister, the result on this side of the House will be very different.
    Why do the Government insist that a condition for debt relief and for aid is the fulfilment of structural adjustment programmes even to their destructive limit, yet when countries fulfil such programmes even with the destructive consequences that I mentioned they are still not offered a crumb of debt relief—as the G7 summit in Tokyo last week revealed only too clearly?
    The expansion of cocoa production and the revival of the timber industry in Ghana are both conditions for structural adjustment loans to that country, yet they cause massive destruction of Ghana's last remaining forests. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) disagrees, I shall be glad to hear his detailed comments.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do become exasperated by the hon. Gentleman. He said that if I come to the House next year and make a speech of the kind that I made tonight he will not be able to approve the order. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. This replenishment is for a three-year period.
    Mr. Meacher: I am perfectly aware that it will last a long time, but if the Minister will only wait to hear the end
    792
    of my speech he will hear me say that we should have annual debates on this issue, and not confine discussion to one and a half hours after 10 o'clock.
    What is the point of the Government boasting of any particular increase in bilateral aid programmes—when that occasionally happens—if the conditions of the multilateral aid programme have such devastating consequences for the same recipients? There is no consistency between the bilateral and multilateral aid programmes.
    For all those reasons, we are deeply sceptical about the Government's willingness, let alone determination, to ensure full accountability for the £600 million replenishment. A new framework is needed that will allow much greater public scrutiny of both the World bank and the regional multilateral development bank, so that taxpayers' money is spent and is seen to be spent in ways that genuinely benefit developing countries.
    I make three specific proposals to achieve that, and I pay warm tribute to the excellent pioneering work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) in this regard.
    First, a report should be submitted by the World bank to Parliament each year and the Government should offer a day's debate on it so that issues of overriding importance involving billions of pounds can be properly debated. It is not acceptable that discussion of issues of such magnitude, affecting one-third of the world's population, should be confined to a debate such as this, attended by a handful of hon. Members on either side—most of them giggling and talking at the side.
    Secondly, we want mandatory publication—and I hope that the Minister will respond to this point, too, and that he will make a long winding-up speech because he has so many comments to make—of the United Kingdom's voting position at the level of board decisions within the bank. That is important if another Narmada is to be avoided. At present, shameful decisions such as that taken by the British Government over the Narmada dam are taken in a complete vacuum without any reference to Parliament before or after. That is a major loophole in what is supposed to be a democratic system of government and one that must be remedied.
    Thirdly, we believe that technical documents which have a bearing on board decisions, such as the environmental impact statements, should be released in advance of board meetings that take the decisions. Again, one would have thought that that was an obvious matter. NGOs have sometimes had some success in winkling out specific details on particular projects and exposing them to the public and to the media, but that is an arbitrary hit-and-miss affair. Surely such technical documents are the kind of material for which there is a public entitlement to know on a systematic basis.
    Sir David Steel: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's criticism. Does he accept that the bank seems to have responded to such criticisms? In April, it made a number of procedural changes, including the one to which he has just referred. The bank will make the environmental assessments more widely available to member states and on the bank's premises.
    Mr. Meacher: I accept that point. I also accept that there were references in the papers today, especially in the

    793
    Financial Times, to various improved procedures. I strongly welcome them. I do not think that they take us very far, but I believe that they are in the right direction. I should like the whole critique of the Wapenhans report to be addressed.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is being addressed.
    Mr. Meacher: The Minister says that it is being addressed. Where is the hard evidence? Where is the beef?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be better to respond to the hon. Gentleman at the end of the debate, which is what I am anxious to do.
    Mr. Meacher: Why not do that?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman provoked me on at least six occasions. I am jolly well going to intervene now. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the board considered the recommendations of the Wapenhans report last week. I said that in my opening speech, of which he took not a blind bit of notice. A booklet has been published about the Wapenhans report and about the recommendations to address those matters. The hon. Gentleman will be able to read it if he bothers to look at any of the sensible facts.
    Mr. Meacher: I am glad to know that the Wapenhans report will be addressed. There is a great deal of difference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not listen?"] I listened carefully to platitude on cliche on boring phrase from the Minister at the beginning. He appeared not to be aware of any of my criticisms tonight. He did not address a single one.
    I am pleased that we shall have a response to the Wapenhans report. What I want to know is how far it addresses those comments. There is a 37 per cent. failure by the bank to meet its own criteria. What changes in management will bring that figure below 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.? Perhaps there should be no failure at all. Until we have seen the response, I shall suspend my judgment. However, I am glad to know that there is at least some readiness to address these issues.
    I attach great importance to the three demands that I have made to improve the bank's acountability. We are still deeply sceptical about the accountability of IDA and of the World bank. I give the Minister notice that we shall campaign to put all three proposals into effect. Without them, the role of Parliament in sanctioning £620 million of extra expenditure is wholly unsatisfactory. The Opposition will certainly not accept such an unsatisfactory basis again for any future debates on IDA replenishments.
    11.47 pm
    Mr. John Denham:(Southampton, lichen): As has already been mentioned, last week the World bank discussed the document on increasing openness and access to information. As a Member of Parliament who tries to follow World bank affairs, I thought that it would be interesting before last week's board meeting to obtain a copy of that document. I approached the Washington office of the United Kingdom's executive director of the World bank by letter and said that I understood that the document was to be discussed at the board meeting, and that it was about freedom of information and access to World bank information. I received a reply from the United Kingdom's executive director saying that I could
    794
    not be shown a copy of the document because it was confidential. That travesty of openness and accountability surrounds the Government's approach to the World bank. Even when openness and accountability are being discussed, hon. Members cannot get a sight of the documents through official Government sources.
    I did the obvious thing, which was to ring up an American non-governmental organisation, and I was sent a copy, by immediate courier, from the US. Not all Governments work on the basis of such secrecy and lack of accountability.
    It is interesting to learn from the press that discussions are taking place in the World bank about the response to the Wapenhans report, and the next steps document produced by the World bank management. The House knows from the press that the first version of the next steps report was informally rejected by board members, and a board meeting set up to discuss it was cancelled and turned into a seminar. To my knowledge, no Back-Bench Member has any idea of what input the United Kingdom Government made in the discussions about the Wapenhans report.
    The issues are not simply that the report shows than an ever-increasing number of World bank projects are failing to make an economic rate of return. Those who wrote the Wapenhans report decided to assess World bank projects, and projects alone, on the basis of the economic return on the investment in those projects. As the development and environmental organisations have repeatedly said. and not just in this country, that is a narrow set of criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of World bank projects. My belief, and that of many of those organisations, is that if World bank projects and loans were assessed not purely on an economic rate of return, but by their effectiveness in poverty eradication and in promoting sustainable development, a much larger proportion of the World hank portfolio of loans would be shown to have failed.
    I do not believe that any hon. Member knows whether the United Kingdom Government have pressed, in the discussions on the Wapenhans report, for a broadening of the criteria by which the success of World bank loans is to be judged, or what specific management measures in the World bank our Government has pressed for. I cannot see any reason why hon. Members, and the much wider development and environmental community, should not have access to that information. Why is the conduct of our executive director, who will be responsible for spending the £620 million that we are debating tonight. shrouded in such secrecy?
    The problem is that the secrecy and lack of accountability that have surrounded the World bank go to the heart of its many failures as a development institution. We should be aware that many NGOs in the north, and far more in the south, would like us to vote against the replenishment of the IDA. That would be an enormous step, and not one that I am prepared to contemplate, but we must all be aware of the power and significance of the money under discussion.
    Bank lending determines the economic and social policies of recipient countries. For example, for the more than 20 African countries covered by the special programme of assistance for Africa, access not only to the IDA but to bilateral funding is effectively dependent on the implementation of bank-designed structural adjustment policy. Those policies—not the policies of the recipient Governments—determine the relative priority of

    795
    social spending and environmental protection, trade and fiscal policy, agricultural and industrial policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, they set the context that determines the success or failure of every bilateral trade programme, every NGO project, every indigenous development initiative and every local business venture. By replenishing the IDA, we are strengthening the awesome power of the World bank to determine the policy of Government after Government and country after country.
    There is not time to detail the many failures of World bank policy—many have already been referred to. The Wapenhans report, the task force on portfolio management, has recognised the unacceptable and rising rate of project failure. It looked only at projects, but many were failing because the structural adjustment loans promoted by the World bank were also failing, and creating an economic situation in which individual development projects were bound to fail. We should bear in mind that every failure of World bank lending rebounds not on the bank, as it would with a commerical bank, but on the borrowing country in the form of an increasingly unserviceable debt burden. By and large, these projects were conceived outside the countries concerned, and designed and implemented outside those countrie too.
    The criticisms levelled at the World bank are not new. The bank's belated response owes much to the growing threat to the bank from northern taxpayers, who ask why they should continually fork out for an organisation with such a poor record—
    Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the World bank lends to third-world countries and undertakes risky ventures? If they were not risky ventures, commercial banks would make the loans. Surely, by definition, the failure rate of loans by the World bank will be higher than that of the commercial banks.
    Mr. Denham: It is true that some development lending is bound to fail. The problem with the World bank is that it conceives the loans in the first place; it designs the projects, makes the loans—and then offloads the failures on to developing countries and their peoples. That problem has yet to he overcome.
    The bank is a strange organisation. It is a creation of Governments, particularly the powerful Governments of the industrialised countries. Yet in almost every industrialised country there is weak scrutiny of the bank by Governments and elected Parliaments, or similar institutions. The bank has a high degree of autonomy. Although it is staffed by intelligent people from all over the world, almost all of them share a narrow set of economic ideas, were trained in a small number of the same northern universities, and share almost identical ideological outlooks. The bureaucracy of the bank is not accountable enough to those whose lives it touches.
    This is why the bank's recent commitment to poverty reduction, the promotion of education for women, environmental assessment and sustainable development has been greeted all around the world with scepticism. Although we all applaud the intention, we have yet to see significant improvements on the ground. We have yet to see a willingness to examine whether structural adjustment policies work, or just meet a politically correct test of free market ideology.
    796
    The Washington office of the United Kingdom Government does not have enough staff independently to assess the bank's work; nor does the ODA. One critical new policy has been consultation with local non-Governmental organisations on implementation of the bank's policies, but the ODA is incapable of answering parliamentary questions about which NGOs have been consulted, and in which countries. We just have to trust the bank to get it right.
    The World bank's first report on environmental impact assessments reveals that local consultation with NGOs is at best patchy, so the Government cannot even monitor our role in the bank, or learn whether it is fulfilling its objectives.
    Apart from debates such as this, every three years, the House has scarcely any opportunities to discuss how the bank is performing. Given the large sums under discussion, that is not adequate. The House should be given an annual report on the World bank's activities, and a debate on them. The ODA should produce its own independent assessment of the impact of the bank's policies in countries where we have bilateral aid programmes, and assess the impact of those policies according to the objectives set by the ODA for development.
    There is no reason why the House should not be given a report, at least after the event, on the voting record of and policy stances adopted by the United Kingdom executive director.
    I believe that the House should ensure that the relevant Select Committees regularly scrutinise this country's policies towards the bank. The National Audit Office should also, on occasion, examine whether we get value for money, judged by sustainable development criteria, for the large sums of money at stake.
    New and increased transfers of money to the poorest developing countries are needed. By agreeing the proposed increase, however, the House will pass new powers to the bank's staff in Washington to determine the lives of hundreds of millions of people. If we do that, we should make it clear that, in future, sharp questions are asked continually about how that money is used and the real impact it has on people's lives and the environment.
    12 midnight
    Mr. Tony Worthington: We have heard two good contributions from my colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
    It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has said, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund of Washington are the governments, in an economic sense, of innumerable countries. How do we scrutinise what is done by the World bank? We have this kind of debate, late at night, once every three years. That simply is not good enough as a means of holding accountable some of the most powerful people in the world. It is through the World bank and the IMF that the private sector decides whether to invest in certain countries. Access to the resources of the world depends on the imprimatur of the World bank.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was perhaps a little harsh on the Minister for being complacent. He is not the only Minister to display

    797
    such an attitude. The Minister for Overseas Development, Baroness Chalker, said about the additions to IDA resources:
    "I have a high regard for the effectiveness of IDA in promoting development in the poorest countries."
    It is incredible that the British Government are less critical of the IDA than the IDA itself. Following the Wapenhans report, I find that very depressing. That report found that a declining proportion of good projects was being undertaken. It revealed alarming problems with the bank's follow-through on loans and found that most of the bank's expertise was devoted to coming up with projects of which it approved and spending large amounts of money. Hardly any of its expertise was devoted to determining whether a project was doing any good. It found that, on average, projects took two and a half years longer to complete than estimated.
    One would never know from the Minister's opening speech that more than 40 non-governmental organisations had asked that the replenishment should not go ahead. They were speaking on behalf of the poor of the world because of the damage done by the IDA. Of course I demand that resources should be given to the poor, but I want them to be used properly and appropriately. That expenditure should be subject to critical scrutiny. It should not be applied simply in a manner that is more in the interests of the donors than of the poor.
    It is worth considering what the IDA has said about itself in its 32-page document. It contains just one sentence about debt being a matter of concern for the developing world. The World bank displays absurd complacency about the debt crisis being over when everyone in the poorest parts of the world would say that it is easily the most important problem to be faced.
    The entire document contains no mention of the mega-projects, the energy projects for which the IDA has been famous. It gives the impression that all the IDA does is to promote women's health, family planning and the like, but the IDA and the World bank are bywords for building large dams that displace many people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, those centralised, top-down, ill-conceived projects are more to the benefit of the donors, their construction companies and the elite of poor countries than to poor people. In the 1980s, the World bank sponsored some 90 energy projects involving 90 dams and the displacement of some 2 million people. It has not come back with a single report showing that those people's lives were improved.
    The IDA's document mentions new concern for women's education, reproductive health and general welfare. The IDA and World bank projects show new concern for the need for safety nets, but they do not mention that those safety nets are needed because of the activities of the World bank and the IDA. A huge part of the loans is for structural adjustments that put the needs of the first world first and damage the third world's capacity to feed itself.
    The IDA and the World bank do not act first on behalf of the developing world as they claim. The inside front cover of the IDA document says:
    "The central challenge for IDA is…to mobilise the will and the resources of the affluent and afflicted alike in the global battle against poverty."
    798
    One would never gather from that statement that, during the 1980s, the external debt of sub-Saharan Africa rose from 28·2 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1980 to 109 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1990. No mention was made of the fact that, in 1991, the World bank's transfers to developing countries were minus $1·7 billion. The World bank took out of Africa $1·7 billion more than it put in, and the Government say that it is an effective way to invest in the developing world! The IDA document does not mention the lack of representation of the interests of the poor in the GATT talks. It does not criticise protectionism, such as the common agricultural policy and its devastating impact on the third world.
    The Minister must deal with those issues in his response. What will he do—not just say that he will do—to increase the accountability and transparency of the World bank and the IDA? Why should not we know how we vote, as the Americans do? We are being asked to approve the expenditure of £620 million, which an unknown civil servant spends in an unknown way. How did we vote last week—according to the Financial Times, it was today—on public information policy at the bank? How did we vote on the issue that the world should know what happens on the board of the World bank? What was our director instructed to do? Did he say, "Open the doors" or "Keep the doors shut"?
    How did we vote on the right of appeal on complaints against the bank's activities, which was before the board today? Is there to be a right of appeal for poor people affected by the decisions of the bank which parachute projects on people? How is our policy at the World bank decided? Does the ODA, the Foreign Office, the DTI or the Treasury decide how we vote? What ministerial meetings take place? What is our policy? When will the Government reveal their policy on the huge amount of money that we vote to be spent there? Will the Minister give us an honest evaluation of the World bank and the IDA? What side does he take on the Wapenhans report? What is he going to do about the World bank culture that puts lending first and the consequences and planning second?
    It is well known that Africa is our special area of influence and concern at the bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is well known that nobody goes ahead with projects at the World bank without the say-so of the British director. It is recognised that Africa is our special sphere of expertise. The Americans might have special expertise in Latin America, but our specialist area is Africa. Other directors look to the British director for advice on projects in Africa. Where is the world's biggest disaster area? It is Africa—the place where the Minister, his colleagues and the Departments of State have most influence. When will we receive a re-evaluation of the world's Africa policy?
    What are we going to do about forestry policies which exploit, rather than safeguard, the world's resources? My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that we praise Ghana for its structural adjustment policies; but there is not simply increasing poverty but the pillage of the rain forests in Ghana.
    The World bank and the IMF are peddled as the wealthy helping the poor, but the poor are becoming more numerous all the time, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions and there could not be a

    799
    better time for re-evaluating. When the Minister says that he now backs the World bank, and the IDA, which does he mean—the old World bank or the new one?
    The World bank vice-president for Africa spoke of how the capacity in Africa has been undermined. Earlier, the Minister gave his approval to the old World bank but now the vice-president for Africa, Mr Edward Jaycox, whose speech I have, says:
    "In sum the donors have done a disservice to Africa. After 30 years of technical assistance and so much money spent, Africa's weak institutions, lack of expertise and current need for more and not less assistance tell us that we have failed badly in our efforts."
    That is what the World bank is saying now, but that is not the World bank that the Minister was backing earlier. Jaycox talks of 100,000 foreign experts working in sub-Saharan Africa and consuming a major chunk of all foreign aid moneys to the continent. Does the Minister agree with the World bank's assessment or does he agree with the earlier assessment of Baroness Chalker that the IDA's contribution was effective in developing countries? The Minister must tell us what changes he proposes because even the World bank and the IDA are more critical of themselves now than the Government.
    12.12 am
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have had a great debate with the most characteristic exaggeration from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). We heard a much more balanced criticism from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) also made a much more balanced and composed contribution, and placed the World bank's problems in a far more sensible context than that described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The hon. Gentleman did not even seem to know that we were discussing a three-year funding mechanism. He hid his confusion by saying that he was speaking about a debate next year, not that there should be another funding mechanism next year but that there should be such a debate every year. That covering of tracks was not lost on me.
    If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech he would have heard me remind the House of the three-year funding mechanism. If he pulled his finger out and asked for a few more Opposition Supply days, one of which is to be held on Wednesday, he could have any number of debates on the subject. We should be delighted to debate these matters because we are confident of our assertions.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Wapenhans report. He did not listen to a word of my speech because I said that an action plan by the bank based on the recommendations of that report had been cleared last week. There is a booklet describing the steps that the World bank intends to take to improve performance. The hon. Gentleman was not interested in such significant facts but, for reasons that are best known to himself, he contented himself with a sustained attack on the World bank. I shall deal with some of the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but I shall first deal with some of the other contributions in the debate.
    The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the document before the House did not contain a report on the world's debt problems. I hope that he is
    800
    aware that, following a comprehensive study, the World bank issued a separate report on the important subject of debt repayments. Everybody realises that that subject is at the heart of the world's development problems.
    The hon. Gentleman made another point with which I am familiar about the fact that some countries in sub-Saharan Africa are repaying the IMF more than they are currently receiving by way of loans. I shall deal with what the World bank is seeking to do to address that problem, but I shall first put the matter in context. It must be remembered that IMF flows are only a part of total assistance provided to Africa. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa have consistently received more than they have paid out when aid, foreign direct investment and other sources are included. The amount received in 1991 was about £7 billion.
    As I have said, the World bank is aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and it is anxious to help those countries to meet their technical and financial needs with a 0·5 per cent. interest rate and a 10-year repayment period. The IMF's ESAF provides concession-al support for medium-term reform and it seeks to address the problem.
    The hon. Member for Itchen spoke about access to information about the World bank. The United Kingdom director's reply is correct: there is a need to preserve a balance between openness and confidentiality about the board's proceedings and its relationship of trust with borrowers. One of the reasons for that balance is to enable our representative to make clear and firm criticisms when the occasion demands it. We must be able to say what we think without our remarks being the subject of press comment which gets back to the country whose conduct is being criticised. There is a need for confidentiality, and any sensible person would realise that a proper balance must be struck in that area.
    I have mentioned the Wapenhans report. Action has been taken on that report, which was instituted by the bank to address some of the problems.
    The World bank lends money for complex and difficult projects. Over recent years, some of the projects have been made even more difficult by the complicated economic background, the world recession and the fact that those projects have not always materialised in the way that over-optimism suggested they would.
    Mr. Lewis Preston, during his relatively short time as president of the bank, has made it his priority to deal with the problems of environmental degradation. That is the reason for the Wapenhans report, which was initiated by the World bank. The bank's directors have made decisions in response to criticisms, as was explained to the House last week.
    Mr. Worthington: Does the Minister agree that the Wapenhans report is a major step forward? If so, why did we hear about it only because it was leaked?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot believe that that is the case. I cannot comment on the allegation of a leak as I have not heard it previously. The fact is that we received the resolution of the directors only last week. It is not appropriate to discuss the Wapenhans report before the bank's directors have had the opportunity to say what action they are taking on the report and what they intend to do to deal with the matters that it identifies.
    Mr. Denham: The Minister referred to some problems with World bank openness and decision making in relation to developing countries. Can he explain why we should not know what policy position the UK executive director took in the discussions on the Wapenhans report, which is about the management of World bank projects, not about specific policies in a particular developing country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We support the bank's intention to make publicly available more information about its projects and programmes. That is the British position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, other members of the board have differing perceptions about the degree to which the bank's operations should be open to further public scrutiny. No decision has been reached on the bank's proposals, but it will be preparing revised proposals for further consideration by the board.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that there is a difference between public scrutiny and public accountability? I think that the House is more concerned about public accountability. Is not there a case for persuading our colleagues on the Treasury Select Committee to take a closer interest in the affairs of the IDA and the World bank?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no objection to that suggestion, but it is also a matter for this Chamber. Every opportunity is afforded to Opposition parties to have Supply day debates on these important issues. Indeed, some of the subjects that the Opposition choose for debate are so uninteresting that I should have thought that occasionally they would want to choose the subject of aid, which is so close to the heart of the Labour party.
    I want to make a few comments about environmental protection and sustainability. The hon. Member for Oldham, West—[Interruption.] He is not listening to me again. I do not care if he does not listen to me, but if he does not listen he should not criticise me. He should give credit to the fact that over recent years environmental concerns and the whole question of environmental impact assessments have increasingly played an enormous part in the World bank's activities. The implementation of IDA-10 will help developing countries to meet the priorities of Agenda 21 that were agreed at the earth summit a year ago.
    The World bank's performance on environmental issues has been mixed in the past, but it has improved in recent years as lessons have been learned. Understanding the complex economic and social pressures over the past few years has been of benefit to the bank, and there has been significant progress in the way in which the bank has approached such problems. For example, it has set up a new vice-presidency for environmentally sustainable development. The decision to establish the vice-presidency constituted an explicit recognition of the significant shift in development thinking which has taken place in the bank and elsewhere, and which recognises the enormous importance of environmentally sustainable development—in particular, in regard to the bank's responsibilities.
    The bank and the new vice-presidency are assisting the bank's operational departments in the delivery of quality assistance to member countries. The bank has also been reviewing its policies in sensitive environmental areas; recent studies, for example, have concerned the electric power sector—to which the hon. Member for Clydebank
    802
    and Milngavie referred—and energy efficiency, conservation and water resources. Currently under review is the bank's policy on resettlement; the executive board will consider a report on that at the end of the year.
    Mr. Meacher: If the Minister is so concerned about increasing sensitivity in regard to environmental projects, how does he explain the fact that, a year ago, the World bank's management wanted to continue with the Narmada valley project? How does he explain that it went through the executive board only because the British vote permitted that decision to be made?
    Does the Minister accept World bank-funded projects that lead to the forcible resettlement of 2 million people? If not, what are the British Government doing to stop it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was about to turn to the Narmada valley project; I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As he knows, at the end of March the Indian Government announced that they had asked the bank to cancel the undisbursed portion—some $170 million—of World bank loans, and had decided to complete the dam themselves.
    Throughout the difficulties that the World bank had over the Narmada valley project, the Government—and our representative, on instructions from the Government—were extremely critical of the bank's performance in this regard, and whatever assertions the hon. Gentleman has made otherwise are simply untrue. As for the voting arrangements and the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made, no vote was taken in October 1992, when the board considered the way ahead on the project. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, the board often works by consensus. A majority of directors supported the continuation of World bank funding, subject to the meeting of certain benchmarks by the Indians over a six-month period.
    We were concerned with the welfare of those affected by the project to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but we judged that the best chances of a successful resolution of the resettlement and environmental projects associated with the programme depended on the World bank's continuing involvement with the project. That has not happened. That is why we decided to give the project one last chance—but there was no vote.
    I have touched upon some of the important points that have been made by Opposition Members. I welcome these debates. I should be happy to have further debates about World bank projects that are causing concern. The World bank has had difficulties over many large projects for a number of years. Those difficulties are due to the world recession and concern about their impact on the environment. The concern has grown in recent years. It was not so great when these projects were put in hand.
    The World bank is aware of the criticism. It is taking action and has set up inquiries to examine it. The World bank is also responding to the criticism, a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
    I ask the House to support the motion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft International Development Association (Tenth Replenishment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

      PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
      That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1515), dated 15th June 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 6) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1523), dated 18th June 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 7) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1606), dated 23rd June 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      AIR TRANSPORT
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4146/93, relating to air transport relations with third countries; supports the Government's aim of developing satisfactory procedural arrangements on the basis of which negotiations between the Member States and third countries could be conducted; and also agrees with the Government that any such negotiations should require separate Council authorisation, which should be given only where action would be plainly better taken at Community rather than Member State level.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) ( European Standing Committees).

      FRONTIER CONTROLS
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4077/92, 4527/92, 6497/92, 7632/92 + CORI and 8679/92, relating to the abolition of frontier controls and the completion of the internal market; welcomes the benefits to business and consumers of the freer flow of goods across the internal frontiers with other Member States of the European Community from 1st January 1993; and endorses the need for immigration controls to be maintained on non-EC nationals at United Kingdom frontiers together with such checks as are necessary to combat terrorism, drug trafficking or other serious crime.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Patrick Nicholls be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Peter Thurnham be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Flint Bypass
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
    12.32 am
    Mr. David Hanson: The subject of this debate is of great interest and importance to my constituents, especially to those people who live, as I do, in the town of Flint or who travel through Flint, for work or leisure reasons. Especially at this time of the year, holidaymakers travel through Flint in their thousands.
    As with all Adjournment debates, I wish that the issue had not reached this stage. Unfortunately, it has done so, due to a variety of factors that have conspired to ensure that Flint's travel problem remains unsolved. The need for a bypass in Flint has long been recognised. When I was first selected as the Labour parliamentary candidate for Delyn about seven years ago, many people believed that the issue was about to be resolved by the implementation of a coastal route. It may help if I outline how we have arrived at this position and the need for the debate.
    Although this is not directly a Welsh Office scheme, the Welsh Office has had a major influence on events so far. Flint, in the south of my constituency, is a pivotal town on the coastal road into north Wales. The A548 which passes through the town carries, according to current estimates for a 12-hour day, 10,000 vehicles between 7 am and 7 pm. A large amount of industrial and commercial traffic enters the town, bound for industrial areas to the north of Flint, the recently abolished enterprise zone area and towns along the coastal road in the far north of my constituency. Local traffic is also heavy. At the peak of the tourist season, as now, there is a great deal of additional traffic, which causes chaos for local people at weekends.
    The need for a bypass is accepted by all who have been involved with the town and its welfare. In response to demands for a bypass in 1985, a public consultation exercise was undertaken by the county council to obtain views on two possible routes for a bypass—an inland route and a coastal route. Local opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of the coastal route, but the opposite view was expressed by environmental groups, including Cadw—Welsh Historic Monuments—and the then Nature Conservancy Council. Following consultation, however, the coastal route for Flint was adopted by the county council as its preferred route and the scheme was prepared to the stage where planning permission could be applied for by the county council.
    In June 1989, the then county surveyor and bridgemaster applied to the county council for deemed planning permission for the coastal route. The application included an environmental statement because of the effect that the scheme could have had on Flint castle and the Dee estuary, a site of special scientific interest and a special protection area under European legislation. Copies of the application and all representations were forwarded to the Welsh Office in accordance with the procedures.
    The Secretary of State informed Clwyd county council that, because the issues raised in the objections were of more than a local nature, the county council should not determine the application and that it should be passed to him for determination. He subsequently decided to hold a public inquiry into the coastal route, which was held in March 1990. After consideration of the inspector's report, the Secretary of State informed the county council that he

    805
    was refusing planning permission for the scheme on the ground of its environmental effect on Flint castle and the Dee estuary. In my view, the Flint castle objection by the Secretary of State was sadly misguided.
    Flint castle is the hidden monument of north Wales. The town is very proud of it but, passing through the town on the A548, it is very difficult to see it. The coastal route would have opened the castle to a new travelling public who would have seen it in all its glory. It would not have damaged the castle. The environmental objections made at the time were valid, but they could be overcome especially when viewed with the alternative with which I shall deal in a moment.
    The inspector's conclusion on the county council's coastal route option was that there was no reason to suppose that an alternative way of bypassing Flint could not be found. Clwyd county council then decided to look afresh at solutions to find a bypass for Flint and appointed consulting engineers to carry out a new feasibility study. The findings were that there was only one effective, feasible route remaining—the inland route, which was not dissimilar to that taken to consultation in 1985.
    The new inland route was the subject of a further consultation exercise held in June last year to obtain the views of the general public and a wide range of other consultees. Due to strong local opinion against the route, and a demand to resurrect the coastal route, the council did not in the end adopt the new proposal of the inland route as its preferred route.
    Shortly after my election to the House last year, feelings were running very high. The inland route proposed by the county council was met wih horror in most of Flint and in the neighbouring village of Bagillt. A genuine upsurge of public feeling against the inland route ensued, not orchestrated by any political party but reflected by all politicians at a local level.
    The inland route would have passed near to many properties in encircling the town, cut through agricultural and residential land, sliced the local golf course in half, bordered a children's play area in the process and removed much of Flint's remaining open spaces, including the town's major recreation area and green space, Cornist park and hall which is owned by the borough council. In doing so, it would have failed in the key objective of reducing industrial traffic to the industrial areas of Flint and, in particular, Castle park industrial estate. Environmentally, the inland route would have devastated Flint.
    I was besieged by letters 10:1 against the inland route and by petitions; concern was expressed at my surgeries and an action group was formed called FAIR, Flint Against the Inland Route. The Member of the European Parliament, Joe Wilson, Flint town council, Flint borough council members and two county councillors, Alf Jones and Alec Aldridge, made their opposition very clear to the town and the public at large. I am pleased to see that councillor John Hughes, a member of Flint town council, has travelled to London to witness this debate.
    The county council's consultation exercise was clear: an inland route was unacceptable to Flint and its people and a public meeting organised by the town council highlighted the opposition which I fully share. Clwyd county council wrote to the Minister of State, Welsh Office asking for a
    806
    meeting to discuss the issues involved because both the coastal route and the inland route were unacceptable and traffic was still building up.
    That request for a meeting was refused on the valid ground that the Minister might in future be required to make a decision on subsequent planning application and he could not prejudice his position. Subsequent requests to the Minister from me for a meeting with the county council were refused in similar terms. I understand that the Minister's split role in Wales, as the Minister responsible for roads and for planning, creates difficulties, but that has not helped matters to progress. However, I fully understand and accept the Minister's difficult position in those circumstances.
    Since the consultation exercise took place, further developments have occurred. The Welsh Office and Clwyd county council have given the go-ahead for a third Dee crossing that will bring more traffic to Flint. The proposed crossing will reach Wales some two miles south of Flint, with the resulting predicted traffic flow in Flint rising from 14,000 vehicles a day to 24,000, according to local county council estimates. It is estimated that 12 per cent. of that traffic will be new traffic as opposed to diverted traffic.
    The construction of the third Dee crossing will also result in some redistribution of traffic within Flint town centre and in respect of its routing either via the A5119 to Northop and on to the A55 or the A548 towards Oakenholt. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and I fully support the idea of the Dee crossing, but it must be accepted that it will cause additional traffic to come into Flint in my constituency. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside welcomes the proposal which will relieve traffic in his constituency, it will cause problems for my constituency. However, we are at one on the issue.
    The problem in a nutshell is that there are two possible routes for a bypass through Flint. One of those routes is wanted by the people of Flint, but that route has been refused following a decision by the Secretary of State. The other route is very much opposed by the people of Flint while traffic continues to build up and there is likely to be more traffic in future.
    From the 1990 public inquiry and the 1992 public consultation exercise, it is known that local opinion is strongly against an inland route and in favour of a coastal route while Cadw and all national and local environmental groups are strongly against a coastal route and have no objection to the inland route. As you will appreciate from that brief history, Madam Deputy Speaker, the solution to the problem will not be straightforward.
    In essence, the dilemma is that, although almost everyone agrees that a bypass is needed, the public have forcefully rejected an inland route and a coastal route has been rejected by the Secretary of State on the powerful grounds of adverse environmental impact on an area of international importance in conservation terms. Faced with that, what are the solutions? In the wider context, we can all agree that it would be desirable to reduce the traffic entering Flint.
    I should like to see less reliance on the car and the internal combustion engine. Major investment in British Rail to take passenger transport and freight on to the railways would be welcome. Similarly, more tourists should be carried by rail and it would be perfectly adequate for north Wales if that could be achieved. In

    807
    addition, improvements in public transport to service Flint and the coastal towns would be welcome, as would other measures.
    In the short term, despite all those issues that could and should be addressed by all involved in transport in Clwyd, there will still be a need for a bypass. I hope that the Minister will tonight address two key areas in particular that will help to break the current impasse.
    I would welcome an honest opinion from the Minister, as the strategic Minister for roads in Wales, about his view of traffic in Flint, the implications of the Dee crossing for traffic in Flint and for the coast road and the merits of the routes that have been proposed to date. I hope that the Minister will agree that a bypass is needed. It would be a great help to my community if he would recognise that this evening.
    Also, and more important, I hope that the Minister will address another issue. Does he agree that it would be helpful at highways and planning levels to have informal discussions about traffic on the A548 between officers of the Welsh Office and members and officers of Clwyd county council? We currently have an impasse—no coastal bypass, no inland bypass, and more traffic. I recognise the difficulties for the Minister with his split responsibilities, but I still hope that he will agree that open discussions with the county council on how to resolve an issue that everybody agrees exists would be in the best interests of all.
    Is there a modification—for example, to the coastal route—that would be better received by the Welsh Office? Is there assistance that the Welsh Office could give to examine positive options for the bypass in other areas? After all, in his own constituency of Conwy, the Minister has seen miracles worked in respect of a bypass. The need for dialogue is vital. No one in the county council wants to follow the path of resubmission of a revised coastal route, only to face planning bog-down, further inquiries, further costs and a negative result—a costly path at public expense.
    No one in the county council wants to proceed with an inland route that remains unacceptable to the people of Flint—the very people whom it is designed to assist—yet, without dialogue, impasse will continue to reign and the misery of traffic in Flint will worsen. I do not believe that the discussions that could take place would be prejudicial. In the light of the impasse, the Welsh Office surely has a duty to examine and assist in the strategic view of the bypass issue.
    My firm view remains that a revised coastal route is achievable, that the environmental concerns of that route remain far less damaging than the inland option and that of no action. All that I ask is that, at the very least, the two parties that can most influence the situation, the Welsh Office and the county council, meet, talk and examine the options on a non-committal basis. As the Member of Parliament for Flint and a resident of Flint, I have called for this debate because it remains an issue that is for the well-being of my community. People in Flint need traffic peace. Industry in Flint needs sound infrastructure. Tourists visiting north Wales and travelling through Flint need trouble-free travel. Above all, the environment in Flint needs to be protected in a modern age.
    It is not acceptable to my community to face the prospect of an increase in traffic in Flint to 24,000 cars a day in coming years. That is the worst of all options, and
    808
    I would be failing in my duty as the Member of Parliament for the town if I did not bring it to the attention of the House this evening.
    12.47 am
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): As the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is clearly aware, responsibility for the local road network within Delyn rests with Clwyd county council. The A548, which passes through Flint, is such a local road, and improvements are the responsibility of the county council. A number of improvements to the A548 have been undertaken, and others are planned to help to meet the needs of the area.
    The statutory planning procedures, which involve wide consultation with the public, ensure that the impact of significant new road proposals are fully and publicly appraised where necessary. Those procedures apply as much to the proposed Flint bypass as to other major proposals.
    Clwyd county council, as local highway authority, undertook a feasibility study in 1983 to assess possible routes to bypass Flint. Of the six routes originally chosen, four were rejected and two remained—an inland route and a coastal route.
    In 1985, as the hon. Gentleman described, the county council carried out a public participation exercise on those two routes. Almost 800 people responded, and 79 per cent. of local residents wanted a bypass and 82 per cent. of the respondents wanted the coastal route. There was, however, strong opposition to both routes on environmental grounds.
    The authority subsequently decided on the coastal route, and in 1989–90 the scheme was conditionally accepted by the Welsh Office for transport grant support to meet the preparation costs involved in developing the proposal.
    The design of the scheme and the resolution of statutory requirements were always matters for Clwyd county council. In keeping with normal procedures, it sought to obtain planning permission for the road, using powers under regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976—under which the county council was empowered, subject to certain conditions, to grant, by making two resolutions, planning permission for developments that it proposed to undertake itself.
    The proposed development attracted significant objections. Organisations such as the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Cambrian Archaeological Association, the Clwyd-Powys Archeological Trust and the Deeside Naturalists Society were concerned about the potential environmental impact.
    There were requests for the Secretary of State to call in the planning application for his own determination, and they were given the most careful consideration. The Secretary of State's long-established approach is that applications should be called in for him to determine only when they raise planning matters of more than local importance. That approach recognises that matters of day-to-day importance should properly be resolved by elected local authority members accountable to the communities that they serve.

    809
    Only in particular circumstances, when matters of more than local significance are raised, will there be justification for taking matters out of local hands. In the case of Flint bypass, the then Secretary of State concluded that there were sufficient grounds for intervention. As a consequence, the county council was required in effect to make application to the Secretary of State for planning permission to construct the bypass on the coastal route.
    Two main areas of concern underlay that decision. One related to the possible effect on Flint castle. The castle and town was the first to be planted in north Wales by Edward I, and there was concern that the bypass might have an adverse effect on both the castle and its environs—particularly in terms of the area's appearance, in forming a physical barrier between the town, the castle and the sea.
    The other concern was that the route proposed by Clwyd county council encroached on a site of special scientific interest and bird habitats of international and national importance. There was concern that the road would destroy part of those protected areas and could disturb bird life over a wider area because of the noise and movement likely to be generated.
    In the light of those wider concerns, the proposed development was called in by the then Secretary of State on 16 August 1989 and arrangements were made for a public local inquiry, which began on 6 March 1990. It considered the likely effect of the coastal bypass route on Flint castle and on conservation, and in relation to national and local planning policies, and the likely environmental impact on the immediate and surrounding areas.
    Following a full inquiry and receipt of the inspector's report, the then Secretary of State gave careful consideration to the proposal and issued his decision letter on 17 September 1990. He accepted the inspector's conclusion that there was need for a bypass for Flint on traffic and economic grounds, and that the proposed coastal route would be an extremely intrusive and incongruous element in the landscape of the Dee estuary which no ameliorating measures could render visually acceptable. Further, it was acknowledged that the proposed bypass would cause unacceptable harm to the Dee estuary's natural habitat which would not be rendered acceptable by the proposed measures.
    During the inquiry, evidence was presented on the planning merits of the alternative inland route. The Secretary of State concluded that examination of that alternative route was a material consideration in the application. He did not consider that his role was to make a choice between the routes, but confined his consideration to whether the need for the development could be met elsewhere.
    The detailed appraisal of the two routes, and of any other alternatives that may become available, is a matter for the county council following appropriate consultation. However the Secretary of State was not satisfied that it had been clearly demonstrated that there was no alternative route. He agreed with the inspector that, on the basis of the evidence provided to the inquiry, there was no reason to suppose that the coastal route was the only way to provide a bypass for Flint. Therefore, the requirement to build it on this route was not demonstrated. In the absence of
    810
    convincing evidence ruling out alternative routes, the Secretary of State concluded that the proposed route was unacceptable because of its effects on Flint castle and its setting, the landscape quality of the Dee estuary and the unacceptable harm to the natural habitats of the estuary. Having issued his decision, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State in the matter ended. The provision of the bypass and consideration of the route it must take remain the responsibility of Clwyd county council as the local highway authority.
    I fully understand and appreciate the arguments already put forward by the hon. Gentleman and others for a bypass for Flint. Indeed, the Welsh Office accepted those arguments when it conditionally accepted the proposed bypass for transport grant as long ago as 1989–90. That said, the responsibility for taking forward plans to provide the road must rest with Clwyd county council as the local highway authority. The county council must reconsider how best to proceed using the established procedures.
    The county council may decide to proceed to seek planning permission for the inland route on which it consulted the local community in 1992. It may also, of course, decide to re-examine possibilities for providing a route along the coast. Clearly, whichever option is chosen, the county council will need to consider local opinion fully and to consult bodies with particular environmental interests. Whether it decides to proceed with one or two route options. the resulting planning applications will be referred to the Secretary of State so that consideration can be given to whether call-in would be appropriate. I must again stress that any consideration of call-in would be made on the basis of whether the proposed development raised planning matters of more than local significance. I cannot prejudge whether an application will be called in.
    The hon. Gentleman asked for a meeting between officials of Clwyd county council and the Welsh Office to consider the way forward. The Secretary of State has well-defined responsibilities, which have already been used, to call in and determine the county council's earlier planning application for a bypass following a coastal route. The Department would, of course, be ready to advise on procedural matters. Should the council be unsure about how it might proceed, I suggest that it writes to me setting out the procedural issues on which it requires guidance.
    But I must emphasise that the Department's involvement is inevitably restricted by the need to avoid prejudicing my right hon. Friend's statutory position. It will not be possible for Welsh Office Ministers or officials to advise on the merits of individual schemes.
    There is continued strong support for the need to bypass Flint so as to improve the living conditions of its residents, to ease congestion on the A548 and to contribute to the environmental and economic improvements taking place in north-east Wales. Given this, it should be possible for the county council to work with Delyn borough council, the local community, agencies and interested groups to agree a way forward which would result in the early implementation of the scheme. The hon. Member rightly raised the issue of increased traffic problems in Flint that might arise following completion of the third Dee crossing. The county council is aware of the potential problems and while it sees a bypass of Flint as the long-term solution, it does, I understand, believe that any

    811
    increase in traffic through Flint, following the opening of the crossing, can be dealt with by traffic management measures.
    The Dee crossing and Flint bypass can each be justified in its own right. The previous Secretary of State was pleased to announce last year that resources will be made available to start the crossing in 1994–95; delaying that until a solution has been found to the Flint bypass would prolong unnecessarily congestion in Shotton and Connah's Quay, and the problems of access to the Deeside industrial park.
    The hon. Member has raised an important issue, relevant both to his constituents and to the wider public. An efficient road network is vital to our economic welfare. It contributes to prosperity at both national arid local
    812
    levels. The hon. Member is fortunate to represent a constituency in a part of Wales that has seen substantial improvements in the road network. The A55, a trunk road for which the Welsh Office is responsible, provides a high quality link to the British and European motorway networks, a link to markets and to prosperity. I am sure we shall see further developments in future years.
    I must stress once again to the hon. Gentleman that the planning for the Flint bypass is a matter, in the first instance, for the county authority. If there are procedural difficulties, I am only too anxious to help. However, I cannot assist the council in the choice of route to put forward.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Commercial Leases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the law on leases on commercial property.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As I announced in my answer on 31 March to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry),Official Report, column 197, the Government have, after careful consideration, decided to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report on Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate (Law Com. No. 174), for future leases but not for existing leases.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has also announced the publication of a consultation paper on upward-only rent reviews, confidentiality clauses and dispute resolution procedures in relation to new

  Number

  Men

  Women

  1Barrister

  Solicitor

  Black/Asian

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  10

  10

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Lords Justices

  29 (+2)

  28 (+2)

  1

  29 (+2)

  —

  —

  Heads of Division (excludes Lord Chancellor)

  4

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  High Court Judges

  88 (+4)

  83 (+3)

  5 (+1)

  87 (+3)

  1 (+1)

  —

  Circuit Judges

  491 (+9)

  463 (+5)

  28 (+4)

  436 (+11)

  55 (-2)

  2

  Recorders

  815 (+51)

  778 (+51)

  37

  743 (+42)

  72 (+9)

  8 (+2)

  Assistant Recorders (excludes Assistant Recorders in training)

  436 (-50)

  386 (-49)

  50 (-1)

  359 (-48)

  77 (-2)

  9 (+1)

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  77 (-1)

  68 (-1)

  9

  38

  39 (-1)

  1

  Industrial Tribunal Chairmen

  70 (+9)

  59 (+9)

  11

  35 (+4)

  35 (+5)

  1

  Value Added Tax Tribunal Chairmen

  3

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Social Security Appeal Tribunal Chairmen

  29 (+4)

  20 (+1)

  9 (+3)

  7 (+3)

  22 (+1)

  —

  1 Or member of the Faculty of Advocates.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects a final decision to be made on the eligibility for legal aid of Mrs. J. M. Ward, 4 St. John's road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Decisions on the grant of civil legal aid are a matter for the Legal Aid Board. I understand that the legal director of the Legal Aid Board wrote to the hon. Member on 7 July explaining in detail the background to this case and the current position.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on further discussions he has had on issues arising from the Asil Nadir case.
  318
  commercial leases. The Government will carefully examine the responses before considering whether it is appropriate to legislate or take any other action on any of these issues.

  Appointments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department further to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 788, what changes have taken place since 1 January in the total number of (a) Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, (b) Lords Justices of Appeal, (c) Heads of Division, (d) High Court judges, (e) circuit judges, (1) recorders, (g) assistant recorders, (h) stipendiary magistrates, and (i) full-time chairmen who are (i) men, (ii) women, (iii) barristers, (iv) solicitors, (v) black or Asian, and (vi) ex-Oxford or Cambridge; and if he will give revised figures for the average ages in each category.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The available information, as at 1 July 1993, is set out in the table, with net changes since 1 January 1993 shown in brackets. As before, the figures for black or Asian office-holders are believed to be correct, but since the formal recording of the ethnic background of applicants for judicial office began only on I October 1991, such information may be incomplete. Aggregated information is not generally kept on the university background of judges or their average ages and no new information is available in relation to these matters.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) witten and (h) oral representations he received from honourable Members regarding the case of Mr. Nadir before his departure from the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  Pursuant to my answer given on 10 June 1993, col.334, to the honourable Member for Walsall, North, I should add to that list letters written by two honourable Members to the then Home Secretary about Mr. Nadir to which my predecessor replied on points relating to the arrest and investigation. Because of the indirect route by which they came to my office they were not recorded on the departmental register of Members' correspondence so as to be included in my original answer. The overall number of Members who have made representations to me or my predecessor is therefore eight rather than six—since the honourable Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) made both oral and written representations, he figured twice in my answer of 10 June. I have not included questions tabled by honourable Members in replies relating to representations.
  319
  My reference to correspondence from whichever part of the House, Official Report, 30 June 1993, col. 969, was founded on recollection of a list prepared by officials detailing all occasions when the case was raised through parliamentary channels which included reference to a question asked by the right honourable Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 12 November 1990, col. 34.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the proportion of Crown Prosecution Service prosecutions in the magistrates courts which are successful.

  The Solicitor-General
  For the year ending 31 March 1993, 97·6 per cent. of cases which proceeded to a hearing in the magistrates court resulted in either a guilty plea or a conviction.

  Constitutional and Legal Functions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reassess the constitutional and legal functions of his office.

  The Attorney-General
  The constitutional and legal functions of my office have an essential part to play in the administration of justice. My object is to uphold them.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the staffing of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has recently completed a recruitment campaign which has resulted in a further 45 experienced lawyers being recommended for appointment. There are now very few vacancies for either legal or administrative staff.

  International Investments Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations have been made to the Gibraltar authorities regarding the letter of request for information relating to inquiries into International Investments Ltd. Gibraltar, in liquidation.

  The Attorney-General
  Officials of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland have been in recent oral and written communication with Senior Crown Counsel of the Attorney-General's Chambers in Gibraltar in order to finalise arrangements for the attendance of counsel and the investigating officer from the Royal Ulster Constabulary at a judicial hearing scheduled to take place in Gibraltar on 12 July 1993. This hearing is in response to the letter of request for evidence in relation to the affairs of International Investments Ltd. (In Liquidation) issued by Belfast magistrates court on 1 November 1990 and forwarded to the Gibraltar authorities on 5 November 1990 under the provisions of article 9 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence Etc) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons of Greek-Cypriot ethnicity are employed in the Serious Fraud Office.
  320
  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office is aware of only one employee whose ethnic origins lie within the Greek Cypriot community. Ethnic survey questionnaires are issued to all staff joining the Serious Fraud Office and are completed on a voluntary basis. The categories covered are those agreed with the civil service unions for the purposes of such a survey and do not isolate Greek Cypriot origins as a separate ethnicity.

  United Nations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff in his Department have as their primary function work in connection with his duty of providing advice on matters involving adherence to international law in respect of the United Nations and use of force.

  The Attorney-General
  One member of my Department has as his primary function work in connection with my duty of providing advice on matters involving adherence to international law.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Silverware
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what provision was made in the terms of the sale of House of Commons silverware for scrap to forbid resale or to require erasure of identifying marks or the scrapping of the material.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services and I shall ask her to write to the hon. Member.

  Vote Office
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the Vote Office.

  Mr Beith
  In April 1992 Vote responsibility for parliamentary printing, publications and supply services was transferred from Her Majesty's Stationery Office to the House. An interim arrangement was entered into with HMSO to ensure continuity of existing services. In May 1993, the House of Commons Commission approved in principle the establishment of new systems for the management of the printing and publishing requirements of the House. The particular aim of the changes was to bring closer together within individual Departments the management responsibility for generating House docu-ments and the financial responsibility for paying for those publications. As part of this process, the Commission has agreed the transfer of the Vote Office from the Library Department to the Clerk's Department with effect from 1 November 1993; and the creation within that Office of improved facilities for the production of certain internal House documents.

ENVIRONMENT

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.
  321
  Mr. Gummer
  Since November 1992, the cost of my Department's market-testing programme has amounted to approximately £729,000 and the Department has already achieved efficiency savings in the relevant activities worth about £1 million annually. This is in advance both of the results of the majority of tenders and of calculating the gains expected from Property Holdings' programme of putting out professional services to competitive tender which is due for completion at the end of this year.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whom he has consulted in regard to. miscellaneous paper 179 (1993) on the advice given by his Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee in its letter of 10 October 1992 on British Nuclear Fuels plc's proposals for the return of waste resulting from reprocessing of nuclear spent fuel to overseas utilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  There have been no formal consultations on RWMAC's advice in its report on waste substitution. There remain a number of technical points on which we require further information from RWMAC before their advice can be considered properly.

  Building Regulations (Fuel and Power)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to his Department's consultation document on building regulations (conservation of fuel and power); and what proportion(a) endorsed the Government's insulation proposals, (b) wished to see a reduction in, or postponement of, the Government's insulation proposals and (c) sought an improvement in the Government's insulation proposals giving a greater reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an improved rate of energy conservation.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 170 responses have been received to the consultation document which proposed strengthening of the building regulations for the conservation of fuel and power. The proposals include improved standards of insulation for roofs, walls, floors, windows and doors together with alternative higher standards for rook and floors.

  To date the Department has analysed 70 per cent. of the responses. Of these:

  (a) 26 per cent. favour the recommendations in the consultation document. A further 28 per cent. did not specifically comment on the insulation standards, and it could be assumed that they are also content with the proposals;

  (b) 8 per cent. wished to see the alternative higher standards for roofs or floors;

  (c) 8 per cent. wished to see a reduction or postponement of the insulation proposals; and

  (d) 30 per cent. sought an improvement in one or more of the insulation standards.

  In deciding what action to take in the light of these responses, the reasoning behind the arguments advanced will of course be given due weight rather than relying on a numerical breakdown of this sort.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be implemented.
  322
  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State announced on 24 March,Official Report, columns 633–34, a review of responsibilities for contaminated land and liabilities. The duties and powers of authorities under section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of landfill sites form part of the subject matter of the review. The Government do not propose to bring section 61 of the Act into force while it is still the subject of that review.

  Letting Value
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the establishment of letting value under part I of the Housing and Urban Development Bill 1993 will be prevented by the absence of or withholding of estate records; and what forms of indirect alternative evidence of letting value including pre-1963 rating records there are, from which such letting values could appropriately be derived.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no evidence from landlords, tenants, or professional bodies that the derivation of letting values in relation to the rent test in section 4 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has caused difficulties. We do not anticipate any difficulties with establishing letting values for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill. Most professional valuers have the knowledge and experience to do it.

  Estate records are not essential to the assessment of letting values, although they might provide evidence to show that a particular lease is not at a low rent.

  Indirect alternative evidence includes pre-1963 rating records, calculations deduced from capital values and the experience of solicitors and valuers in practice at the relevant time. In many cases, in particular for very old leases, the rent will often be so low as to create no doubt that it is a low rent as defined.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest efforts to attract the 2000 Olympic Games to Manchester.

  Sir George Young
  The Government are doing all they can to back Manchester's bid to stage the Millennium Games in Britain. In particular:—We have made available up to £75 million to support the bid and the immediate construction of key facilities. Excellent progress is being made on the Olympic arena, the national cycling centre and the acquisition and clearance of the site for the Olympic stadium in East Manchester.
  There has been a large number of visits by International Olympic Committee members to Manchester in recent months and over 70 members will have seen what Manchester offers by the time the IOC decide the nomination on 23 September. Minsiters are playing a full part in these discussions.
  We have given full backing to Manchester's recent initiative for a $25 million Millennium Foundation to help with the training and travel cost of teams competing in the Manchester Olympic Games. This far-sighted proposal will promote equality of opportunity and provide assistance for teams who need it.
  The Prime Minister welcomed members of the IOC to Downing street on 28 June; he is meeting IOC President Samaranch again this week; and he has announced that he will be going to Monte Carlo to help promote Manchester's hid at the time of the IOC vote in September.

  Water Contamination
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to publish the full reports prepared by the drinking water inspectorate on all water contamination incidents.

  Mr. Yeo
  Reports by the drinking water inspectorate will continue to be made public where its investigations of the particular incident show that there are lessons to be learnt or reveal issues of general interest.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following his recent announcement on a further consultation period for THORP, he will set out the terms of reference for the consultation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The consultation will provide an opportunity for public comment on the additional material mentioned in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 28 June to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson),Official Report, col. 392.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to comply with the Paris Commission resolution regarding radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants; by what dates he will supply the information detailed in the resolution; by what means he intends to consult the Paris Commission; and how this relates to the further consultation period recently announced for THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Paris Commission recommendations 93/5. The United Kingdom did not accept this recommendation. We shall therefore be taking no specific action as a result of it.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the HM IP report on draft authorisa-tions for the discharge of radioactive wastes from Sellafie!d will be published.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inspectors' report will be made available when the further round of public consultation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 28 June is initiated.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy as to the proportion of seats which should be reserved for tenant representatives on the management committees of housing associations formed to take over local authority housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation as the body responsible for regulating housing associations. The corporation encourages the involvement of tenants on the committees of LSVT associations but does not specify any particular proportion of seats for them.

  The corporation also expects committee members to have an appropriate range of financial, legal and management skills relevant to the running of a housing association.

  Shelter
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant has been paid by his Department to Shelter for each of the last three years; and what proportion of the total grants budget this represents.

  Mr. Baldry
  Shelter has received grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 of £422,000 in 1990–91; £916,500 in 1991–92, and £995,500 in 1992–93, to provide specialist homelessness advice to citizens advice bureaux outside London and an emergency homelessness telephone advice service in London. These payments represented 21 per cent., 20 per cent., and 17 per cent. of the funds allocated for section 73 schemes around the country in each of those years.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to abolish local authorities' power to introduce registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has reviewed local authorities' power to set up HMO registration schemes. We have no plans to remove this power.

  Local Authority Management
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the report of the joint working party on the internal management of local authorities in England will be published.

  Mr. Curry
  The working party's report will be published tomorrow and copies will he available in the Libraries of both Houses by 11 am.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects his survey of local authorities to evaluate the impact of the code of guidance on homelessness legislation on their homelessness policies to be completed; and when he expects to publish it.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer Friday 9 July]: Research on the evaluation of the code of guidance is currently being commissioned. The study is due to start in August 1993 and is expected to be completed by the end of 1994. The Department expects to publish the results in due course.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the Audit Commission's review of the Local Government Commission costings.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is for the Local Government Commission to decide whether to publish any opinions provided to it by the Audit Commission. I have therefore written to the chairman of the Commission, Sir John Banham, to ask if he would write to the hon. Member with his comments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed the matter of nuclear testing with his Chinese counterpart during his recent visit to China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No. My right hon. Friend did, however, raise proliferation issues—both in relation to North Korea and the sales of Chinese M-11 missiles to Pakistan.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the German constitutional court to rule on the constitutional validity in Germany of the Maastricht treaty; and what is his estimate of the effect on the ratification process.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The German Constitutional Court held an oral hearing on the constitutional validity of the Maastricht treaty on 1–2 July. A ruling is not expected before the end of September. The Maastricht treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following ratification by the last signatory state to do so.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to enable citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to obtain in that country visas to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no plans to issue visas in Skopje at present. The office of the British Government representative in Skopje has just been set up, and is operating as a one-person post. Even when it reaches planned full strength, with two United Kingdom diplomats, it will have neither the capacity nor resources to offer such a service. Whether the post might offer a service at some time in the future would depend on both demand and the availability of resources, in the light of competing priorities.

  Destination

  Purpose of visit

  Dates

  Turkey

  Bilateral

  21–23 April 1992

  Greece

  Bilateral

  23 April 1992

  Portugal

  Informal EC Foreign Ministers Meeting

  1–2 May 1992

  Spain

  Bilateral

  2–4 May 1992

  Czechoslovakia

  Bilateral

  4–5 May 1992

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  10–11 May 1992

  France

  In attendance upon Her Majesty The Queen

  12 May 1992

  Italy

  Bilateral

  15 May 1992

  Kuwait

  Gulf Cooperation Council

  15–16 May 1992

  Egypt

  Bilateral

  16–17 May 1992

  Mexico

  Bilateral

  26–30 May 1992

  France

  In attendance upon Her Majesty The Queen

  9–12 June 1992

  Luxembourg

  Foreign Affairs Council

  14–15 June 1992

  Germany

  Western European Union Ministerial Meeting

  18–19 June 1992

  Luxembourg

  EC Foreign Ministers Conclave

  20 June 1992

  Portugal

  European Council

  25–27 June 1992

  Germany

  G7 Economic Summit

  5–8 July 1992

  France

  European Parliament Plenary

  8 July 1992

  Finland

  CSCE Summit

  9–10 July 1992

  Yugoslavia

  Official Talks

  15–18 July 1992

  Macedonia

  Official Talks

  18 July 1992

  Albania

  Official Talks

  18–19 July 1992

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  19–20 July 1992

  Philippines

  ASEAN Conference

  23–26 July 1992

  Hong Kong

  Official Talks

  26–28 July 1992

  326
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where is the nearest United Kingdom diplomatic point to Macedonia at which citizens of that country can obtain a visa to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Sofia is able to issue visas to Macedonians wishing to visit the United Kingdom. Macedonians may also apply for visit visas at any other British mission offering a full visa service.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the effect of the multi-fibre arrangement on developing countries' economies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A number of hon. Members have written to me and to ministerial colleagues on this subject. The Government support a progressive and orderly phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement. We recognise the positive impact that the removal of trade barriers can have on economic development and the eradication of poverty in the third world. Free and fair trade in textiles and clothing is a goal to which we are committed. However, the ending of the MFA must be conditional upon our trading partners elsewhere giving a commitment to open their markets to our exports and to abide more closely by GATT rules and disciplines.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the destination, dates and purpose of each official overseas visit he has undertaken since April 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Secretary of State's visits are as follows:
  327

  Destination

  Purpose of visit

  Dates

  Malaysia

  Bilateral

  28–29 July 1992

  South Africa

  Bilateral

  1–4 September 1992

  USA

  47th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

  21–30 September 1992

  Luxembourg

  Foreign Affairs Council

  4–5 October 1992

  Portugal

  Bilateral

  7 October 1992

  Spain

  Bilateral

  7–8 October 1992

  Netherlands

  Bilateral

  9 October 1992

  Belgium

  Bilateral

  9–10 October 1992

  Germany

  In attendance upon Her Majesty The Queen

  19–23 October 1992

  France

  Council of Europe

  27 October 1992

  Philippines

  EC/ASEAN Ministerial

  29–30 October 1992

  Pakistan

  Bilateral

  31 October to 1 November 1992

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  8–9 November 1992

  Italy

  Western European Union Ministerial Meeting

  19–20 November 1992

  Belgium

  EC Foreign Ministers Conclave

  26–27 November 1992

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council and EC Foreign Ministers Conclave

  6–8 December 1992

  Sweden

  CSCE Ministerial Meeting

  14–15 December 1992

  Switzerland

  International Conference on the former Yugoslavia

  15–16 December 1992

  Belgium

  North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting

  16–17 December 1992

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  20–21 December 1992

  Ghana

  Bilateral

  3–4 January 1993

  Nigeria

  Bilateral

  4–5 January 1993

  Argentina

  Bilateral

  6–10 January 1993

  Chile

  Bilateral

  10–11 January 1993

  France

  Bilateral

  13–14 January 1993

  Netherlands

  Bilateral

  20 January 1993

  Belgium

  Bilateral

  25 January 1993

  Switzerland

  World Economic Forum

  29–31 January 1993

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  31 January to 2 February 1993

  France

  Council of Europe

  2 February 1993

  Germany

  30th Munich (Wehrkunde) Conference on Security Policy

  5–6 February 1993

  Germany

  Bilateral

  17 February 1993

  France

  Bilateral

  24 February 1993

  Belgium

  North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting

  25–26 February 1993

  Spain

  Anglo/Spanish Talks on Gibraltar

  28 February to 1 March 1993

  USA

  United Nations

  3 March 1993

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  7–8 March 1993

  USA

  Bilateral

  24–25 March 1993

  Germany

  Address the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung

  29 March 1993

  France

  Bilateral

  1 April 1993

  Russia

  Bilateral

  2 April 1993

  Indonesia

  Bilateral

  3–5 April 1993

  Japan

  Bilateral

  6–7 April 1993

  Korea

  Bilateral

  7–9 April 1993

  Japan

  Joint Ministerial G7 Meeting

  12–15 April 1993

  Denmark

  EC Foreign Ministers Informal Weekend

  24–25 April 1993

  Finland

  Bilateral

  25–26 April 1993

  Sweden

  Bilateral

  26–27 April 1993

  Ireland

  Bilateral

  30 April 1993

  Hungary

  In attendance upon Her Majesty The Queen

  6–7 May 1993

  Belgium

  Foreign Affairs Council

  9–10 May 1993

  France

  Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

  13–14 May 1993

  Italy

  Western European Union

  19 May 1993

  USA

  Bilateral

  21 May 1993

  Denmark

  EC Foreign Ministers Troika with Turkey

  24 May 1993

  Belgium

  Bilateral

  24 May 1993

  France

  Bilateral

  1 June 1993

  Romania

  Bilateral

  1–3 June 1993

  Bulgaria

  Bilateral

  3–4 June 1993

  Macedonia

  Bilateral

  4 June 1993

  Luxembourg

  Foreign Affairs Council

  7–9 June 1993

  Greece

  Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council

  9–11 June 1993

  Denmark

  European Council

  21–22 June 1993

  Singapore

  Bilateral

  5–6 July 1993

  Japan

  G7 Economic Summit

  7–8 July 1993

  China

  Bilateral

  8–9 July 1993

  Hong Kong

  Official Talks

  9 July 1993

  328

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace negotiations in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the continuing efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg to secure a peace settlement, acceptable to all parties and based on the principles of the London conference. The latest peace proposal for Bosnia-Herzegovina is a Serb and Croat initiative which has not been endorsed by the international community. We are actively supporting the co-chairmen's efforts to encourage all three sides to engage in serious negotiations.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise at the next meeting of EC Ministers Croatia's response to the warning of the EC Foreign Ministers on 8 June of their obligations to co-operate with the international commun-ity in ensuring a peaceful resolution of the problems in the Krajinas and in Bosnia-Herzegovina; what is his policy towards the introduction of sanctions against Croatia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The meeting of EC Foreign Ministers on 19 July is likely to address how the European Community can contribute further in support of the co-chairman's efforts to achieve a peace settlement in Bosnia, including the question of further pressure on Croatia.

  Mrs. Naseem Akhtar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the application by Mrs. Naseem Akhtar and her children (REF: IMM/B7202) to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information about this case, I have asked the High Commission in Islamabad for a full report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made lo the Khartoum Government over their human rights record.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Such representations have been made on many occasions, most recently by the EC troika ministerial mission which visited Khartoum on 22 June, and in which the United Kingdom was represented.

TRANSPORT

  Teesside Park
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will provide signs to Teesside park on the A 19 northbound and southbound in the vicinity of its junction with the A66;
  330
  (2) if he will provide signs to Teesside park on the A66.

  Mr. Key
  It is not my policy to install such signs at the intersection of two primary routes. However, I am reviewing the particular circumstances of this case.

  Superintendent Earnshaw
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to reply to a letter from Superintendent Earnshaw of Stockton police dated 21 April, Ref. DN 504726/1/01.

  Mr. Key
  A reply was sent to Superintendent Earnshaw on 1 July 1993.

  M66, Manchester
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now take steps to arrange the meeting recommended in paragraph 16.33.1, on access to Nut Bank house, in the inspector's report on the public inquiry into the M66-Manchester outer ring road (Denton to Middleton section) proposals, published on 19 February.

  Mr. Key
  We are in contact with solicitors acting for the owner of Nut Bank house. A meeting will be arranged as soon as possible.

  Al, Lancashire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's current plans for a major road development linking the Lancashire border to the A1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have no current plans for a new major road development linking the Lancashire border to the A1. The trans-pennine study considered options for roads in the area. The consultation period on the study has only recently finished and I shall make a statement in due course.

  A13, Newham
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of installing a footbridge, together with approach ramps suitable for prams and push chairs, across the A13 Newham way near to its junction with Beckton road or Forty Acre lane.

  Mr. Norris
  At present, there are no plans for a footbridge at this location. However, if a bridge was to be provided typical construction costs would be of the order of £300,000 depending on circumstances at the site.

  Roads
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to publish a White Paper on roads.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to publish a White Paper on roads. He is at present consulting on his Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways".

  Ferries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which roll-on roll-off ferries operating from United Kingdom ports do not yet full conform with safety
  331
  regulations arising from the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster; by what date the vessels are expected to conform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  All roll-on roll-off passenger ferries operating from United Kingdom ports must comply with national and international safety regulations including those arising from the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.

  M25
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the various studies he has commissioned or put out to tender to consider the need for widening the M25 beyond eight lanes and the sections of the M25 to which they apply.

  Mr. Key
  Three commissions have already been let to study the need for the feasibility of providing more than four lanes on the M25. They relate to the following sections:

  Junctions 10–12 (A3 to M3)

  Junctions 12–15 (M3 to M4)

  Junctions 15–16 (M4 to M40)

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce a preferred route for the link roads proposed alongside the M25 from junctions 12 to 15.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend hopes to have completed his consideration of the issues to enable a decision to be issued soon.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has carried out to date into the effects of building link roads alongside the M25 between junctions 5 and 28 on(a) pollution including carbon dioxide emissions, (h) development pressures and (c) sites of nature conservation and landscape importance.

  Mr. Key
  Each individual scheme's environmental statement includes an assessment of the impact of the proposals on both atmospheric pollution and any land to he affected. No studies have yet been carried out into development pressures resulting from M25 widening proposals.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his powers to control the levels of tolls on the proposed Birmingham northern relief road, and on his reserve powers to take over the operation of the proposed road.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to control the level of tolls on the Birmingham northern relief road. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 provides for a toll order to specify the maximum tolls which a concessionaire may charge only in the case of major crossings to which there is no reasonably convenient alternative.

  The 1991 Act provides that where a concession agreement terminates for any reason before the end of a toll period the Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to secure the appointment of a new concessionaire; and that he may himself collect tolls pending such appointments or in accordance with an extension toll order.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide an estimate of the proportion of his Department's total expenditure, including an appropriate allocation of running costs, which is spent on(a) road transport, (b) railways, (c) aviation and (d) shipping.

  Mr. Norris
  Full details of the Government's expenditure plans for transport are published in the Department of Transport report 1993, Cm 2206. Over the three-year period 1993–94 to 1995–96 total planned expenditure is £18,351 million of which 53 per cent. is for national and local roads, 38 per cent. for public transport, including rail, and just over 2 per cent. for air and sea transport; the remainder is accounted for by central administration, the Department's executive agencies, and miscellaneous services.

  British Rail
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from the North West Regional Association about British Rail privatisa-tion; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  An official reply was sent to the secretary of the North West Regional Association on 1 July in response to its letter of 23 June. I am sending a copy of the correspondence to the hon. Member.

  Railways (Vandalism)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, columns 613–4, if he will provide a regional breakdown of prosecutions for acts of vandalism on rail lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not readily available in the form requested.

  A6(M)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions he has made to ensure there is no conflict of interest between the advice given by L. G. Mouchel and Partners as consultants to his Department in respect of traffic modelling and design for the A6(M) and their acting as consultants to the applicants in respect of planning applications for a superstore on Melford road, Stockport, and a superstore on Stockport road west, where his Department is a statutory consultee.

  Mr. Key
  I am aware of the consultants' involvement and believe that they are acting in a proper and professional manner.

  The application for Melford road has been considered largely in relation to its impact on the existing road network, given its distance from the proposed bypass.

  My Department has formed its own view on all the evidence available in connection with the Stockport road west development and has responded accordingly.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage of motor vehicles on the road that are(a) unlicensed, (b) do

  333
  not have a valid MOT certificate or (c) whose regular driver is uninsured; what these figures approximate to in terms of numbers of vehicles and drivers and how many prosecutions were undertaken in respect of each category in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Key
  In Great Britain there are 35 million drivers holding full or provisional driving licences and 24·8 million licensed vehicles.

  It is estimated that there were 1·3 million unlicensed vehicles in use on the public road at the end of September 1992. In 1992–93 over 435,000 vehicle licence evaders were penalised either by prosecution—193,000 —or through out-of-court settlement—242,000—recover-ing £37·5 million in revenue. In addition it is estimated that 180,000 evaders relicensed their vehicles as a direct result of enforcement action recovering a further £14 million.

  There is no reliable estimate of the percentage of motor vehicles on the road which do not have an MOT test certificate or whose regular driver is uninsured. In 1991, 253,813 persons were found guilty in England and Wales of vehicle insurance offences and in Scotland 15,816 drivers were found guilty of driving while uninsured. In the same period in Great Britain 141,450 persons were found guilty of vehicle test offences.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the trials of the variable speed limits outside schools are to begin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The first experimental site at Howick on the A5092 trunk road in Cumbria has come into operation today. This is the first of the 14 school sites on trunk roads and 100 sites on local authority roads where variable limits are being introduced on an experimental basis. The results will be monitored and, if the signs are effective in reducing drivers speeds, provision will be made to permit variable speed limits to be more widely applied.

  M27 Aircraft Crash
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 July at column 8, whether the aircraft which crashed on the M27 on 26 May carried a co-pilot licensed to act as pilot in command.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the co-pilot holds a licence which entitled him to act in the capacity of a co-pilot on that particular aircraft, but not as a pilot in command.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) using the new system for restricting night flights announced on 6 July, how many noise quota points would have been used up by the aircraft that operated into and out of Heathrow airport during(a) the night quota hours of the 1992–93 winter period and (b) the night quota hours of the 1992 summer period;

  (2) using the new system for restricting night flights an nounced on 6 July and the aircraft that have operated or are scheduled to operate into or out of Heathrow airport
  334
  during the night quota hours of the 1993 summer period, how many noise quota points will be used up during this period.

  Mr. Norris
  More data on aircraft type, engine fit and maximum certificated landing and taking off weights are required to classify aircraft under the new night restrictions system than under the present regime. Not all this data is available for past movements, so only estimates can be given. These are(a) about 6,000 in winter 1992–93 (b) about 6,225 in summer 1992 and (c) about 6,400 in summer 1993.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air traffic movements took place at Heathrow airport during(a) the night quota hours of the 1992–93 winter period and (b) the night quota hours of the 1992 summer period.

  Mr. Norris
  The total number of runway movements— that is, air transport movements and all other movements such as empty positioning flights —during the night quota periods was

  (a) 3,413:1992–93 winter

  (b) 3,409: 1992 summer

  Of these movements at (a) 3,078 counted against the main quota, 21 counted against the delayed quota, 225 were by aircraft exempt from the restrictions, and 89 movements were granted dispensations and exemptions according to current arrangements.

  Of the movements at (b) 2,649 counted against the quota, 60 counted against the delayed quota, 678 were by aircraft exempt from the restrictions and 22 were granted dispensations and exemptions according to current arrangements.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air traffic movements he estimates will occur at Heathrow airport during the night quota hours of the 1993 summer period on the basis of the number of aircraft that have or are scheduled to operate into and out of the airport.

  Mr. Norris
  In total, about the same as in summer 1992.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to bring in legislation to require municipal authorities to sell off their bus companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our manifesto contained a pledge to privatise the remaining local authority bus companies. I am pleased that many authorities are selling their companies voluntarily. It is our intention to introduce legislation at an early opportunity to require the rest to do so.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government have spent on the proposed east London river crossing up to 7 July.

  Mr. Norris
  Approximately £31 million. The bulk of the expenditure has been on scheme preparation but the figure also includes some £3 million on advance works and £9 million on land and property purchase.

  Civil Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consideration his Department has given to the mandatory fitment of high-intensity strobe lights to civil aircraft regularly involved in low-level flying activities such as power line and pipeline surveying and crop spraying;

  (2) what consideration his Department has given to the provision of air-to-air transponder equipment for civil aircraft regularly engaged in activities at low altitude;

  (3) what capability the civil aircraft notification procedure has for the notification of linear activities such as power line and pipeline surveying;

  (4) what measures have been introduced by his Department since 1988 to encourage civilian pilots and aircraft operators to make use of the civil aircraft notification procedures; and if he will make a statement as to what further measures are under consideration.

  Mr. Norris
  Aviation safety matters such as these are for the Civil Aviation Authority, in the first instance. I have therefore passed the hon. Member's questions to the chairman of the authority, asking him to write to the hon. Member.

  I am always ready to consider any proposals for changes in primary or secondary legislation which the authority may put to me.

  German Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he is making to the European Commission about German plans to increase tax concessions to the German merchant fleet.

  Mr. Norris
  It is our policy to urge the Commission to look into all cases of state aids in the transport sector, including aids to shipowners, in order to secure the removal of those that distort competition. I understand that what is proposed by Germany in this particular case would renew fiscal arrangements that have been in place for some time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stefan Kiszko
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to provide the families involved with the results of the investigation on the completion of any criminal proceedings arising from the Lancashire police force's investigation into the Stefan Kiszko case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is for the chief constable of West Yorkshire police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide what information may be disclosed to the Kiszko and Molseed families. As the Prime Minister has already informed the hon. Member, West Yorkshire police have assured both families that they will brief them fully about what happened as soon as they are free to do so.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts of shotguns there were in 1991 in each police force area(a) from domestic premises and (b) from all premises.
  336
  Mr. Maclean
  The following table shows, for each police force in England and Wales in 1991, the number of notifiable offences of burglary and theft in which shotguns were reported to have been stolen from domestic and all premises:

  Notifiable offences of burglary and theft in which shot guns were stolen

  Police force area

  Domestic premises

  All premises

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  20

  Bedfordshire

  4

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  10

  Cheshire

  7

  13

  Cleveland

  3

  4

  Cumbria

  7

  8

  Derbyshire

  5

  6

  Devon and Cornwall

  27

  35

  Dorset

  2

  2

  Durham

  21

  24

  Essex

  14

  17

  Gloucestershire

  4

  6

  Greater Manchester

  4

  5

  Hampshire

  16

  20

  Hertfordshire

  2

  2

  Humberside

  7

  7

  Kent

  30

  46

  Lancashire

  18

  27

  Leicestershire

  7

  13

  Lincolnshire

  6

  9

  London, City of

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  6

  7

  Metropolitan Police District

  22

  28

  Norfolk

  17

  25

  Northamptonshire

  10

  11

  Northumbria

  15

  21

  North Yorkshire

  12

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  4

  South Yorkshire

  20

  26

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  11

  11

  Surrey

  17

  20

  Sussex

  13

  16

  Thames Valley

  21

  35

  Warwickshire

  6

  10

  West Mercia

  8

  11

  West Midlands

  8

  11

  West Yorkshire

  7

  11

  Wiltshire

  3

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  3

  6

  Gwent

  —

  —

  North Wales

  6

  10

  South Wales

  2

  6

  England and Wales

  416

  574

  False Imprisonment
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to ensure that compensation awards to persons having been falsely imprisoned are harmonised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  It has been the long-standing practice for the amount to be paid in an award of compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or under the related ex-gratia scheme, to be settled according to the assessment or advice of an independent assessor, currently Sir David Calcutt QC. The assessor applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs. I am satisfied that these arrangements result in fairness and consistency in the determination of amounts to be paid.

  Mr. John Matthews
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his decision to place an exclusion order on Mr. John Matthews;

  (2) what consideration he gives to (a) acquittal decisions by the courts in respect of terrorist-related offences with which a person has been charged and (b) decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service to withdraw charges against such a person, in deciding whether to place an exclusion order on such a person.

  Mr. Howard
  On Tuesday 6 July I exercised the powers conferred upon me by part II of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to exclude John Gerard Matthews from Great Britain. Before reaching a decision I carefully reviewed all the information which had been placed before me. On the basis of that information I was satisfied that the criteria set out at section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were met in this case.

  The decision which I am required to take in relation to exclusion orders is different in kind from that which the prosecuting authorities apply in deciding whether to continue criminal proceedings. They consider whether, on the basis of evidence which will be admissible in court, there is a realistic prospect of persuading a jury beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a specific offence. I have to be satisfied that a person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In making that assessment it is open to me to consider information which would not be admissible in court. Whilst I would have regard to the fact that a person had been acquitted, or criminal proceedings discontinued, that fact would not preclude the making of an exclusion order.

  Notifiable Offences, London
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were reported in the Metropolitan police area in the first three months of 1993; and if he will give a breakdown of the figures by category of offence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current timetable for the work of the Boundary Commission for England in reviewing the current parliamentary boundaries; and what will be the effect on this timetable of re-examination by the commission of the population figures on which its work has so far been based.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Boundary Commission for England is required, by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to make its final report by 31 December 1994. I understand that it is confident that it will be in time. The enumeration date for its review is February 1991, and the release of subsequent electoral statistics, or indeed a more recent evaluation of the accuracy of the electoral register, will not affect its timetable.

  Fire Services, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority following its consideration of the report of Her Majesty's inspector of fire services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received from the clerk to the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority a copy of a resolution made at the authority's annual general meeting on 28 June. The resolution relates to the report of an inspection of the Merseyside Fire Brigade conducted by Her Majesty's inspector of fire services during the week beginning 25 January 1993. We shall consider the resolution carefully alongside the report of the special inspection of the Merseyside brigade which was conducted during the week beginning 5 July, once that report is available.

  Ex-offenders
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions the Prison Department has had with each training and enterprise council regarding schemes to provide employment for ex-offenders;

  (2) how much the Prison Department spent in (a) 1991 and (b) 1992 on funding schemes which provide employment for ex-offenders; and what proportion this was of the Prison Department's budget.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated July 1993:

  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES FOR EX-OFFENDERS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question seeking information about what discussions the Prison Service has had with each Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) regarding schemes to provide employment for ex-offenders.

  TECs are responsible for adult and youth training schemes. Prison Service establishments are encouraged to work with their local TEC in helping to meet offenders' training needs. Discussions between the Prison Service and individual TECs normally take place at a local level; the details are not recorded centrally.

  As a result of these local contacts, a number of important joint ventures between prisons and TECs have been developed. To build on these, the Prison Service is working with the Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate and the Probation Service to produce a good practice guide for TECs on meeting the training needs of offenders and ex-offenders. The guide will be issued later this year.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated July 1993:

  Expenditure on Employment schemes for ex-offenders
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how much the Prison Department spent in 1991 and 1992 on funding schemes which provide employment for ex-offenders.
  The Prison Service undertakes a wide range of work aimed at preparing, training and assisting prisoners to find jobs on release. The cost of this is not separately distinguished. The work is described in "Employment in Prisons and for Ex-Offenders. The Government Reply to the First Report from the Employment Committee Session 1991–92 HC30". I

  339
  enclose a copy of the Report, which I hope will help to fill out the picture for you. Since the Government's Reply was published, the Employment Service has agreed to provide additional funding to enable the number of prison job clubs and prisons running job search preparation courses to be increased. In consequence, as part of its business plan for 1993–94, the Prison Service aims to increase the number of prisons running job search preparation courses from 24 to 48 and the number of prison job clubs from 5 to 10.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the working group examining the future of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board have(a) English legal qualifications and (b) Scottish legal qualifications.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no working group examining the future of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) announced on 23 November 1992, col 457, the Government have decided that the present criminal injuries compensation scheme should be replaced in 1994 by one based on a tariff of awards. The intention is to offer a better, more straightforward service to claimants.

  Officials are working up the more detailed proposals in the normal course of their duties under the direction of Ministers. The officials take legal advice as and when appropriate. Details of the new scheme will be set out in the White Paper within the next two or three months.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to accelerate the programme for the reception of Bosnian refugees and their dependants announced on 30 November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In response to the humanitarian organisations' priorities the programme has initially concentrated on former detention camp inmates and their dependants. We have already received a total of 250 ex-detainees and 421 dependants, but there have been difficulties, particularly in securing further releases from the detention camps. In discussion with UNHCR we have made clear our readiness to consider other vulnerable individuals for inclusion in the 1,000.

  Anti-Abortion Protesters
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of anti-abortion protesters from the United States.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prevent the entry to the United Kingdom of activitists from(a) Operation Rescue and (b) Rescue America.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Citizens of the United States of America are subject to immigration control and must qualify to enter under the terms of the immigration rules. My right hon. and learned Friend may direct exclusion if a person's presence would not be conducive to the public good. Consideration will be given to any evidence which would justify exclusion on this ground.

  City of London (Road Closures)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the City of London Corporation on the closure of roads on security grounds; and what is the maximum time that such road closures can be maintained.

  Mr. Howard
  The experimental traffic scheme now in operation was introduced by the Commissioner of Police for the City of London with the agreement of the Corporation of London, under section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. A scheme introduced under this section may remain in force for up to six months and may thereafter be continued for a maximum of 12 months in all. The City's proposals did not require my approval, although the City corporation and police discussed them with members of my Department before implementation.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the progress of discussions on proposals to remove sex discrimination from the immigration rules; when he expects the conclusions to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are currently considering these and other aspects of the immigration rules and hope to publish proposals shortly.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish the visa requirement for citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Car Park Attacks
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerning(a) the attacks on women that have taken place recently in supermarket car parks in south London and (b) the consideration he is giving to crime prevention advice to shoppers and to the proprietors of supermarkets about improved security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All such attacks are investigated and an arrest has been made in the recent case of an attack on a women shopper returning to her car parked in a supermarket car park. There is no indication that this type of crime is increasing. Sensible precautions are promoted by the Metropolitan police and the national "Secured Car Parks" scheme operates in London. This scheme extends throughout the Metropolitan police district and is open to all car park owners and operators, including supermarket proprietors.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the experience or qualifications possessed by each member of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards prior to their appointment which were considered to be of particular relevance to that appointment.
  341
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The chairman and each member of the inquiry between them possessed an impressive range of skills and experience drawn from the management of large private and public sector organisations, a practical understanding of business, and in particular effective service delivery.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to bringing forward proposals for a rolling register whereby names can be added to the list of voters throughout the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The introduction of a "rolling" electoral register is one of the matters being discussed in the post-election review. The five working groups set up as part of the review are expected to report their findings in

  Recorded racial incidents in the Metropolitan police area

  Ethnic grouping

  Year

  White European

  Dark-skinned European

  Black/Afro-Caribbean

  Asian

  Oriental

  Arabic/Egyptian

  Origin unknown/Other

  Total

  1988

  270

  54

  532

  1,348

  32

  15

  25

  2,276

  1989

  384

  86

  558

  1,616

  35

  25

  43

  2,747

  1990

  439

  104

  649

  1,661

  46

  36

  27

  2,962

  1991

  610

  114

  686

  1,893

  36

  47

  2

  3,388

  1992

  654

  130

  796

  1,860

  58

  42

  134

  3,674

  Note.—These figures do not agree with the table for classified racial incidents as in certain cases there is more than one victim per incident.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not available, apart from the following information in respect of part(b) of the question:

  Lord Belstead

  Chairman of the Parole Board

  Salary £45,060

  Appointed 3 October 1992 until 2 October 1997

  Lord Brassey of Apethorpe

  Member of the Board of Visitors, HM Prison, Gartree Expenses only

  Appointed 1981 for 3 years; reappointed on a 3-yearly basis

  Rt. hon. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, QC

  Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Salary £31,350

  Appointed 1 March 1989 until 31 March 1995

  Lord Kimball

  Chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee Expenses only

  Appointed for 5 years from 1989

  Lord Macaulay of Bragar, QC

  Member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Fee £246 per day

  342
  the late summer. Representatives of the political parties and the local authority associations will then be invited to discuss the reports at a meeting in the autumn.

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 443, if he will provide a breakdown of the figures given by ethnic group of victim, for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey can only be further broken down by ethnic group for the Metropolitan police district, and is given in the table.

  Appointed 12 January 1989 until 31 March 1995

  Baroness Masham of Ilton

  Member of Board of Visitors, HM Young Offender

  Institution, Wetherby

  Expenses only

  Appointed 1963; reappointed on a 3-yearly basis

  Lord Nathan

  Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee

  Expenses only

  Appointed January 1990 until February 1993

  Professor Lord Soulsby of Swaftham Prior

  Member of the Animal Procedures Committee

  Expenses only

  Appointed 1985; renewed 1987 for 4 years

  Lord Swaythling

  Member of the Horserace Totalisator Board

  Salary £7,772

  Appointed 1981; reappointed for 5 terms until 1993

  Lord Wyatt of Weeford

  Chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board

  Salary £92,000

  Appointed 1976; reappointed 1993 for 2 years.

  Information in respect of the Parole Local Review Committees is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Oxfam
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to consult Oxfam before the G7 conference about the issues to be raised there.
  343
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The conclusions in Oxfam's recent report "Africa, Make or Break" were widely considered in the run-up to the summit, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met representatives of Oxfam on 8 July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also met members of the all-party group, the "Africa Caucus", on 29 June, and discussed issues raised by the report.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to withhold aid programmes to India until the Indian Government allow independent observer groups from the British Parliament to visit the Indian-occupied area of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no plans to withhold aid programmes to India.

  Vegetable Waste (Exports)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take in the light of the representations made to him concerning the production of compost/soil enricher from vegetable waste for export to the third world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not believe exporting compost from the United Kingdom is an appropriate or cost-effective way to improve soil fertility in the developing world.

  We aim to address developing country problems through promoting economic growth and self-reliance, and are assisting smallholder farms in Africa and Asia to produce compost from their own organic wastes.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 April to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon),Official Report, column 172, when it became the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to influence Indonesia by dialogue rather than by attaching conditions to aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government explained their policy on good government in speeches by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 6 June 1990 and by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 25 June 1991. When determining the flows of development aid, Her Majesty's Government studies each individual case carefully. Respect for human rights, among other factors, is taken into account.

  Irrigation Projects
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of United Kingdom aid for irrigation projects; which are the main countries involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In financial year 1992–93, we spent £6·54 million on irrigation and associated drainage projects. The main beneficiaries were Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. We also spend about £750,000 344
  per annum on research into irrigation and drainage and fund scholarships in the United Kingdom for irrigation specialists from overseas.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hotel and Restaurant Industry
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the hotel and restaurant industry regarding deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The hotel and restaurant industry is represented on the sectoral task forces and many individual operators and trade organisations have provided evidence of over regulation. The issues identified are being pursued vigorously with the Government Departments concerned.

  THORP
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approaches he has received from foreign customers for BNFL's THORP regarding the cancellation or amendment of contracts, the return of fuel or whether it will be reprocessed.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Music Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount in exports earned by the British music industry in 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  Exports of records, cassettes and compact discs as reported by Customs and Excise and shortly to be published by the British Phonographic Industry in its 1993 handbook were £211·9 million in 1992. BPI will also publish an estimate of invisible earnings in the form of royalties returning from overseas of £500 million in 1991.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring his Department undertakes of firms receiving regional financial selective assistance once their projects have been completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Regional selective assistance offer letters require beneficiaries to confirm to the Department at intervals of 18 months and 36 months after the last payment of grant, that job totals and assets relating to the project remain in place or to explain any changes and the reasons for them.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 254, what information he has about any of the firms benefiting from regional financial selective assistance now having ceased trading.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department may become aware that individual firms have ceased trading at any time during the normal monitoring of regional selective assistance and this information would be recorded on the case file. However, identifying all such cases would involve disproportionate costs. Firms that discontinue trading
  345
  after completion of the monitoring period are treated as all other firms and the Department keeps no specific record of them.

  Post Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those remaining Crown post offices which it is intended to convert to privatised status.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Decisions on which individual Crown post offices should be proposed for conversion to agency status are an operational matter for the Post Office. The Post Office always consults publicly on individual proposals in accordance with a code of practice agreed with the Post Office Users National Council.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he held with the Post Office on its decision to convert an additional 200 Crown post offices to privatised status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that the Post Office has made no decision about the number of Crown offices to be converted to agency status. The Crown office conversion programme delivers costs savings which help to protect the rest of the post office network; it also ensures that the delivery of post office services is responsive to customer needs by, for example, increasing opening hours. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade does not have detailed discussions with the Post Office on implementation of this programme, which is a matter within their operational responsibility.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 35, how many of the representations from Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. lessees expressed concern over rent levels; how many referred to the effect of a beer tie on rent levels; and how many of the complainants have obtained redress of their grievances as a result of his intervention.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The majority of representations received recently by my Department from Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. lessees expressed concern over rent levels. Levels of rent are essentially a commercial matter between company and lessee. We understand from the company that rent levels negotiated by the company take account of the individual circumstances of each public house, including whether or not it is tied. The Government asked all the major brewers in 1991 to introduce procedures associated with long-term leases to be determined by independent arbitration or through independent assess-ment by a professional expert where they could not be agreed with the tenants; these are available under the IEL lease. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in individual cases.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 35, what were the specific issues raised with Mr. R. G. Williams, chairman and managing director of Grand Metropolitan Estates Ltd. in respect of Inntrepreneur leases; what was his response; what reduction in rents resulted from the removal of beer ties; and if he will make a statement.
  346
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The purpose of the discussion was to assist officials in advising me on how to respond to points made in representations to the Department. In particular the Department needed to be clear whether the representations made to us revealed any evidence that the company was not complying with the Beer Orders or undertakings given to the Director General of Fair Trading following the MMC report on the Elders IXL Ltd./Grand Metropolitan plc merger; and further, whether the company was abiding by assurances given to Ministers in 1991 about treatment of tenants. On the level of rents, the release of a pub from tie affects its market rent because it allows the tenant/lessee freedom of choice in sourcing his beer and in obtaining discounts.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 36, what assurances have been obtained from Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. in respect of its treatment of their lessees since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In meetings with the company, my officials have been assured that the company continues to abide by the assurances given to Ministers in 1991 about the treatment of tenants. In addition, I understand that the company has recently introduced more flexibility into leasing arrangements; for example, the incorporation, where appropriate, of a three-year break clause, exercisable by the lessee only, into the standard Inntrepreneur lease.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the operation of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: There has been no formal assessment of the legislation by the Attorney-General. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has responsibility for the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Department monitors the effectiveness of all legislation for which it is responsible.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (I) what volume, in cubic metres, of intermediate level radioactive waste will remain in the United Kingdom under return of waste agreements between British Nuclear Fuels plc and overseas customers(a) in absolute terms and (h) as a proportion of the waste imported;

  (2) what volume, in cubic metres, of low level radioactive wastes will remain in the United Kingdom under return of waste agreements between British Nuclear Fuels plc and overseas customers (a) in absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of the waste imported.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: Since 1976. BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. Under these agreements, the company has the right to return all three types of waste—high, intermediate and low-level—to the country of origin. The possible substitution for low and intermediate-level waste of a radiologically equivalent amount of high-level waste, in addition to the customer's normal HLW allocation, was referred to in my reply to the hon. Member of 7 June 1993, Official Report, column 161.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Council of Ministers meeting on Friday, 2 July in relation to the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: I refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside on 6 July, Official Report, columns 105–06.

  Misleading Pricing
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications; and if he will publish their report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to the answer given by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 7 May 1993, Official Report, columns 276–77]: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms has announced today that the Department is going out to consultation on proposed regulations under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which would require resellers of tickets for theatre performances and other such events to tell consumers the standard of the seat being offered including its face value.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ballygowan
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated population of Ballygowan; and what the population of Ballygowan was 10 years ago.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Prior to 1991, the official mid-year estimates of population were not produced to ward level. However, the 1991 census records the population of the ward of Ballygowan as 4,027. Allowing for boundary changes, the comparable 1981 census figure is estimated at 2,949.

  Optical Appliances Vouchers
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total number of optical appliances vouchers redeemed in Northern Ireland in each year since 1986; and what was the total cost of the optical appliances voucher scheme in Northern Ireland in each year since 1986.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Total number of vouchers redeemed

  Total cost of vouchers scheme (£)

  19861

  62,519

  972,808

  1987

  124,222

  2,287,157

  1988

  122,080

  2,485,425

  1989

  119,207

  2,681,090

  1990

  118,152

  2,889,159

  1991

  2141,687

  3,573,688

  1992

  2162,365

  4,381,207

  1 The 1986 figures represent only six months as the scheme was introduced on 1 July 1986.

  348

  2 The figures for 1991 and 1992 are provisional.

  Source: Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for Health and Personal Social Services.

  Opera House, Belfast
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of repairing the Opera house in Belfast after its recent bombing; if he expects this cost to be met from ordinary funding of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The estimated cost of repairing the Grand Opera is £1·75 million. The Compensation Agency has accepted liability for the necessary repairs.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding is allocated to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland for the current year; and what were the figures for the five preceding years.

  Mr. Ancram
  In the current financial year the Arts Council of Northern Ireland will receive funding amounting to £6·349 million. Allocations in the five preceding years were:

  £ million

  1988–89

  4·272

  1989–90

  4·797

  1990–91

  5·565

  1991–92

  6·461

  1992–93

  6·580

  President, Irish Republic
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representatives of Her Majesty's Government have been in attendance during engagements performed by the President of the Irish Republic during each of her private visits to Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  A representative of Her Majesty's Government was in attendance at one event attended by the President of the Irish Republic in February 1992 during one of her five private visits to Northern Ireland. On that occasion the then Secretary of State, Mr. Brooke, hosted a reception in Stormont castle.

  Disallowed Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by month for the last 12 months and by employment region the number of people disallowed unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 8 July 1993:
  349
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters, your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of disallowances of Unemployment Benefit in the employ-ment regions of Northern Ireland each month in the last 12 months has been passed to me for reply.

  Unemployment benefit disallowances in Northern Ireland from July 1992 to June 1993

  1992

  1993

  District

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Belfast North

  175

  145

  136

  134

  160

  140

  140

  150

  140

  152

  115

  201

  Belfast South and Down

  174

  150

  161

  182

  197

  161

  139

  178

  193

  137

  111

  168

  North West

  132

  101

  141

  170

  163

  168

  133

  119

  148

  181

  180

  172

  Laganbann

  123

  165

  147

  240

  217

  210

  201

  203

  212

  182

  186

  202

  North East

  150

  104

  122

  186

  203

  189

  174

  176

  210

  211

  184

  176

  Central

  161

  72

  105

  132

  94

  82

  167

  105

  123

  170

  99

  112

  Mourne

  121

  113

  107

  164

  149

  151

  131

  165

  174

  131

  153

  151

  East

  184

  205

  266

  715

  545

  349

  317

  435

  364

  369

  404

  542

  Belfast West

  62

  92

  67

  59

  69

  33

  89

  61

  101

  49

  114

  86

  South East Antrim

  194

  218

  238

  410

  265

  235

  299

  350

  342

  329

  259

  315

  West

  104

  64

  118

  120

  113

  126

  91

  143

  150

  145

  83

  85

  TOTAL

  1,580

  1,429

  1,608

  2,512

  2,175

  1,844

  1,881

  2,085

  2,157

  2,056

  1,888

  2,210

PRIME MINISTER

  UK-Japan Nuclear Trade
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the matter of United Kingdom-Japan nuclear trade during his visit to the G7 summit in Tokyo.

  The Prime Minister
  At our meeting, the Prime Minister of Japan and I discussed a wide range of bilateral and international issues.

  Serbia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had during the past two weeks with Lord Owen on the issue of the selective lifting of sanctions against Serbia; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no such discussions with Lord Owen during the past two weeks. At the Group of Seven economic summit in Tokyo on 7–9 July, 1 and other Heads of Government reaffirmed that sanctions will be upheld against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions in the relevant Security Council resolutions on the former Yugoslavia are met.

  Destination

  Purpose of visit

  Dates

  Italy

  NATO Summit Meeting

  6–8 November 1991

  Germany

  Bilateral

  10 November 1991

  Italy

  Bilateral

  27 November 1991

  Germany

  Bilateral

  27 November 1991

  Netherlands

  Bilateral

  1 December 1991

  Republic of Ireland

  Bilateral

  4 December 1991

  Netherlands

  European Council

  8–10 December 1991

  USA

  United Nations Security Council Meeting

  30–31 January 1992

  Poland

  Bilateral

  25–26 May 1992

  Czechoslovakia

  Bilateral

  26–28 May 1992

  Hungary

  Bilateral

  28–29 May 1992

  Germany

  Bilateral

  5 June 1992

  USA

  Bilateral

  6–9 June 1992

  Colombia

  Bilateral

  9–10 June 1992

  Brazil

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

  10–12 June 1992

  Portugal

  European Council

  25–27 June 1992

  Germany

  G7 Economic Summit

  6–8 July 1992

  350
  There are 11 Districts in Northern Ireland for social security purposes. The number of people disallowed Unemployment Benefit for each of the last twelve months in the Districts is set out in the table attached.

  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy towards the appointment of known members of the Labour party to non-ministerial public bodies, including health authorities and hospital trust boards.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government seek to make all appointments, including those to health authorities and NHS trusts, on merit. Individuals are carefully appraised against the key criteria set for each appointment which cover the qualities, skills and experience required. Details of political affiliation are not specified, and are not required on nomination forms. The successful candidate is the one who meets the criteria, and has the ability and aptitude to meet the demands of the appointment, and to contribute to the effective working of the body concerned.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the destination, dates and purpose of each official overseas visit he has undertaken since November 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:
  351

  Destination

  Purpose of visit

  Dates

  Finland

  CSCE Summit

  9–10 July 1992

  Spain

  Olympic Games

  7–9 August 1992

  Spain

  Bilateral

  16–17 September 1992

  France

  Bilateral

  30 September 1992

  Egypt

  50th Anniversary Commemorations at El Alamein

  23–25 October 1992

  Belgium

  Bilateral

  23 November 1992

  Italy

  Bilateral

  27 November 1992

  Luxembourg

  Bilateral

  30 November 1992

  Greece

  Bilateral

  27–28 November 1992

  Spain

  Bilateral

  30 November to 1 December 1992

  Portugal

  Bilateral

  1 December 1992

  Denmark

  Bilateral

  2 December 1992

  Netherlands

  Bilateral

  6–7 December 1992

  Republic of Ireland

  Bilateral

  7 December 1992

  France

  European Parliament Plenary

  15–16 December 1992

  Canada

  EC/Canada Talks

  17–18 December 1992

  USA

  EC/United States Talks

  18–20 December 1992

  Bosnia

  Visit British Forces

  22 December 1992

  India

  Republic Day Celebrations

  23–28 January 1993

  Oman

  Bilateral

  28 January 1993

  Saudi Arabia

  Bilateral

  28 January 1993

  USA

  Bilateral

  23–25 February 1993

  Switzerland

  Bilateral

  5–6 April 1993

  Austria

  Bilateral

  6 April 1993

  France

  Bilateral

  27–28 May 1993

  Denmark

  European Council

  20–22 June 1993

  Japan

  G7 Economic Summit

  5–9 July 1993

SCOTLAND

  Mortgage Rescue Schemes
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress Scottish Homes has made with developing mortgage rescue schemes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement relating to future plans for progressing such schemes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I asked Scottish Homes in 1991 to consider the need for such schemes in Scotland. After consulting the Building Societies Association it advised that due to the generally low level of repossessions and the relative buoyancy of the Scottish housing market, specific mortgage rescue schemes were not appropriate in Scotland. The situation is kept under review.

  Crown Office
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representatives of the Crown Office have attended courses in racial awareness.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is an equal opportunities employer whose training courses where appropriate have a component dealing with racial awareness. Procurators fiscal are also encouraged to meet representatives of local community relations councils and similar bodies to discuss issues of concern to ethnic minorities. Crown Office staff meet and correspond from time to time with the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to enable the Crown Office to equip procurators fiscal and depute fiscals to prosecute in cases of racially motivated crimes.
  352
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the function of the Secretary of State for Scotland to equip prosecutors to carry out their duties. Procurators fiscal have been instructed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate always to take into account, when considering whether proceedings are in the public interest, evidence that a crime was racially motivated. They will also ensure that information about such an aggravating factor is brought to the attention of the court before sentence is passed.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland(a) how many cases of racial harassment or racially motivated crimes or offences have been reported by Scottish police forces to the Crown Office during the last full year for which such figures are available, (b) how many of such cases have been brought to prosecution by the Crown Office and (c) how many such prosecutions have resulted in convictions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures are not available which show the total number of cases of racial harassment reported by the police to procurators fiscal, although in 1992 the police recorded 38 cases in the category comprising offences under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986. Cases involving racial harassment are often prosecuted at common law and in that event prosecutions and convictions are not being recorded in such a way as to allow those which are racially motivated to be counted separately.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were registered as unemployed in the Greenock travel-to-work-area; and what was the figure in(a) 1985, (b) 1988 and (c)

  Mr. Stewart
  In April 1993, the number of people registered as unemployed in Greenock travel-to-work-area was 5,726, representing 13·2 per cent. of the work force.
  353
  The equivalent figures in April 1985, 1988 and 1991 were (a) 9,368–19·5 per cent.—(b) 9,116–20·9 per cent.—and (c) 5,699–13·5 per cent.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Foreign Tourists
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives the Government are taking to increase the number of tourists from abroad to this country.

  Mr. Sproat
  The British Tourist Authority receives £32 million from my Department to promote Britain overseas. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the number of overseas visits to the United Kingdom over the three months to April is 12 per cent. up on the same period last year.

  I am also conducting an urgent and detailed inquiry into regulations affecting tourism to establish the scope for deregulation and so allow the industry to become more competitive.

  British Library
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the new British Library site at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received several representations on various aspects of the St. Pancras project.

  Theatre-in-Education
  Mr. John Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will establish an independent inquiry into the funding of Theatre-in-Education.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not involve itself in the funding of individual arts organisations. It is for the appropriate agencies—in this case, the Arts Councils, regional arts boards and local authorities—to consider support of Theatre-in-Education in the context of their own funding policies and priorities.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to meet the chairman of English Heritage to discuss funding.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have frequent meetings with the chairman of English Heritage at which a whole range of issues, including funding, are discussed.

  Industrial Heritage
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent assessment his Department has made on the implications for the tourism industry of industrial national heritage.

  Mr. Sproat
  The English Tourist Board has designated 1993 as Industrial Heritage Year with the regional tourist boards undertaking a series of promotional activities on this theme. It is too early to make any assessment of the outcome of the campaign. However, I understand that there has been an encouraging response to the campaign "Experience the Making of Britain".

  Arts and Sports, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about opportunities for funding for arts and sports in Chelmsford.

  Mr. Sproat
  Funding for the arts in Chelmsford is mainly provided by the borough council with Essex county council. Chelmsford borough council supports its own directly managed venues and promotions. The Government-funded regional arts board, Eastern Arts, supports the Chelmsford Spectacular and the Chelmsford Cathedral Festival. All of these bodies offer individual project grants. Chelmsford borough council and Eastern Arts have supported a feasibility study into the possibilities of converting Chancellor Hall into a major regional dance centre and, as a follow-up, are presently launching a more detailed architectural study of Chancellor Hall.

  The Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme has this year made an award of £4,000 to a Chelmsford-based arts organisation, the Essex Regional Dance Council, to match sponsorship by United Distillers, London.

  In addition to local authority funding, financial assistance for sport is provided through the Sports Council and the business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport, both sponsored by my Department, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) and the Football Trust. In recent years Chelmsford has benefited from a number of these sources, including a grant of £100,000 from the FSA in 1992 to rebuild an indoor cricket school at the Essex County Cricket Club ground.

  The Crescent. Buxton
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest information he has on plans to restore the Grade I listed Crescent in Buxton.

  Mr. Sproat
  A public local inquiry into my right hon. Friend's draft compulsory purchase order for the former St. Ann's hotel has been arranged to take place in Buxton on 17 August. If the order is subsequently made, my right hon. Friend's intention is to dispose of the building to High Peak borough council, which would carry out the necessary repairs.

  Sports Grant
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what level of grant will be given to the new United Kingdom Sports Commission and Sports Council for England.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced on 9 July,Official Report, column 599–602, that the Government did not intend to proceed with the creation of the United Kingdom Sports Commission.

  Television News
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessments he has made of the ability of the Independent Television Commission to preserve the quality of the news coverage of ITV.

  Mr. Brooke
  The ITC became the regulator, rather than the broadcaster, of ITV on 1 January this year. The
  355
  Commission has shown its determination to ensure that the ITV companies comply with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the conditions of their licences.

  Press Regulation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has held with owners and editors of national newspapers about the proposals by the Press Complaints Commission to strengthen self-regulation.

  Mr. Brooke
  None; but I have regular informal contacts with a range of owners and editors of national newspapers and am well aware of their views on press self-regulation, as on other matters. On 5 March I met representatives of the Press Standards of Finance Ltd. to discuss the industry's response to Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation.

  Hotel Tax
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response he has made to the proposal by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities for a tourism tax on hotels.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am aware of the document produced by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, although I have not been approached for a response. I shall monitor developments with interest, although local taxation is primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment.

  I am glad to see that the paper acknowledges the difficulties inherent in introducing a tourism tax. Many sectors of the tourism industry are opposed to the idea, and the impact of such a tax on tourism earnings would have to be very carefully considered.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to discuss the renewal of the BBC charter with governors of the BBC.

  Mr. Brooke
  None at present. I discussed the future of the BBC, and other matters, when I met the board of governors and senior managers on 16 June.

  National Museums
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he proposes to visit the national museums of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England to discuss funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I visit many museums throughout the United Kingdom. I have direct funding responsibility for the national museums of England only.

  Taylor Report
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on the implementation of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Brooke
  Six clubs in the FA Premier League and First Division of the Football League have already met the requirement of seating for all, and many others will achieve this objective within the next few months.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress is being made towards determining the site for the headquarters of the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  My hon. Friend is an extremely effective champion of anything that is in the good interests of Basildon. I congratulate him on that. In this case, of course, the choice of a site for the headquarters of the national lottery is not a matter for Ministers, but for the chosen operator of the national lottery. The choice of the operator, which will be made by the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery—OFLOT—will not be made until after the National Lottery Etc. Bill has received Royal Assent, and the Director General of OFLOT has been appointed.

  My hon. Friend may care to identify potential candidates for the role of operator of the national lottery, before one such candidate is chosen, and explain to them all, and seek to convince them of the benefits, as he sees them, of Basildon as a site, so that whoever is chosen is fully briefed on Basildon. No doubt other hon. Members may also seek to convince potential operators of the benefits of other sites for the headquarters of the national lottery

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when work on the repairs at Windsor castle are expected to be completed.

  Mr. Brooke
  The reconstruction of the fire-damaged areas is planned to be completed in 1998. I am pleased to announce that the Duke of Edinburgh will be chairing a committee to advise on the restoration project. The deputy chairman will be the Prince of Wales. Other members are the president of the RIBA, the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the chairman of English Heritage, the Lord Chamberlain and two other members of the royal household, and the Permanent Secretary of my Department.

  Regional Theatre
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the future of British regional theatre.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Arts Council recently conducted an artistic review to set its funding priorities. Following that review, I have received a number of letters about the future of particular theatres and support for drama. The levels of funding given to theatres and drama companies are matters for the Arts Council.

EDUCATION

  LEA Spending
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to improve the analysis of local education authority spending figures by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  For the 1992–93 financial year, we aim to have a complete data set by January 1994, about two months earlier than hitherto.
  357
  Achievement of this aim depends on LEAs completing and submitting the relevant returns on time.

  Non-teaching Staff
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide for each local education authority the numbers of(a) non-teaching staff in schools and (b) non-teaching staff employed centrally, providing for each group a breakdown by job function into (i) education support staff, (ii) premises related, including school meals, caretakers and (iii) administration.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the full-time equivalent numbers of education support and administrative staff employed in maintained schools in England in January 1992—the latest date for which information is available—is shown in the table. Information on premises-related staff in schools is not collected centrally.

  Similar information on centrally employed non-teaching staff is not collected by the Department, although tables showing the total numbers of teachers and lecturers and of other staff employed in the education service of each local authority have been placed in the Library.

  Full-time equivalent1 numbers of education support staff and administrative staff in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England

  Position at January 1992

  Local education authority

  Education support staff

  Administrative staff

  Corporation of London

  4

  1

  Camden

  284

  104

  Greenwich

  428

  160

  Hackney

  395

  119

  Hammersmith

  246

  88

  Islington

  339

  95

  Kensington and Chelsea

  158

  66

  Lambeth

  403

  129

  Lewisham

  281

  118

  Southwark

  406

  146

  Tower Hamlets

  444

  152

  Wandsworth

  590

  146

  Westminster

  225

  111

  Barking

  232

  102

  Barnet

  423

  171

  Bexley

  175

  118

  Brent

  288

  142

  Bromley

  193

  175

  Croydon

  379

  207

  Ealing

  481

  161

  Enfield

  340

  135

  Haringey

  426

  109

  Harrow

  263

  117

  Havering

  210

  160

  Hillingdon

  407

  153

  Hounslow

  331

  146

  Kingston upon Thames

  134

  120

  Merton

  153

  133

  Newham

  439

  125

  Redbridge

  196

  158

  Richmond upon Thames

  121

  86

  Sutton

  149

  127

  Waltham Forest

  403

  179

  Birmingham

  1,692

  572

  Coventry

  499

  243

  Dudley

  309

  166

  Sandwell

  502

  217

  Solihull

  270

  148

  Walsall

  509

  195

  Wolverhampton

  421

  157

  Knowsley

  283

  134

  Liverpool

  618

  289

  St. Helens

  235

  106

  Sefton

  295

  199

  Wirral

  331

  173

  358

  Local education authority

  Education support staff

  Administrative staff

  Bolton

  316

  162

  Bury

  228

  84

  Manchester

  901

  289

  Oldham

  369

  124

  Rochdale

  269

  142

  Salford

  402

  157

  Stockport

  411

  184

  Tameside

  357

  122

  Trafford

  159

  112

  Wigan

  322

  177

  Barnsley

  334

  113

  Doncaster

  329

  243

  Rotherham

  342

  155

  Sheffield

  692

  308

  Bradford

  1,134

  380

  Calderdale

  332

  114

  Kirklees

  514

  237

  Leeds

  1,232

  405

  Wakefield

  430

  220

  Gateshead

  217

  109

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  426

  163

  North Tyneside

  278

  123

  South Tyneside

  168

  62

  Sunderland

  425

  155

  Isles of Scilly

  3

  3

  Avon

  1,332

  654

  Bedfordshire

  781

  483

  Berkshire

  980

  515

  Buckinghamshire

  1,082

  460

  Cambridgeshire

  1,271

  469

  Cheshire

  1,258

  596

  Cleveland

  772

  384

  Cornwall

  752

  263

  Cumbria

  601

  251

  Derbyshire

  1,484

  487

  Devon

  1,312

  640

  Dorset

  608

  369

  Durham

  832

  299

  East Sussex

  712

  428

  Essex

  1,540

  1,166

  Gloucestershire

  609

  360

  Hampshire

  2,127

  1,273

  Hereford and Worcester

  538

  408

  Hertfordshire

  1,468

  698

  Humberside

  1,265

  570

  Isle of Wight

  193

  98

  Kent

  1,567

  1,017

  Lancashire

  1,563

  838

  Leicestershire

  1,290

  664

  Lincolnshire

  757

  333

  Norfolk

  804

  457

  North Yorkshire

  656

  429

  Northamptonshire

  751

  442

  Northumberland

  338

  194

  Nottinghamshire

  1,376

  579

  Oxfordshire

  888

  363

  Shropshire

  572

  281

  Somerset

  755

  300

  Staffordshire

  1,324

  698

  Suffolk

  706

  434

  Surrey

  972

  824

  Warwickshire

  587

  319

  West Sussex

  775

  572

  Wiltshire

  701

  377

  England

  64,398

  31,193

  1 The hours worked during the survey week by non-teachers in various job categories are converted to full-time equivalent staff numbers by dividing 32·5 hours for nursery assistants and 37 hours for other categories.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimate of the unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of school schemes for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  Unspent balances in respect of all local education authority-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England at the end of the 1990–91 financial year, as recorded on LEAs' annual revenue outturn returns to the Department of the Environment, amounted to £322 million. The estimated figure for 1991–92 is £394 million.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many complaints his Department has received from parents concerning the conduct of head teachers or governing bodies during a ballot for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collate information on the number or source of complaints about conduct during ballots on grant-maintained status, nor on whose conduct is complained about.

  All such complaints are considered carefully and are investigated as appropriate. Particular attention is given to complaints alleging breaches of the law or where there may have been improper influence on the outcome of a ballot.

  Special Needs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many special needs schools there were in each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figures by category of special need.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the number of maintained and non-maintained special schools is shown in the table. Many of these schools make provision for more than one kind of learning difficulty, so it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these figures by category of special need.

  Maintained and non-maintained special schools in England (1988–1992)

  Position at January of each year

  Year

  Maintained

  Non-maintained

  1988

  1,359

  84

  1989

  1,337

  82

  1990

  1,317

  81

  1991

  1,799

  81

  1992

  1,774

  78

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children had statements of educational need, in each of the last five years nationally and by each educational authority.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 7 June 1993,Official Report, columns 25–28.

  Cumbria County Council (Court Case)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the costs incurred by his Department following his court case with Cumbria county council.
  360
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Fees in respect of this case are not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  Education Assets Board
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, columns 19–20, if he will describe in general terms the nature and use of the premises at each educational establishment where his determination of an Education Assets Board recommendation is awaited.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Of the 14 cases awaiting final determination by my right hon. Friend, only nine of them involve the transfer of land and/or property. These are as follows:Grant-maintained schools
  Dartford Grammar School for Girls, Kent—A dispute between the school and Kent county council over (i) transfer of an area of playing field, (ii) pedestrian rights of access and (iii) transfer of a further area of land.
  Great Barr School, Birmingham—A dispute between the school and Birmingham county council over the ownership of an adjacent sports hall and an area of playing field which is used by both the school and the local community.
  Kingsley Park School, Northamptonshire—A dispute between the school and Northamptonshire county council over the transfer of a gymnasium block in a building on the school site which is also used by another of the authority's schools.
  Pate's Grammar School, Gloucestershire—A dispute between the school and Gloucestershire county council over the transfer of the site of a former secondary school which had been leased to Pate's grammar school while major building work was carried out on their own school site.
  Stratford School, London—A dispute between the school and the London borough of Newham over the transfer of the freehold of a house.
  Thamesview School, Kent—A dispute between the school and Kent county council on the transfer or retention of a house.
  Higher education institutions
  Greenwich—A dispute between the London borough of Wandsworth, which inherited the Inner London Education Authority's education responsibilities in the area, and Thames polytcchnnic—now the university of Greenwich—over the transfer of the freehold of property known as Manresa house, and the grounds surrounding this property. Wandsworth uses part of Manresa house for adult education.
  Falmouth School of Art and Design—A dispute between Cornwall county council and Falmouth school of art and design over the transfer of properties in Falmouth and Camborne, used by the school.
  Further education institutions
  Somerset College of Arts and Technology—The EAB has determined that the freehold interest in the access road serving the college and Castle school should transfer to the college. Somerset county council have appealed to the Secretary of State against this determination.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education by what statutory authority he either permits or prevents any local education authority or governing body of a school wholly dependent on public funds to engage teachers on pay less than that of agreed national scales or
  361
  without professional qualifications recognised in the United Kingdom; and if he plans to bring forward proposals for any change of the law in either respect.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, school teachers employed by local education authorities or by the governing bodies of voluntary schools must be paid in accordance with a school teachers' pay and conditions document given force by an order of the Secretary of State. School teachers employed by the governing body of a self-governing—grant-maintained—school must also be so paid unless the school has sought exemption from the Act. The Act does not apply to teachers employed by other kinds of school or by private agencies.

  Under the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993, teachers employed at a school maintained by a local education authority, a self-governing—grant-maintained —school or a non-maintained special school must ordinarily possess qualified teacher status as defined in the regulations. There are exceptions for licensed teachers; overseas trained teachers; student teachers; and certain existing unqualified teachers; and a suitable unqualified teacher may be appointed if no suitable qualified teacher, licensed teacher or overseas trained teacher is available. This part of the regulations does not apply to other kinds of school. The Act and the regulations apply to England and Wales.

  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to bring forward proposals for changing the law in respect of these matters.

DEFENCE

  UN Troops (Cyprus)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide phone cards for British troops serving with the United Nations peacekeep-ing force in Cyprus.

  Mr. Hanley
  All United Kingdom service personnel deployed in Cyprus receive a local overseas allowance to compensate them for the additional cost of living in that country. The allowance, which is the same for personnel under United Kingdom and United Nations command, contains an element to enable personnel to maintain telephone contact with the United Kingdom.

  The only areas of deployment in which service personnel currently receive a telephone allowance are Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia. Neither of these attracts an overseas allowance, but in recognition of the particularly difficult and dangerous circumstances a telephone allowance is given.

  There are no plans to change the current position.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, in real terms and as a proportion of gross domestic product, the expenditure on the armed forces for each year since 1979 and the projections in such terms for such annual expenditure for as many years into the future as is practicable.

  Mr. Hanley
  Previous and planned expenditure on the armed forces between 1979–80 and 1995–96 was set out in 362
  the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", (Cm 2219). Planned defence expenditure between 1993–94 and 1995–96 as a proportion of the forecast GDP gross domestic product—not given in the supplement—is as follows:

  1993–94 —3·7 per cent.

  1994–95 —3·5 per cent.

  1995–96 —3·2 per cent.

  Queen's Flight
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) Cabinet Ministers and (b) others are entitled to use aircraft from the Queen's Flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  Subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, and the availability of aircraft, the following are entitled to use aircraft of the Queen's Flight when travelling on official business.

  Members of the Royal Family

  The Prime Minister

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  The Home Secretary

  The Secretary of State for Defence

  The Secretary of State for Scotland

  The Secretary of State for Wales

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces

  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence

  Chief of the Defence Staff

  Chief of the Naval Staff

  Chief of the General Staff

  Chief of the Air Staff

  General Officer Commanding London district

  Visiting Heads of State and foreign dignitaries of equivalent status to the above.

  Members of the Privy Council travelling to attend meetings of the Council outside London.

  Navy Salaries
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the amount of pension receivable by(a) a lieutenant commander and (b) a chief petty officer each with 25 years service assuming that each had retired on (i) 1 June 1992 and (ii) 1 June 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  For a lieutenant commander and a chief petty officer each with 25 years reckonable service, the amounts of pension are as follows:

  Date of retirement

  Amount of award £

  Lieutenant commander

  1 June 1992

  11,784

  1 June 1993

  11,962

  Chief petty officer

  1 June 1992

  7,101

  1 June 1993

  7,207

  Research and Development
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on research and development from 1991.
  363
  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's research and develop-ment expenditure is detailed in table 1·5 of the 1993 edition of "Defence Statistics". The total gross expenditure in 1991–92 was £2,680 million and the estimated outturn in 1992–93 is £2,912 million.

  Service Projects
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the five current service projects involving the most expenditure; and what is the manpower requirement involved in each such project.

  Mr. Hanley
  The five current service projects involving the most expenditure are shown in table 1·15 of "Defence Statistics" 1993. They are Trident, EH 101, Eurofighter 2000, Rapier Field Standard C and Warrior.

  It is not possible without disproportionate cost to identify all staff effort involved in these projects throughout the Department.

  Procurement executive staff directly and exclusively involved in the management of these projects are as follows:

  Project Manpower

  Number of staff involved

  Trident

  335

  EH 101

  42

  Eurofighter 2000

  91

  Rapier (FSC)

  41

  Warrior

  25

  Anthrax Inoculation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women in the Gulf conflict were inoculated against anthrax; and if the inoculation included inoculation against penicillin-resistant anthrax.

  Mr. Hanley
  Vaccines giving protection against a number of biological warfare agents considered to be a threat during Operation Granby were administered to all consenting British personnel on a voluntary basis. The details of these vaccines are classified.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation by veterans of the British nuclear tests are currently pending; what action he is taking on their cases; what factors are delaying his making of a final decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Five such claims are pending. They are being examined in the usual way, to establish whether there is any evidence of exposure to radiation, and if so whether this caused any subsequent disease. So far, however, no case of death or disease among British nuclear test veterans has been shown to have resulted from radiation from the tests.

  Successive British Governments have explained that almost all the personnel involved received little or no radiation from the tests. If these assurances were wrong and people actually had been subjected to substantial additional radiation, medical experts would expect to find an excess of total cancer deaths subsequently. But
  364
  according to the study published in 1988 by the National Radiological Protection Board, the total incidence of death and malignant disease has been no greater among test veterans than for people who were not involved in the tests. We know of no new evidence that would change this position.

  Air Defence Alerting Device
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the purpose of the air defence alerting device recently brought into servive with the Army; which systems it replaces and in what roles; what similar equipment is in service with, or on order for, the other services; what are the approximate costs involved; who are the principal contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The air defence alerting device (ADAD) is a passive, infra-red surveillance device, manufactured by Thorn EMI, which has recently entered service. It will be deployed with the Army's and the Royal Marines' close air defence weapon systems to provide passive early warning of potential aerial targets. In addition to the free-standing version, which is now being deployed with the Javelin system, ADAD will be vehicle mounted for use with the self-propelled version of the Starstreak high-velocity missile, due to come into service in 1994. ADAD is a completely new system which will provide a significant enhancement to the Army's close air defence alerting capability, which previously relied on human detection. The overall investment in the programme will exceed £100 million.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Departments to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. Nelson
  No such appointments have been made.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, and salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) none.

  (b) none.

  (c) Marchioness of Anglesy; Member, Royal Mint Advisory Committee; appointed in February 1991 for 7 years; no salary payable.

  (d) This information is not held.

  Gross Domestic Product (Hong Kong)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he estimates that the gross domestic product per capita of Hong Kong will equal that of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The future comparative paths of GDP per capita in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong will depend on exchange rate movements and relative growth rates of GDP and population.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his estimates by range of income for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 of the number of tax units receiving mortgage interest tax relief, the average value per mortgagor and the total cost of the relief.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimates are shown in the tables. The figures for 1993–94 are based on the conventional assumption of no further changes in interest rates.

  Mortgage interest relief by range of total income1

  Range of total income1 (lower limit)

  Number of single people or married couples bene-fiting from mortgage interest relief

  Average mortgage interest relief

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  £

  thousands

  £

  £ million

  1992–93

  0

  840

  410

  340

  5,000

  1,130

  460

  520

  10,000

  2,670

  510

  1,360

  15,000

  2,400

  560

  1,340

  20,000

  1,050

  570

  600

  25,000

  510

  590

  300

  30,000

  610

  610

  370

  40,000

  590

  630

  370

  Total

  9,800

  530

  5,200

  1993–94

  0

  840

  370

  310

  5,000

  1,120

  380

  420

  10,000

  2,540

  410

  1,050

  15,000

  2,330

  450

  1,050

  20,000

  1,220

  460

  560

  25,000

  570

  460

  260

  30,000

  640

  500

  320

  40,000

  640

  510

  330

  Total

  9,900

  430

  4,300

  1 Total income of husband for married couples.

  Civil Servants (Offices)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the office accommodation costs for civil servants and give an analysis under appropriate headings including a notional rental amount in respect of premises held on freehold or long-leasehold tenure for(a) 1979 and (b) the most recent period.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information required is not centrally collected in the format requested. The table sets out the information in respect of departmental accommodation costs for central Government Departments for 1992–93, the last year available. Data for 1979 are not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  366

  £ million

  1992–93

  Rent

  Other accommodation

  Defence

  184·7

  129·6

  FCO (including ODA)

  61·9

  43·0

  Agriculture

  39·7

  23·9

  Trade and Industry

  58·9

  46·2

  Employment

  121·9

  92·4

  Transport

  30·1

  23·2

  Environment

  39·8

  25·5

  Home Office

  63·1

  91·3

  Legal Departments

  99·5

  94·6

  Education

  10·8

  5·6

  Heritage

  0·5

  1·1

  Health

  30·0

  19·6

  Social Security

  131·9

  124·5

  Scotland

  37·8

  19·3

  Wales

  2·8

  3·7

  Northern Ireland

  8·4

  35·3

  Chancellor's Departments

  199·9

  134·1

  Cabinet Office etc·

  10·9

  0·3

  1,132·7

  913·2

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his current plans for a review of the 1·5 per cent. limit on public sector pay increases for the next pay round; and what will be the position in that pay round of those employees in the public sector who had been awarded a higher figure than 1·5 per cent. for the present pay round.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government will review the situation with regard to public sector pay at the appropriate time bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Public sector pay is an important part of public expenditure and will have to be kept under tight control.

  Under the Government's current approach to public sector pay restraint, every public sector group will be subject to one pay settlement only in the range 0 to 1·5 per cent. Those groups who received settlements in excess of 1·5 per cent. last year in respect of the 1992–93 pay round will have their 1993 settlement constrained appropriately.

  Public Sector Pension Schemes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for each of the main public sector pension schemes the financial year when he expects the average pension in payment to reach £10,000 per annum based on current trends in lengths of service, earnings and price increases.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table shows when the average pension in payment from the main public service pension schemes would reach £10,000 per annum if the average level of price inflation were 1 per cent. or 4 per cent. in the longer term. These represent the top and bottom of the Government's target range for inflation.

  Financial rear when average pension is expected to reach £10,000 per annum

  Scheme

  Rate of growth per annum

  1 per cent.

  4 per cent.

  Civil Service

  2083–84

  2016–17

  NHS (England and Wales)

  2082–83

  2016–17

  NHS (Scotland)

  2094–95

  2019–20

  367

  Scheme

  Rate of growth per annum

  1 per cent.

  4 per cent.

  Teachers (England and Wales)

  2039–40

  2005–6

  Teachers (Scotland)

  2037–38

  2004–5

  Armed Forces

  2077–78

  2014–15

  Local Government(England and Wales)

  2124–25

  2026–27

  Average

  2084–85

  2016–17

  Pension Commitments
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish in the next Budget and autumn statement documents a statement of the Government's best estimate of the funded and unfunded pension commitments with an analysis by year and a statement of each unfunded liability of the public sector in excess of £10 million.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Over-paid Income Tax
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the speed with which the Inland Revenue handles repayments of overpaid income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue gives priority to claims for repayment of tax, and this means that many people receive their repayments in a very short time. However, some of the Inland Revenue's specialist offices deal with people who make their claims at around the same time of year and, while every effort is made to cope with these peaks, they slow down the speed with which repayments of tax can be made to the people concerned.

  Inland Revenue (Employers' Returns)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons end-of-year returns to employers from the Inland Revenue included promotional material from commercial organisations; how many employers received the material; and what arrangements are made for those who do not wish to receive such material to refuse it.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No evidence has been produced which substantiates rumours and allegations about the deliberate or systematic inclusion of promotional material from commercial organisations in the annual pay-as-you-earn packs issued to employers.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department is taking to relieve the debt of the poorest third-world countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom is leading the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief for those poorest third-world countries which owe most of their debts to Governments. It was a direct result of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative for the poorest and most indebted countries following the International Monetary Fund sponsored programmes of reform, that the Paris Club of major creditor countries began 368
  implementing a modified version of the Trinidad terms in December 1991. This had the effect of halving the payments due to creditors and gave a commitment to consider restructuring the whole stock of a country's eligible debt after a good track record of economic reform had been established. Seventeen countries have so far benefited from these terms, resulting in the debt cancellation of almost$1¾ billion during the lifetime of the agreements. Moreover, this Government have relieved developing countries of the burden of over £1,000 million of old aid loans, and all new aid to the poorest countries has been on grant terms for many years.

  The United Kingdom Government are, however, aware that, for some of the most desperate cases, Trinidad terms as currently applied are not generous enough. We are therefore taking every opportunity to pursue improve-ments to the terms with our creditor country colleagues.

  Specifically, we would like to see the degree of concessionality increased to a range of 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. on a case-by-case basis for those countries that need it. We would also like to see quicker action on the stock of debt for those countries that already have a proven track record of reform with the IMF. Ministers continue to press these points on discussions with other creditor countries, most recently at the Tokyo summit.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on national debt in Africa.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom Government are leading the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief for the poorest and most severely indebted countries many of which are in sub-Saharan Africa. It was a direct result of my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister's initiative for the poorest and most indebted countries following IMF-sponsored programmes of reform, that the Paris Club of major creditor governments began implementing the Trinidad terms in December 1991.

  Seventeen countries have so far benefited from Trinidad terms, including 13 of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Under these agreements, over $3 billion of sub-Saharan African debt has been rescheduled by the Paris Club, cancelling over $1 billion during the lifetime of these agreements.

  Moreover, the Government have also cancelled nearly £200 million of old aid debts owed by sub-Saharan African countries which are successfully pursuing sound policies of reform. New aid to such countries is now provided only in the form of grants.

  However, the Government are aware that, for some of the most desperate cases, the terms as currently applied will not be enough. We are therefore taking every opportunity to pursue improvements to the terms with our creditor country colleagues.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the application of VAT on domestic fuel to concessionary coal; and what representations he has received on the matter.

  Sir John Cope
  Treasury Ministers have received a small number of representations on this issue. I understand from British Coal that the change in VAT liability for domestic fuel and power will not lead to any changes in concessionary fuel allowances.

  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his estimate of what will be recouped by way of capital taxation from the money provided for decommissioning; what information he is providing to fishing vessel owners about their capital gains tax liabilities; and if such information will be made available to owners before they apply for grants.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Decommissioning grants are taxable in the same way as other grants to the agriculture and fishing industries. But I regret that a reliable estimate of the tax involved could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The Inland Revenue issues no general guidance to fishing vessel owners about the capital gains tax liabilities arising from their receipt of decommissioning grants. MAFF, which is responsible for administering this grant, does issue a general explanatory leaflet to all who apply for the decommissioning grant pointing out that the grant will be taxable. Vessel owners should contact their own tax office or financial adviser for detailed advice.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures for the number of people who have received tax relief for private medical insurance in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tax relief for private medical insurance for those aged 60 or over was introduced in 1990–91. Nearly 350,000 contracts covering about 500,000 individuals aged 60 or over have received tax relief each year since then.

  Inheritance Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have been granted exemption from inheritance tax in relation to chattels declared to be open to inspection by the public.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total number of conditional exemptions from inheritance tax in relation to chattels granted in the years 1983–84 to 1992–93 is 358. Figures are not available prior to 1983–84.

  Doubtful Debts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table setting out for each of the years 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) the amount allowed for the change in provisions against doubtful debts for corporation tax purposes, (b) the breakdown of these figures between new provisions against doubtful debts, doubtful debts which have since turned bad and doubtful debts which have become good and (c) the average period for which debts which became good were treated as doubtful for corporation tax purposes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Oil Companies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional yield to the Exchequer if oil companies had only 24 hours to nominate an actual third-party transaction to match its equity production from the oilfield for 1993–94.
  370
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: The yield would probably be less than £10 million with oil price volatility at present levels.

  Private Landlords
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised by income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax from landlords providing private rental accommodation in the past five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Estimated revenue raised by income tax and capital gains tax for 1988–89 to 1992–93 from landlords providing private rental accommodation is shown.

  £

  Income Tax Accrual

  Capital Gains Tax Accrual

  1988–89

  250

  250

  1989–90

  350

  210

  1990–91

  310

  100

  1991–92

  320

  80

  1992–93

  320

  40

  All estimates are subject to a wide margin of error and the latest two years are projections.

  Capital gains tax figures exclude gains made by companies which are chargeable to corporation tax.

  Information is not available to produce estimates of the revenue raised by corporation tax from companies providing private rental accommodation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Redundancies
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the estimated total number of redundancies in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department's main source of redundancy statistics is the Labour Force Survey. This survey gives the numbers of redundancies that took place in the three months prior to interview. The extent of the available information is given in the following table:

  Redundancies (not seasonally adjusted): Labour Force Survey, Great Britain

  Numbers

  Spring 1989

  142,000

  Spring 1990

  181,000

  Spring 1991

  388,000

  Spring 1992

  322,000

  Summer 1992

  278,000

  Autumn 1992

  310,000

  Winter 1992

  344,000

  The main source of data prior to 1989, is the confirmed redundancy series. However, this series was discontinued because it proved to be an unreliable indicator of the actual number of redundancies taking place. The series was last published in tables 2·30 and 2·31 of the September 1992 Employment Gazette.

  Working-time Directive
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 473, relating to the proposed working-time directive and its effects on offshore oil and gas workers, to which parts of the directive other than working hours the derogation applies; and if he will make a statement on arrangements for leave.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 29 June 1993,Official Report, col 473, that as a result of our negotiations all work at sea would be excluded from the scope of the proposed directive. This exclusion applies to all the provisions of the proposed directive.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received during the last 12 months regarding publicising the wage levels of jobs offered via jobcentres.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One, from the hon. Member himself.

  Mining Industry (Doncaster)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the work force in the Doncaster travel-to-work area were employed in mining in each year since 1987.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Employment estimates for local areas, including travel-to-work areas, are compiled from the periodic censuses of employment. They cover employees in employment only and exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces. The available information from censuses of employment taken in 1987, 1989, and 1991 is given in the following table:

  Employees in employment in deep coal mines and opencast coal working1; September of each year.

  Doncaster travel-to-work area

  Number

  Proportion2 (per cent)

  1987

  7,400

  6·3

  1989

  6,000

  5·2

  1991

  5,200

  4·6

  1 Activity headings 1113 and 1114 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980.

  2 Employees in activity headings 1113 and 1114 as a percentage of the workforce in the travel-to-work area.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by region the percentage of women currently employed in the labour market giving the comparable figures for(a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is shown in the following table:372

  Percentage of females in the civilian workforce in employment Not seasonally adjusted

  March 1983

  March 1988

  March 1993

  South East (including Greater London)

  41

  43

  46

  Greater London

  41

  42

  44

  East Anglia

  38

  43

  45

  South West

  40

  43

  46

  West Midlands

  40

  42

  45

  East Midlands

  40

  43

  46

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  41

  44

  46

  North West

  43

  44

  47

  North

  41

  44

  46

  Wales

  40

  43

  45

  Scotland

  42

  44

  46

  Northern Ireland

  42

  44

  46

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what applications have been received for core funding for the National Alliance of Women's Organisations(a) last year and (b) in the current year; and how much money has been paid.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1992 there have been a number of applications by, or on behalf of, the National Alliance of Women's Organisations for core funding. This resulted in the payment of a £20,000 grant during the 1992–93 financial year.

  After careful consideration, as part of the Government's overall review of public expenditure, it was explained, with some regret, that further funding for the organisation would not be possible.

  Wage Settlements
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Emplolyment if he will list those industries in which wage settlements in the last 12 months have been below 10 per cent.; and if he will show against each entry the percentage settlement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: Pay is primarily a matter for those who negotiate and determine it; the Government do not monitor the level of wage settlements in detail. The Confederation of British Industry's pay databank shows that for the first quarter of 1993 pay settlements average 2·5 per cent. in manufacturing and 2·8 per cent. in the private service industries respectively. These are the lowest levels reported in the 13-year history of the databank.

  Young People
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and percentage of(a) l8-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds, (c) 16-year-olds in spring 1991 and 1992 and winter 1992–93 labour force surveys who were (i) in employment, (ii) International Labour Organisation unemployed and (iii) economically inactive and (d) the economic activity rate.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: The available information from the Labour Force survey is given in the table.

  373

  Economic activity by age Great Britain

  (Thousands)

  Age

  Spring 1991

  Spring 1992

  Winter 1992–93

  16 years old

  In employment

  294

  245

  223

  ILO unemployed

  72

  56

  57

  Economically inactive

  328

  354

  355

  Economic activity rate

  52·7

  46·0

  44·1

  17 years old

  In employment

  422

  387

  360

  ILO unemployed

  57

  66

  68

  Economically inactive

  196

  232

  237

  Economic activity rate

  71·0

  66·1

  64·4

  18 years old

  In employment

  466

  422

  381

  ILO unemployed

  77

  74

  90

  Economically inactive

  179

  213

  223

  Economic activity rate

  75·1

  70·0

  67·9

  Source: Labour Force Survey (not seasonally adjusted).

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many of the vacancies notified in each of the last six months to jobcentres(a) in the United Kingdom and (6) in Wales were full-time and how many were part-time;

  (2) what is the minimum number of hours involved in a job which qualifies to be registered as a vacancy at a jobcentre;

  Numbers of full-time and part-time vacancies notified to jobcentres

  Quarter

  5 October 1992 to 8 January 1993

  11 January 1993 to 2 April 1993

  5 April 1993 to 2 July 1993

  Great Britain

  Number of full-time vacancies notified

  291,814

  300,859

  362,263

  Number of part-time vacancies notified2

  156,237

  149,041

  171,469

  Wales1

  Number of full-time vacancies notified

  17,527

  17,860

  22,830

  Number of part-time vacancies notified2

  12,969

  11,637

  13,831

  Numbers of permanent and temporary vacancies notified to jobcentres

  Quarter

  5 October 1992 to 8 January 1993

  11 January 1993 to 2 April 1993

  5 April 1993 to 2 July 1993

  Great Britain

  Number of permanent vacancies notified

  344,723

  368,124

  422,656

  Number of temporary vacancies notified3

  103,328

  81,776

  111,076

  Wales1

  Number of permanent vacancies notified

  20,419

  22,000

  26,532

  Number of temporary vacancies notified3

  10,077

  7,497

  10,129

  1 Figures for Wales are included in the figures for Great Britain

  2 Part-time=under 30 hours work per week.

  3 Temporary=work lasting six months or less.

  374
  (3) how many of the vacancies notified in each of the last six months (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales were temporary and how many were permanent.

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

  Letter from J. Turner to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 12 July 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State about vacancies notified to Jobcentres in the United Kingdom and Wales.
  The total number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres is collated monthly. Detailed full-time, part-time and temporary vacancy information is available on a quarterly basis. It is collected from offices throughout Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.
  The tables attached show the information you requested for the past three quarters for Great Britain and Wales. You also asked what is the minimum number of hours involved in a job which qualifies to be registered as a vacancy at a Jobcentre. We do not place any such restrictions before displaying vacancies.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee to the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Nottingham Clinic
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish an inquiry into(a) the establishment of the Nottingham clinic and (b) the arrangements in hand for the sale of the Nottingham health authority share of the clinic; and what ministerial approval is required for the sale.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Nottingham health authority is awaiting the opinion of legal counsel and when this is received the appropriate action will be taken. No ministerial approval is required for the sale of the Nottingham clinic.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between her Department and Nottingham health authority over the establishment of the Nottingham clinic.

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of discussions have taken place between the Department of Health and the Nottingham health authority over the establishment of the Nottingham clinic.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ministerial approval has been given to transactions and developments involving Regency Park Ltd. and the Nottingham clinic.

  Mr. Sackville
  No approval by Department of Health Ministers has been sought, or given, to transactions and developments involving Regency Park Ltd. and the Nottingham clinic.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of residents' abortions in Preston district health authority is carried out or paid for by the national health service; what is the national figure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991, of the abortions performed on residents of Preston district health authority in England and Wales—under the Abortion Act 1967–9·2 per cent. were either carried out or paid for by the national health service. The equivalent figure for residents of England and Wales is 50·4 per cent.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to the number of children who are themselves HIV negative but who have one or both parents who are HIV positive.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no data on the total number of children in the United Kingdom who have one or both parents who are HIV positive. Most such children are HIV negative, but they may be HIV positive if their mothers were infected with HIV prior to giving birth or breast feeding them.

  By 30 April 1993, there had been 500 reports of children in the United Kingdom born to women known to be infected with HIV. One hundred and fifty-two of these children are known to be uninfected and the HIV infection
  376
  status of 168 children has not yet been determined. However, the results of unlinked anonymous HIV surveys indicate that there have been many pregnant women whose HIV infection was not known to obstetric staff so there are an unknown number of children born to HIV-infected women.

  Doctors
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doctors have been struck off the medical register in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many doctors have been found guilty of professional misconduct in each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Registration of doctors is a matter for the General Medical Council, an independent statutory body, whose functions are determined by the Medical Act 1983. The GMC publishes information about numbers of erasures and cases of professional misconduct in its annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to make doctors more accountable for their actions; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have recently set up a review to examine the national health service systems for dealing with complaints about family health services; about hospital services; and about matters of clinical judgment. It will not cover NHS disciplinary procedures: a joint working group is currently reviewing the guidance on these procedures for hospital medical and dental staff and for community and public health doctors. Family health services authorities can make representations to the NHS tribunal if they feel that it would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service for a particular general practitioner to be included in a list of practitioners providing general medical services.

  The professional regulatory bodies like the General Medical Council also have an important role to play in safeguarding standards of medical care.

  Drugs
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to reduce the cost of the national health service drugs bill; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are taking a number of measures which we hope will reduce the rate of growth in the national health service drugs bill while ensuring that people get the medicines they need. These include action to ensure that general practitioners have full information about their prescribing and how it compares with that of others; to provide GPs with advice on effective prescribing and to encourage them to prescribe generic rather than branded drugs. The GP fund-holding scheme provides incentives for doctors to prescribe economically and incentive schemes are being introduced for GPs who are not fund holders.

  We are seeking to constrain drug costs through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which is currently being renegotiated, and by the extension of the selected list scheme from seven to 17 therapeutic categories.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for legislation to determine
  377
  the Government's liability for civil damages in cases of adverse reaction to a drug where a product licence has been reinstated on appeal following its suspension by the licensing authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Triazolam
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the panel of persons appointed since announcing the revocation of all licences for triazolam products on 9 June.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish her correspondence with the chairman of the panel of persons appointed regarding the decision of the licensing authority to revoke all licences for triazolam products.

  Mr. Sackville
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Health wrote on 9 June to the chairman of the panel of persons appointed to inform her that the licensing authority's determination would be announced that day. The letter enclosed a note on the licensing authority's position on triazolam. The note is publicly available and a copy is available in the Library.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusion she has drawn regarding the implications of the revocation of licences for triazolam products for the future of the appeals procedure set out in the Medicines Act 1968; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Before deciding to revoke these licences, the licensing authority followed the procedures set out in section 29 of, and schedule 2 to, the Medicines Act and took into account the reports it had received from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, the Medicines Commission and the panel of persons appointed. The licensing authority is not obliged to follow the advice or accept the findings in these reports but must take them into account. The decision in this case has no implications for the future of these procedures.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish her correspondence with the chairman of the Medicines Commission regarding the decision of the licensing authority to revoke all licences for triazolam products.

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been no such correspondence.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to instruct NHS trusts to enter formal consultations with local community health councils and other local interested bodies about proposals for substantial development or substantial variations in services, with a prescribed time of three months, excluding major holidays, by which comments and views are sought; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  District health authorities are already required to consult the local community health councils when substantial changes in local services are under consideration, including services delivered by national health service trusts.
  378
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will instruct health authorities to require NHS hospital trusts to publish(a) spending plans and (b) decisions affecting the delivery of services.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. National health service trusts are already required to publish their strategic directions, summary business plans, and their annual reports and accounts. Service contracts made with health authorities are also available publicly.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria she uses to determine who are appointed as non-executive members of NHS trust boards; and who is responsible for short-listing candidates for appointments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Non-executive directors of national health service trusts are appointed for their personal qualities and the knowledge and skills which they can bring to the post, and not to represent any particular body or interest. The aim is to achieve a balance of different skills on trust boards. Regional health authorities are responsible for identifying and selecting candidates for appointment to NHS trusts when they are initially established, and for recommending these to Ministers. For already established trusts, recommendations on the reappointment or replacement of non-executive directors are made by NHS trust chairmen after consultation with regional health authorities and the NHS management executive outposts.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will revise the regulations in respect of the Registered Homes Act 1984 to(a) extend a person's right to make a complaint to cover all residential and nursing homes in the private and public sectors and (b) require registration authorities to set out a model complaints procedure for use by homes within each registration area, to include a formal appeal mechanism to be used where complaints cannot be resolved satisfactorily after reasonable discussion with the home; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Private and voluntary residential care homes are required by law to operatate their own complaints procedures and to tell residents how they can make complaints to the registration authority. People in local authority homes and people in independent nursing and residential care homes, whose place there was arranged by a local authority, have access to the statutory social services complaints procedures. National health service patients in nursing homes can make use of NHS complaints procedures.

  I have no current plans to revise these procedures.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to prevent the offering of financial inducements by private nursing homes to general practitioners to refer patients to those homes.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Hospital Closures, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the hospitals that have been closed in the London borough of Wandsworth since 1979:
  379
  (2) if she will list the hospitals which have been closed in each of the four regional health authorities covering Greater London since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Purchasing Policies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the public consultation process applicable where there are alterations in the purchasing policies of a number of health authorities or general practitioner fund holders involving the move by each of the contract for a small number of patients from one local hospital to another leading to significant changes in the overall provision of the local health services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. Purchasing shifts are required if national and local objectives for health gains are to be achieved. The national health service management executive has recently issued guidance to the service about how change should be managed under cover of EL(93)10 "Managing Activity and Change through Contracting," copies of which are available in the Library.

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the NHS Management Executive is taking to ensure all commissioners require their providers to implement fully her Department's guideline 3·9 in "The Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital" in respect of the admission of parents with their children into anaesthetic rooms; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Child health services are among the topics selected this year for the regional reviews which the national health service management executive will be undertaking of health authorities' performance. Where appropriate, authorities will be reminded of the evidence which shows that children are calmed and comforted by the presence of parents during the administration of anaesthetics.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the annual report and accounts of the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and (3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.
  381
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who funds the Medicines Control Agency; what are the current levels of funding in 1993; what have been the levels in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency, as was agreed when it was established on 1 April 1989, is funded entirely by fees from licence applicants and licence holders, except as regards the subsequent processing of work in progress at 31 March 1989—the costs of which are being met by government funds.

  As regards the level of funding required, the costs of the MCA for 1993–94 are estimated to be about £19·4 million.

  For each of the last three years the costs have been as shown in the table:

  £ million

  1990–91

  15·2

  1991–92

  18·2

  1992–93

  18·5

  NHS Fraud
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the report of the Audit Commission inquiry into fraud in the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have been advised by the Audit Commissison that the study is due to commence early in 1994. The length of the study and the mechanisms for reporting are still under consideration.

  Children in Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide information for each local authority in England of the total numbers of children in care in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, giving the reasons for the care episodes, the length of the care episodes by sex and by age and the number of children in care under orders.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about total numbers of children in care, the reasons for the care episode and the number of children in care under orders for each local authority is given in the publication "Children in Care of Local Authorities year ending 31 March, England", copies of which are available in the Library. The information requested about the length of the care episodes by sex and by age for each local authority is voluminous and will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospitals closed since May 1979 in(a) the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority area and (b) the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. William Ashworth, chairman of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority, and Mr. Ian Woolley, chairman of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley health authority, for details.

  Colostomy Bags
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average prescription cost of a colostomy bag.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available. The average net ingredient cost of prescribing a colostomy bag in 1992 was £1·84.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to the NHS in each of the past years of providing colostomy bags on prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. The net ingredient cost of prescribing colostomy bags in England for the last 10 years was:

  Year

  Net Ingredient Cost (£ million)

  1982

  4·1

  1983

  6·2

  1984

  7·1

  1985

  11·3

  1986

  13·2

  1987

  15·7

  1988

  16·3

  1989

  19·5

  1990

  21·1

  19911

  23·8

  19912

  24·8

  1992

  28·0

  Notes:

  1 1982 to 1991 data cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  2 1991 and 1992 data cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average production cost of a colostomy bag; and what discussion has been held with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure an adequate and economic supply of colostomy bags to those who require this facility.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the production costs of colostomy bags is not available. The Department takes into account the cost of products, as well as their general availability, when deciding whether to add individual products to the general practitioner prescribable list or to keep them on the list. If the hon. Member has a particular problem in mind, he may wish to write to me about it.

  Abuse of the Elderly
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce legislation to give local authorities duties to investigate abuse of the elderly; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities already have powers to assess situations where abuse of an older person may be happening or suspected. Consideration is currently being given to the proposals set out in the Law Commission consultation paper No. 130, on which the Department of Health will be commenting.

  Hydatidosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of people who have(a) died and (b) had to undergo surgical operations but survived, because of hydatidosis in each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Deaths from hydatid disease in England and Wales are shown in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  2

  1987

  4

  1988

  2

  1989

  3

  1990

  5

  1991

  3

  1992

  6

  Source: OPCS.

  In 1989–90, the latest year for which information is available, there were 46 finished consultant episodes involving surgical procedures in England. Information for previous years is not available.

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Smoking
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken to achieve "The Health of the Nation" White Paper targets to reduce smoking prevalence in adults and children; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  "The Health of the Nation" White Paper sets out a comprehensive strategy to reduce smoking prevalence including action on price, health education and ensuring effective controls on advertising. It also emphasises the key role of health authorities in leading moves to improve the health of local people including action to reduce smoking.

  Hospital Provision
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the required consultation procedures and the chronology that health authorities should take when restructuring hospital provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance for health authorities on consultation procedures is contained in an executive letter, EL(90)185, which was sent to health service managers in September 1990. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Corporate Governance
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference of the task force on corporate governance in the NHS; who are the members; when they will report; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The public must have confidence in the way in which the business of their public services is conducted. As both citizens and taxpayers, individuals have a right to expect that those who use their money to provide services carry out their jobs with responsibility and honesty and to the highest possible standards. I have every confidence that most national health service work is 384
  conducted in such a fashion. Indeed, the Audit Commission—which, since this Government extended its remit in 1990, has carried out independent and external scrutiny of the NHS—has reported that the overall financial management of all NHS activities has shown a significant and welcome improvement.

  In an organisation the size and complexity of the NHS, there can never be any room for complacency. As one or two well-publicised cases have shown, the NHS is not immune from lapses in management standards. We have acted decisively in light of these reports. Sir Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the national health service, has issued guidance to the service on the "Standards of Business Conduct" which places obligations on NHS employers as well as management and staff, and set out our expectations of their integrity and professionalism.

  We need to consider, however, what more can be done. On 18 June, I announced that Sir Duncan has set up a task force to spearhead an urgent review of the current guidance to the NHS on corporate governance. The task force will report to the NHS management executive by 31 December 1993. Its findings will help strengthen the existing system of non-executive oversight which is already an important feature of the NHS and a valuable pillar in upholding high public service standards in the health service.

  The task force's terms of reference are published today:
  To consider, in the light of the recommendations of the Cadbury report and good practice in NHS organisations, the following aspects of corporate governance in the NHS:
  how standards of public business and public service values in the NHS may be reinforced;
  how the role and functions of chairmen and non-executive directors may be matched with their part-time commitment;
  improvements in the arrangements for induction and training of chairmen, non-executives and boards as a whole;
  the role, responsibilities and functions of non-executive directors of health authorities and NHS Trusts in matters of finance and audit.
  Membership
  Corporate governance in the NHS—Steering Group Membership
  John Shaw (Chairman), Director of Corporate Affairs: NHSME
  Jonathan Charkham, Adviser to the Governors: Bank of England (retired)
  Mavis Foden, Chairman: Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust Rennie Fritchie1, Chairman: South Western RHA
  Sir Bruce Martin QC1, Chairman: North Western RHA David Hunter, Director: Nuffield Institute, Leeds University
  Ken Jarrold1, RGM: Wessex Regional Health Authority Barbara Stocking1, RGM: Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Dr. Martin McNichol1, Chairman: Central Middlesex NHS Trust and NHS Trust Federation
  William Wells1, Chairman: Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust
  Anthony Merifield, Head of Public Appointments: Cabinet Office
  Elspeth Metcalfe1, Chairman: Hereford and Worcester FHSA, Non-executive Director West Midlands RHA
  Zahida Manzoor1, Chairman: Bradford HA
  Ray Rowden, Director: IHSM
  Michael Schofield, Chairman: Bradford Community Health NHS Trust, Deputy Chairman NAHAT
  Chris West1, General Manager: Portsmouth and SE Hampshire HA, Member of the Audit Commission
  John Sherring1, Regional Director: West Midlands Audit Commission
  Dr. Donald Irvine, GP Fundholder: Ashington, Northumberland

  385
  An official from each of:

  Corporate Affairs Directorate NHSME

  Finance Directorate NHSME

  Performance Management Directorate NHSME

  1 Members working in partnership.

  Working Groups:
  Chaired by Sir Bryan Askew, Chairman, Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  The reinforcement of public service values in the NHS.
  Chaired by Dr. Stuart Burgess, Chairman, Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Matching the role and functions of chairmen and non-executive directors with their part-time commitment. Chaired by Mr. Michael Marchment, Chief Executive, Premier Health NHS Trust
  The induction and training of chairmen, non-executive directors and Boards as a whole.
  Chaired by Mr. Ken Punt, Senior Fellow and Head of Centre for Healthcare Financial Management, Health Services Management Unit, Manchester
  The role of non-executive directors in finance and audit.
  Time Scale
  The task force will report to the NHS management executive by 31 December 1993.

  Research Review
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the report of the committee reviewing research in the London postgraduate special health authorities to be published; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The report of Sir Michael Thompson's committee is being published today. Copies are available in the Library. This review, which I announced in March, provides independent advice to Ministers. I thank Sir Michael and his review advisory committee for their findings which will be valuable in considering the future funding for the special health authorities. The findings will also be taken into account in considering the specialty reviews, the site option appraisals and other work currently in hand on the future of health care provision in London.

WALES

  Police Stations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the police stations which were located in each local authority area of the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in the years(a) 1980,(b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows:

  Police stations—Clwyd

  1992

  1985

  1980

  Alyn and Deeside

  Broughton

  Broughton

  Broughton

  Buckley

  Buckley

  Buckley

  Caergwrle

  Caergwrle

  Caergwrle

  Coed-talon

  Coed-talon

  Coed-talon

  Deeside

  Deeside

  Deeside

  Hawarden

  Hawarden

  Hawarden

  Penyffordd

  Penyffordd

  Penyffordd

  Saltney

  Saltney

  Queensferry

  Sandycroft

  Sandycroft

  Saltney

  Sealand

  Sealand

  Sandycroft

  —

  —

  Sealand

  Colwyn

  Abergele

  Abergele

  Abergele

  Cerrigydrudion

  Cerrigydrudion

  Cerrigydrudion

  386

  1992

  1985

  1980

  Colwyn Bay

  Colwyn Bay

  Colwyn Bay

  Llanddulas

  Llanddulas

  Llanddulas

  Llanfair Talhaiarn

  Llanfair Talhaiarn

  Llanfair Talhaiarn

  Llansannan

  Llangernyw

  Llangernyw

  Llysfaen

  Llansannan

  Llansannan

  Mochdre

  Llysfaen

  Llysfaen

  Old Colwyn

  Mochdre

  Mochdre

  Pensarn

  Old Colwyn

  Old Colwyn

  Rhos on Sea

  Pensarn

  Pensarn

  Towyn/Kinmel Bay

  Pentrefoelas

  Pentrefoelas

  —

  Rhos on Sea

  Rhos on Sea

  —

  Towyn/Kinmel Bay

  Towyn/Kinmel Bay

  —

  Trefnant

  Trefnant

  Delyn

  Bagillt

  Bagillt

  Bagillt

  Caerwys

  Brynford

  Brynford

  Flint

  Caerwys

  Caerwys

  Ffynnon Groew

  Ffynnon Groew

  Ffynnon Groew

  Greenfield

  Flint

  Flint

  Gronant

  Greenfield

  Greenfield

  Halkyn

  Gronant

  Gronant

  Mold

  Gwernymynydd

  Gwernymynydd

  Mostyn

  Halkyn

  Halkyn

  Nannerch

  Holywell

  Holywell

  New Brighton

  Mold

  Lloc

  Northop

  Mostyn

  Mold

  Pentre Broughton

  Nannerch

  Mostyn

  Rhydymwyn

  New Brighton

  Nannerch

  —

  Northop

  New Brighton

  —

  Pentre Broughton

  Northop

  —

  Rhydymwyn

  Pentre Broughton

  —

  —

  Rhydymwyn

  Glyndwr

  Chirk

  Chirk

  Chirk

  Corwen

  Clawddnewydd

  Clawddnewydd

  Denbigh

  Corwen

  Corwen

  Glynceiriog

  Denbigh

  Denbigh

  Llandegla

  Froncysyllte

  Froncysyllte

  Llandrillo

  Glynceiriog

  Glynceiriog

  Llandyrnog

  Glyndyfrdwy

  Glyndyfrdwy

  Llanferres

  Henllan

  Henllan

  Llangollen

  Llandegla

  Llandegla

  Llanrhaeadr Y M

  Llandrillo

  Llandrillo

  Ruthin

  Llandyrnog

  Llandyrnog

  —

  Llanfair D C

  Llanfair D C

  —

  Llanferres

  Llanferres

  —

  Llangollen

  Llangollen

  —

  Llanrhaeadr Y M

  Llanrhaeadr Y C

  —

  Llansilin

  Llanrhaeadr Y M

  —

  Llantysilio

  Llansilin

  —

  Nantglyn

  Llantysilio

  —

  Ruthin

  Nantglyn

  —

  —

  Ruthin

  Rhuddlan

  Bodelwyddan

  Bodelwyddan

  Bodelwyddan

  Dyserth

  Dyserth

  Dyserth

  Meliden

  Meliden

  Meliden

  Prestatyn

  Prestatyn

  Prestatyn

  Rhuallt

  Rhuallt

  Rhuallt

  Rhuddlan

  Rhuddlan

  Rhuddlan

  Rhyl

  Rhyl

  Rhyl

  St. Asaph

  St. Asaph

  St. Asaph

  —

  Trelawnyd

  Trelawnyd

  Wrexham Maelor

  Acrefair

  Acrefair

  Acrefair

  Bangor on Dee

  Adwy

  Adwy

  Brymbo

  Bangor on Dee

  Bangor on Dee

  Bwlchgwyn

  Brymbo

  Brymbo

  Cefn Mawr

  Bwlchgwyn

  Bwlchgwyn

  Coed-poeth

  Cefn Mawr

  Cefn Mawr

  Garden Village

  Coed-poeth

  Coed-poeth

  Gresford

  Garden Village

  Garden Village

  Gwersyllt

  Gresford

  Gresford

  Hanmer

  Gwersyllt

  Gwersyllt

  387

  1992

  1985

  1980

  Holt

  Hanmer

  Hanmer

  Johnstown

  Holt

  Holt

  Llay

  Johnstown

  Johnstown

  Marchwiel

  Llay

  Llay

  Overton

  Marchwiel

  Marchwiel

  Penycae

  Overton

  Overton

  Rhosddu

  Penycae

  Penycae

  Rhosllannerchrugog

  Rhosddu

  Rhosddu

  Rhosnesni

  Rhosllannerchrugog

  Rhosllannerchrugog

  Rhostyllen

  Rhosnesni

  Rhosnesni

  Rossett

  Rhostyllen

  Rhostyllen

  Ruabon

  Rhosymedre

  Rhosymedre

  Southsea

  Rossett

  Rossett

  Summerhill

  Ruabon

  Ruabon

  Wrexham

  Southsea

  Southsea

  —

  Summerhill

  Summerhill

  —

  Wrexham

  Wrexham

  Police stations—Gwynedd

  1992

  1985

  1980

  Aberconwy

  Betws-y-coed

  Betws-y-coed

  Betws-y-coed

  Conwy

  Conwy

  Conwy

  Dolgarrog

  Dolgarrog

  Deganwy

  Glan Conwy

  Dolwyddelan

  Dolgarrog

  Llandudno

  Eglwysbach

  Dolwyddelan

  Llandudno Junction

  Glan Conwy

  Eglwysbach

  Llanfairfechan

  Llandudno

  Glan Conwy

  Llanrwst

  Llandudno Junction

  Llandudno

  Penmaenmawr

  Llanfairfechan

  Llandudno Junction

  Penrhyn Bay

  Llanrwst

  Llanfairfechan

  Trefriw

  Penmachno

  Llanrwst

  Penmaenmawr

  Penmachno

  Penrhyn Bay

  Penmaenmawr

  Trefriw

  Penrhyn Bay

  Tynygroes

  Trefriw

  Tynygroes

  Arfon

  Bangor

  Bangor

  Bangor

  Bethesda

  Bethesda

  Bethesda

  Bontnewydd

  Bontnewydd

  Bontnewydd

  Caernarfon

  Caernarfon

  Caernarfon

  Deiniolen

  Deiniolen

  Deiniolen

  Llanberis

  Llanberis

  Groeslon

  Llanrug

  Llanrug

  Llanberis

  Maesgeirchen

  Maesgeirchen

  Llanllyfni

  Penygroes

  Penygroes

  Llanrug

  Port Dinorwig

  Port Dinorwig

  Llanwnda

  Tregarth

  Tregarth

  Penygroes

  Upper Bangor

  Upper Bangor

  Port Dinorwig

  Waunfawr

  Waunfawr

  Rachub

  Tregarth

  Waunfawr

  Dwyfor

  Abersoch

  Aberdaron

  Aberdaron

  Beddgelert

  Abersoch

  Abersoch

  Criccieth

  Beddgelert

  Beddgelert

  Llanaelhaiarn

  Criccieth

  Criccieth

  Llanbedrog

  Fourcrosses

  Fourcrosses

  Nefyn

  Garn Dolbenmaen

  Garn Dolbenmaen

  Porthmadog

  Llanaelhaiarn

  Llanaelhaiarn

  Pwllheli

  Llanbedrog

  Llanbedrog

  Morfa Nefyn

  Morfa Nefyn

  Nefyn

  Nefyn

  Porthmadog

  Porthmadog

  Pwllheli

  Pwllheli

  Meirionnydd

  Aberdovey

  Aberdovey

  Aberdovey

  Bala

  Bala

  Abergynolwyn

  Barmouth

  Barmouth

  Bala

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Barmouth

  Dolgellau

  Dinas Mawddwy

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Dyffryn Ardudwy

  Dolgellau

  Corris

  388

  1992

  1985

  1980

  Harlech

  Dyffryn Ardudwy

  Dinas Mawddwy

  Llwyngwril

  Harlech

  Dolgellau

  Penrhyndeudraeth

  Llanegryn

  Dyffryn Ardudwy

  Trawsfynydd

  Llan Ffestiniog

  Harlech

  Tywyn

  Llanuwchllyn

  Llanegryn

  Llwyngwril

  Llan Ffestiniog

  Maentwrog

  Llanuwchllyn

  Pennal

  Llwyngwril

  Pen rhy ndeud raeth

  Maentwrog

  Trawsfynydd

  Pennal

  Tywyn

  Penrhyndeudraeth

  Trawsfynydd

  Tywyn

  Ynys Mon

  Aberffraw

  Aberffraw

  Aberffraw

  Amlwch

  Amlwch

  Amlwch

  Benllech

  Beaumaris

  Beaumaris

  Brynsiencyn

  Benllech

  Benllech

  Cemaes Bay

  Brynsiencyn

  Brynsiencyn

  Gaerwen

  Bodedern

  Bodedern

  Gwalchmai

  Bodorgan

  Bodorgan

  Holyhead

  Cemaes Bay

  Cemaes Bay

  Llanerchymedd

  Gaerwen

  Gaerwen

  Llanfaerpwll

  Gwalchmai

  Gwalchmai

  Llangefni

  Holyhead

  Holyhead

  Menai Bridge

  Llanerchymedd

  Llanerchymedd

  Newborough

  Llanfaethlu

  Llanfaethlu

  Rhosneigr

  Llanfairpwll

  Llanfairpwll

  Trearddur Bay

  Llangefni

  Llangefni

  Valley

  Llangoed

  Llangoed

  Menai Bridge

  Menai Bridge

  Newborough

  Moelfre

  Pentraeth

  Newborough

  Rhosneigr

  Pentraeth

  Trearddur Bay

  Rhosneigr

  Valley

  Trearddur Bay

  Valley

  Source: Police and Constabulary Almanac.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the abattoirs located in each local authority area of the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures for 1980 are not available and information for 1982 has been listed as an alternative. Available information covers plants trading at any time in the years in question. Details for Gwynedd and Clwyd are as follows:

  1992

  1985

  1982

  GWYNEDD

  (a) Anglesey

  Mcintosh-Reynolds (formerly United Meat Packers), Gaerwen

  —

  —

  X

  Cig Mon (formerly Borthwicks) Llangefni

  —

  —

  —

  E. T. Jones, Lamia, Bodedern

  —

  —

  —

  Roberts, Corwas, Amlwch

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Aberconwy

  Conwy Valley Meats, Llanwrst1

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Arfon

  FMC, Caernarfon

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Meirionydd

  Tywyn Meat Co. Tywyn

  —

  —

  —

  Roberts & Jones, Blaenau Ffestiniog

  —

  —

  —

  Cae Iago, Ffestiniog

  X

  —

  —

  389

  1992

  1985

  1982

  CLWYD

  (a) Alyn & Deeside

  Roberts, Pentre S/H, Treuddyn

  —

  —

  —

  Astons, Ichester Rd, Buckley

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Colwyn

  FMC, Mochdre

  X

  —

  —

  (c) Delyn

  T. Bellis, Strand Walk, Holywell, Delyn

  X

  X

  —

  (d) Glyndwr

  Evans, Queens Building, Corwen,

  —

  —

  —

  Evans, Ty'n Llan, Llanrhaedre YM

  —

  —

  —

  Williams, 120 Vale Street, Denbigh

  —

  —

  —

  Jones, 92 Vale Street Denbigh

  —

  —

  —

  Halal Henllan slaughterhouse, Denbigh

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Rhuddlan

  Jones, Ywaen, St Asaph

  —

  —

  —

  Websters, 65 Ffordd Las, Rhyl

  —

  —

  —

  (f) Wrexham Maelor

  Thomas, Beech Avenue, Rhos

  —

  —

  —

  Jones, Stanstey Lodge, Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  T. Bellis, Marchwiel slaughterhouse, Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  Jones, Onnen Fawr Farm, Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  Derick Blair, Overton on Dee

  X

  —

  —

  1 1982 and 1985 located at Betws-y-Coed

  Farms (Plant and Machinery)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of investment in plant and machinery in farms in Wales at outturn and real prices in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available information on the level of investment in plant and machinery on farms in Wales at outturn and real prices in each year since 1986 is as follows:

  £ million

  Outturn prices

  1985 prices

  1986

  29·0

  29·4

  1987

  26·0

  25·3

  1988

  27·0

  23·9

  1989

  25·8

  21·0

  1990

  27·9

  21·7

  1991

  25·5

  19·5

  Public Houses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public houses were located in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The data given in the following table show the number of full on-licences and include public houses and other establishments. Information on the number of public houses is not collected centrally. The information is collated on a three-yearly basis and the figures given are for the nearest dates available to those requested. Information is available only by petty sessional divisions and not by local authority areas.390

  Number of On-Licences1

  30 June 1980

  30 June 1986

  30 June 1992

  Gwynedd

  497

  534

  570

  Clwyd

  710

  740

  764

  1 Premises licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor, excluding restaurants, hotels and guest houses.

  Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, on Liquor Licensing in England and Wales (Supplementary Tables).

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) chemist shops or pharmacies, (b) mobile libraries, (c) (i) post offices and (ii) post office counters. (d) public houses, (e) rural schools and (f) village halls there were in each local authority area in the county of Dyfed in (1) 1980, (2) 1985 and (3) 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his answer, 30 June 1993, c. 531–32]: The information on the number of full on-licences which includes public houses and other establishments is given in the following table. The information is collated on a three-yearly basis and the figures given are for the nearest dates available to those requested.

  Information is available only by petty sessional divisions and not by local authority areas.

  Number of on-licences1

  30 June

  Dyfed

  1980

  985

  1986

  1,031

  1992

  1,074

  1 Premises licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor, excluding restaurants, hotels and guest houses.

  Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin on Liquor Licensing in England and Wales (Supplementary Tables).

  Fire Stations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the fire stations which were located in each local authority area of the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given as follows. The list is the same for 1980, 1985 and 1992.Gwynedd Fire Stations
  Aberconwy: Llanfairfechan, Conwy, Llandudno, Llanwrst, Betwsy-y-coed
  Arfon: Bangor, Caernarfon, Llanberis
  Dwyfor: Pwllheli, Porthmadog, Nefyn, Abersoch
  Meirionnydd: Blaenau Ffestiniog, Bala, Aberdyfi, Tywyn, Barmouth, Dolgellau, Harlech
  Anglesey: Holyhead, Rhosneigr, Llangefni, Amlwch, Benllech, Beaumaris, Menai Bridge
  Clwyd Fire Stations
  Alyn and Deeside: Deeside, Buckley
  Colwyn: Colwyn Bay, Abergele, Cerrigydruddion
  Delyn: Holywell, Flint, Mold
  Glyndwr: Denbigh, Ruthin, Chirk, Corwen, Llangollen
  Rhuddlan: Rhyl, St. Asaph, Prestatyn
  Wrexham Maelor: Wrexham, Johnstown

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local livestock markets located in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)
  391

  1980

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  Llanwrwst

  Talycafn

  Dwyfor

  Bryncir

  Sam

  Pwllheli

  Meirionnydd

  Dolgellau

  Bala

  Ynys Môn

  Gaerwen

  Llangefni

  Menai Bridge

  Valley

  1985

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  Llanrwst

  Talycafn

  Dwyfor

  Bryncir

  Sam

  Pwllheli

  Meirionnydd

  Dolgellau

  Bala

  Ynys Môn

  Gaerwen

  Llangefni

  Valley

  1992

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  Llanwrst

  Talycafn

  Dwyfor

  Bryncir

  Sarn

  Meirionnydd

  Dolgellau

  Bala

  Ynys Môn

  Gaerwen

  Llangefni

  1980

  Clwyd

  Colwyn

  Abergele

  Delyn

  Mold

  Glyndwr

  Denbigh

  Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant

  Ruthin

  Corwen

  Rhuddlan

  St. Asaph

  392

  Wrexham Maelor

  Wrexham

  1985

  Clwyd

  Colwyn

  Abergele

  Delyn

  Mold

  Glyndwr

  Denbigh

  Ruthin

  Corwen

  Rhuddlan

  St. Asaph

  Wrexham Maelor

  Wrexham

  1992

  Clwyd

  Colwyn

  Abergele

  Delyn

  Mold

  Glyndwr

  Ruthin

  Corwen

  Rhuddlan

  St. Asaph

  Wrexham Maelor

  Wrexham

  Job Centers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) post offices and (b) post office counters there were in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in (a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is shown in the following list, by district, for December 1992. In December 1985 and December 1980 there was no office at Dolgellau (Meirionnydd), but in December 1980 there was an additional office at Bethesda (Arfon).Job Center offices:December 1992

  GWYNEDD

  Aberconwy

  Conwy

  Llandudno

  Llanwrst

  Arfon

  Bangor

  Caernarfon

  Penygroes

  Dwyfor

  Porthmadog

  Pwllheli

  Meirionnydd

  Barmouth

  Dollgellau

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Ynys Mon

  Amlwch

  Beumaris

  393

  Holyhead

  Llangefni

  CLWYD

  Alyn and Deeside

  Shotton

  Buckley

  Colwyn

  Colwyn Bay

  Delyn

  Flint

  Holywell Mold

  Glyndwr

  Denbigh

  Llangollen

  Rhuddlan

  Rhyl

  Prestatyn

  Wrexham Maelor

  Cefnmawr

  Wrexham

  Source:Employment Department

  Post Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) post offices and (b) post office counters there were in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in (a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not readily available centrally.

  Theatre Education
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received regarding the future of theatre in education provision.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Up to 7 July 38 representations have been received regarding theatre in education.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage change in income for the lowest-paid 10 per cent. of the population in Wales between 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Redwood
  The new earnings survey estimates that, in 1979, 10 per cent. of full-time male employees in Wales earned below £60·10 per week gross with 10 per cent of female employees earning below £39·70 per week.. The corresponding figures for 1991 were £147·90 and £114·10 per week: increases of 146 and 187 per cent. over 1979 levels for males and females respectively.

  Nuclear Fuel Transport
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he holds with British Rail on the level of repair and maintenance of the railway lines which serve nuclear plants in Wales and are used for transport of spent nuclear fuel.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. British Rail has assured Ministers that essential repair and maintenance work will be undertaken on all routes.

  Radon
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department asked the National Radiological Protection Board to start detailed survey work on radon levels in homes in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Contract arrangements for further systematic research across Wales and at district level will be finalised shortly.

  Brynglas Tunnels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of traffic flows between the M4 intersection in Newport that will follow the completion of the work on the Brynglas tunnels relief scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The estimated annual average daily traffic flows on the M4 motorway between junctions 25 (Caerleon) and 26 (Malpas), after completion of the Brynglas scheme, is 55,000 vehicles.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  G7 Science Ministers
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the other G7 Science Ministers to discuss Government support for science; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I last met my colleagues from the G7 countries in Canada on the weekend of 21 to 23 May. We discussed international co-operation in science and a number of issues of common interest.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  "Gamekeepers' Code"
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what examination has been made of the paragraphs in the leaflets by the British Association of Shooting and Conservation entitled "Gamekeepers' Code, July 1992" concerning the use of poisons and gases for killing wild animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I am unaware of a British Association for Shooting and Conservation publication entitled "The Gamekeepers' Code" printed in July 1992. I believe the hon. Member may be confusing this with a BASC publication of the same name printed in July 1982. My officials have recently been in touch with the BASC to discuss certain sections of this code; they have been advised that this publication was withdrawn from circulation three years ago and that the BASC is making every attempt to ensure that any copies still in the public domain are removed from circulation as quickly as possible. The code has now been superseded by the advisory publication, "Pests and Predators and their Control", issued in January 1990.

  Embryotomy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what studies have been carried out over the last 10 years by the state veterinary service or the Farm Animal Welfare Committee into the practice of embryotomy; and if he will make a statement;
  395
  (2) further to his answer of 22 April to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), Official Report, column 196, what statistics he has as to the number of embryotomies carried out during the lambing season in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  As explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 22 April, I am not aware of any evidence that embryotomy is carried out on live unborn lambs. The matter will however be considered by the Farm Animal Welfare Council during its current review of sheep farming.

  Sea Fish (Conservation) Act
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek a moratorium on the implementation of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 until the other EC countries have enacted similar legislation and established appropriate enforcement machinery.

  Mr. Jack
  The aim of these restrictions in general terms will be to limit vessels to their 1991 level of activity. I confirmed that vessels permitted days at sea would not be reduced below these levels unless and until we and Parliament were satisfied.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations she has received concerning the availability of comfrey.

  Mr. Soames
  I have received representations from the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy and the Action Group for the Relief of Pain and Distress about the recent decision to seek the withdrawal from sale of certain comfrey products containing the highest levels of toxic alkaloids.

  I reiterate that this action was taken on the basis of unequivocal recommendations from the independent expert scientific committees that advise Ministers on food safety issues.

  Essex Coast
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to be able to make a statement about the proposed Essex coast environmentally sensitive area; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We expect to make an announcement on the proposed Essex coast environmentally sensitive area and five other new ESAs at the end of this month or the start of next month.

  Fisheries (Legal Action)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the budget allocation to her legal department for fishery matters including prosecutions in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no separate budget allocation in the legal department for fishery matters.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe 396
  (Mr. Morley) on 2 February, column 133 and, more generally, to the announcement which I made in the course of the debate on the fishing vessels decommissioning scheme on 7 July, column 413.

  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) oral and (b) written warnings were given by Her Majesty's fishery protection vessels to (b) British and (b) foreign vessels in each year since 1982 and in the first three months of 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Full details of warnings issued before 1988 are not available. Formal oral warnings which have been issued and recorded in Scotland are being replaced by written warnings. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland informal oral warnings are given for extremely minor offences and not recorded. Details of warnings issued to United Kingdom and foreign registered vessels from 1988 are as follows:

  Year

  United Kingdom

  Foreign

  oral Scotland

  written

  oral Scotland

  written

  1988

  30

  99

  16

  24

  1989

  30

  16

  18

  48

  1990

  54

  83

  8

  34

  1991

  90

  159

  3

  61

  1992

  48

  161

  22

  48

  1993

  10

  158

  1

  10

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many foreign fishing vessels were prosecuted as a result of actions by the United Kingdom's fishery protection force in each year from 1982 and in the first three months of 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of foreign fishing vessels prosecuted as a result of actions by the United Kingdom's fishery protection force in each year from 1983 and in the first three months of 1993 is as follows. Complete figures are not available for 1982.

  Prosecutions of foreign vessels

  Number

  1983

  14

  1984

  26

  1985

  29

  1986

  38

  1987

  43

  1988

  55

  1989

  53

  1990

  35

  1991

  45

  1992

  28

  1993

  7

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to check for secret fish holds when foreign fishing vessels are boarded by Her Majesty's fishery protection vessels; in what circumstances the ships' plans are inspected on boarding; and how many vessels in each year since 1990 and in 1993 to date have been unable to provide these plans.

  Mr. Jack
  Fishery protection officers check for any indications of secret fish holds as a matter of routine. Fish
  397
  room plans are checked against actual dimensions where there is any suspicion of irregularities. At present records of vessels unable to produce fish room plans are not maintained.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what record is kept of oral and written warnings given by Her Majesty's fishery protection vessels to foreign vessels; whether such warnings are cited in subsequent prosecutions; and how many vessels and skippers given written warnings have subsequently been prosecuted for other fishing offences.

  Mr. Jack
  In the United Kingdom full records are kept of all written warnings and records of oral warnings are also kept in Scotland. Such warnings are cited in subsequent prosecutions wherever it is relevant and legally permissible to do so. Since 1991 after receiving a written warning one skipper of a foreign vessel has been prosecuted for a different offence.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what notification is given to(a) the EC Commission, (b) home Government and (c) EC fishing enforcement forces when foreign vessels have been successfully prosecuted for fishing offences in British waters; what control register of offenders is kept; and what report is made to the Department of Transport registration authorities when United Kingdom-registered foreign vessels are involved.

  Mr. Jack
  Upon completion of a court case against a foreign vessel the Commission and the home Government are notified by telex of the details of the case including the offence and the penalties imposed. This information is available to the EC inspectorate. Records are held of both offences and prosecutions.

  No report is given to the Department of Transport in respect of fisheries offences.

  Ammonium Ferric Hexacyanoferrate
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration she is currently giving to spraying parts of the United Kingdom still contaminated by radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster with the chemical ammonium ferric hexacyanofer-rate; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Technical studies to evaluate the potential of chemical treatments, including ammonium ferric hexacya-noferrate, for reducing radiocaesium in the vegetation of upland pasture are currently under way on two sites in Cumbria and Wales, as part of the Department's programme of post-Chernobyl research and development. In the light of the results of the studies, the practicability of using these treatments in the Cumbrian restricted area will be assessed.

  Foreign Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many foreign fishing vessels were reported to his Department with a recommendation for prosecution in the first six months of 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993; and how many of these were prosecuted or are under consideration for prosecution.
  398
  Mr. Jack
  The number of foreign fishing vessels recommended for prosecution in the first six months of 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, and the number of those prosecuted is as follows:

  Year (first six months only)

  Recommendations for Prosecution

  Prosecutions

  1990

  13

  13

  1991

  18

  18

  1992

  11

  10

  1993

  6

  6

  Prosecutions of foreign vessels usually take place within three days of the recommendation, hence there are no cases of foreign vessels under consideration for prosecution.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to ensure that meat imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EC meets EC standards.

  Mr. Soames
  Such imports must comply with United Kingdom meat hygiene and animal health rules implementing EC directives and decisions, including requirements for veterinary certification and health marking. The meat may be imported only at specific border inspection posts where, by or under the supervision of an official veterinary surgeon, all consignments must receive a documentary check, with a proportion also receiving identity and physical checks.

  United Kingdom Wine
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to promote United Kingdom-produced wine in overseas markets; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government promote exports of English and Welsh wine vigorously. The Prime Minister himself served English wine at a G7 summit. It was also served at various functions during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EC. Seven English wines were available at the British pavilion at the Spanish Expo '92 in Seville. In addition Food From Britain and its export arm, the British Food Export Council, are keen to promote English and Welsh wines both at home and abroad and they can provide expert resources to help the industry.

  We are also sympathetic to the wish of the English Vineyards Association to improve the marketing of English wine by the introduction of a new scheme for regional wine, and for new names for the wines.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of wine produced by United Kingdom vineyards in each year since 1987; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The annual production of wine produced from fresh grapes grown in the United Kingdom since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Hectolitres

  1987

  5,000

  1988

  4,110

  1989

  21,447

  399

  Year

  Hectolitres

  1990

  14,442

  1991

  15,429

  1992

  26,428

  North East Salmon Drift Net Fishery
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards the phasing out of the north-east salmon drift net fishery; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The National Rivers Authority recently made a new net limitation order which places further restrictions on the number of licences that could be issued for drift netting for salmon off the coasts of Yorkshire and Northumbria, and largely prohibited the reallocation of surrendered licences. The order took effect on 22 January. I understand that, to date, 124 drift net licences have been issued for the 1993 season under the new arrangements. This compares with 142 drift net licences issued in 1992. A further five licences have been offered to eligible applicants but have not yet been taken up. One application is still under consideration.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much domestically produced United Kingdom beef has been exported overseas in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  '000 Tonnes

  1987

  176

  1988

  119

  1989

  138

  1990

  113

  1991

  121

  1992

  126

  Source: Customs and Excise Trade Statistics

  Food Exports
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives she is taking to stimulate food exports.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: Ministers have held export seminars with some 140 companies to discuss what the Government can do to encourage their export performance. We are committed to supporting Food From Britain in its export promotion activities and are considering the report by Mr. Dennis Stevenson into FFB's work. In addition, we work closely with Government Departments in their efforts to improve industry's export performance; we undertake ministerial trade missions; and we support British efforts at overseas trade fairs.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to improve sea defences around Britain; and if she will make a statement.
  400
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: Responsibility for flood defence and coast protection policy in England lies with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in Wales and Scotland with the respective Departments. Grant aid is available for capital schemes which meet technical, environmental and economic criteria and in 1992–93 grant of £45 million was paid by the three Departments towards the improvement of coastal defences in Great Britain.

  Following a recent survey of sea defences against flooding in England and Wales, carried out by the National Rivers Authority, defences identified as requiring significant work have been attended to or are in the process of being restructured or repaired. The Ministry and the Welsh Office are currently undertaking surveys of coast protection defences against erosion in England and Wales and the results will be used in planning future investment in defences.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Tourist Resorts (Benefits)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the special problems faced by tourist resorts with regard to the numbers of claimants of DSS benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Although the Government recognise that there will be a number of benefit recipients included among the many visitors to tourist resorts, they are not persuaded that it is desirable or practicable to restrict the movement of unemployed people. The free movement of people around the country is an essential feature of an efficient labour market.

  In all parts of the country the Employment Service assesses whether or not unemployed people are entitled to the benefits they are claiming, in accordance with social security legislation. Benefit is paid only where the conditions of entitlement are satisfied.

  The housing benefit scheme requires local authorites to refuse benefit wherever they feel that a tenancy has been created with the intention of taking advantage of the scheme. This provision is designed to give local authorities a wider power to apply in cases of such abuse whether by landlords, tenants or both in collusion.

  Invalidity Pensions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlie the choice of 1 April 1992 as the date from which revised decisions on payment of invalidity pension will apply.

  Mr. Scott
  1 April 1992 is the date of a decision by a social security commissioner (decision CS 27/91) concern-ing the rate of invalidity benefit payable to women on reaching state pension age, and is the earliest date from which similar cases may be reviewed by an adjudication officer.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made for increased invalidity benefit to men whose wives earn under £80·70 per week since 15 April; and how this new rate of benefit has been publicised.
  401
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For most invalidity benefit recipients who have been receiving payment continuously from a date prior to 16 September 1985, payment of an adult dependency increase ceases altogether when the dependent's earnings are £80·70 or more per week. This amount increases at each uprating and is notified to every beneficiary by issue of a form with the first payment of the uprated amount.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to equalise women's entitlement to invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  At present we have no plans to do so. However, as the hon. Member is aware there is a current court case concerning the rate of invalidity benefit payable to women on reaching state pension age, the outcome of which is awaited.

  Child Support
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance his Department issues to the Child Support Agency on the eligible expenses that self-employed fathers can offset against their income when an assessment is made.

  Mr. Burt
  The relevant guidance by the chief child support officer is contained in part 4 of the Child Support Adjudication Guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy not to include the income of the wife when the Child Support Agency assesses the contribution her husband must take towards maintaining the children of a previous marriage.

  Mr. Burt
  Assessment of child support maintenance is based on a parent's own income and essential expenditure. Details of a wife's income are needed for two aspects of the assessment, as follows:(i.) to assess whether the wife can contribute towards the support of any child of the couple themselves; and
  (ii.) to assess whether maintenance payable by the husband for the children of the previous marriage should be reduced below the assessed level to avoid his second family's resources falling below a prescrived level.

  We have no plans to change this.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) what proportion of recently retired pensioner couples receive income of at least (i) £30 and (ii) £89.90 a week from(a) an occupational pension, (b) income from savings and (c) both occupational pension and income from savings;

  (2) what proportion of pensioner couples receive income of at least (i) £30 and (ii) £89·90 a week from (a) an occupational pension, (b) income from savings and (c) both occupational pension and income from savings;

  (3) what proportion of single pensioners receive income of at least (i) £20 and (ii) £56·10 a week from (a) an occupational pension, (b) income from savings and (c) both occupational pension and income from savings;

  (4) what proportion of recently retired single pensioners receive income of at least (i) £20 and (ii) £56·10 a week from (a) an occupational pension, (b) income from savings and (c) both occupational pension and income from savings.
  402
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Table 1—The proportion of pensioner couples with income from occupational pensions and savings in excess of (i) £30 per week and (ii) the level of the basic state pension (1989)

  Percentage with income from

  Occupational pensions

  Savings

  Occupational pensions and savings

  All pensioner couples

  Of at least £30 per week

  39

  24

  54

  Of at least £69·80 per week

  20

  12

  32

  Recently retired pensioner couples

  Of at least £30 per week

  41

  25

  54

  Of at least £69·80 per week

  21

  12

  33

  Table 2—The proportion of single pensioners with income from occupational pensions and savings of at least (i) £20 per week and (ii) the level of the basic state pension (1989)

  Percentage with income from

  Occupational pensions

  Savings

  Occupational pensions and savings

  All single pensioners

  Of at least £20 per week

  24

  17

  33

  Of at least £43·60 per week

  15

  9

  21

  Recently retired single pensioners

  Of at least £20 per week

  29

  21

  41

  Of at least £43·60 per week

  19

  13

  24

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner units are defined single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as single men aged 65–69, single women aged 60–64 and couples in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  2. Figures are based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey of 1989, which is the latest year for which estimates are available. Amounts are in 1989 prices.

  3. £43·60 per week was the standard rate of Category A pension payable for the greater part of 1989, and £6980 per week was the amount payable to a couple entitled to full Category A and Category B pensions.

  Private Care Homes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the details of his Department's implementation of the decision announced by the social security commissioner on 14 October 1992 relating to the eligibility for income support in respect of older people transferred from hospitals to private nursing homes.

  Mr. Burt
  The chief adjudication officer and the Secretary of State have appealed to the Court of Appeal against the commissioner's decision CIS/23/92 and the case is expected to be heard shortly. In the meantime, payment of the benefit awarded in the decision has been suspended.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to cut the housing benefit taper from 65 per cent.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans.

  Order Books
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to make order books more secure.

  Mr. Lilley
  As a further important step in our campaign against fraud, I am introducing a new-style order book later this week. The new design will incorporate a number of significant new measures designed to prevent fraud and abuse, including complex features such as more secure watermarks, colour printing and other design properties which make illicit colour copying more difficult.

  Benefits
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of males 60 years and over and below 65 years who receive benefit, other than unemployed benefit or those relating to ill health.

  Mr. Burt
  In May 1992, 127,000 males aged 60 to 64 were in receipt of income support or family credit.

  Notes:

  1. Sources:

  (i) Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1992.

  (ii) Family Credit Statistical Sample.

  2. Information on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is not available in the form requested.

  3. The reply relates to income-related benefits only, excluding Disability Working Allowance.

  4. Some of those included in the above figure may be in receipt of the Income Support disability premium.

  Incomes
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in real average income before and after housing costs, for each decile group from 50 per cent. upwards, in the upper half of the population between 1979 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 8 July at columns 215–16.

  Benefits (Costs)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what work has been undertaken by the Government Actuary in relation to the projected cost of social security benefits up to 2000.

  Mr. Scott
  The figures in "The Growth of Social Security" include amounts based on projections made by the Government Actuary. The actuary also provides advice, comments and financial estimates pertaining to other aspects of the social security review.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effect on the backlog of processing claimants' applications for disability living and working allowances of the accidental cutting through of the cables operating at his Department's headquarters near Blackpool on 6 May.

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

  Letter from George Bardwell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is Michael Bichard's responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. As he is out of Leeds on Benefits Agency business I am replying on his behalf to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will make a statement on the effect on the backlog of processing claimants applications for disability and working allowances of the accidental cutting through the cables operating at his Department's headquarters near Blackpool on 6 May.
  I understand that British Telecom engineers accidentally cut through telephone cables and affected some telephones at our offices at Warbreck House, Blackpool. The situation was rectified within a matter of hours though and I am not aware of any significant delay to claim processing because of it.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

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

Liverpool and Manchester Airports
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour improving the existing runway at Speke, Liverpool, rather than building a new runway on green belt land next to the existing runway at Manchester airport.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, it is for airport operators to consider the scale and timing of investment and to bring forward proposals in the light of their own commercial judgment.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reasonably helpful reply. But surely he can tell us what is the point of ripping up at least 3,000 yards of prime Cheshire countryside and smothering it with concrete when there is another runway only about a 15-minute drive away which is at the moment greatly underused. Is he aware that flight paths out of that Liverpool runway would be over the unpopulated mudflats of the Mersey estuary whereas flight paths out of Manchester airport are over the heavily populated areas of Wilmslow, Knutsford and Mobberley?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we await with anticipation any proposals that Manchester may wish to bring forward. But I think that my noble friend will understand that it is difficult for me to give him the kind of answers he would like because of the quasi judicial position of my right honourable friend the
2
Secretary of State. Any planning application that is submitted might very well come to my right honourable friend.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has just said—of course it would be difficult to decide between the two planning applications. However, in view of the importance of the issue to the North West and, if I may say so, to the nation's airport system, can the noble Earl give us an assurance that before the decision is taken a proper inquiry will be held into the whole situation between the Manchester and Liverpool airports, which I consider to be an entity, and that a report will be submitted to both Houses of Parliament before a final decision is taken?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation is that the normal planning procedures will prevail. A planning application might very well be submitted by Manchester. It will be up to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to decide whether or not to call it in.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as someone who lives in the village of Mobberley, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mersey, I feel that I ought to declare an interest in this Question. Will my noble friend give an assurance that any application for a second runway will be bound to be subject to a full public inquiry and that the Government will take no steps whatever to prejudge any issue until they have heard the outcome of that inquiry?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am taking extreme care not to prejudge anything at the moment with regard to these two possible proposals. I can tell my noble friend that it will go through the proper planning procedure and it might well be that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State calls in these applications, which he has the power to do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does it not, however, make sense, as the noble Viscount has suggested, that someone should take a strategic view of air transport

3
in the North West? The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, lives in Mobberley. I used to live in Knutsford, so I have some knowledge of this area. Surely the Minister cannot believe that it makes sense to be considering building a new runway at Manchester when there is adequate capacity at Liverpool. It seems to me that someone needs to take the issue, bang a few heads together and not just leave it to market forces to work it out as they go along.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is the difference between the noble Lord and the Government on this issue. We do not believe it is right for the centre to dictate. It is for, on the one hand, Liverpool airport, which is privately owned, and, on the other hand, Manchester airport, which is local authority controlled, to decide what is best in their interests. Then the procedure will go through the normal planning route.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand the constraints under which my noble friend is operating but can he give an indication of how long all this will take? When will the planning application be considered; and how long is a public inquiry likely to take when and if that is called for?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have to take my noble friend a stage further back even from what he said, because we do not yet have a planning application from Manchester. Until that comes in it is very difficult to give the kind of answer to my noble friend that he would like.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what we are asking for is a little bit more than the usual planning applications and the appeals that take place afterwards. We are asking that, in view of the regional interest—and there is a dickens of a lot of regional interest in this matter—it can be considered by both Houses of Parliament.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear very clearly what the noble Lord says on this matter. There are the proper procedures which one has to go through.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister is in a difficult position at this point. Can he tell us when he expects the result of the exercise into the runway capacity in the South East to be published? Does the noble Earl agree that we are at the stage where air traffic is growing at an incredible rate and that leaving the issue to market forces is far too slack an approach? As my noble friend said, we must look at the matter in a strategic way. There is the question of Manchester airport increasing capacity from 10 million to perhaps 20 million passengers which will be about two-thirds that of the capacity of Heathrow. Is the Minister further aware that there is another runway available which is well under 30 miles away at Liverpool? Does he agree that from the national point of view this issue is much more important than purely commercial considerations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord
4
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, because it seeks to underline the great success of the Government's regional airport policy over the past 14 years. It is very good for the travelling public that there has been such a dramatic increase in traffic to Manchester and the other regional airports. As regards airport capacity in the South East, there is to be another meeting in the near future. If agreement can be reached at that meeting I hope that publication of the RUCATSE report will follow fairly soon thereafter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not obvious that either the planning procedures are in order, correct and adequate—in which case they ought not to be pre-empted—or they are not, in which case they ought to be altered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. We believe that the planning procedures are the right procedures. They have worked extremely well in the past and doubtless they will do so in the future.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a great part of this problem arises from the fact that commercially Manchester airport has been eminently successful but that, unfortunately, Liverpool has not been so far? As the Minister said, is it not the case that Manchester airport is owned by the local authorities and that Liverpool airport has been privatised? Would not a shotgun marriage be to the detriment of a publicly-owned airport?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is extremely good news that the air services agreement that we have renegotiated with fellow member states around the world has provided benefit for Manchester through increased traffic and the 165 destinations which it now has.

London Hospitals
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the views of the British Medical Association on the future of the NHS and London's hospitals, discussions will be initiated between the Department of Health and the British Medical Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Department of Health has regular discussions with the British Medical Association on a wide range of issues.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I had in mind the very special conference of the British Medical Association which has just taken place where Dr. Macara expressed grave anxiety about what has happened to several London hospitals. Will the Minister accept that he is completely uncertain about the future of our National Health Service and that he was supported by all members of the British Medical Association? Is she further aware that Dr. Macara's statement and the

5
BMA's massive support for its president have received support from the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that all these associations are devoted to our National Health Service and are at one in having grave anxiety about its future?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly when there are major changes afoot people are concerned. But I have just read the report of the annual general meeting of the BMA which was published in the British Medical Journal. My reading of it is that there was support for the proposals for London subject to certain conditions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before noble Lords take the views of the BMA as holy writ, can my noble friend recall that the BMA opposed the setting up of the National Health Service in the 1940s?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that is the case. The BMA opposed the reforms as it opposed GP fund-holding. But I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that at the last AGM it turned turtle and actually supported GP fund-holding.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the discussions which are taking place with the regional health authorities and all the other bodies in London are very detailed? Is she aware that I was present at one such meeting recently concerning Bart's Hospital where a decision was made that every aspect of local need should be assessed very carefully? Is she further aware that these matters are not being decided in haste?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Decisions taken on London hospitals will put patients first. They will also take into account the needs of staff. The London implementation group has already set up a clearing house for those who wish to look to their future, which perhaps may not be in London.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I certainly admit that the BMA, at the inception of the NHS, did not wish it to be born? Does the Minister agree that our nation was very lucky in having one of its greatest politicians responsible for creating the NHS and that that is why the name of Nye Bevan will remain long in the history of our country, together with that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who assisted?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that all professions are anxious about the future of the NHS, that the nation is alarmed and that family experiences support the associations' belief that there is grave danger of our National Health Service slowly but surely being destroyed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Nye Bevan was before my time, but I know that he has a splendid reputation among Labour politicians.
We are anxious to get the decisions on London right. I know that many people—not least in your Lordships' House—are concerned about that and want to ensure that services in London are improved in the future. That is the Government's whole intention. As my noble friend has just said, we shall ensure that that happens and that careful consideration is given before decisions are made.

Iraq: UN Assistance to Kurds
2.50 p.m.
Lord Leigh asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their policy of mediation, in conjunction with the United Nations, in the former Yugoslavia, why they do not seek to intervene in a similar fashion to prevent the destruction of the Kurdish population of Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the two situations require different responses. Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, Iraq is called upon to cease its repression of its civilian population. The air exclusion zone is in force north of the 36th parallel in support of the Resolution and to protect the people of Northern Iraq. We continue to take every opportunity to remind the Iraqi regime of its obligations.
Lord Leigh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Are the Government aware that over half of Saddam Hussein's armed forces are at present camped along the border with Kurdistan with the avowed intention of annihilating the whole Kurdish race, which is almost akin to genocide?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should not care to estimate what proportion of Saddarn Hussein's forces are in the north of the country. We are well aware of the manoeuvres that take place in the north and that Iraq is under no illusions that the United Nations Security Council intends to ensure that Iraq fulfils its obligations. We certainly believe that flagrant defiance of the UN's authority across the board by Iraq may cause us to have to take further action, but we are in no way unaware of what is going on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness has noticed the proposal that the blockade on Iraq should be lifted in respect of the Kurdish-controlled areas and whether she will seek to raise that matter in the Security Council. Has she also observed that there have recently been meetings at Foreign Minister level between Teheran, Damascus and Ankara with a view to concerting policies on the Kurds, and that those meetings have been followed by increased military activity against the Kurdish populations of Turkey and Iran as well as of Iraq? What steps do Her Majesty's Government think it

7
appropriate to take in the United Nations to prevent the complete destruction of the Kurds as a people in all those states?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think it very important that the discussions and negotiations which restarted only on 7th July to seek to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, which the regime there could do by agreeing to implement Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712, should be a success. We cannot help on the matter which the noble Lord raised until we have some progress on Resolutions 706 and 712. However, we should never forget that the United Kingdom has contributed over £60 million-worth of humanitarian aid for Iraq, most of which has gone to the Kurds, and that we continue to help.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm, first, that the flights over Northern Iraq from Turkey will continue to protect the Kurds? Secondly, what is the latest situation on the aid for the Kurdish people which is going through Baghdad and is destined for Erbil and beyond but which is not reaching them? Thirdly, will she give further consideration to the 36th parallel being moved to the 35th parallel as the people who live between those two parallels are 90 per cent. Kurdish?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend to try to help the Kurdish people. As far as we are concerned, the flights from Turkey which cover the no-fly zone will continue. I gather that the aid that passes through Baghdad is not the major part of the aid, and that the major part still reaches the Kurdish people by other routes. A change from the 36th to the 35th parallel would require a further Resolution by the Security Council.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House precisely what military support is being provided by the allies to protect the safe havens in Northern Iraq? Does she accept that any further military action against Iraq—against Saddam Hussein—should be under the auspices of the UN Security Council?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in respect of the noble Baroness's second question, perhaps I may advise her that the ministerial trilateral of the United States, the United Kingdom and France which met in Tokyo on 8th July, concluded that we should not rule out military action if Iraq continues to defy the inspectors. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary say on the radio this morning that Her Majesty's Opposition support the view that was taken in Tokyo by the UK, the US and France. Perhaps I may advise her further that, yes, there is protection of the people in the north, but it is by UN guards. That is what was agreed by the Security Council.

Trunk Roads: Coning
2.55 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reduce the coning off of lengths of trunk roads when no work is in progress or in contemplation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is already our policy to ensure that there is no unnecessary coning on trunk roads. We are continuing to pursue measures to minimise the inconvenience to motorists caused by lane closures.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that Answer and to know that it is policy to confine such restrictions to a minimum. However, does my noble friend realise that there are moments when motorists feel that his department suffers from an undue enthusiasm to protect a workforce which is not in sight or anywhere near the roadway concerned? Would he agree that it is important, as he has just said, to eliminate the inconvenience as far as possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will realise the sadness and distress that his Question will cause in the department where so much effort is being made to minimise the inconvenience to motorists and to reduce the amount of coning. If my noble friend finds himself in such a situation where work does not appear to be taking place, I hope that he will call the Cones Hotline on 276 3000.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, cannot the contractors who unnecessarily close great stretches of road be prosecuted for obstructing the highway?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if a highway needs repair it is probably wise, for the protection of those repairing it, to have it coned off.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, particularly during the rush hours on Friday and Sunday evenings, long stretches of the M.3 and M.4 are coned off with no work whatever being done on them? Will he look into the matter and ensure that the highway authorities follow the excellent sentiments which were expressed in his Answer and that they actually apply them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that every effort is made to apply them. There are, of course, often very good reasons why work might not be taking place when my noble friend is passing. I agree, however, that there is nothing more irritating in the rush hour on a Friday or Sunday evening than to find an area that is coned off where no work appears to be taking place. As I said, there are often very good reasons for that, as was found from the Hotline calls that have been received.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there should be a great deal more work in progress or in contemplation on our trunk roads? Does he agree with the recent survey by the British

9
Road Federation which showed that 8,000 kilometres of roads are in urgent need of structural repair, and that a further 6,000 kilometres will wear out within the next four years? Is he aware that much of that is due to the fact that roads are not being maintained properly and/or were constructed too cheaply in the first place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, I can answer only on trunk roads. The majority of roads are the responsibility of local authorities and I cannot answer for them in this Question. If the noble Lord would like to give me a specific instance I shall, of course, look into it, but he will be aware of the vast amount of taxpayers' money that is being spent not only on capital projects but also on maintenance.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, my question is about trunk roads. It is not good enough (is it?) merely to say that local authorities have the responsibility for a large part of the work when they are starved of the resources to undertake it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, they are not starved of the financial resources. A great deal of money is allocated to them for road maintenance, as is right. It is a considerable improvement upon the previous situation.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, despite the good intentions, this is not an area of triumph for the social charter? In the countries of our European partners, essential roadworks are carried on at night only, when motorists are not incommoded; and in the United States large numbers of cones can be moved quickly from one site to another by a kind of side-winding vehicle. Does not that mean that we need to do more research and development into how we can reduce inconvenience and maintain the roads successfully?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we shall look at every opportunity to try to minimise, first, the amount of coning; secondly, the time that the cones are in place, and to try to improve traffic measures for motorists who are approaching coned-off areas. I can give my noble friend one example. For work such as the white markings on roads we now use mobile lane closures which we did not use previously. That has speeded up traffic flow enormously.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I point out to the Minister—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I referred inadvertently to local authorities being responsible for trunk roads, and that he did too? The question I asked earlier was: do the Government dismiss the observations of the British Road Federation about the state of the trunk roads—a matter to which the Question is addressed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that I said that local authority roads were their responsibility and trunk roads were the responsibility of the department. There are, of course, areas where work needs to be done, but there is considerable expenditure at the moment to rectify those roads.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not clear that the Question—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not clear that the Question is about the coning of roads when repairs are not being carried out and not about the inadequacy of repairs which are not coned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the babble of enthusiasm that followed his second supplementary reply, his reference to a fascinating body about which I had not heard before, called the Cones Hotline, was largely lost. Will he repeat the telephone number and, at the same time, tell us what it is for?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will take careful note. The Cones Hotline is 071 276 3000. It was set up under the Citizen's Charter so that someone like my noble friend who is aggrieved that an area of road is coned off while no work is taking place can get straight on to the department which would investigate the matter. There have been some 70 calls. Of those, 68 replies were that there was good reason for the cones to be where they were. There were two other cases. In one, the sub-contractor had not removed the cones as it should have done. Another answer was that a greater length was coned off than was necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that all the remaining graffiti that say "Marples must go" and "Peyton must go" have been removed from our motorways?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have not seen any recently on cones.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the system of lane rental was introduced a few years ago there has been a considerable improvement in the speed at which essential repairs and maintenance are carried out? It is certainly better than some 20 years ago. Will he further assure the House that should the 48-hour working week be imposed upon us, we shall not have to stop the current procedure of work going on 24 hours a day for seven days a week, which one sees at the moment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking about lane closures. It was an initiative of my late noble friend Lord Ridley who introduced the measure. It has led to the speeding up of roadworks by some 30 per cent. So my noble friend

11
Lord Peyton will realise that there has been a considerable improvement since the day when he was Minister of Transport because there are now fewer cones in place for a shorter time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, so I should hope! That was a long time ago. Is my noble friend aware that the last thing I should ever wish to do would be to cause even a ripple of distress within the ranks of a government department? The maximum I wish to achieve by the Question is to point out how those who are responsible can earn for themselves a measure of popularity.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that there will be many people in the department who are consoled by my noble friend's latest question. Let me. assure him that considerable work is continuing to be put into this matter to try to achieve a resolution, but I am sure that he is a happier man than he was 30 years ago.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Economic Summit in Tokyo.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment two food protection orders followed by two orders relating to criminal justice and drug trafficking will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I were to remind your Lordships of the rules which apply to proceedings on Report. The rules are set out in full in pages 109–10 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. Perhaps I could simply draw your Lordships' attention to three small points.
First, on Report no Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment or, with leave, a Lord wishing to explain a part of his speech, or a Minister; secondly, arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report; and, thirdly, save for short questions for elucidation, only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister. The one exception to that rule is where a Minister wishes to speak early, for instance, in the event that the Minister wished to indicate his or her acceptance of an amendment.

Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Treaty on European Union]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(e)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to the subject of agriculture and the CAP. The feeling of the Committee seemed to be unanimously in favour of reforming the CAP. I wish to make it clear that I am aware that the CAP as such is not referred to in the treaty, but Article 3(e) of Title II refers to:
"a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries".
Whether lower case or upper case, I believe that the feeling of the Committee was—I believe that my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the Front Bench shared the view—that the agricultural policy, or a policy common to agriculture, needed reforming. The question is: how?
The point was made in Committee that Her Majesty's Government missed a golden opportunity to insist upon CAP reform in return for accepting EMU. If we accept for the sake of argument that it is now too late to go back over the Maastricht negotiations, it is important to ensure, nonetheless, that the same opportunity is not missed again either when the EC wants the UK to pay more money or when the treaty is next revised, possibly in 1996.
The amendment would ensure that the matter is not left to the discretion of the Executive and that Parliament has some control over what happens. I should have liked to have tabled a different amendment which focused on what I believed was required but I was told that the wording was out of order. However, in order to enlighten your Lordships, perhaps I may read out what it stated. There were only three short clauses. Clause 1 would have stated:
"Before 31st June 1995 Her Majesty's Government will lay before both Houses of Parliament a Command Paper setting out a draft of proposals to be submitted to the Council pursuant to Article N of the Treaty of European Union".
Clause 2 would have stated:

13
"The said command paper will include the policy of Her Majesty's Government on matters requiring renegotiation, which will include reform of a common agriculture policy".
Clause 3 would have stated:
"Her Majesty's Government will thereafter make such submission to the Council as either House of Parliament may by resolution direct".
That provision would have given the Government the necessary ammunition or authority to enforce real reform. During Committee the Government stated—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is addressing the amendment which he was told was out of order and therefore could not be tabled (in which case he is probably out of order in speaking to it), or whether he is addressing the amendment on the Marshalled List which we are discussing.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, yes, I am; and I am using it by way of illustration to show—
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said, "Yes, I am", but he did not say what he was doing. Is he addressing the amendment which was out of order or the amendment which is in order?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am addressing the amendment which is tabled in my name and which deals with the CAP.
There was a belief that reforms had been carried out last year by Mr. MacSharry and that those reforms should be given a chance to operate. However, I suggest that the reforms are like those of a cigarette smoker who decides to reform by taking up cigar smoking; they look like being even more expensive than the original habit. At present, 12 million acres of arable land are subject to set-aside and lie fallow. The beef subsidy system, which has been in operation for only a few months, is already a shambles. We have a control system for agriculture which is of extraordinary complexity and which will add enormously to the huge costs and bureaucracy of the common agriculture policy.
But the CAP is indeed a soft target. I know that the House is well aware of its shortcomings and I shall not go on about them. The question is: what can the Government do about it, if anything? How will we be able to influence decisions taken in the Council of Ministers at the behest of the Commission? We are now but one vote among 12. What other countries share our wish to reduce the excesses of the CAP? I suggest that there are few, if any. Not France, whose contribution has been to hold the GATT talks to ransom by stating that unless set-aside payments to European farmers are increased, it will not sign any GATT agreement. I may say that those increases are not minor; they are up to 50 per cent. And not Spain, Italy or Ireland, all of whom are large net recipients of the CAP billions.
Reform is demanded both outside and inside farming. It was useful and instructive to learn recently that a former president of the National Farmers' Union, Sir Simon Gourlay, has come down firmly in favour of root and branch reform of the CAP. It is a matter which needs to be seriously addressed. If we
14
want genuine reform and if we want to return to a saner system of agriculture support which is sustainable in the light of cold economic reality, we must place the right weapons in the Government's hands to enable them to carry out such reforms and to negotiate effectively in the Council of Ministers on behalf of the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer.
As one of the three net contributors to the Community budget we are in a strong position to argue for reform of the CAP or of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture. I believe that it would be entirely appropriate and correct for Parliament to give the Government a direction about the negotiating stance that they should take in 1996. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Ullswater replied to this question in Committee, I found his answer completely and utterly unconvincing. I believe that I referred to it as auto-pilot Euro-gunge, which I believed it to be. There seems to be no awareness among Members on the Treasury Bench of the need for reform of the CAP. The British taxpayer is subsidising me to grow wheat. I do not mind being sulbsidised; in fact, I love being subsidised because the more subsidy that people can shovel into my back pocket, the happier I shall be. But. I cannot in all honesty stand and argue the morality of subsidising me to grow weeds. It is a silly thing to do We are subsidising people to grow weeds when there is a £50,000 million public sector debt. Can anyone in their right mind think of anything sillier? I cannot.
Furthermore, we impose an extra £1,000 per year on each family of four or on each person in those four—I cannot remember—as a result of overblown food subsidies. We have to stop that. Furthermore, I have already pointed out my great and good friend Odessa. Once the Russians cease to be grain importers—which they will as night follows day—and become grain exporters, the situation will become worse.
Unless and until that fact is received in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the Treasury and by the bureaucrats in Brussels, there will be a disaster. I am sorry to say that in answering the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Ullswater appeared to have no conception—or, even worse, the Government had no conception—of the horror which is about to overtake us. Anything which can be used to persuade the Government to try to reform and to change this ridiculous policy is to the good. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I listened to and read with great interest the debate in Committee on this subject, although I did not take part in it. I was interested to note that the Government and everyone else said, "You should not have a vote on this. Indeed, you should not have put this amendment down. We all agree that the common agricultural policy is a mess and a disgrace, and we should all like to do something about it. But you cannot do it in this Bill. You are entitled only to take out the provisions in Article 3a dealing with agriculture; you are not allowed to make propositions which will improve that article and

15
improve agriculture". We were told that we were not entitled to do anything other than take out from the treaty an agricultural policy.
That is senseless. It is unfortunate that Parliament cannot have a point of view and suggest that to the Government without being told that it will mess up the treaty. But the Government could have done that, could they not? When they renegotiated the treaty and when they were dealing with the Maastricht Treaty, they could have said to our partners, "We shall not agree to the treaty unless you give an absolute and firm undertaking that the common agricultural policy will be altered and reformed very radically indeed". When the Government were negotiating the treaty, they had the power to do something radical about the policy and to threaten their partners, as they are so often threatening us, with a failure to agree the treaty unless something radical was done.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, mentioned the article which he saw in The Times last Monday, 5th July, of an interview with Sir Simon Gourlay, the former secretary of the National Farmers' Union. However, the noble Lord was very modest and did not quote from the article. I intend to quote from it because the quotes are very good indeed. For those noble Lords who did not read The Times last Monday, perhaps I may read from that article. The headline is:
"Farmers' friend condemns insanity of EC subsidies".
That is even further than I would go. The article goes on:
"Europe's farmers must be weaned from their addiction to public handouts if they are to have a secure future, according to Sir Simon Gourlay, former president of the National Farmers' Union.
Those unable to face life without a regular subsidy 'fix' should be encouraged to leave farming by a generously funded redundancy scheme.
Interviewed on his 850-acre cattle, sheep and cereal farm straddling the Powys-Herefordshire border near Knighton, Sir Simon admitted that he had once defended the kind of farm support he now believes must be abolished. The 'terminal insanity' of last year's much-trumpeted reform of the European Community's Common Agriculture Policy, he said, had hardened a growing conviction that nothing would be achieved by tinkering with the existing system".
Therefore, Sir Simon is on our side. He said that it is no good tinkering with the system; it should be abolished. Those who criticise us and criticise the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, for tabling this amendment are quarrelling with an expert.
I hope that we shall hear no more about the futility of our tabling such an amendment for discussion. I am only sorry that we are unable to discuss the matter in fuller depth in an effort to persuade Her Majesty's Government that they should take a much tougher line on this subject which wastes tens of billions of pounds every year and puts up the food costs for the people of this country.
I hope that after the debates, not only in this House but also in another place, when the Government are negotiating further treaties as no doubt they will—I hope that they will not, but no doubt they will do—they will take a much stronger line to ensure that anything which they may wish to give will be conditioned by a severe reform of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has just said. He may remember that your Lordships' Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee produced a report some months ago which recommended precisely what Sir Simon Gourlay has now said. That is very encouraging. The sub-committee recommended that farmers might receive a bond were they to stop farming. Therefore, that is not news to your Lordships' House.
The point in the context of the debate is that the Maastricht Treaty has nothing to do with the CAP and is unrelated to it. In the context of the Bill, the question is whether the best way to sort out the CAP is by staying in the kitchen or by getting out, which is what we should do were we not to ratify the treaty.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I should like to give your Lordships a slightly different view on the common agricultural policy; namely, that it is seen by many people in the land as being a back-door nationalisation of our farming interests. That is against the policies and philosophy of the party on whose side I sit and I warn the party and the Government that they are losing votes at a great rate in the countryside.
Why is it a nationalisation of our farming interests? The reason is that we no longer have control over what we grow, the price that we obtain for it, our incomes or how we manage the land. The loss of labour on the land is being rapidly made up by an increase in civil servants. I believe that the Danes now have the same number of civil servants in their agriculture ministry as they have farmers.
If nothing is done about it, the Conservative support in the country will fail. We have seen the treaty go through. We know how it all operates. We see the negotiations taking place. Why have not the Government used their negotiating position in the treaty to obtain a better situation as regards the common agricultural policy? I feel that if your Lordships were to send a message back to another place, it would put some mettle into the Government and something might at last happen. I support the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a number of noble Lords have said, the problem with the amendment is that it removes the words "a common agricultural policy" from the treaty. Of course, if it had said that it would remove the common agricultural policy as presently constituted, I am sure there would be a unanimous vote in its favour. But that cannot be done under the terms and the wording of the treaty.
A number of the arguments on the amendment are recycled from Committee stage. I can agree with all the criticisms of the common agricultural policy. I have spent half my professional life attempting to grapple with its nonsenses. I am always amazed that a group of supposedly intelligent politicians and officials could have produced a policy which fails the farmer, the taxpayer and consumer, damages the environment and harms the third world. We know that its bureaucratic complexities lead to endemic fraud which is estimated at some £6 billion per annum.

17
In passing I should say on fraud that we know that we have all had to go through the agonies of the integrated administration control system—IACS. We have had to fill in forms noting every animal, and every crop has had to be allocated to two decimal places of a hectare. We are told by the Government that we must do that to control public spending and because of the fear of fraud. However, a number of your Lordships will remember that from the late 1940s until the mid-1970s we had a system of agricultural support in this country. I refer not to the value of the system but to its administration. We had a barley subsidy which was based on acreage and a wheat subsidy which was based on tonnage. There were three kinds of fat stock subsidies—pigs, cattle and sheep. There was a calf subsidy. There was a grassland subsidy, a lime subsidy and a whole range of hill livestock subsidies. That was all managed efficiently, effectively and cheaply with hardly any fraud and with none of the nonsenses to which we have been exposed-under the IACS.
Of course the Government are right to say that we need IACS to prevent fraud. But we are not talking about fraud in the United Kingdom; we are talking about fraud in other member states. Therefore, I agree with all the criticisms made of the CAP.
However, before the Government become too excited about my support, I remind the Minister that during the general election of 1970, when I was a parliamentary candidate, I remember well that the Heath Government, when they were returned to power, were committed to ending the system of deficiency payments and replacing them with import levies, whether or not we entered the common market. That is the system to which we have moved, with all its problems. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not pretend that all the problems that have arisen through that shift as regards the system were due entirely to the common agricultural policy because that was the policy of the Heath Government, whether or not we entered the common market. I can well remember on a number of visits to Brussels in the 1970s being told that to have a system of deficiency payments to support European agriculture was absolutely impossible and it was completely outside all the terms of the Treaty of Rome. But now, of course, with the MacSharry reforms we have a system of deficiency payments.
However, there is something to be said in favour of the MacSharry reforms. We heard much in Committee, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about the Franco-German conspiracy. The noble Lord fastened on to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in the debate about the "Franco-German conspiracy" as he defined it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in his previous existence would have had nothing to do with conspiracies, but he fastened on to the latter as the central weakness of the common agricultural policy which was effectively the agreement reached in the mid-50s whereby the Germans were prepared to accept high farm prices for the French in order to have a market for their industrial exports. They were correct in that. Nevertheless, the MacSharry reforms
18
will eventually bring all that to an end. Their intention—however ineffective they prove to be—is to bring our farm prices towards world prices and to make up the difference with a system of deficiency payments.
I should like to deal with just a few of the points that have been raised in the debate. We could all multiply examples of the absurdities of the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord who moved the amendment referred to the set-aside system. We all know that, as part of the French agreement to the oilseed deal in GATT, they insisted on a 25 per cent. increase in the compensation for set-aside. Therefore, as a result, every arable farmer who sets land aside in this country will receive something of the order of £24 per acre. That is very welcome news for the farmers, but of course it is completely barmy.
I support my noble friend Lord Stoddart who asked—and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response—why the Government missed the negotiating chance that they had in Maastricht to try to insist on a fundamental reform of the CAP. I wonder what arguments were put forward that convinced the Government that they should not use that as a bargaining counter. They claim success in all the other negotiations in Maastricht as regards the various opt-outs, so why did they not use their chance during negotiations to insist upon a fundamental reform of the CAP?
Mention was made of the article in The Times by Sir Simon Gourlay, who is a former president of the National Farmers' Union and someone who I know well, and of the arguments produced by Sub-Committee D, of which I was a member. If we intend through a bond or any other system to help the European farmer out of farming we must be clear about the social effects involved. It will mean more and larger farms and fewer people on the land. We must consider most carefully the social effects if we attempt to remove farmers from European farming.
In conclusion, it is essential that a great trading bloc like the European Community operating a single market should have a common policy for agriculture to deal with its responsibilities in the wider world, as regards its trade in agriculture and food products. It must also ensure that there is, to coin a phrase, a level playing field between the European farmers when they compete with one another. There must be a common agricultural policy—and I emphasise that that is spelt with a small "c", a small "a" and a small "p". Unfortunately, the amendment does not deal with the situation. As all speakers have made clear, it is directed at the common agricultural policy (the CAP) that we now have and which, as we all know; is completely unacceptable. Therefore, in those terms, if the noble Lord was minded to divide the House, I would regretfully have to advise my colleagues to reject the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall be brief at this stage in order to save time. It has been said in the course of the debate that the common agricultural policy did not feature in the Maastricht Treaty and that, therefore, any reference to it is inappropriate. I

19
am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the effects of the common agricultural policy, especially so far as concerns Britain's net contributions to the Community, present an all-pervasive element that certainly has considerable financial consequences and, indeed, has some effect on the budget, which will be the subject of a later amendment that I hope to introduce.
I hope that the Minister can confirm the following. When a meeting of the agriculture council takes place, is it true that the representative from the Ministry of Agriculture is accompanied by a representative of the Treasury? When the various pricing, intervention pricing and other arrangements are agreed on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, with the Minister himself speaking on behalf of the Government, is the Treasury there and is its concurrence required before the British representative arrives at an agreement? The reason I ask those questions is that there are stories which abound in Brussels. Some of them are true, although that is not always the case. However, there is a story, which is not entirely improbable, that when the price provisions of the agriculture council are discussed, the Treasury representative suddenly disappears and returns home in order to avoid the responsibility for any settlement that is reached.
As I said, that story may or may not be true. The Minister will certainly be able to disabuse me. However, the main question has some importance. I say that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury—I believe that Sir John Cope now has the job—carry a responsibility for monitoring very carefully the whole of the European budget, including agricultural expenditure. It would be nice to know whether there is a degree of enthusiasm and interest by the Treasury in the Commission's budget in order to ensure that the budgetary expense is kept within limits that are wholeheartedly agreed to by all sections of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, although the amendment appears to be imperfect for our purpose, I am anxious to support it. I do so because I am dissatisfied with a situation where, in every part of the House, there is almost universal agreement that the CAP is a monstrosity and yet we seem to fail to make any significant inroads into it. I take the amendment to be a form of protest; that is, a substitute for perhaps more violent action to indicate displeasure and dissatisfaction.
I am sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not present in the Chamber today. I always treasure the rare episodes of agreement between us when he speaks as a professional economist rather than as an amateur politician. The other day I heard him denounce the common agricultural policy in terms that rejoiced my heart. Similarly, I found nothing to object to in what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—except, that is, in the sense that I should have preferred a touch more indignation in his description of the outrageous system.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, repeated the estimate of £1,000 per family of four as being the full cost of the CAP. That implies a cost to the nation in the order of
20
£10 billion, £12 billion or perhaps £15 billion a year. However, it does not capture the full cost; it represents the direct costs and those can be easily measured. Frequently in economics the art is to penetrate beyond the direct, measurable macro cost to see what the longer term consequences of the policy may be.
As the noble Lord said, the guaranteeing of prices raises the cost of basic foodstuffs to all of the people in this land. I should preface this by saying the intention, and the direct visible effect of the CAP system, is to raise the incomes of farmers. It is intended to raise the income of small farmers above all but of course it disproportionately raises the income of large farmers. That is the visible, direct effect of this massive expenditure. The indirect, hidden consequences include, as I have said, the raising of prices for every family in the land. That is the direct effect of the guaranteed prices. The subsidies that we pay to farmers to add to their incomes raise the costs which filter through and become lodged in the production costs of our industry.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to intervene for one minute. He said the fundamental effect of the CAP was to raise the cost of food to the British public. Does he also agree that since we have been members of the European Community there has been no shortage of food whatsoever throughout this country, and indeed throughout the whole of the European Community, and that certainly does not apply to practically any other part of the world?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I always admire the spirit with which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, finds ways to defend even the less defensible aspects of this conspiracy against the public good. To say there is no shortage of food and that that is a bonus of this whole system is preposterous. There is a vast surplus of food that we have difficulty in getting rid of. Indeed we dump it on world markets and thoroughly distort the allocation of resources around the whole world. We undermine the markets for other countries that depend completely on producing foodstuffs and supplying them cheaply. What is meant by no food shortage? I give no marks at all to the common agricultural policy for piling up these surpluses, which are an additional source of cost because we pay dear for them in Europe and we sell them cheap or give them away around the world.
My argument is that the often less obvious consequences of the CAP are far more damaging than we allow. It distorts the use of resources and it burdens our costs. It reduces the competitiveness of our products. We possibly could save on average £1,000 per family of four, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said. That would imply that taxes, or dare I say even wages, might be that much lower without reducing our living standards. Our products would therefore be more attractive around the world. I do not think for a moment it is the least bit fanciful or exaggerated to say that this system is one of the contributory factors to the high level of unemployment which we all deplore. We all disapprove of the system. I am not charging anybody with defending it but I am asking

21
what measures we can take, and the Government can take, to indicate their displeasure, impatience and indignation that this system should continue for diminishing benefit at increasing cost. How does the Minister manage to sleep peacefully in bed at night when she has responsibility for this system continuing one day longer than it needs to?
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one does not feel after more than 19 years in Parliament that one is about to do something for the first time, except when one's noble friend is indisposed. This is the first agricultural debate I have replied to in more than 19 years in Parliament. I shall seek to answer the questions that have been posed and to put a coherent case as to why I do not believe that my noble friend's amendment is correct for the reasons that have been stated by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend was absolutely right when he said he understood that nothing was being changed in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries by the Maastricht Treaty. But that does not mean that no action is being taken. It is right that I should address that point as well as seeking to answer your Lordships' questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has just commented upon the common agricultural policy and has mentioned his great disapproval of it. I do not disagree with him that there needs to be further reform of the common agricultural policy. However, I do not disagree either with my noble friend Lady Elles, who reminded us that the CAP was formulated in a period following the Second World War. Lest we forget, in those days farming was exceedingly depressed and people were still hungry in this country and in other parts of what is now the European Community. In those terms, the CAP was an attempt by others to try to put right the failure to have sufficient food within the region.
I accept that much needs to be done, and that is why we have sought to gain reforms to the common agricultural policy. I believe it is legitimate for the Community to have a common agricultural policy because all member states, as one noble Lord reminded us, have had support policies for agriculture and therefore a common policy is a prerequisite for free trade in agricultural products. However, it is the detailed provisions of the CAP, not the existence of a common policy itself, which have created the problems in Community agriculture. No one has been more assiduous in pointing out the problems of the common agricultural policy than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I shall return to his comment in just one moment.
It is the detail of the CAP which Her Majesty's Government will continue to work at to reform it still further. However those details are no part of the EC treaty and can be changed, thank goodness, without treaty amendments. Therefore we shall not have to wait several years more to make changes in the CAP should the reforms that we are looking for come about.
My noble friend who proposed this amendment said the MacSharry reforms were insufficient. I agree
22
with him and I hope that what I have just said indicates that we shall not just stop with the CAP reforms of 1992. However, 1 believe they represent a significant shift in direction of the CAP by switching support from the end product to the producer; in other words, creating greater market orientation. Prices will be significantly cut and the CAP will move closer to world prices. I believe, too, that that will ease international trade tensions. That is why we should go along with these reforms.
There is a further good reason for doing so—I know the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, supports this—and that is that the reforms of 1992 will, when fully implemented, make the agricultural support system more transparent. That is something the noble Lord has long wanted to see. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The noble Baroness indicated that the common agricultural policy could be fundamentally changed without amending the Treaty of Rome. Surely that is not the case. The whole character of the common agricultural policy and its fundamentals are laid down in Articles 35 to 47 of the treaty. Surely the noble Baroness will agree that they would need to be changed for there to be any really fundamental shift in the whole of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it depends entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, means by fundamental shift. I was explaining some moments ago that the details which have been spoken about in this debate, and in the debate in Committee, are no part of the treaty. The details can certainly be changed without treaty amendment. If the whole system of support were to be totally turned on its head—I suspect that is not likely to happen in the way the noble Lord would like—perhaps he is right. However, he is certainly not right in relation to the details of the common agricultural policy.
I have already said that the Government do not believe that the reform yet goes far enough. We know, for instance, that some commodities are not covered by the 1992 reforms. It is important that other commodities such as sugar, wine, olive oil, fruit arid vegetables are also reformed. We are working on that and we shall continue to do so until we have a very much better agricultural policy than we have now.
One consequence of CAP reform will be an increase in the budgetary cost of the CAP, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned. However, that will be more than offset by the reduced burden on consumers. Overall, the cost of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers will be lower.
Perhaps at this point I may take up the comments made by my noble friend Lord Onslow who claimed that the OECD estimated the cost to the consumer to be £1,000 per person per annum. Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that that OECD estimate takes no account of the effect on world prices if the CAP and other support measures did not exist. It is likely that

23
without support policies production would decline and world prices would rise. That is certainly true in many areas.
At the time of the 1992 reforms it was estimated that after full implementation of the package the savings to EC consumers would be of the order of £8 billion. The UK receipts from the CAP are set to increase from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. That brings it much closer to our share of agricultural production, which is approximately 9.2 per cent. by value.
In the debate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke mentioned the possible complications of the French position in consideration of the GATT agreement. Perhaps I may tell him—and there may be more discussion of the matter later today in connection with the Statement—that the French welcomed the progress reported by the Quad at Tokyo. I believe that when the Geneva negotiations are concluded not only will the Commission bring the results to the Council, but member states will already have had a chance to give their views to one another. Member states will then have to approve a global and balanced conclusion of the round. I believe that under those circumstances it would be exceedingly difficult for any member state to hold out against a deal which offers enormous benefits to the developed and the developing world alike. I sincerely hope that the course on which Sir Leon Brittan has set us to resolve the problems of the GATT will be successfully concluded.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Surely the agreement of the French was in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and related to the problems of the oilseeds deal under the GATT oilseeds panel. It had nothing to do with the deal in Geneva. The French price for agreeing to the oilseeds deal in the GATT panel was a 25 per cent. increase in the compensation for set-aside, which is worth about £24 an acre to every farmer in this country who sets land aside. That is outside the Tokyo and GATT negotiations at present.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that is outside the Geneva discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, argued that set-aside was wrong. I shall come to that point in a moment. To answer my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, I do not believe that the French will take lightly the agreement which has so far been reached. That was the point that my noble friend made rather than the 25 per cent. increase which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just mentioned.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that set-aside is not a policy which the UK Government favour, but it is important that surplus EC grain production, which is very expensive to dispose of and disrupts world markets, particularly in the developing world, is reduced. That is why the United Kingdom has always argued that the price mechanism is the most effective way to reduce production and why set-aside is linked to 30 per cent. price cuts for cereals. Obviously, price cuts take time
24
to have an effect on production. In this case set-aside can act more quickly. However, nobody expects set-aside to continue for ever and a day. One hopes that the price mechanism will come into play as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and another noble Lord mentioned the article in The Times by Sir Simon Gourlay, a past president of the NFU. I have already mentioned that the Government accept that further reform is still needed. That is why we continue to argue for it. But as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, Sir Simon's comments are helpful. We shall certainly consider the implications of his remarks in order to make progress on the very reforms which we wish to see achieved.
I understand that the amendment was put down for a very sensible and understandable reason. I do not quibble one iota with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on that. But I have to say to him that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated, it does not do what he seeks to do; namely, to achieve reform of the common agricultural policy. I have to advise your Lordships, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater did in relation to a similar amendment which we discussed during the Committee stage on 24th June, that if my noble friend were to press the amendment I would have to urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chalker for her full and detailed reply, particularly since it is 19 years since she last answered questions on agriculture. However, I remain less than impressed by the hope that the present agricultural policy will prove less costly than the one which obtained before the reforms.
I very much hope that the feelings expressed on all sides of this House that reform of agricultural policy is needed will have come across to the Government Benches loud and clear. That cannot be achieved through changing details because I do not believe that tinkering with details will alter agricultural policy significantly. Root and branch reform is needed. I hope that those who have spoken about agricultural policy both in this House and outside the Chamber will have got the message across to the Government that we need some reform, and sooner rather than later.
At this stage I do not propose to press the matter to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Economic Summit, Tokyo
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the Economic Summit on 7th–9th July. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on the Economic Summit in Tokyo and the Group of Seven meeting with President Yeltsin.

25
I attended the summit with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the three days I also had bilateral meetings with our host, Prime Minister Miyazawa, and with the Presidents of the United States and Russia and the Prime Minister of Canada.
"The summit produced significant achievements. These are set out in the economic and political declarations which I have placed in the Library of the House.
"Before the Tokyo summit, the GATT talks had been stalled for several months. The summit acted as a catalyst. The United States, Japan and the European Community negotiated a report on access to each other's markets which has led to the resumption of GATT negotiations in Geneva.
"The report offers large benefits to British industry. In six of the eight categories where tariffs are to be abolished entirely, Britain is a net exporter. These include pharmaceutical and construction equipment. Japan's agreement to abolish all the import duty on whisky will give a welcome boost to sales in a market which is already worth over £170 million a year to Scotland. Many other particularly high tariffs faced by British exporters will be cut by 50 per cent. or more. These include punitive United States tariffs on ceramics, glassware and high quality textiles. In other categories of manufactured goods, there was agreement to cut as many tariffs as possible by a third, or to harmonise them at low levels.
"The Uruguay Round is far wider in scope than previous multilateral trade negotiations. It still has a long way to go. But the Tokyo meetings have injected much-needed momentum and real progress on substantive issues—action as well as words—and the worldwide prospect of more trade and more jobs, especially for a trading nation like the British. With low interest rates and firm control of costs, British industry is exceptionally well placed to benefit from a successful GATT round.
"Madam Speaker, each summit country, except Japan, is facing a serious fiscal problem. With the exception of the UK, the European participants are not expecting economic growth this year. Against this background, the Summit identified barriers to growth which have developed in much of the industrialised world.
"As at the European Community's Copenhagen Council, I found a new willingness among our partners to address some of the hard lessons which we learnt in the United Kingdom during the recession. Three points in particular were generally accepted: that there is a long term upward structural trend in unemployment in addition to the cyclical effect of the recession; that, on present forecasts, the cost of social provisions is likely to exceed the capacity to meet them in all the main industrial economies; and that deregulation and labour market flexibility are vital to get unemployment down.
"It was agreed that Europe should implement the firm budgetary and other measures needed to
26
facilitate the rapid reductions in interest rates which are now required in many countries on the Continent. In North America, strong action was being taken to bring down fiscal deficits over the medium term with the objective of securing higher saving and investment. Japan, meanwhile, wilil implement fiscal and monetary measures to ensure sustained growth led by strong domestic demand. This will help to reduce Japan's large current account surplus.
"All of these measures are intended to help growth around the world. The Summit's accent on jobs was reflected in agreement to send high level representatives to a special meeting which President. Clinton is convening in the autumn. This will study the causes of unemployment and pool experience in seeking solutions.
"Madam Speaker, in April the Group of Seven put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia through its deep transformation. At Tokyo, the Heads of Government confirmed that approach, and noted that some large financial flows were already being made available, including 1.5 billion dollars in a new IMF facility. We set out a programme worth some three billion dollars to help privatisation and restructuring. There are some encouraging signs of a spreading enterprise culture in Russia. The summit leaders told President Yeltsin that they were determined to sustain the huge support they had given to reform in his country.
"Of equal importance, we have reinforced our political partnership with Russia. As an innovation this year, our agenda included a joint review with President Yeltsin of international problems. At my suggestion, the meeting concluded with an invitation to the Russian President to join us again next year in Italy.
"The political declaration touches on many of the problems we discussed with President Yeltsin, or beforehand among the Seven. We supported a negotiated settlement for Bosnia, but only on the basis that it would be acceptable to the Moslem people and not imposed on them. We highlighted the importance of the non-proliferation treaty; supported the constitutional talks in South Africa; and expressed concern about the behaviour of Iraq, Iran and Libya.
"The Summit paid close attention to problems of the developing world and of the environment. I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope this will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further. On the environment, the Summit reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and implementation of the Rio decisions.
"Finally, Madam Speaker, a word about the summit process itself. Over 19 meetings, the summits have evolved from an informal discussion between Heads of Government into an enormously expensive and over-structured international event. I believe that radical change is necessary if we are to get the best out of this process. I proposed

27
innovations last year, and I made further proposals in Tokyo. These were widely supported. I hope that, as a result, future summits will be more informal; less pre-prepared; and will provide even more opportunities for spontaneous discussion between the summit heads.
"Despite the procedural weaknesses I have mentioned, the Tokyo Summit produced results of particular benefit to the United Kingdom as an exporting nation and a leading advocate of free trade. It concentrated on problems which are causing deep concern around the world. It helped to bring leaders who are addressing these problems in common closer together. And it laid the groundwork, I believe, for productive work at future summits."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
The Summit was clearly held at a critical juncture in the development of the world economy, which has been hit by recession and by unemployment. In the industrialised countries alone, 35 million people are now unemployed, with more out of work across the world. We therefore welcome President Clinton's initiative to combat unemployment, and hope that the Group of Seven countries will be prepared to take co-ordinated action to boost growth and to create jobs.
However, my regret is that it has taken so long for our own Government to recognise the importance of increased international planning and co-operation to safeguard jobs and to create new ones, and not merely to rely upon the operation of the market. I believe that that change of mind by the Government will give any proposals that they make at Mr. Clinton's proposed conclave on unemployment a special piquancy.
We also welcome the partial agreement on GATT and pay tribute to the important work undertaken by Sir Leon Brittan in helping to promote the agreement. Admittedly, certain difficulties remain. In particular, problems relating to agriculture still have to be addressed. The dispute over agriculture will not go away; it still exists. It has raged within the Group of Seven, and within the European Community. In that respect it is perhaps unfortunate that the Summit was not successful in resolving those problems over agriculture.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord will outline any new initiatives that the Government may have for resolving the dispute in the field of agriculture. Procedurally, what are the next steps to be taken following the partial understandings that were reached at Tokyo?
The Summit discussed, too, current developments within Russia, and apparently agreed a three billion dollar aid package for that country. We hope with the Government that that package will assist President
28
Yeltsin to promote economic reform and political stability within his country. Perhaps the noble Lord will elaborate a little on the thinking behind the granting of the three billion dollar package. When the Finance Ministers met in April, the figure apparently was to be four billion dollars. There is an apparent discrepancy between the two figures, but is there a discrepancy in reality? I shall be grateful to know how much of the three billion dollar aid package which was apparently agreed in Tokyo is new money; and how much of that is money that is already pledged, or in some cases has already gone.
The Summit also agreed what it called a comprehensive approach to the problems affecting the developing world. To be effective, that strategy must include the speedy implementation of the Trinidad terms on debt relief. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to secure that and, perhaps most importantly, to persuade the Japanese Government that it ultimately lies in their own interests to play a more positive role in promoting agreement on international debt relief? We on these Benches would also like to see the Government reverse their reduction in the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme to 0.31 per cent. and take definable and progressive steps towards reaching the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP.
The fighting in Bosnia seems, understandably, to have cast a shadow over the summit. The Vance-Owen plan seems well and truly dead: numerous ceasefires have been broken and the killing goes on with no apparent end in sight. Sadly, the summit offered no new ideas or initiatives to bring an end to the anarchy in Bosnia. We need urgent international action to stop the fighting. As a matter of immediacy, sanctions must be strengthened and urgent consideration given to extending them to Croatia. The United Nations has to give practical meaning to the safeguarded areas and use the threat of air strikes to deter aggression. Was any of that discussed at the summit? If so, how far were any understandings reached?
We are also concerned by North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although that, again, may be more apparent than real. I should welcome the Minister's comment on that, too. We welcome the fact that President Clinton has extended the moratorium on nuclear tests for a year. We hope that the Government will play a more positive role in working towards the implementation of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
Looking at the Summit as a whole, it would seem that it was one of those meetings that did not solely rely upon producing a verbal communique at the end, but, particularly in terms of the GATT, seems to have taken one or two practical steps, which I am bound to say is refreshing.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches, may I also welcome the Statement, from the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which he read to the House. This was a Summit for which the expectations were extremely low and, by contrast, I think we may all take some

29
pleasure in the outcome. Certainly, there is a welcome sign that the sclerosis which has afflicted the international scene over the past 18 months has had some remission. In that sense, the summit should be counted at least as a partial success. I suppose a cynic might say that seven leaders all in search of good news for domestic purposes will probably find a silver lining and so they managed to do so.
However, particularly welcome is the pressure that the summit engendered on the so-called Quad countries for the agreement on better market access, not least Japan's agreement in principle to abolish the remaining duty on Scotch. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House how definite is Japan's agreement to remove the import duty on Scotch. I understand his right honourable friend the Prime Minister will visit Japan in September. Will he by then be able to raise a glass of Scotch with Mr. Miyazawa's successor, to celebrate the removal of the final import duty? Perhaps he could be as specific as possible in replying to that.
On the Uruguay Round, we are still not out of the woods, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I am sure that the Government know that we on these Benches give complete support for the Uruguay Round and for the resumption of freer trade in the world. Can the noble Lord give us some prognosis of what is now likely to happen with the Uruguay Round negotiations in Geneva? Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we welcome the aspirations on debt reductions and the hope that the Trinidad terms will be taken further, but I notice that the language used in the Statement is quite weak. It merely says that that will he considered. What news has the Minister for us of definite progress there?
Then we come to the important question of unemployment. There is certainly a welcome sign of a more positive international approach. It is also welcome that all industrialised countries now accept that there are deep structural problems and not simply temporary problems of recession to be dealt with. I believe that it is a fair criticism that in the past the United Kingdom Government have had a rather more limited approach than some other countries on the matter, certainly more limited than the proactive Clinton approach. It seems that the international community will need the full gamut of supply-side measures, rather than confining its hopes simply to freeing up markets. In that context, our active membership of the European Community, which is currently being discussed in the House, is crucial. How do the Government see the Clinton initiative relating to the Delors initiative on unemployment?
Then there is the question of Bosnia. In that context, I was concerned, as I am sure other noble Lords were, to see what seemed to be back-tracking by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on removing the arms embargo in Bosnia. That has not appeared in the Statement this afternoon and I am unclear as to its status in the final communiqué. Perhaps the noble Lord will reassure us that the Government's policy has not changed and that the arms embargo should not be lifted.
A question to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard,
30
referred is nuclear proliferation. The communiqué reiterated the objective of universal adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to its indefinite extension in 1995, as well as to nuclear arms reductions. In that context, perhaps I may urge the Government to find an early opportunity to restate their commitment to nuclear testing restraint. Perhaps the noble Lord could do that when he replies. In particular, will the Minister welcome President Clinton's decision to extend the moratorium on US nuclear tests until September 1994? Will he support President Clinton's objective of achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty by September 1996? Will he declare the willingness of Her Majesty's Government to participate in talks towards achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996, when the talks resume later this year?
There was a reference in the Statement to the costs of social provisions exceeding the capacity of the signatories to meet them. Is that something on which the Minister would like to expand to the House? What particular cuts do the Government have in mind in the level of social provisions as a result of the Tokyo Summit? It would be useful if the Minister could share the Government's intentions more fully with the House.
Finally, at the end of the Statement there was a sensible reference to the Summit being less elaborate, "more informal". That is surely to be welcomed. The Summit has become a three-ring circus, with tens of thousands of media people swarming round plus many officials. It is easy to support it being more informal, but I wonder why the Government want it to be less well prepared. Is lack of preparation now to be considered a political vice? Conversely, has it become a virtue to go into meetings without being properly prepared? Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us on that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Holme, for their general welcome to much of what went on in Tokyo. They asked a great many questions which I shall do my best to answer, although I have a fair number of bits of paper here. Perhaps I may start with the last but not necessarily the most important point. The proposal for the Summit is that there should be less ceremonial, fewer people, less paper and more time for leaders to meet in person to exchange views and help build a consensus. That is what is meant by less pre-preparation; that leaders go there with fewer preconceived notions as to what are necessarily the solutions, but have a proper free discussion to try to learn something. The important point is that this Summit, in spite of the difficulties—which are highlighted perhaps by the fact that there were some 11,000 media men at Tokyo, which works out at something like 1,600 media men for every one head of government who was present—was serious, realistic and businesslike. It was not a decision-making forum, but a forum for harmonising thinking. It was an opportunity to exchange views, build consensus and develop and deepen understanding. It was in that context that a number of the points raised by both noble Lords were discussed.

31
Obviously, the questions about unemployment were among the most important that were discussed. The tone and wording of the declaration afterwards on the question of unemployment had clear echoes of some of the points made by the Prime Minister both at the Copenhagen Summit and at Tokyo: namely, that high unemployment was caused by inflexible labour markets; there was commitment to measures that increase flexibility and encourage enterprise; and the Government particularly welcomed President Clinton's suggestion of a high level meeting to discuss these matters in relation to unemployment later in the year. I do not believe that there is any conflict between that meeting and any initiatives which M. Delors may propose for the European Community, which will be examined within the European Community discussions.
One important point about the GATT arrangements applied to agriculture as well. The market-access package was not about agriculture. But it was thought (and I agree) important for all the dossiers to be reactivated in Geneva for the multi-national negotiation. Steps were taken at Tokyo on the question of the Quad countries reporting back to other countries. Obviously, they did not settle the agreement. This is the answer to the question about the price of Scotch. The agreement reached in Tokyo is conditional upon getting full agreement in the multi-lateral talks in Geneva. But it was a very significant move forward that the major countries at Tokyo should agree that together they would push for the round of tariff reductions, many of which will be beneficial to this country. It is important in relation to the position of the French, mentioned in exchanges just a few moments ago. The French particularly welcome the Quad report, but the Community only takes a formal decision once that has been negotiated. As my noble friend Lady Chalker said, it is difficult for any member state to hold out against a balanced deal which offers benefits both to developed and developing world alike. I gather that there are, particularly, in this agreement some significant advantages for the French economy, which is encouraging from that country's point of view. For example, the agreement on services is particularly valuable to the French as well as to this country. The agreement on Scotch was also matched, I believe, by an agreement on what is known as brown spirits. I believe that most noble Lords would know that as brandy and subjects of that sort.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised the question of debt and of the progress that was made in that respect. The Prime Minister raised that subject and the Summit welcomed the call to the Paris Club to look again at the relief for the poorest and heavily indebted countries; especially to get earlier action case by case on reducing debt stock, as proposed by the United Kingdom. We are still pressing for the full Trinidad terms to be brought into operation; but there was some significant progress, at least in the understanding between the countries represented at the Summit.
With regard to Yugoslavia, which both noble Lords raised, the position was not taken further in the
32
sense that there were new initiatives. But there was a clear warning both to Serbia and to Croatia from the G7 that the dismemberment of Bosnia is unacceptable; the safe area resolutions must be implemented fully and immediately. There was a warning that stronger measures beyond sanctions have not been ruled out.
With regard to the non-proliferation treaty, which both noble Lords raised, there was a considerable section in the political declaration covering the key international concerns. That too was based very much upon the suggested language from the United Kingdom delegation. It sends clear signals to North Korea, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about social security, the point in the Prime Minister's Statement referring to the rising cost of social provision in all the countries of the G7 was discussed, and was part of the communique. I should make it clear that the Government have an absolute commitment to helping the most needy and vulnerable in society. But as the discussions in Tokyo showed, countries need to control ever increasing bills for social welfare. Otherwise, an intolerable rise in tax burden, diverting resources from private investment, would be inevitable. Across the whole of the G7 countries that problem is a matter that will have to be addressed over the years. There is no intention on the part of the Government to cease the help that we give to the needy and the most vulnerable in our society. I believe that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder if I may put to the noble Lord the Leader of the' House a point that he did not answer: how much of the Russian money is new money?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not include the position on the new money. There are two amounts of assistance. There is 1.5 billion dollars of international monetary fund stand-by credits which have now been agreed, and an agreed programme of a 3 billion dollar contribution to technical assistance. That 3 billion dollars is largely from technical assistance, export credit and loans from international financial contributors. Much of the resources were already announced, but this will provide accelerated implementation, co-ordination and targeting. That is what was agreed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put to him a question that he was not able to answer. It is the question of whether the Government's policy remains unchanged on the arms embargo in Bosnia.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I did make that point quite clear in my answer. I said that there was no change in the policy announced but there was a warning, which has been made before, that stronger measures beyond sanctions have not been ruled out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us feel that the Prime Minister is to be warmly congratulated on the distinguished part

33
that he played in achieving the considerable measure of success which this conference achieved? That is very gratifying to many of us in this country. However, can my noble friend go a little further on the question of the common agricultural policy and agricultural protection? In particular, has there been any modification of the attitude of the French Government which, as I understand it, has for some time been the main obstacle to achieving progress in that direction?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that was not a question that was directly discussed at Tokyo. The point that was discussed at Tokyo was the Quad countries' agreement for tariff reductions. But the Government believe that the reduction in tariffs, which is now going to the revitalised Geneva talks, gives benefits to everybody, including the French. Therefore, it is hopeful that it will make the negotiations in Geneva more likely to be successful.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I can press the Minister on the point raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench concerning the credits which are now to be made available. In the case of earlier credits from the German Government to the Soviet Union as part of aid, a substantial proportion of those credits were used for the repayment of debts to German banks and German industries and did not in fact represent new money for new investment. Can I have the assurance that the moneys referred to in the Statement will be direct moneys for technical assistance in the former Soviet Union and will not necessarily be used to repay the substantial debts that are due from the Soviet Union?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I know nothing about the repayment of substantial debts. I know that the figures that have been agreed have been designed for privatisation and the restructuring programme. That is my understanding of the position.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the Statement reports back to Parliament what has transpired. I should like to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about whether or not the French have reformed. They very clearly had certain views before the summit took place. They seemed dangerous and difficult views in some respects. Although a decision may not have been made one way or another arising out of their past views, did they give any indication at all about their feelings at this minute compared with the previous statement or were they using the right of silence?
Lord Wakeham: Absolutely not, my Lords. The French took a full part in the Quad countries' discussions about tariff reductions. They agreed fully with those tariff reductions, which are to be submitted to the meeting in Geneva. It is to be hoped that that meeting will now have a new impetus for agreement. That is an encouraging round. As regards the position that the French will take over the whole package, we do not know what their views will be over the whole package. All I can say is that the discussions that took
34
place in Tokyo are thought—I believe correctly—to make a distinct improvement in the prospects of getting the overall package agreed at Geneva.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge that it was quite right of the Prime Minister to stress the importance of unemployment, which is the curse of Europe and indeed nearly all the world. However, can we now expect to see a change in policy in order to reduce unemployment in this country'? It was right for the Prime Minister to acknowledge that we have to help the Russians. But does he agree that we must bear in mind that there are other former Soviet Union countries as well as Russia that are affected and it would be quite wrong to concentrate on aid just for Russia and neglect the others? Does he also agree that the abolition of nuclear weapons must be an international endeavour and that we can in no way get rid of our weapons unless we know full well that the rest of the world will dispose of theirs?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question about a change in policy in regard to unemployment. I should have thought that the message that came out of the Tokyo Summit was that there was a greater realisation that the policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in this country are the right policies to reduce unemployment by providing sustainable long-term jobs in this country. Each country in the G7 agreed to tackle the problems for economic growth in its own way in the face of its own particular problems. For example, the United States has to tackle its budget deficit; Japan, in particular, has to support domestic demand (an area where it can assist); and the continental countries have to work towards lower interest rates. There was no suggestion that everybody's policies should be the same. Each country agreed to tackle the problems of unemployment in the ways best for its own circumstances. A great deal of notice was taken of what our Prime Minister suggested as to ways forward which are proving successful in this country.
With regard to the other countries in the former Soviet Union, the noble Lord is right. There are massive problems in many if not all of them. Considerable efforts are being made by British industry and the British Government through the know-how fund and so on to try to stimulate activities in those countries. In my previous incarnation, I played a modest part in trying to encourage the energy industries. There was no suggestion that the role of the United Kingdom with regard to nuclear weapons was in any way to be called in question at the summit. The noble Lord is quite right that disarmament is a matter for world agreement and not for a unilateral step by us or the United States.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is ironic that the French economy and currency at present are facing problems in relation to the German currency and that those problems are very similar to the problems that we faced last September? Those problems were due to the refusal of the French to allow the Germans to revalue. Will he assure us that Her Majesty's Government will resist the pressures,

35
which were widely reported this weekend to have been exerted at Tokyo, for Britain to rejoin the ERM in order to help the French?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that there was no debate at Tokyo about whether we rejoin the ERM.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Statement and its repetition in this House. Will my noble friend say whether there is anything further that he can say about the reductions in tariffs for high quality textiles which are obviously coming from the United States? That is a very welcome move from a country that is well known for its protectionism in that area. Do I take it that any agreement of that kind has to await further discussion at the GATT round?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are high tariffs faced by British exporters, particularly in the United States. As a result of the Quad agreement, the proposal going to Geneva is that they should be cut by 50 per cent. or more. That will be of particular benefit to a number of companies in this country which produce high quality textiles.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
4.38 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("and IV") and insert ("IV and V (except Article J/").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief, probing amendment which I tabled in order to pursue the debate that my noble friend the Minister and I had together at Committee stage on 29th June. My questions concern Title V of the Treaty on European Union (Article J as it is also known), which covers the proposed common foreign and security policy.
The amendment proposes to leave out Article J.3 because, despite what my noble friend said in Committee, Article J.3.2 still seems to me to provide for a joint action—whatever that may be—to be pursued by a qualified majority vote. In our Committee proceedings, I asked my noble friend whether a joint action could involve the use of British troops. She replied by pointing to Article J.4 which deals with the foreign policy, security and defence of the proposed European Union. She pointed out that Article J.4.3 states that:
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article"—
that is, Article J.4—
"shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J/"—
that is, implying the use of the qualified majority vote.
My noble friend opined that that ruled out a joint action committing British troops. With respect, I am not sure that I can agree, and that is why I tabled this amendment. If my noble friend is correct, can she tell
36
the House exactly what a joint action might be? If a joint action is not covered by the provisions of Article J.4, what is it? Could it be, for example, an operation such as we have helped to mount in Bosnia or such as we may be obliged to mount almost anywhere else on this troubled planet under the terms of the treaty? Could British troops be obliged, by qualified majority vote in the Council, to accompany aid through hostile territory elsewhere, and therefore could their lives be still put at stake? If so, is that not a substantial cession of our sovereignty to qualified majority voting in the Council? Those are questions which I have previously asked my noble friend. I would be most grateful if she could see her way to giving the answers which she was not able to supply at our Committee proceedings.
I would be grateful if my noble friend could also answer one other question about Article J which, again, I asked in Committee and to which I did not get a reply. That question is this: what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the declaration on voting in the fields of common foreign and security policy, which declaration is to be found at the back of the treaty? Britain has signed this declaration. It reads as follows:
"The Conference agrees that, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision".
I put this question to my noble friend before and did not get an answer; so I have to put it again now. What is the force of that declaration? Do Her Majesty's Government intend to respect it? When she comes to consider her reply can she dwell a little on the words "to the extent possible"? Surely it will always be possible for us to agree to a unanimous vote even if that vote would lead to military or other action endangering our troops' lives and perhaps even our national interest. Does my noble friend not agree that this declaration very substantially weakens our ability to resist a qualified majority vote being used against what we regard as our interest even under Article J.4 which she quoted on 29th June? If this is not so, what is the point of the declaration?
The Government have said on several occasions that both Titles V and VI—Articles J and K—of the Treaty on European Union operate only by unanimity under a process known as intergovernmental co-operation. The Foreign Office has said that these two new pillars are to be binding in international law; which means, I think, that we must take them very seriously. My own reading of the treaty suggests that neither title does in fact operate only by unanimity, but I shall be dealing with Article K under Amendment No. 12 later on. In the meantime, I should be most grateful if my noble friend could answer the questions I put to her on Title V or Article J and on the declaration on unanimous voting, to which I referred, now that we have reached the Report Stage of these proceedings.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I was not able to be present when this item was debated on 29th June because I was leading the United Kingdom delegation, which I have done for seven years, to the Council of Europe. I should like to ask my noble friend whether

37
she will examine the relationship between the Petersburg Declaration and the Maastricht agreement which deals with Western European Union.
I have to remind your Lordships that defence—particularly on Bosnia, on the Iran-Iraq sanctions and on the Gulf War—was co-ordinated to a very large extent by the Western European Union. That treaty remains in force for 50 years from 1948 and cannot be denounced before then. There is an argument between the parliamentary assembly of Western European Union, where again I have the honour of leading the United Kingdom delegation and the Ministerial Council as to whether the 50 years should date from 1948 or from 1954, the date of the modified Brussels treaty. But I shall not ask my noble friend to enter into that argument at this stage.
The ceding of sovereignty in the field of defence took place when we joined NATO so those who are now complaining that we have lost sovereignty in defence must learn the facts of life. We ceded sovereignty in the field of defence when we signed the modified Brussels treaty and the original Brussels treaty. It is very important that your Lordships are not deceived by some of the arguments that are being put forward by those who for a variety of reasons—I am sure, very sincere and well founded—are trying to say that in the field of defence we are giving away very much. That is just not so.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend Lord Finsberg said and make one very brief comment. Not only do we have obligations under NATO and WEU but also with regard to humanitarian aid, which my noble friend Lord Pearson quite rightly raised. We are obligated as members of the Security Council of the United Nations and signatories to the charter of the United Nations. We have obligations under that charter as well.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part in this debate but the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, has encouraged me to say a few words in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, when she comes to reply, will give a clearer definition of the role of the Western European Union.
I had the honour to serve for five years as a member of the Western European Union and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for his leadership of the United Kingdom delegation. Throughout that period of five years' membership of the Western European Union one of the things that struck me forcefully was the number of times British Foreign Secretaries, whoever happened to be Foreign Secretary at the time, said that the Government had it in mind to strengthen the role of the Western European Union. I came to realise that that was a euphemism for doing nothing.
I can remember a decision being taken to establish a parliamentary institution to oversee the work of the CSCE. I argued at that time that we already had parliamentary institutions in Europe that could easily
38
oversee the work of the CSCE in a different field. When it came to the discussions to create the European Economic Area between the European Free Trade Association and the EEC it was decided at that stage also to establish a parliamentary institution to oversee the work of the amalgamated EFTA and the EEC. The problem is that Europe is littered with parliamentary institutions. None of them knows quite what the others are doing. We have the EEC, the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly, the parliamentary institution that oversees the work of the CSCE and we have the proposal to put in place some kind of parliamentary scrutiny to oversee the amalgamation of EFTA and the EEC. We also have NATO, which has no direct parliamentary role.
One of the major defence problems in Europe, if I may say so to the Minister, is the contradiction that although France is not a member of NATO it is a member of the Western European Union. The treaty to which the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, referred lays down specifically that the headquarters and meeting place of the Western European Union must always be in Paris. So we have this contradiction whereby France is not a member of NATO but is a leading and dominant member of the Western European Union. No one quite knows what the role of the Western European Union is.
I can understand some of the problems because of the way in which the Western European Union has been enlarged over the years by member states which are not members of the EEC, on the one hand, or NATO, on the other hand. Whichever party is in power, it is simply not good enough for Her Majesty's Government to go on saying that they intend to strengthen the Western European Union as a defence pillar while at the same time restricting the budget. That has constantly been the problem of the Western European Union. The budget contributions coming from the member states have always been restricted. Therefore, the Western European Union is working on a very tight budget indeed. It is simply not good enough for governments to say that they intend strengthening the Western European Union while restricting the budget.
My final word is concerned with an illustration of the contradictions that appear from time to time in relation to the Western European Union. At the time of the outbreak of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia—the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, will remember this well—the defence committee of the WEU convened a meeting in order to take advice (not to take action) on the basis that if military intervention in Bosnia was to go ahead we wanted to know the number of troops required in order to intervene in Yugoslavia. We also wanted to know about other tactical factors which related to the outbreak of hostilities in Yugoslavia.
As it always does, the committee met in Paris. Half-an-hour before the meeting took place we were told by the clerk to the committee that Herr Dietrich Genscher, who at that time was the German Foreign Secretary and who also held the position of chairman

39
of the ministerial council which oversees the WEU, had intervened and forbidden the experts to give advice to the defence committee of the WEU.
All I am saying to the noble Baroness is this. While I recognise that in the Maastricht negotiations defence and foreign policy are two separate pillars, and not actually part of the negotiations that the Committee is discussing at the moment, there has to be a much clearer definition of the role of the Western European Union in order that those who subscribe to its aims and work know clearly what lies ahead for that organisation in the years to come.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch will allow me first to answer the more general questions and then to return to his specific questions. I believe that that will set in context the questions which he himself asked and which I sought to answer on 29th June when we had our debate. However, he has retabled these matters at Report stage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, that the Western European Union rather than the Twelve will be responsible for implementing decisions with defence implications. I hope that is made clear. It is certainly made clear in the Maastricht Treaty. There is nothing in that treaty that will compel the United Kingdom to commit forces to military action against our will. In that sense I link the noble Lord's comments with those of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
I also say to him that one of the interesting developments has been how the Western European Union is seeking to work ever more closely in future with NATO and with the partners currently in the European political co-operation under CFSP, which is a separate pillar of the treaty. Perhaps I may also tell him that the Western European Union no longer has its headquarters in Paris. They have been moved to Brussels for easier co-ordination with NATO of all relevant matters. Therefore, that answers the noble Lord's question as to why, when France is not a fully participating member of NATO, although she does join in, the headquarters were still in Paris. The move has already taken place to Brussels.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirk ford, said, led the delegation to the WEU in a very distinguished manner for many years. He was right to ask about the relationships between the WEU and other agreements. Perhaps I may also say that he was 100 per cent. right when he said that for our common good we ceded our sovereignty with our membership of NATO and through various other treaties.
I return for one moment to something which came to my mind when the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, was speaking. Some Members have asked me in the corridors about new members of the EC in relation to the Western European Union. The new European Community members have three options: they may become full members of the Western European Union; they may have observer status or they may not join in at all. It will be entirely up to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford,
40
will know, historically, WEU members have organised territorial defence through NATO. We believe that it makes sense for that to continue.
As the noble Lord intimated in his remarks, the Maastricht Treaty makes it clear that it is for the WEU to elaborate and implement decisions and actions which have defence implications. That will be done in collaboration with the CFSP pillar, but separately from it. By forming a bridge between the European Community partners and NATO, it ensures that everything which is done by the partners in the security field has to be compatible with the views and activities of NATO. That is what Article J.4(4) is all about.
There is a dual role as a defence component of the European Union and as a means of strengthening the European pillar of NATO. That is why the WEU, quite rightly, after all its long and excellent experience, as my noble friend Lord Finsberg said, will have the key co-ordinating role.
We have had the groundwork for effective co-ordination already laid. I believe it was that to which my noble friend Lord Finsberg referred when he mentioned the June 1992 WEU Council of Ministers. They approved practical measures which were needed to develop close working relationships between the WEU, on the one hand, and the union and NATO, on the other.
In December last the NATO foreign ministers endorsed the guidelines for the practical working relationship between NATO and the WEU. We now have both sets of measures providing for close contact between the secretariats, a regular exchange of information and reciprocal attendance at meetings where necessary. Those provisions will be further implemented gradually as the WEU settles down in its new home in Brussels.
Perhaps I may now return to the essential elements of this particular amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I did attempt to answer his questions previously. I shall go through what he has asked once again. He asked about joint action. Joint action is defined in Title V of the treaty. It is to develop the existing European political co-operation arrangements so that we have a stronger commitment in the areas in which member states have important interests in common. But all key decisions, such as areas which should be subject to joint action, will be taken by unanimity. The United Kingdom has had considerable success here because we have succeeded in ensuring that the provisions are workable and flexible. Joint actions have to be specific. For example, the Middle East would be too broad a subject to be workable in joint action, but EC participation in peace conferences on the Middle East might be a good subject for joint action.
Therefore, joint actions will be specific, workable and usually time-limited, but they will also be subject to review should circumstances change. That is covered by Article J.3(3) which states:
"If there is a change in circumstances having a substantial effect on a question subject to joint action, the Council shall review the principles and objectives of that action and take the necessary decisions".

41
As long as the Council has not acted, joint action shall stand. That is all covered by Article J.3(3).
Perhaps I may advise my noble friend that it is wrong to suggest that joint action includes military action and the deployment of British troops. As I explained in Committee, Article J.4(3) clearly excludes defence from joint action, stating:
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J/".
That refers to the whole of Article J.3, which deals with joint action and which comprises paragraphs 1 to 7.
My noble friend went on to ask me what will happen about the troops who might be assisting in the delivery of humanitarian aid. Perhaps I may say to him unequivocally that if troops are involved, those troops obviously have defence implications. That is clearly covered by Article J.4(3), which reads as follows:
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J/".
I hope that my noble friend will feel a little happier on that score.
I turn now to Articles J.3(5), J.3(6) and J.3(7). These paragraphs provide various let-outs so that member states cart, if necessary, take emergency action without having to agree it first with others. Member states can even be exempt from a joint action if it would cause them severe difficulties, provided that they do not undermine it. Those provisions are there specifically should something arise not at present foreseen by members of the Community.
I know that my noble friend is concerned about the use of qualified majority voting, which is covered by Articles J.8(2) and J.3(2). We covered this ground in Committee. The use of qualified majority voting in carefully chosen circumstances can make CFSP more effective by speeding up the decision-making process, but there is absolutely no question of qualified majority voting applying as a general rule. The general rule is one of unanimity, as outlined by Article J.8(2), which states:
"The Council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and in the case referred to in Article J.3(2)".
The use of that qualified majority voting is strictly circumscribed. It can only be applied to second order implementing decisions (for example, to the question of how many people should be included in a delegation) and only when there is unanimous agreement to extend it to such an area. That is why Article J.3(2) states:
"The Council shall, when adopting the joint action and at any stage during its development, define those matters on which decisions are to be taken by a qualified majority".
That is why we have used the phrase on many previous occasions that the United Kingdom has a double lock on the use of qualified majority voting: first, in putting a subject into joint action and, secondly, in agreeing to the use of qualified majority voting. If we decide that all decisions, no matter how small, need to be taken by unanimity, then they will be taken by unanimity. We have tried to think of an example to make this even more crystal clear to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Such an example would have occurred if
42
there had been any disagreement. Perhaps I may put it to my noble friend in this way: we decided to deploy European Community monitors in the former Yugoslavia in our European political co-operation by unanimity. That was, of course, before the Maastricht Treaty could come into effect. We have decided that the same will happen subsequently. An example of an area where we might jointly decide that qualified majority voting was appropriate would be the administrative arrangements relating to the European Community's deployment of monitors in the former Yugoslavia, having decided that they should be deployed and where they should be deployed. I hope that we would then be sensible enough to use qualified majority voting to decide what colour the monitors' vehicles should be and that we would not spend long hours arguing about the colour of the paintwork on those vehicles. However, that would not alter the fact that we would take a unanimous decision on whether to send monitors and to what destination.
My noble friend is also concerned about the declaration on voting in the field of the common foreign and security policy undermining unanimity. Perhaps I may advise him that it certainly does not undermine the unanimity requirement because declarations are not part of the treaty and are thus not enacted by this Bill. The declarations give evidence of a political commitment undertaken by the parties to the treaty. This particular declaration reflects the fact that, in practice, the Twelve do strive for consensus which is, of course, one of the strengths of the system. But the treaty requirement for unanimity as covered by Title V still remains, as I made clear in Committee on 29th June. The declaration, Which states:
"The High Contracting Parties shall, as far as possible, refrain from impeding formation of a consensus",
simply restates Article 30.3(C) of the Single European Act.
My noble friend asked me what we mean by "to the extent possible". Having sat through a number of Council meetings, including meetings on European political co-operation, I can tell my noble friend that, if necessary, we continue for many hours in order to try to reach a consensus. If there were some real reason why we should not reach agreement, it would no doubt become very clear. However, "to the extent possible" means involving the goodwill of the members of the Council or the committee, and that goodwill is usually apparent. Even if the means of achieving the ends is not always agreed at the beginning, it becomes clear after argument.
I have tried today to put more flesh on the bones of the arguments that I used in Committee on a very similar amendment. I ask my noble friend to look at what I have said today together with what I said to him at col. 783 on 29th June. The fears that he has expressed are certainly real fears, and I can only say that if, when he has read 'what I have said today and when he has read again what was said on 29th June, he cannot see why I am so sure of this, perhaps I had better see him outside the Chamber to try to put his mind at rest. I can certainly advise him, however, that he need not have the concerns that he has expressed.

43
I believe that his mind will be set at rest if he reads Article J.4(3) in conjunction with what I have said today.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment to a vote, but should he so decide, I must advise your Lordships to reject the amendment because it would not ease the path—in fact, it would make quite a nonsense.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I would say to my noble friends Lord Finsberg and Lady Elles who have indicated that we have already given some of our absolute sovereignty away to bodies such as NATO and the WEU, that, of course, I accept that. I can assure my noble friend Lord Finsberg that I am not trying to frighten anyone by moving this amendment. I am merely trying to establish the extent to which we go further along that road in Title V or Article J, because we have been given to understand that both Titles V and VI can be operated only by unanimity. So I am, of course, particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation that all key decisions will be taken by unanimity when we are dealing with joint actions.
I have been very glad to learn—I must say for the first time—that joint actions will not include the use of British troops to protect aid convoys and so on; but that joint actions will be confined to altogether more harmless activities such as deciding the colours of ambulances and buses, and so on.
I was aware that the declaration on the CFSP was not part of the treaty; but, nevertheless, as I felt we had signed it, I thought that it put an onus on Her Majesty's Government to go along with unanimity when, perhaps, they might not have been happy to do so. But I feel sure that everything my noble friend has said from the Front Bench will be very helpful to have on the record. As I said at the start of the amendment, it was a brief probing amendment, and I am very happy to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 41, is also designed as a very brief probing amendment, but I think that it may be an important one. Clause 1 of the Bill proposes to incorporate Titles II, III and IV of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht into the Treaty of Rome, and, therefore, into British law. The Bill goes on to say that these regrettable titles are to be so imported:
"together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those titles".
The amendment would seek to remove the words that I have just quoted.
It seems to me that we should know what "other provisions" are being imported into the treaty beyond those which are already there, and which, therefore, do not require to be imported by this Bill. They are clearly additional provisions or else the words which
44
the amendment would remove are superfluous, and so the amendment could be accepted. I wonder whether my noble friend can enlighten us on the precise meaning of these words.
Amendment No. 4 which is grouped with Amendment No. 41 takes Amendment No. 3 into somewhat greater detail. It seeks to make explicit that whatever other provisions are being imported, apart from Titles II, III and IV of the Union Treaty, Title V covering our proposed common foreign and security policy, and Title VI covering our common justice and home affairs policy, will not be so imported. So the question I ask my noble friend, to which, I must say, I have not been able to discover an answer elsewhere is quite simply: what is the point of the words which the amendment seeks to remove? What are the "other provisions" referred to? If the answer is "nothing" I wonder whether the Government might be inclined to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend asked why we have in the Bill the words "other provisions". If he looks back at our debate in Committee on Amendment No. 189, he will see the response given then, but let me explain in slightly greater detail now.
The "other provisions" to which the Bill refers in this context are the preamble, the common provisions (Title I) and the final provisions (Title VII). Noble Lords may wonder why those provisions are not being incorporated into UK law, lock, stock and barrel. The reason is that they relate to the Community treaties (Titles II, III and IV) and also to the two inter-governmental pillars (Title V—Common Foreign and Security Policy and Title VI—Justice/ Home Affairs). If we were merely to incorporate those "other provisions" into UK law in toto, we would be blurring the distinction between the Community pillar and the two inter-governmental pillars in the Treaty on European Union.
The Government believe that that is an important distinction and it was the result of a UK negotiating effort at Maastricht, and what we regard as a success. It runs through the treaty. I believe that it would be wrong of us not to mirror the treaty in EC law. I am seeking to persuade my noble friend that Amendment No. 3 will erode the very independence of the pillars on CFSP and justice and home affairs which I know many of your Lordships are pleased are separate from the European Community. I am glad to have a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on that score, because in our earlier debates I found that there was a high degree of agreement on the issue that the two inter-governmental pillars should remain separate from the Community treaty.
Amendment No. 4, which my noble friend has associated with Amendment No. 3, and the schedule suggested in Amendment No. 41 which accompanies Amendment No. 4 seek to require us to specify the "other provisions". That is unnecessary. As it stands, Clause 1(1) is perfectly clear. As I have said, the other provisions that will be incorporated are those that relate to the Community titles. As a matter of

45
legislative drafting, it would be bad practice to try to list precisely the provisions which relate to the Community treaties. For example, it would be a very complex drafting task to divide Article E of the common provisions into those elements which apply to the Community titles and those which do not.
A similar technique was used successfully in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. It gave effect to the Single European Act which also contained not just. EC but inter-governmental provisions. It, too, used the phraseology
"so far as they relate to"
to bring in those common provisions of the rest of the treaty which related to the EC provisions. There has been no evidence that that has caused any difficulty in this country or in any other country. It would make good sense to keep the two Bills—I hope, the two Acts—in parallel.
The Bill as it stands is clear. It maintains the important distinction which I have described between the Community and the inter-governmental pillars. That is why I urge your Lordships, should my noble friend press his amendments, to resist them all.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. As I said in introducing the amendment, it was at this stage only a probing amendment. The areas it covered are clearly somewhat boggy, and require considerable attention from those more versed in legal drafting. Therefore, if I may, I should like to take away what my noble friend has said and examine it with those who advise me. In the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Citizenship
(". In implementing Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union, Her Majesty's Government shall provide arrangements for any British citizen to renounce citizenship or the Union.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 6. At the week-end my noble friend Lord Jay, who had intended to move the amendment, unfortunately fell and hurt himself and is unable to be present today. I feel sure that the House will wish to send him its good wishes for a speedy recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it has therefore fallen to me to move the amendment which relates to European citizenship and the right to contract out. Together the amendments would give people the right to contract out of being European citizens.
I make no apology for returning to the subject at this stage. I read what was said about Clause 8 on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord the
46
Lord Chancellor and in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. However, for a number of reasons I remain worried about the citizenship provisions.
First, I have asked myself why they are there at all. They are not necessary to the treaty; they are not necessary to give the treaty teeth. That appeared to be confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in a debate on the EMU in Committee. He said:
"the Treaty of Maastricht deals with economic and monetary union. That is why I have said in this Chamber on more than one occasion that the Treaty of Maastricht is a useful and valuable treaty. Essentially its aim is not to give economic and monetary union its legal base—that has already been done in the Single European Act—but to fill in the detail. It does one other thing which is of particular significance to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. It brings out into the open things which hitherto have been done in private. In other words, we are enabled to see what lies behind the arras. I have always said that he who wanted to see was always in a position to see. But that is exactly and precisely what the Treaty of Maastricht does".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 358.]
Since, according to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, Maastricht simply fills in the details of the Single European Act why do we now have the concept of a European citizenship, which was not in that Act? Was that one of the issues hidden behind the arras, as the noble Lord put it? If so, were we misled about the real intentions of the Single European Act? Were the government of the day misled about the real intentions of the Single European Act? I contend that they were. They had no idea, for example, that Article 100a of that Act would be used to impose on this country policies which were outside the orbit of that government and, indeed, of this Government too.
Again and again we were assured that that could not happen. But it did happen and that is why so many of us are concerned about this treaty. That is also why we must be most careful about its wording. I wonder who were the advisers who were not able to give proper advice. How was it that people could be so misled about the Single European Act? Or was it just another turn of the ratchet towards a federal European state inserted by the centralisers and federalists?
Noble Lords will recall that the Dutch presidency produced a draft Treaty of European Union which was openly federalist. Indeed, it contained the dreaded "F" word. I have a copy of that treaty which states in Article 1:
"by this treaty, which marks a new stage in a process leading gradually to a European union with a federal goal".
That was in the draft treaty but it is interesting to see what comes after Article 1, Part One. Part Two deals with Community citizenship; in other words, the first mention of that is in the draft Dutch treaty, which openly refers to a federal union. Therefore, we must be most careful about the words which are used and we must know what they mean and why they are there. The Prime Minister was successful in having the "F" word removed. But did not the concept of federalism remain and with it Clause 8 as we now have it in the Treaty of Maastricht? Surely that is what has happened and surely that is why we should remain antagonistic towards the concept of Euro-citizenship.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:

47
"Maastricht will not make us subject to anyone other than Her Majesty and we shall not owe any allegiance to the European Union".—[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 714.]
No doubt that was comforting to many noble Lords and no doubt the noble and learned Lord relied on the Edinburgh declaration for his assertion. But such declarations as were made on the subject in Edinburgh do not have the force of Euro-law. Indeed, the legal adviser to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation has advised that:
"Member states cannot by a cosy agreement in Council unscramble the effect of the treaty".
So it would seem that time could prove the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be mistaken in his view of Euro-citizenship since it is not he, not Her Majesty's Government, not the British courts nor even Parliament itself which will be the final arbiter of the meaning and the implications of European citizenship. It will be the European Court, which alone has the power of interpreting the treaty.
It might appear to some that I am being too pernickety and legalistic. However, when one reads in the European Parliament working document that a proposal was:
"to transfer the concept of citizenship and nationality to the union level",
one cannot be too careful. We are entitled to demand cast-iron assurances as to the continued pre-eminence of British citizenship and to seek to protect British citizens, through these amendments, by giving them a right to opt-out of a citizenship which they may not wish to have and which imposes on them duties of which they know not or do not understand.
Now, of course, if the British people—and this will come later this week—had had an opportunity, or are now given the opportunity, to have a say as to whether they wish to be European citizens, that would be another matter. Without the opt-out proposed in the amendment, it is quite intolerable to impose on British people a citizenship, which may give them rights which they do not want, as well as imposing on them duties which they may well regret in the future. For all those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments. Let us remind ourselves that the notion of citizenship of the Union was really no more than a last minute sudden whim of Senor Felipe Gonzalez. It is by no means central to the treaty. The rights that it provides are of minimal interest and utility to most people in this country, the exception perhaps being the implied right of resident non-United Kingdom citizens to vote for a Northern Ireland assembly, if and when one is set up. That could have unpredictable and possibly dangerous consequences.
As for duties, we must accept the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that not only are no duties specifically imposed by the provisions, but also that there is no way in which the European Court of Justice could find a future loophole through which unforeseen duties could be imposed. That being the case, the Minister will
48
doubtless be more than happy to give an assurance that no taxes will ever be imposed by the Union—taxes which would be binding on British citizens—and under no circumstances will there ever be conscription into a single European army which the leader of the Conservative MEPs in Strasbourg, Mr. Bill Newton Dunn, has enthusiastically forecast will be a reality perhaps in less than 20 years' time. Those two assurances from the Minister would put everyone's mind at rest.
Those of a suspicious turn of mind may wonder whether or not the real purpose of the provision is to soften up people for some scheme to flesh out the concept of duties with a view to imposing a number of tangible duties from 1996 onwards. However, leaving aside both the Trojan horse of duties—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is a Trojan horse—and relatively unexciting rights, most of which could be secured by reciprocal agreements whenever they are necessary, the main motive behind the concept of citizenship of the Union must be psychological: to gradually erode people's allegiance to their own nation and to divert their loyalties elsewhere.
A great many people will resent that political engineering. I have invented that phrase which is the equivalent of social engineering. They will wish to dissociate themselves accordingly from compulsory citizenship. Others will object on purely moral grounds. Even if there are no implied legal obligations to be loyal to the new Union—an assumption which may be open to doubt—they would nevertheless feel a moral obligation. They may feel that it is hypocritical and dishonest to become unwilling citizens of an entity to which they could profess no loyalty whatever.
Others still would describe themselves as passionate Europeans but resent the idea of citizenship being confined to inhabitants of a minority of European nations with Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Swiss, Austrians, Slovenians and Hungarians regarded not so much as second-class citizens but almost as non-persons. The many tens of thousands of descendants of those Polish airmen, without whom we might never have won the Battle of Britain, living in this country will almost certainly resent being made compulsory citizens of a Union which includes Germany but which excludes Poland.
By all means let enthusiasts of citizenship of the Union—and we have heard from many of them in your Lordships' Chamber—adopt that citizenship if they prefer to do so. But to impose without choice that citizenship upon unwilling British subjects is intolerable. I believe that the right to renounce that citizenship is essential.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is interesting that the Government have remained totally impervious to the fact that some of us do not wish to be sold like cattle or sheep and made to be citizens of something else. We are quite happy to be citizens of what we are. I cannot see why we should be made to be citizens of something else. I believe that that is what people object to. It is a very simple concept, which the Government have not grasped. Noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench are grinning away happily

49
because they have not grasped it either. It seems to me a preposterous idea that we shall be bulldozed into becoming citizens of something of which we do not wish to be citizens.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words in opposition to the amendments which concern citizenship. That is one of the few matters on which I sought to address your Lordships in Committee on Amendment No. 2 and on an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which concerned the Monarch. I give your Lordships an assurance that I shall not repeat anything that I said on either of those occasions because one does not wish to waste time. However, much of what was said then is relevant to the argument.
As has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I accept that the Dutch draft referred to citizenship in the context of federalism but I cannot and must not enter into a semantic argument as regards what the Dutch, French or we mean by federalism. It is a word almost akin to "democracy", which means what you wish it to mean. I agree that one must he careful with words. Being careful with words, one cannot construe Article 8 in the context of what we understand on all sides of the House as a federal concept.
As regards citizenship of the Union, the rights referred to therein are defined; the duties are not defined. Those duties relate to duties imposed under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Article 8 imposes no duties other than those that already exist. The amendments seek to rewrite that extant situation. They propose a kind of opt-out declaration, a renunciation of a situation in which we are already committed and involved.
That simply is not possible as regards existing duties. Your Lordships may well think that it is wholly irrelevant in respect of rights which there is no compunction whatever to exercise. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the one problem that I have is that I do not believe that the Government attach the importance to the word "citizenship" which they should. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Chalker, who has been so excellent on many occasions, referred to it as an empty reference. I do not believe that it is. It is a matter about which the people of this country feel deeply. Noble Lords who have spoken have made it clear what is their reaction.
On one occasion my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he did not believe that it added up to much because we already accept the terms of citizenship. He said that the name was merely tidying the whole thing up. The main point is that everybody applauded the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, because he is a very good wordsmith. He knows how to present a case and he is very persuasive. He has both the body language and the words which are extremely impressive. A great many people have quoted the noble Lord when he said so plausibly that he was a Scot by nationality, a British subject and a European
50
citizen by conviction. That is very good. It seems to separate things in a way which suggests that the word does not mean anything. The noble Lord is perfectly happy to be a citizen of Europe; indeed, his conviction leads him that way. That is fair enough. I congratulate him on being happy about what is being done.
However, what about the people who do not want to be citizens of Europe? It is not their conviction that they should be citizens of Europe; they are compulsorily being told by the terms of the treaty (over which they have never had any authority) that they will be looked upon as European citizens—which, when you look at all the legal powers entailed, would have a priority over being a British citizen.
I do not suppose that the matter will be put to a vote on this occasion, although that will have to be applied later. I should like to feel that my noble friend who is to reply will let it be seen that the Government recognise what the people of this country feel as regards their citizenship: they regard it, and those to whom they owe their duties and their responsibilities, as being fundamentally important.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, as the debate has continued it has become clearer that the European Court is to have the power to settle all the doubts that have been besetting us. But when it comes to interpret duties and citizenship, those concerned w ill not be influenced by the debates in your Lordships' House—indeed, not in the slightest way. They will be looking for what is in the Maastricht Treaty. As long as it is there we are exposing British citizens to a citizenship without knowing what it entails. No one in this Chamber, not even the noble Baroness who has been involved in such matters or indeed the Ministers, knows what duties are implied. The word is there for a reason. The European Court will take the sovereign right that it has to decide what citizenship means and what duties may be imposed thereby. I support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, when I introduced an amendment on the subject in Committee, I said that what I particularly disliked about the proposal was the element of compulsion. Consequently, I support the present amendment. It seems to me that although the Commission said that the object of putting the provision in the treaty would be to encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration—which sounded harmless enough—I believe that the real object was put forward by those who are working for a European state. They want European citizenship gradually to replace national citizenship which they hope will wither away. I also mentioned the European Community passport and was put right by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who told me it was not a European passport but a European format, which of course I accept. However, I think that it is both an unnecessary and an undesirable element of the treaty.
I should like to mention one other aspect of citizenship that I raised separately in Committee. I refer to the position of the Sovereign. We had a good debate on the subject at that stage and received a very

51
helpful and comprehensive reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for which I was most grateful. I continue to think it unfortunate that, when the Government negotiated the treaty, they did not arrange for the Sovereign and other Community heads of state to be exempt from the obligation to become citizens of the European union. I do not know whether they tried or whether they found it impossible to do so; we have not been told. In my view, it is a pity that that was not done.
My noble friend Lord Tonypandy and I subsequently had a helpful talk with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He told us that no future duties could be imposed on the Sovereign without new European legislation; that is, as I understand it, measures agreed by the Council which would become part of our national law. The noble and learned Lord also told us that he did not think that the European Court could interpret the treaty in a way which would impose new duties on the citizens of the union. That has been one of my main concerns. I was very glad to have the noble and learned Lord's reassurance on that point.
The noble and learned Lord also told us in Committee on June 30th that the Sovereign would be a citizen of the union. I believe that that was the first explicit statement to that effect by the Government. The noble and learned Lord made it clear in his remarks that the main safeguard for the Sovereign's position would be the impracticability of enforcement, either through Her Majesty's own courts or those in other parts of the Community. It does not seem to me very satisfactory for the Sovereign to rely solely on that safeguard to protect her from the imposition of inappropriate duties.
Therefore, I very much hope that when the noble Earl replies to the amendment he will be able to tell the House either that no further duties could be imposed on citizens of the union, by interpretation of the treaty by the European Court or amendment of the treaties, or, if at some future date new duties were to be imposed on the citizens of the European union, that the Government would bring such duties to the notice of Parliament. Perhaps he will also confirm that if such duties were to affect the Sovereign (even though they could not be enforced upon Her Majesty; a point which we fully understand) the Government will undertake to obtain the approval of Parliament. That would be helpful.
There is a further point that I should like to make about which I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, though in fact it was very short notice. I understand that there was a case in 1990 which involved the Lord Advocate and the Dumbarton District Council. The judgment of the court laid down,
"that the Crown is not bound by any statutory provision unless there can somehow be gathered from the terms of the relevant Act an intention to that effect. The Crown can be bound only by express words or necessary implication".
That case concerned the Crown in its public capacity, but I imagine that there would be no difference in matters affecting the Crown in its private capacity. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill which
52
expressly applies the Article 8 provisions to the Sovereign. I do not know what the words "necessary implication" mean, but in any event it is not clear to me that they would necessarily apply. It seems possible that under that judgment Her Majesty the Queen will not after all be a citizen of the union. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl can tell me in his response what the Government think about that point. However, if he has not had sufficient time to consider the matter, which I fully understand, perhaps he will reply to me at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, during the course of our short debate the thought crossed my mind that during the reign of Mary Queen of Scots the Scots were given French citizenship and the French were given Scottish citizenship. That must have been nice for those few people who were able to risk the hazards of travelling between Scotland and France, including the hazard of being caught by English Royal Naval ships. However, that was followed by the introduction of a French army in Scotland. That must have made people reflect a little. I am not suggesting that a European French or German army will appear here in the immediate future but we might think about that matter a little.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wish to reflect on the remarks made a short while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who was worried about treaties being imposed on people against their will. That is a valid point and one of which I have considerable experience. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am Scottish by nationality. However, I do not really wish, at the end of the day, to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I am one and it does me no terrible harm but I am one because of a treaty which was imposed upon me without any discussion. The reason for that is quite plain in that the treaty was signed in 1707 and, like most noble Lords, I was not present at the time. However, the treaty was not agreed by the Scottish nation as a whole but only by a small minority. It became the law and I am, by force majeure as it were, a citizen of the United Kingdom. I would much rather be a citizen of Scotland than of the United Kingdom but that is outwith my powers at the moment.
The real point I wish to make is that, no matter what I prefer, being a citizen of the United Kingdom does me no harm. I remain a Scotsman. In the same way I am perfectly sure that becoming a citizen of Europe will do me no harm either—I shall still remain a Scotsman, or a "Britisher" if it is more appropriate so to describe myself. Despite the important constitutional matter relating to the Queen which I shall not touch upon, the movers of this amendment are making extremely heavy weather of something which we Scots have become used to over the past 300 years and the rest will become used to in such time as remains to them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that the people of this country feel deeply about the provisions of Article 8. I, too,

53
feel deeply about these provisions. Having read them thoroughly I am in favour of them. One should think of those people who are nationals of this country and who happen to be living and working in other parts of the European Community. They do not do so on a whim although there are many old age pensioners and others who choose to live in other parts of the European Community. Many of those people are working in other parts of Europe to help our economy, to improve the job situation and to benefit trade generally. Why should those people be deprived of the opportunity to vote in local elections and indeed in European elections when they may well be working in European institutions? The Treaty on European union quite clearly provides rights to the citizens of this country to participate in the political life of the country in which they happen to be residing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to a draft Dutch treaty. There may have been many draft treaties. To suggest that taxes and prescription are all part of this. provision seems to me to be going entirely too far.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I believe that the fears of my noble friend Lady Hooper are somewhat unfounded as I react this amendment, which I support. It only provides for the opportunity for any British citizen to renounce citizenship of the Union. Anyone who wishes to continue to be associated with citizenship of the proposed Union can, as far as I can see, remain so. That is an individual decision. I see no difficulty there. However, I have a difficulty with one matter and I do not know whether my noble friend can answer it. Your Lordships and Members of another place give an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. I accept that the position of the Sovereign is a tricky subject. The Sovereign as head of state represents the country. By giving an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, one gives an oath of allegiance to one's country. One only has to think of the well known phrase "For Queen and country". I suggest that many of your Lordships have taken part in actions that served the best possible interests of this country. If people find that they are no longer citizens of this country but that they are citizens of the Union, they may have to ask themselves which comes first. One may have to ask oneself whether one should put one's allegiance to the Union first—about which one has not even been consulted, but which is a fact as it has been stated by some body in Brussels—or whether one should put one's allegiance to one's country first. That is a difficult matter to decide. Personally I would always give my allegiance to my country quite regardless of citizenship of the Union. Nevertheless, one may not be carrying out the intentions of Article 8.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, one thing that I have learnt from these absorbing debates is that it is impossible to get worked up about everything. When I first came across what I still regard as this European citizenship lark, my stock of indignation was already spent on the economic absurdities of this treaty. It is only as I have listened to the debates that a little indignation has welled up within me. It started at an earlier stage when the noble Lord, Lord
54
Thomson of Monifieth, said that he was proud to be a citizen of Scotland, of the United Kingdom and, now, of Europe. I begrudge him none of those three. He is a citizen of Scotland by choice and not by any legal definition. However, he can describe himself as a citizen of Scotland and a citizen of the United Kingdom by legal definition. He may also describe himself as a citizen of Europe. He needs no further permission from M. Delors and his friends. The noble Lord may, with oversoaring ambition, describe himself as a citizen of the world. One can understand that perhaps even less than the previous declarations. However, we must consider this matter as either one of the utmost triviality on the level of that kind of declaration of individuals, if I may say so, or as a matter of some importance.
My anxieties go back to the Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is an authority on all detailed aspects of the European conundrum, described what we are involved in; namely, a minefield. The European project is a minefield. The noble Lord suddenly discovered that he had opened a new minefield through the Stuttgart declaration of which most of us had been innocent. We had slept calmly in our beds at night not knowing that in 1983 a solemn undertaking was initialled, or signed, by the leaders of the European Economic Community—as I am still allowed to call it for a few more days—which anticipated developments of which we had not dreamt until the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, unveiled the matter. He was paid to understand such arcane mysteries whereas the rest of us have to get along as best we can.
The noble Lord explained to us that the seeds of Maastricht were planted there. They were barely noticeable. They were general statements. One might call them flower arrangements. But with cultivation and time they will come into full growth and fruit and become bushes and trees.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—whom we miss very much today, although I must warn your Lordships that he is joining us tomorrow on these matters—used the vivid example of pegs. He did not say that there was a conspiracy or a great plan. He said that since the Treaty of Rome a number of pegs have been inserted along the way. They look like little finger-posts and quite harmless. They read: "This way to European friendship"; "This way to a closer association"; "This way to political union". They are amiable and welcoming. But then one learns from the Community and the Commission that they were not signposts but solemn and binding commitments. Suddenly, great propositions are erected on those beginnings.
I believe that European citizenship is either complete nonsense or it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose legal contributions I find difficult to understand fully, said that the duties of citizenship stem from the Treaty of Rome. He said that they are implicit in all that has gone before. We have to abide by these matters. Whether we are farmers or innocent citizens we are caught up in the need to abide by the law as it has unfolded. Very well. To the best of our ability we have abided by the law

55
without being called citizens. Why is citizenship suddenly embraced in this way? I feel distinctly uneasy about it.
I would wish to be regarded as a citizen of Europe. I have four splendid Anglo-French granddaughters. In my view, all their best features are French—after all, they are young ladies. I take great joy in visiting France, Germany or Italy, although perhaps less so on some of the fringes, and in feeling at home as a European. However, are we to say that the Hungarians, the Czechs or the Poles are not Europeans? Have we suddenly appropriated this label, this accolade, and conferred it on ourselves while the unwashed beyond the confines of fortress Europe are not regarded as Europeans? After all, Europeans are real people in law. They have rights, although no specific duties.
I believe that it is preposterous. In a sensible world, and without Whips around, we would vote it out. I do not know whether we shall vote on the matter. I shall go through the Lobby on this issue, although I have no great hope of uprooting this particular absurdity, and I reserve my main indignation for other issues.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret has raised an interesting query in my mind. Members of your Lordships' House swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. If they become a commissioner I understand that they also swear an oath of allegiance to the European Community. Which oath takes precedence, because, having sworn an oath, it surely cannot be broken? If there is a conflict of interest between this country and the EC, which oath do they follow? Which duty do they follow?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have listened to the debate during the past little while, tingles have been going up and down my spine with horror at what has been threatened in relation to my British citizenship let alone in relation to the Queen. I made the mistake, which in this debate is obviously fatal, of reading what the text of the treaty actually says that that citizenship involves. I decided that rather than the wicked fairy, it is more likely that it is the tooth fairy which has come.
The most important thing that I have discovered is that if I am a citizen of the Union, I can only be such because I hold the nationality of my member state. That does not seem to be the end of the world. I find that the rights conferred by the treaty will be conferred upon me, as will the duties. We have discussed the duties. My noble and learned kinsman the Lord Chancellor explained on 30th June—and I was listening even if it is clear from the repetition of the debate in the past 46 minutes that not many other noble Lords were listening—that the duties of the citizens of the European Union are those imposed by the mechanism of the 1972 Act and the Single European Act. Therefore, there is nothing very new in the duties contained in the Maastricht Treaty. They already exist and have already been accepted by this House and this country. Therefore, I do not believe that that is a great problem.
56
It should please the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that:
"Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move freely and reside freely within the territory of the Member States".
I do not think that there is anything horrific in that. It seems to me to be thoroughly reasonable. Citizens residing in other member states can vote in local elections. I believe that those of our fellow citizens of the UK who live and work in other member states and pay their local taxes might like to think that they could vote in local elections. The same is true of European elections.
When I read Part II of the treaty concerning citizenship of the Union, I do not see cause for the shock and horror to which we have been subjected in the past 47 minutes. To me it sounds like good common sense and the way forward to build a union between the peoples of the European Community and a wider European Community as that develops.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am certain that all noble Lords will recall that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister first took over the stewardship of the United Kingdom he stated clearly that it was his ambition to roll back the frontiers of the state. That statement followed on from the vitally important principle enunciated on numerous occasions by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I rejoiced when I heard those words, as I am sure did other noble Lords. At the time I had no idea that by the rolling back of the frontiers of this state he really meant the rolling forward of the frontiers of other states and their influence and power over his country.
I remember well, as I am sure other noble Lords will recall, that in order to demonstrate quite clearly that he had every intention of so doing, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister ensured that a great charter was published. He did not call it a great charter. Still less did he call it a Magna Carta. Unhappily, he did not even call it a statute of liberties, as I would have preferred. No, such is the importance that he attached to the concept of citizenship that he called it The Citizen's Charter. Yet my noble friends on the Front Bench pooh-pooh this whole concept of citizenship as if it does not matter.
During the Committee stage, noble friends who, unlike myself, are lawyers and learned in the law—I am not even a common lawyer—in particular my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend Lady Elles and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, among others, made great play of the principle that only rights are set out within the Treaty of Union and not duties. All the time they forgot or chose to forget the fundamental principle in English jurisprudence that rights flow from duties, not the other way round. That is what Jeremy Bentham meant when he said that to talk of rights is nonsense on stilts. He is correct. One cannot conceive a de facto, still less a de jure, existence of a right unless it is perceived as flowing from the duty of other people not to harm you. That is the core of the matter.
Noble Lords, and lawyers who ought to know better, take comfort from the fact that the duties are not stated. Believe me, my Lords, they are: and within

57
the Treaty on Union. One has only to consider the appalling phrase in Article F. Needless to say it appears at the end. It is perhaps the most important duty that is imposed on every individual in this country. The article states:
"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
In other words, the duty lies in that article for the Union to tax the individuals in this country. We have ever diminishing power over that policy. That is why the issue is so important.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those who support the amendments put forward a group of amendments at Committee stage which, quite properly under the circumstances, had two alternative propositions: first, that there should be a voluntary renunciation of European citizenship; and secondly, that there should be no European citizenship for British subjects. Unfortunately they chose the wrong version to pursue to Report stage because they have chosen one which does not make sense. Much of what we have heard bears no relation whatever to the provisions of the treaty. The treaty is absolutely clear. There is a series of properly defined rights. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoiled them by reading them out, as I did in Committee. The provisions are relatively modest. They concern the right to vote in European and local elections. They involve the right to be represented, if necessary, in a third country by the consul of another member state when there is no consul of one's own member state available. Those are fairly inoffensive issues to which I do not believe many people object.
There are no duties. One can state it as clearly as that. The duties referred to in the article are those duties defined in the treaty; and there are no duties defined in the treaty. Therefore all that we have heard about the potentiality for more duties to be thought up by the European Court of Justice, with our citizenship in the United Kingdom eroded, is nonsense. If we are to spend 53 minutes discussing a matter which is so unrelated to the facts before us in the treaty, then I fear for the sanity of some of us as the next three days proceed.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the words "citizenship of the Union" or "citizenship of Europe" have caused such concern to your Lordships. I realise that they have caused anxiety. However, I shall try to allay that worry as best I can because I believe that it is misguided. I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, as to where his loyalties and allegiances lie. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that when one listened to some of the remarks on what will happen to us, they sent tingles up one's spine. I believe that some noble Lords have allowed their imagination and anxiety to run away with themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, stated that the first mention of citizenship was in the Dutch draft treaty; and that that was one of the bad aspects about the measure. That is not so. The draft treaty that was produced by the Luxembourg presidency, before the
58
Dutch draft treaty ever saw the light of day, already had positions on citizenship. The Dutch draft treaty was thrown out by all other member states. We should not deal with rejected proposals. We should concentrate more on what the present treaty states. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether he could have cast iron assurances from Her Majesty's Government about the continued pre-eminence of British citizenship. The noble Lord can have those assurances.
He was anxious, too, that Article 100A of the Single European Act had allowed all kinds of unspecified horrors to occur. Article 100A of the Single European Act has been extremely successful in bringing about the single market which is overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom's interest.
The noble Lord then stated that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor relied on the Birmingham declaration in saying that no allegiance to the European Community is created by Article 8. My noble and learned friend made his statement on the basis of what the treaty says. There is nothing in it to create an allegiance. We shall not be subjects of the Union; we are all subjects of Her Majesty. That is the point on which my noble friend Lord Mountgarret got himself into a tangle. My noble friend Lord Swinfen also said that he found the point interesting. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret stated that if we are no longer citizens of this country but of the Union, where will our loyalties lie? That is not the proposition. Of course we are citizens of the United Kingdom. The fact is that my noble friend is a citizen of the United Kingdom. He is a subject of the Queen. He owes allegiance to the Queen, No such allegiance is offered to the Community by being a citizen of the Union. All that does is to confer rights upon us as members of what one might describe as "the club". Citizenship of the Union is a different concept from citizenship of the United Kingdom and being a subject of the United Kingdom, and allegiance to Her Majesty. The concepts should not be confused.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked which oath takes precedent if one takes oaths. The commissioners swear no oath of allegiance to the Community. They swear to be completely independent in the performance of their duties and not to take instructions from any government or other body. There is no conflict between that and the oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to the position of Her Majesty in the case of the Lord Advocate v. Dumbarton District Council. He wrote to my noble and learned friend this morning about that matter. The position of the Sovereign in relation to the citizenship provisions was carefully and comprehensively set out by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 30th June. However, in view of the shortness of time since the noble Lord, Lord Moran, wrote to my noble and learned friend, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give him a direct and comprehensive answer today. However, I recall the Lord Chancellor's point that any duties laid down upon individual citizens are so laid by powers given under the Treaty of Rome and become effective in United Kingdom law through the machinery of the

59
European Communities Act 1972. It is therefore to that Act which we must look to determine the position of the Sovereign in relation to any duties of citizens, and not to the present treaty and the Bill. I shall write to the noble Lord upon that.
Let us be clear about one thing. Union citizenship will not replace British citizenship. It confers an additional status. It does not imply, as some noble Lords have suggested, that the European Union will take on the guise or mantle of statehood; it will not. Despite its somewhat grand wording, the reality of the citizenship concept is very modest. Article 8 paragraphs 8a to 8e contain a number of useful but limited rights, not duties, which can in no way be compared with the rights of national citizenship. Indeed, they are rights which are only available to those who are in possession of nationality of a member state. Being a member of a European Community state is an essential precondition of the conferring of those rights.
We must be clear too that there are no duties included in those articles; nor do they provide any mechanism by which duties can be added. The only duty on an individual citizen is the one which he already has—that is, to obey the provisions of the law of his country which may or may not be affected by Community law. That issue has been extensively covered on a number of occasions. Frankly, the Government welcome the provisions. They can only be of advantage to members of the Community, and they can be of no disadvantage. The size of the majority at the end of your Lordships' debate at Committee stage suggests that your Lordships took that view also.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 both seek to provide arrangements for any United Kingdom national to renounce his or her Union citizenship. I remind your Lordships that no one is under any obligation to exercise those rights which have been conferred upon them. No one is compelled, for example, to reside in another member state, but anyone who wishes to do so will be able, if they so choose, to vote in local and European parliamentary elections. Many people would regard that as being an advantage.
Similarly, no one is forced to petition the European Parliament or the ombudsman or to apply to the consulate of another member state, but many people would regard those as advantages. They would regard them as facilities and nothing other than a positive advantage.
Union citizenship is not in any way a replacement for national citizenship. On 22nd June I said that Union citizenship has no relevance to anyone who is not a citizen of a European Community state. Only nationals of a member state can enjoy its benefits. It is not possible to renounce Union citizenship without renouncing national citizenship. There are European Community rights which are enjoyed at present by members of the United Kingdom. For example, people can go to live in other European Community countries now and establish themselves in other countries. All that Article 8a does is to confirm what is at present a practice and a right. Amendment No. 6
60
seeks specifically to exempt United Kingdom nationals who opt out of Union citizenship, if they are able to, from the duties which are mentioned in Article 8. But those duties only refer to the duties which are incumbent upon all nationals of member states. That is, to obey the provisions of Community law which refer to individuals.
Most European Community law refers to governments and to public bodies, but there are some provisions which affect individuals. One might wonder what those provisions are. For example, there is the toy safety directive which obliges retailers not to sell dangerous toys. I am sure that that would have a devastating impact on my noble friend Lord Onslow.
Another example is the tachograph directive. That requires road hauliers and their drivers to use and maintain machines which keep records of hours and distance travelled, for reasons of their own and others' safety. It would simply not be possible, I suggest, nor desirable for nationals of member states to be able to exempt themselves from such duties. I am sure that your Lordships agree that those are not exactly earth-shattering duties which will he imposed upon every single member of the Community, to the total detriment of all concerned.
However, we agreed to abide by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome way back in 1973 when the United Kingdom joined the Community. We cannot in honour try to crawl out of those obligations now. The simple position is that, as members of the European Community, we all already have certain rights and duties, as we do as members of the United Kingdom. By virtue of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, we will all have additional rights as citizens of the European Union, but not additional responsibilities.
Noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment say that they do not want those rights. To that, my reply is that they are under no obligation whatever to exercise those rights. Noble Lords then say, as my noble friend Lord Onslow, said, "What's more, we don't want to be contaminated by the thought of any additional rights. Let us be allowed to opt out". I think my noble friend said that they did not want to be treated like cattle. My reply to that is that one cannot opt out of a fact. The fact is that we are members of the United Kingdom. The fact is that the United Kingdom is a member of the European Community. The fact is that we are, ipso facto, members of the European Community. Both confer rights, both confer duties. We acceded to the duties of the Community when we acceded to the Treaty of Rome in 1973. All that the citizenship articles do is give us additional rights. One cannot opt out of a right, one just has the right not to exercise that right.
For those reasons, I think that the amendments are unnecessary and unworkable and I suggest that noble Lords do not approve them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, is he in a position to give the unequivocal guarantees for which I asked him? That is that no new form of new taxation nor, in the long term, conscription will ever be imposed upon us in consequence of the new form of citizenship.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the citizenship provisions which are suggested today do not carry those obligations at all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thought that I heard my noble friend Lord McIntosh say that he doubted the sanity of the people who put down these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not at all. I feared for my own sanity, which is much more fragile than that of my noble friend!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad that I did not hear him say it—and, of course, I concur with him about his own sanity.
This has been an extremely interesting debate. The fact that it has taken one hour and seven minutes so far indicates the anxiety that is felt by the House and its Members about the citizenship clauses. It is right that we should have debated them again in detail. I do not intend to reply to everything said; but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, did not wish to enter into a semantic argument about what "federalism" means. I point out to him that the Prime Minister thought it was important enough to embark upon a semantic argument with the other 11 heads of state or heads of government, to the extent that the word "federalism" was removed. So the Prime Minister thought that it was important and I also thought that it was important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said that she wanted to be a European citizen. That is fair enough, and she is getting her way under the treaty. The people who are not getting their way are those who do not wish to be European citizens. So she is all right, Jack! But what about the rest of us? She has a vote as to whether or not she can be a European citizen. I sincerely hope that on Wednesday she will join me in the Lobby voting to allow every other British citizen to have a vote as to whether or not they should be citizens of the European Union. I shall look for her in the "ayes" Lobby.
My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is not in his place; but he said that being a citizen of the United Kingdom had never done him any harm. Hooray! Is it not nice to have a Scot suggesting that being a member of the British union never did him any harm? It is good for that to be put on record, since so many Scots say that it has done them much harm.
In winding up, the noble Earl said that we need not worry about these provisions; that they were innocent and innocuous. If they are innocent and innocuous, I do not really know why they are there. As I said in my opening remarks, they are not necessary for the treaty itself. The reason why some of us are suspicious is that we have seen pegs before on which other handbags and so on have been hung unexpectedly.
I did not say that the Dutch draft was the first draft to mention citizenship. I was perfectly aware that Luxembourg first did that. But I am very glad to have the assurance that British citizenship remains pre-eminent. I hope that that will always be so. I hope that the noble Earl will join us in opposing any further treaties which will lessen that pre-eminence or impinge
62
upon it. I am glad to hear from him that European citizenship does not imply—and I hope that he also means will never imply—allegiance to the European Union. Indeed, it would have been nice to have that assurance from him and the assurance that no further obligations will be placed upon us.
The noble Earl mentioned the toy directive as being one of the directives which arose from our duties as citizens, or members, of the European Community. My guess is that the toy directive might have put some people out of business. I do not know about that. What about the hygiene directives which put so many abattoirs out of business? What about that kind of directive which has destroyed thousands of businesses? I would have thought that that kind of directive would make people pause about being citizens of Europe if that is the type of duty that is placed upon them.
However, this has been a very interesting debate. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl has said. I have taken his assurances that the word "citizen" does not mean anything very great; that it is innocuous, and that we will owe no allegiance to anyone other than Her Majesty. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1. insert the following new clause:
("GATT
.—(1) Her Majesty's Government shall, immediately after ratification of the Treaty on European Union, take such steps as are open to them to call for the conclusion by the Community under Articles 228 and 238 of Title II of the Treaty on European Union of an agreement in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
(2) Her Majesty's Government shall take such further steps to encourage the formation of such agreement as either House of Parliament may by Resolution direct.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is another amiable and helpful proposal, rather like the first, on the reform of the common agricultural policy. I believe that if we were to vote on this amendment and if each of us put aside party politics, ignored the Whips and voted on our individual judgment and individual conscience (for those who have conscience left), I believe that the amendment would be passed by a massive majority.
What does the amendment say? Incidentally, it is a touch hypothetical. It begins:
"Her Majesty's Government shall, immediately after ratification of the Treaty on European Union,"—
that is hypothetical—
"take such steps as are open to them to call for the conclusion … of an agreement in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade".
I was trying to think of what could be said on this issue that was new when I came across a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, that I thought was worth bringing before the House. In the introduction to the directors' year book, he says:
"We must … look beyond the Community … Free trade must be a world-wide concept for it will do more than anything else to revive the world's economies".
Economists have been known to disagree among themselves. Since we have no closed shop and we abide by no Whips, I am free to reveal a secret; namely, that some practitioners of the black art have been known on occasion to talk nonsense. There is sometimes even a slight touch of that coming from a quarter not unadjacent to the Labour Front Bench—but not on this occasion. If there is one issue on which there is consensus approaching unanimity among economists, it is on the merits of free trade in advancing economic prosperity for all participants. I have said before (I hope not recently in this House) that a policy of free trade is in the long run the nearest that we have to a panacea for eradicating world poverty.
In his great work, Adam Smith showed that the prime cause of the wealth of nations, which he set out to investigate, was nothing more than the division of labour. It is, after all, no more than commonsense practice—the everyday practice of each of us, that we specialise in doing what we can do best and exchange the proceeds for goods and services which others can produce better. International free trade is simply the wider manifestation of the territorial division of labour between countries with differing climates, resources, habits, skills, capital and other natural or acquired comparative advantages. It is through the discovery procedure of competition that international trade exerts a continuing pressure to spread efficiency, innovation, investment and rising standards of living.
When politicians and others who should know better dismissively repeat the old saw that the European Economic Community never was a mere free-trade area, they reveal in my view a serious failure to grasp the potency of Adam Smith's fundamental teaching. As is well known, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was launched after the war to negotiate the multilateral reduction or removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to this mutually beneficial enlargement of human freedom and well being. Since the war it has already contributed more to prosperity than all the foreign aid, industrial policies and fancy schemes for which party men like to take credit. The further expansion of this beneficent process of trade can do more than all the malignant nonsense of social charters, level playing fields and other flat-earth economics beloved by Citizen Delors.
Now at last, spurred on by the scourge of unemployment, caused itself by almost indiscriminate interventionism, the Tokyo Summit has committed the leading trading nations to treating the completion of the seven year-old Uruguay Round as their top priority. We must take them seriously on their own assertion. This amendment would not even delay the passage of the Maastricht Treaty, since it would come into effect after the treaty had been passed and it would insert a condition into the Bill that we would need to negotiate, by whatever means are possible, a completion of the GATT round.
For my money its main purpose would be to serve notice on France, as a major protectionist stumbling block to early agreement, that the passing of the treaty will land it in the dock which is usually reserved for the
64
United Kingdom. I am certain that there will be almost unanimous agreement that we regard it as unthinkable that the GATT round should be lost. That would threaten the world with a resumption of the beggar-my-neighbour restrictions of the 1930s. Therefore my noble friends and I believe that the acceptance by the Government of this helpful amendment would demonstrate that Britain at least takes seriously the commitment to free trade enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome. I beg to move.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with this amendment has trailed his conscience as well as mine and the consciences of all your Lordships, I should like to declare my position. I am wholly for GATT. I have been for GATT for a long time. I have even had some experience of working within it under my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft long ago. I am as intent upon the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round as he is. Earlier this afternoon we heard what the Prime Minister had been able to achieve to that end and the importance that he attaches to it.
What is a clause like this doing in this Bill? The Bill is about provisions consequential upon Maastricht. The conclusion of a GATT deal has nothing whatever to do with Maastricht. It was important long before then. It was important when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, and it remains extremely important. I do not see any reason to delay the passage of this Bill by inserting in it a quite unnecessary new clause.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence as I reply very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I venture to suggest that it is clear that the satisfactory conclusion of the GATT agreement to a very large extent depends on what France regards as in its national interest. France will have to judge that national interest within a new context: the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. Those provisions either have an effect on the economies of Europe including France, or they do not do so. If they do not have any effect on the economies of Europe and their conduct, there is no point in having the Maastricht Treaty at all.
As I understand the position, France is entitled under the Luxembourg compromise, if it so wishes, to stick on the common agriculture policy as vital to France's national interest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, confirmed only the other evening, the Luxembourg compromise still applies to the United Kingdom. Therefore we cannot deny to France what we would wish to have the power to do ourselves.
What we have to do—this is where the amendment proposed is so apposite—is to use all means of persuasion, including our activities in the European Council and other diplomatic contacts that we have with France through a variety of sources, to persuade France that in the main France's national interest now lies in its manufacturing industry, which would be greatly advanced if the GATT agreement were successful. In the case of France it is a balance between

65
its agriculture interests, which have political implications, and indeed the success of its manufacturing industry. I submit that the amendment gives encouragement to the Government, through whatever channels they consider open to them in Council or outside it and within the context of Maastricht, so to persuade France in order that the GATT arrangements may finally be concluded.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, since my name is on the amendment, I rise lest silence be thought to indicate that I no longer support what I said at Committee stage.
The amendment is worded in a different way from the one that I moved at Committee stage but it comes to the same point. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is right. Maastricht has nothing to do with GATT. It has nothing whatever to do with anything that is of any use to this country or its economy. It is another stage in the subjugation of this country to a system which in its essence is wholly opposed to the idea of free trade.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, because we have agreed so much; but I think he is in error in believing that it is only agriculture in France that is protectionist. Unlike the industry of this country, French industry has been built up over the centuries under a system of protection. The European Community was designed to fortify that system. Therefore, I hope that there will be support for the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aldington is so mesmerised by the words of the Bill that he will not raise his eyes to look at the surrounding circumstances in which the Bill has been produced. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has done so. En strict terms, if the words in the European Treaty and subsequent treaties had been observed, as the theorists said they would be, there would be no need for an amendment such as this one. If the theories, as they were put in both Houses of Parliament years ago and subsequently, had worked in practice as we were told they would do, it is perfectly true that this amendment would be out of place in this Bill.
But circumstances have not worked out as the theorists told us that they would. The evidence that we have to take into account is not the meaning of the words in the Bill; it is the spirit in which the provisions have been applied or attempted to be applied. We do not have to read only the Bills and statutes with which we are intimately connected; it is not a bad idea occasionally to read the newspapers and general reports that are available to see how other Members of the Community react to many of the provisions. I am perhaps in a slightly better position than many others because for five years I sat in the European Parliament and had a chance to see the reactions of individual Members of that parliament.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Aldington that the general atmosphere in which this treaty will have to be applied, if ever the Bill becomes an Act, will have to take into account the fact that the French—and I believe other Members of the European Community
66
—have been a danger in coming to an arrangement within GATT which would be in our interest and the interest of Europe and the world. There is no doubt about that. Their inclinations are not to give support on issues that would suit us and the rest of the Community, if that does not happen separately to support their own interests even more.
Therefore, in this Maastricht Bill, so far as we are in any position to do so, we must give an instruction not only to France but to the other Members that we expect them not only to adhere to the written terms, but to apply them in the spirit of what was intended. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, may think that it is not necessary to put the amendment into the Bill because in strict terms it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill itself. But if you add it to the circumstances surrounding what has happened over the past 22 years we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for trying to insert an instruction which will see to it that not only the literal meaning of the words of the Bill are applied but that the spirit is also dealt with in a proper and unselfish way.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I rise simply to offer a word or two of support to the modest complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. We have become so accustomed in these debates to amendments that have very little to do with the Treaty of Maastricht and the Bill that we have almost given up in terms of any kind of complaint. However, I was extremely glad to see one thing in the amendment. It urges Her Majesty's Government "immediately after ratification of the Treaty on European Union" to take certain steps. It appears to concede that the treaty will be ratified. And the sooner, the better.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may remind your Lordships that we are dealing with a Bill intituled,
"An Act to make provision consequential on the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Pvlonifieth, said that the amendment has little to do with that. It actually has nothing to do with that at all. I assumed that within our rules, which are always somewhat of a mystery to me, it was still acceptable to have an amendment of this kind. But for the life of me I cannot see what it has to do with the Act at all.
Having said that, I do not in any way disagree with what is in the amendment. I do not back away from free trade. My credentials on this matter compare fairly favourably with almost anyone in your Lordships' House. Of course we favour free trade; of course free trade is central to, I hope, all our economic policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was pulling my leg about support, or lack of' support, for her right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I certainly do not feel that he needs written into an Act of Parliament any encouragement to do what is in the amendment. It appears to me that he is working as hard as he can to move things forward with respect to GATT and the Uruguay Round.
I do not mind the subject coming up so that some of us can say that we approve of free trade, but that is about it so far as I can see. I deplore a little the

67
attacks on France. I do not doubt that the French look out for their national interest. It may well be that on some aspects of this they are rather difficult. But I am not aware—at least I hope it is not the case—that we do not look out for our national interest. I am certain that if we were to read the French press we would occasionally see adverse remarks about our country holding things back here or there.
I do not want anyone to misunderstand—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, did not want anyone to misunderstand him—that we are wholly in support of negotiating as strongly and as quickly as we can on the GATT agreement. I am perhaps a little less optimistic than some about what was achieved at Tokyo but I certainly want to believe that it will all be highly successful. All I say is that if we can have an amendment of this kind I have 101 other things that I would like to put down for the Government to do immediately as well, except that I do not feel that your Lordships would like me to do that. I hope that, having made the point about free trade, we can leave this one alone and get down to rather more serious business.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, should be grateful to people who put down amendments of this kind. After all, they enable the House to have a discussion about important matters and indeed to get on record the Government's point of view. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, had had his way we would not have discussed this Bill at all and he would have given the Maastricht Treaty its okay on the nod. That is not a good parliamentary practice.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is unfortunate that at Report stage, when we are entitled to speak only once, attacks should be made on my noble friend in that way. It is grossly unfair to suggest that we would have played no part in any sensible discussion on the Maastricht Bill. If, for instance, I were to put down an amendment on the Arts Council, on playing fields, on the size of postage stamps, presumably, under the arrangements that we have on this Bill, it could be debated. It is extremely foolish for the House to go down this path.
Lord Elton: My Lords, arising out of that, I rise only to make to your Lordships a point that I have made before. It seems to me that proceedings on this Bill not only at this stage but at a previous stage have been entirely untypical of the way this House normally conducts its business. I think that it would be a suitable matter for the Procedure Committee to look at the record after the Bill has passed, and, God willing, received Her Majesty's consent, and consider which of our proceedings over the Bill should be disregarded as precedents for our future proceedings, particularly for the benefit of noble Lords who are not normally in the custom of attending the House and who may regard what they see on these great occasions as being typical of our normal way of conducting business.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note very carefully what my noble friend Lord Elton says about referring the proceedings on this Bill to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that the Chief Whip will want to look at this as will the Leader of the House and noble Lords in other parts of the House.
The amendment is not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, generously paid tribute to the Prime Minister's efforts over the GATT round. I have to say that in many, many years of trying to seek ways forward to open up world trade I have never known an individual so committed to doing that as our own Prime Minister of the present day. The amendment is not necessary. Not only has the United Kingdom played a very active role in the Community but also with third parties to seek to secure a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round negotiations and also to ensure that preliminary agreements reached—notably the EC-US accord on GATT agriculture—are not reopened.
The Government will give and are already giving their full support to the Commission's efforts to negotiate a balanced and comprehensive outcome to the Uruguay Round, one which will benefit the United Kingdom, the Community and the world economy generally. We have seen welcome progress made by Ministers from the Community, the United States, Japan and Canada in their discussions in Tokyo. We hope that that progress will mean that we make further progress in the multinational negotiations shortly to be resumed in Geneva. Certainly, there are elements of a deal on market access. That is very good news, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal made clear earlier this afternoon.
The Government have long argued that a successful completion of the Uruguay Round would make a large contribution to world prosperity and to ending the current world recession. It will be of particular assistance to the developing world. Many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said in moving the amendment about opening up world trade I would agree with entirely. But I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I are at one that the amendment is not needed to stiffen our resolve. Her Majesty's Government and other governments are doing all they can to complete the round successfully. There is no way in which the many suggestions, helpful as they may seem to those who have made them in the debate, would assist us any further. We have to be ready with our partners in the Community and with our other partners outside the Community to take all those steps—and we are ready to do so—to have a successful conclusion to the round.
I know that there are some Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who are very worried about what our friends across the Channel might do. Of course, any country will look to its own needs, but I believe that in looking to our needs as a community and as part of the community of the wider world, we are getting very much better at not finding a need to stand out against decisions. We shall still retain that right. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, if we wish to

69
retain the right to stand out against decisions we must allow other members of the Community to do likewise.
I am encouraged that there is so much unanimity about a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round, but I am not encouraged in the slightest by this amendment because it is truly not needed. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to resist it.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it has not been a wholly uninteresting debate. It is quite impressive that there is a larger measure of agreement on this kind of issue than is ever apparent outside the Chamber. It is not necessarily true in France, Spain or Italy that there will be that degree of consensus in those countries on the fundamental and wide-ranging benefits of free trade. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, found himself in total agreement with me. He made some amiable references to France which I thought might be an opening hid for his candidacy as a citizen of Europe and perhaps the mayoralty of an attractive French village which he might have his eye on.
We drew a cheep from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Although it was a protest, I cannot really judge whether it was merited or not. I do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, or those of the noble Baroness who replied that this matter has nothing to do with the Bill. If we had a magic wand which saw this Bill safely through this House and the other place but had attached to it a codicil saying, "In passing this Bill we have agonised about the completion of the GATT round", that would not be wholly unimpressive to our European partners who treat these matters rather more casually.
I cannot judge myself the threats which we have had about the matter being referred to the Procedure Committee for breach of our rules of conduct. I am advised that many of us would welcome serious consideration by the Procedure Committee of this matter because we persist in regarding it as an issue of some importance for the future of our democratic system. We are not disposed to apologise for detaining the House for an hour or two or even a day or two, in giving further thought to the matter. We can almost hear the dinner bell. I believe that we have agreed to withdraw the amendment. I thank those who have taken part in the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again at eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 6) Order 1993
7.4 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [35th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that on 24th June the House considered five emergency orders made on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Their purpose was to ban fishing for certain types of shellfish in the waters around Orkney and a small area of sea off Wick. Today's debate concerns a further two such orders.
The orders before the House today seek your Lordships' approval for emergency orders to ban fishing for, variously, mussels, queens, scallops and razor clams in specific areas. This is due to a build-up of the naturally occurring toxin, paralytic shellfish poison, or PSP, as it is known. The decision to make the orders was based on test results from our PSP monitoring programme which were over the internationally agreed action level of 400 units. Our aim in making the ban is to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market.
I have arranged for copies of maps showing the areas in question to be available in the Library. One order concerns an area in Orkney and the other an area of open sea off the north east of Scotland. The bivalve molluscs to be prohibited in each of the closure areas are determined generally by test results for the individual species in a given locality. In the Orkney case, Order No. 6 adds razor clams to the species already prohibited by Order No. 2: these were mussels, queen scallops and scallops. This resulted from a level of over 2,000 units in samples of razor clams taken from the Sanday area.
The second order with which we are concerned today is the one concerned with a rather larger area of open sea to the north east of the Scottish mainland. In the latter part of June high levels of PSP (between 1,500 and 2,700 units) were detected in scallops at a variety of locations between Fair Isle and the Moray Firth. It would have made no real sense to close only small areas around the highly affected locations that we had detected and ignoring the intervening waters because algal blooms are not static. Accordingly, the area prohibited by Order No. 4 was extended over a considerable stretch of water from the Moray Firth northwards to the Fair Isle. The species affected by Order No. 7 were mussels, scallops and queens.
Following the making of Order No. 7 a number of vessels moved south to the grounds east of Montrose amid some uncertainty as to whether the closure area would be extended southwards to this area, also within a short timescale. Some vessels did then pull out for fear of losing the value of any catches that they took. I understand that by late June there were few vessels remaining in this area. I am pleased to be able

71
to report, however, that despite one or two isolated higher results, the levels found in most samples in this area have been relatively low and extension of the closure area into the area of Montrose has not been necessary.
The closed areas and the prohibited species are being monitored regularly so that the orders will only remain in force for as long as each one is necessary and no longer. I must emphasise that our aim in taking this action is—as it was with the earlier five orders—to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market. The orders will be monitored individually and in each case will be revoked as soon as the results of continued sampling and medical and scientific advice indicate that it is safe to do so. Meantime, there has been no significant downturn in toxin levels since the orders were made. Regrettably, therefore, these two orders, and the five which preceded them, are still essential to the protection of public health. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we must all be grateful for the long and detailed statement which the Minister has made. We can have no complaint at all that these precautions and orders are put in place. I also thank the Minister for having provided earlier some maps of the area which show how widespread the problem is. Perhaps the Minister can answer a question. There is a feeling that the disease has spread more than on previous occasions. It has nothing to do with the Government and all their problems. This is a natural problem. I may be wrong and it is perhaps only a case of thinking that yesterday was better than today and that last year was better than this year. However, perhaps the Minister could let us know if there is a particular reason why we have seven of these orders this year, some of which encompass fairly wide areas. Is the problem more serious this year? Is something fundamental causing the growth?
This is a highly specialised matter and I do not expect the Minister to understand the details, but I hope that he will be able to shed some light on the problems that I have raised. After taking advice, I hope that he will be able to give me a more accurate and scientific evaluation of whether the incidence is greater than normal and, if so, whether anything can be done about it. Other than that, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, records of this phenomenon go back as far as 1814. It is very much a seasonal matter. In fact, two years ago we had 14 such orders. The noble Lord has asked me a scientific question. I shall do my best to find out the answer and shall write to him about it. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 7) Order 1993
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993
7.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993, and to speak to the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993.
The orders before your Lordships today show the Government's continuing commitment to fight against drug trafficking and to deprive those involved of the proceeds of their activities. To combat the international nature of drug trafficking nowadays, we require considerable co-operation between countries. The orders represent a further extension of the network of countries with which we now have reciprocal agreements to co-operate in tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking.
The primary function of the orders is to extend the list of designated countries in the principal orders made in 1991. This list was previously extended by amendment orders made in June last year. The present orders bring the total number of designated countries to almost 100.
The draft orders, like the previous orders, are made under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The orders replicate the safeguards built into the earlier orders to protect the rights of the accused or convicted persons and the rights of third parties who may be affected by the enforcement process. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing these orders before your Lordships House. It goes without saying—but I shall say it—that this side of the House welcomes any legal measures to improve legal co-operation in tracking down the so-called "drug barons" in the first place and, on conviction, in denuding them of the proceeds of their evil trade which brings misery, ill health and even prison to those who become involved with them as clients. The drug trade also leads to a great deal of upset for individuals and their families and to unnecessary deaths.
The recent and spectacular hauls of drugs by the authorities indicate that international co-operation is working in a practical sense. The two orders add another arrow to the how of the forces of law and order and show the importance of international co-operation. Long may it continue.
The ideal world will be one in which those who lead this massive and evil industry find themselves behind prison bars and, when they are released, find that what awaits them is as barren and as bleak as the prison cells in which they were deservedly incarcerated. These measures will assist in achieving that objective.
It is an unfortunate aspect of drug trafficking that too few of the main perpetrators are caught. It is usually the middle man who is caught and put into prison. No doubt, however, as international co-operation becomes more sophisticated, we shall get to the top of the tree one day and finally bring the trade to an end.
The fight against drug traffickers is, and has been, relentless. Anything that is done through legislation by Parliament to catch such people will receive the full support of the Opposition. It might be irrelevant when dealing with these orders to say this, but I am bound to say that the progress which has been made recently has been spectacular in terms of confiscating large hauls and locating their whereabouts in the first place. That would not be possible but for the hazardous, courageous and meticulous work of the investigating authorities and those who assist them. This country owes them a great debt. Tributes of the highest order should be paid to them for their work to date.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend how these excellent measures are affected by the inter-governmental arrangements within the European Community which will come into effect when Maastricht is ratified. Do the orders relate to countries within the European Community as well as to other countries? Are they reciprocated by other countries? Could my noble friend answer those questions in a nutshell or are they too complicated to be answered briefly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no, those questions are not too big to be answered now. About 100 countries are already designated. Our major partners within the European Community, such as France, Germany and Italy, are already signed up in bilateral arrangements with them. It is important to appreciate that following the break-up of the Soviet
74
Union it has been necessary to extend the relationships that we have had in the past. The order covers countries that were formerly parts of the Soviet Union. Not all such areas are covered, but a significant number now are, including: the Ukraine. As my noble friend will appreciate, it is a matter of considerable significance not only that we should have these arrangements in place in Europe but, as is clear from the order, that we should have such relationships with South America also.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993
7.18 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report .from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.19 to 8 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Powers and term of office of the Commission
(". Within 12 months from the coming into force of this Act Her Majesty's Government shall formulate proposals for reviewing—

(a) the new areas of competence of the Commission in 1996; and

(b) the term of office of members of the Commission under Article 158 of Title II on the Treaty on European Union.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before proceeding with the amendment I should like to offer the House an apology for an error that unfortunately crept in to a short contribution I made earlier this evening. When discussing the CAP, I ventured to suggest that it was covered by Paragraphs 35 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome. I should have said Paragraphs 38 to 47. I trust that the House will accept the correction.
In considering the amendment, and the atmosphere within which it may possibly be discussed, I should like to refer briefly to some remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who I see is no longer with us, to the effect that the proceedings that have taken place to date were not to his liking and that a reference should be made to the Procedure Committee as to the way in which the House has proceeded.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, that is irrelevant to the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, noises aside again, as usual, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was only saying, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is wholly irrelevant to the amendment that the noble Lord is supposed to be proposing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I propose to proceed in my own way—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, subject to the opinion of the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington:—a custom to which the noble and learned Lord himself is well addicted, and often from a sedentary position. That only goes to show what happens when the Government Front Bench gets together with the Opposition Benches. The first thing that occurs to them, after the debate has gone on for any length of time, is to conspire against the Back-Benchers by having the whole proceedings referred to the Procedure Committee. The House should be warned that Back-Benchers are likely to take an unfavourable view of any such reference, and will probably make themselves vocal accordingly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. Is he aware that many of us would welcome such a reference so that we could then put the position and the Procedure Committee could find a better and more satisfactory way of discussing future treaties?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest that we continue with the business.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is our business.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No it is not, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, yes it is.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The amendment has been moved—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it has not yet been moved.
Lord Bruce of Donington:—not just with a serious intent, but with its main purpose to reveal to those Members of the House who may not have had the opportunity to examine the Maastricht Treaty in detail—indeed, some members of the Government themselves have had some difficulty in obtaining copies and reading it—and to draw the attention of the House to the powers that the Commission will have under the new treaty. I realise that I am treading on dangerous ground, because I am referring to the Commission's powers.
76
We have in the House five distinguished former Commissioners. We have the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Richard, and, of course, although he is not in his seat at the moment, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Since I am going to make some observations about members of the Commission, I wish to say at the outset that I exclude from any comments that I may make about the existing Commission all five of the former Commissioners who are in the House. They could all, had they so chosen, have retired from public life on the pensions that are attributed to their office in the Commission, but instead they have taken the public-spirited attitude of coming here and giving us their time and the benefit of their wisdom. So I trust that any remarks that I may make about the present Commission will not affect them in any way. I affirm straightaway that they are kindly, gentle people who have no thought of obtaining more power for themselves, or more power for the Commission, or of doing anything that could remotely be termed unfriendly to the governments of member states.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has arrived. He is the most distinguished of them all, for whom I shall reserve some special comment in view of the fact that he was also a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of which I was, and still remain, a supporter.
All powers of the Commission which are taken in the Maastricht Treaty as fresh powers, are of course relative. Weak people can be strong if those with whom they are in contact are weak. I have already explained to your Lordships that through no fault of their own members of the governments of member states—I am talking about the Ministers of all member states—are subject to severe limitations as to their abilities to govern because, of course, they are constrained by their own physical needs in that they need a certain amount of sleep; they need to feed; they need to exercise; and the amount of time that they can spend on the affairs of their own ministries and countries are strictly limited. It must be because—God bless them!—they are all human.
In the same way, when it comes to imposing an additional load upon Ministers of dealing with international affairs which, on their own, are a considerable responsibility—particularly for the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister—and when it comes to dealing with EC affairs, the amount of time that they can spend examining and understanding what is happening around them is limited. It must be.
It is common knowledge that for a number of Ministers, when they go to Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg for meetings, in many cases the first time that they read their papers, upon which they are supposed to talk and which are there for their guidance, is on the aeroplane or in their hotel rooms. That places the Commission in a strong position. I am not saying that it deliberately chooses that position, but, after all, members of the Commission are appointed. They are not elected by anyone. They do not have any constituency chairmen to bother them. They do not even have any Ministers above them to

77
bother them. They are not immediately faced with the threat of dismissal as on the night of the long knives, or anything of that kind. There they are. They are secure. They have the direct purpose of furthering the interests of the European Community.
There is bound to be a temptation—I put it no higher than that—not to be averse to getting more power for themselves and the offices which they occupy. Nature abhors a vacuum. If the Council of Ministers and those attached to it are not fully able to assimilate everything that happens or, for the sake of a quiet life, are susceptible to firm guidance from the Commission, it would be less than human if it did not begin to think that it really mattered; that the members had a right to an autonomous existence exerting power of unlimited character.
On going through the powers of the treaty—and here I address all noble Lords who are impartial—and examining the powers of the Commission and its acolytes under the Bill, it must be said in relation to the member states and the Council of Ministers that they have accumulated very considerable powers indeed. That must give rise to a certain amount of anxiety. We live in troubled times. There is hardly a member state of the Community which is not in some kind of economic or political trouble. Unemployment in the EC is some 17.5 million and is still rising. No governments are escaping criticism. There must be doubt about whether these governments have been governing to their best abilities and for the general benefit of their respective countries.
Some people may believe that all member states' governments are irredeemable and do not know what they are doing. Strictures have been made across party boundaries to that effect. There is not universal approbation in this country for Her Majesty's present Government. Many of us may regret that—I shall not shed crocodile tears myself—but the fact remains that the Government are not at the apex of their popularity. And so it is with other governments. Therefore, there must be a temptation among politicians to think that if some of their powers were taken away from them and given to a supra-national body member state governments would be helped considerably. If anything went wrong they would not then blame themselves but could say, "Of course, this is all the fault of the Community. It is all the fault of the Commission. It is nothing to do with me".
I invite noble Lords only to contemplate that as a situation which is likely to arise. They need not necessarily agree with me. Now let us address ourselves to the powers of the Commission which are taken under the Maastricht Bill and which have not yet been referred to in detail. If noble Lords will bear with me I shall acquaint them with some of the powers. They may have escaped the attention of those who have not had the time diligently to study the treaty. Article 103, which deals with economic policy, states in paragraph 2:
"The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community".
So the Commission is charged with bringing forward proposals to that end. That implies that the
78
17 gentlemen, who, I believe, used to meet on a Wednesday morning in congenial circumstances and whose qualifications vary, are with their staff capable of doing exactly that. Paragraph 3 of the article states:
"In order to ensure closer co-ordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Community as well as the consistency or economic policies".
The members of the Commission will advise the Council of that.
Paragraph 4 of Article 103 states:
"Where it is established … that the economic policies of a Member State are not consistent with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2 or that they risk jeopardizing the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, make the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned".
Once again, the members of the Commission are charged with producing proposals to that end.
Paragraph 1 of Article 103a states:
"Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in this Treaty, the Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation".
That implies that the 17 commissioners have it within their own brains and competence to make the judgments necessary to produce those measures. And so it goes on.
Article 104c, paragraph 2, states:
"The Commission shall monitor the development of the budgetary situation and of the stock of government debt in Member States with a view to identifying gross errors".
Who are the 17 who are intellectually equipped to make judgments of that kind? They are not all professional economists—
Baroness Seear: Thank God!
Lord Bruce of Donington: Even if they were, that would be a dubious qualification. I could not agree more. They are ordinary human mortals like anyone else and yet they have those powers.
Paragraph 3 of Article 104c states:
"If a Member State does not fulfil the requirements under one or both of these criteria, the Commission shall prepare a report".
Egad it will, and on the activities of various member states! They are going to pass judgment on the economic performance of member states. Who endowed them with the abilities to do that? I do not wish to insult the gentleman in any way because I know him well but I doubt whether the capabilities of Herr Martin Bangemann are up to the task, unless his grasp of economic events has improved considerably since I last had the very great pleasure of encountering him on the European Parliament budgetary committee.
Paragraph 5 of the same article states:
"If the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur, the Commission shall address an opinion to the Council".
Who is going to help its members to do that? Who or what group within the Commission can set themselves up as being able to judge the affairs of other member states better than the Ministers of the member states themselves?

79
I could go on, but I shall not. I do not wish to detain the House too long. However, I may have given reasons for some of your Lordships to question the voluntary surrender of powers under the treaty to an unelected body of people of varying qualifications and of varying ages and backgrounds to the detriment of powers of Ministers in individual states.
In addition, there is the knowledge of the power of the Commission. I could give many more instances of additional powers being given to that nominated, non-elected body. An article in the Financial Times today shows what can happen in such circumstances.
The report in the Financial Times is headed:
"Clarke plans defence against EC charges on budget deficit".
It states:
"The European Commission makes no secret of its desire for the British pound and the Italian lira to return to the ERM".
What business is it of the Commission what the British pound or the Italian lira shall do? The officials of the Commission can think what they like privately and can put it in their reports to the Council. There is no reason why they should not do that; in fact, it is their duty. But they wish to go public on it and they have no right to do so. The article goes on:
"During a recent meeting of the EC's secretive monetary committee, composed of senior Treasury and central bank officials from the 12 member states, several members challenged the UK government's contention that over two-thirds of the budget deficit was due to cyclical economic factors, and would therefore recede with economic recovery".
They are appointed people; they are not elected. They are responsible to no one. It is a so-called independent body, but these days it seems fashionable for information to be leaked to the press regarding its opinions about the United Kingdom Government.
The article goes on:
"Others complained that UK forecasts of a cut in the deficit from 8 per cent of gross domestic products this year to 3.75 per cent in 1997–98 still left the deficit above the Maastricht target of no more than 3 per cent. This underlined that the UK was 'not serious' about Emu, one EC official said".
There we have it. The officials are appointed and not responsible to anybody. They are allegedly independent. They even leak information to the press. This is merely one example which I draw to your Lordships' attention. The officials are now so arrogant that, when it suits them—before a critical conference taking place tomorrow in ECOFIN—they believe that they can leak information to the press in order to prejudice the negotiations which are to take place.
The article goes on:
"Mr. Clarke is expected to argue that it is very difficult to measure how far the deficit is cyclical and how much it represents a structural increase in spending. He will also say the UK convergence plan is more realistic than some programmes put forward by other member states.
The ECOFIN meeting is also expected to discuss plans to improve multilateral surveillance of member states' economies".
You can bet officials leaked that also to the press.
This submission is made to your Lordships in good faith. My submission and that of my colleagues is that as a democracy, with an elected government who can be dismissed by the people of the country, we should
80
not give away the powers which were given to that government in the first place. That is happening imperceptibly.
My task is to do no more than to sow a little doubt as to whether it is wise in this treaty to concede so many powers, which are superior to those exercised by our own Ministers of the Crown, to an unelected body which may comprise some very nice people, although not as nice and gentle as the five who sit here, but people who are not averse to furthering their own careers and to seeking more power for themselves, without necessarily any unscrupulous motive but with the desire for power. I submit that we should not countenance that. The British people were unable to see what the treaty contained at the time of the last election because it was not printed and published until 15th May. They should have an opportunity to see what it involves.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has given a very fair assessment of the role of the Commission but he has left out a rather important change contained in the Maastricht Treaty as regards powers given to the European Parliament.
The noble Lord and I have both been members of that body, both as delegated and elected members. Whatever we may think of that parliament, the treaty gives it two extremely important new roles to which the noble Lord did not refer and which I believe could alter to some extent the view of the role of the Commission in relation to the other institutions.
Article 158 of the Maastricht Treaty gives a new power to the European Parliament to approve the appointment of the president of the Commission and other members of the Commission. That may seem to be a comparatively minor power. However, for some time—in fact since the beginning—the parliament has had the power to have a vote of censure against the Commission. That power has never been used because the parliament is well aware that had it used that power, governments would have immediately re-appointed the same people. I believe that the new power is one of the most important that has ever been given to the European Parliament because governments will not be able now to re-appoint the same people because the parliament would refuse to appoint a president or commissioners who may have been nominated a second time round. That is the first very important new power.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, from my noble friend's experience of that parliament, what evidence does she have that it would differ as regards the re-appointment of the president and the commissioners?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not quite understand the import of my noble friend's question. Had he been in the recently elected parliament, he would know that it has thirsted for the blood of the commissioners. The power which Article 158 of the treaty gives to the parliament has been greatly welcomed by it. It means that in future it can censure the Commission. It has wished to do so on

81
many occasions but it has known that it would be pointless. However, it has now been given the power to block a new appointment and it will do so. It is not a delegated parliament. The position has changed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the noble Baroness addressed a series of questions to me I ask the leave of the House to inform her that in the course of a later amendment I shall deal with the activities of the European Parliament. At that time I hope to persuade her that she may be mistaken.
Baroness Elks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, but as regards what he said about the Commission officials being appointed and nobody having control over them, I do not agree with him in view of the new power given to the parliament.
The second new power, given under Article 173, is extremely important. That power has already been used. The Commission can be taken to the European Court of Justice for lack of competence or for acting ultra eires. That is extremely important because so far it has been impossible to deal with the Commission when it stepped out of line. The parliament is given that power under the treaty and that is extremely important. As I say, the power has been used. It was used to protect the prerogative of the parliament in a case in which the Commission and the Council had joined together so that the Commission was unable to look after the powers of the prerogative of the parliament. Therefore, under Article 173 as amended, a new power is given to the parliament to control much more closely the acts of the Commission than it has been able to do until now.
Further, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quite rightly pointed to the role of the Commission which is important. But at the end of the day, the power remains with the Council. Articles 104(12) and 104(13) provide that the Council has the final decision. After all, it is the Executive's role to produce reports, make statements and put forward proposals. That applies even to our Government. But, at the end of the day, it is the Government who decide, not the civil servants. The position is exactly the same here. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged. I am sure that the noble Baroness would concede that, in considering all the matters to which she referred, the Commission did not seek to defend the status quo but, in fact, warmly welcomed greater accountability to the Parliament.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, thinks that the Commission was pleased that the new power has been given to the Parliament. We shall wait and see whether it will be pleased when the power is actually used.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I have one point to make in response to the infatuation of my noble friend Baroness Elles with the European Parliament and its powers. She talks as though the Parliament in Europe is similar to our Parliament. Well, I do not
82
agree with her. If such powers were given to our Parliament they would be used sensitively and with great care. However, that is not the makeup of the European Parliament; indeed, it is not likely to be so. It is too diffuse. My noble friend knows as well as I do that it is the heads of the various groupings that carve up all the decisions and agree to all the appointments.
The only reason I intervened is that many or my fears would disappear if the European Parliament was, or was likely to be, anything like our own Parliament. To make such a contribution as that of my noble friend could leave the impression that that is exactly how it will happen. In fact, my noble friend knows from her contact with it that the individual decisions from the Parliament come from the groupings where various arrangements are made to suit the matters being put forward. I am not against that, provided that we do not give the impression that it is something different from that which it is. The fact that the Parliament has been given such power satisfies my noble friend, but it gives me no satisfaction at all.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I can only say that each parliament has its own characteristics. I am sure that the European Parliament will assert those new powers with due respect and conscience. If my noble friend does not like the present composition of the European Parliament, I invite him to rejoin the Parliament so that we have distinguished members with experience of parliamentary democracy who will contribute to a better ongoing performance of the European Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the last thing that some of us want is to see the European Parliament being given more powers? That is precisely what it wants and precisely what it has been after for a long period of time, in exactly the same way as our own Parliament wished to obtain further powers from the Crown. It eventually succeeded in that aim and so achieved power to be sovereign over the Crown.
It seems to me that the new powers could give the impression that the Parliament can not only dismiss what it terms to be the government and state what it would like to see as the government of Europe, but it will also now have a say in appointing that government. Therefore, every twist of the ratchet gives the Parliament more power. The more power it gets, the more power it will want. If one looks at the manifesto or declaration of the European People's Party, it is quite clear that the party sees the European Parliament as the sovereign Parliament of the European Union and that it sees national parliaments as being subordinate to it.
Therefore, I am not at all happy about the new power being given to the Parliament. Through all my experience, I know that once you have power you want more and more until, eventually, you acquire all of it. That is the great danger.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, the noble Lord's last statement frightened me very much: once you have power over this House you want more and more. I shudder to think what he will do to us during the

83
course of the next three days of debate. I apologise to the noble Lord who introduced the amendment as I was a few minutes late in entering the Chamber. The debate is not about the European Parliament, it is about the powers of the Commission. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that is what we are talking about tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has for a long time held a suspicion about the Commission and the Commissioners. He has warned us of their overweening grasp for power and about their undemocratic appointment. I have been sitting in Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, when we have had such Commissioners and leading members of the Commission in front of us. He has never charged any of them with the offences that he has now put before the House. The noble Lord appears to want to intervene. I shall not allow myself to be interrupted at this point because I know perfectly well that that is true. The noble Lord has a fetish about the Commissioners, but he does not confront them when they present themselves before us with factual information about what they are doing.
Therefore, perhaps I may start by defending the Commissioners whom I have had the honour to interview and cross-examine. I do not think any noble Lords will wish to accuse their colleagues in the House, regardless of the side on which they sit, of an overweening greed for power: they have a duty to do and they try to do it.
In the course of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, we were told of a number of instances in the Maastricht Treaty where the Commissioners appear to have been given more power. I do not think that the noble Lord is in a position to answer—although he may be in such a position later—but has he looked at the powers that the Commission has under the Treaty of Rome? Has he looked at the extra powers that the Commission was given under the Single European Act in connection with economic co-operation? They are not dissimilar.
It is in the nature of the Community's institutional balance that the Commission initiates and the Council decides, with Parliament playing the part that it is given—an enhanced part, I am glad to say, in Maastricht. That is in the nature of the balance of powers within the Treaty of Rome. If the present amendment is another device to attack the Treaty of Rome, then at this stage of the evening I must warn your Lordships against it.
Too many of our debates have been about the Treaty of Rome or about the Single European Act, but not about Maastricht. Maastricht certainly gives the Commission the same sort of powers in connection with the slight changes that it has introduced. Having been given those powers, the Commission is now subject (as it was not subject before and is not subject now legally until we have ratified Maastricht) to the doctrine of subsidiarity. I oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Elles suggested that the House should draw immense comfort from the new powers given to the European
84
Parliament with regard to the appointment of the Commission and, indeed, of the president of the Commission. She made that absolutely clear in her remarks and quoted from Article 158. She said that,
"the President and other members of the Commission thus nominated [should] be subject … [to] approval by the European Parliament".
However, that is not what Article 158 states. It reads:
"The President and the other members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament".
That means that if one member of the Commission, perhaps even the president, has a serious objection, he has to take on the whole of the Commission, with the president, or do nothing. That is a tremendous limitation of power. Let us say for the sake of argument that the Parliament approves the nomination of the Commission, and the president of the Commission, by a vote. Whatever anyone says in Parliament can he totally disregarded by the governments. They can disregard what their own members may say within Parliament. The power of appointment resides with the governments of the member states, which they have to agree in common accord if the European Parliament votes that way.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Paragraph 2 of Article 158 states:
"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord, after consulting the European Parliament, the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission".
The Parliament is consulted and it can therefore refuse to accept the nomination of the president as so proposed by the member states.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point; but the power to consult does not give, under this article, any power then to compel the governments to change their nomination. This matter needs to be looked at very carefully. One should not draw comfort from what my noble friend suggests.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak as one of those kindly and gentle people to whom my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington referred earlier. I should say at once that as regards the Opposition, we would deny wholly that we have entered into any conspiracy against Back-Benchers to seek to truncate or eliminate debate in this House on this treaty. I suspect the Government would say likewise but that is a matter for the noble Baroness. My noble friend made a serious charge without a scintilla of evidence. It should not have been made.
As one of those kindly and gentle people that have been referred to, I must say that I do not recognise that the Commission as described by a number of noble Lords tonight is representative of the actual Commission at all. I have the benefit of having served on the Commission. Perhaps my noble friend may find it convenient, or inconvenient, to say that Ministers have the power in the last resort to make decisions. Of course they have that power. My noble friend says that Ministers are not up to that for a variety of reasons as they do not have the time to read their

85
papers. I should point out that they do not always have time to read their papers in this country as junior Ministers are often sent in to bat at about 10 minutes' notice. I believe they do rather well when that happens.
The fact of the matter is that in my experience Ministers are rather well briefed when they sit around the Council table. I accept they have a bevy of civil servants around them except when the testing time arrives and the commissioner suggests to the president who is in office for the time being that it might be a good idea for a session to be convened without any civil servant backing for Ministers. One would have thought, listening to my noble friend, that somehow the whole thing would collapse and the commissioner would have his own way, or the president in office would have his own way. However, things do not work like that.
I have seen Ministers summoned to meet the commissioner and the president in office for the time being in what are called confessionals when they are tested vigorously about their opposition to a particular proposal. Invariably the Ministers fare extremely well without any civil servants accompanying them. By and large, Ministers know their briefs. I had the happy opportunity to discuss Community affairs and Commission affairs with the noble Baroness from the Government party. She was always sympathetically received in the European Parliament. I am not in the business of praising Members of this Government unduly, but I thought the noble Baroness struck a happy note in the European Parliament to the advantage of this Government, the Parliament and the Commission. She took the trouble to familiarise herself with her brief.
I cannot recognise the situation that my noble friend has described. It is ludicrous to suggest that there is collusion to subvert Ministers between the member states' civil servants and the civil servants of the Commission when they meet in COREPER or working groups. The civil servants representing a member state are there to perform their duty for the government whom they represent. There are sharp collisions. To the best of my recollection, no Commission proposal has gone through unscathed. I may be wrong on that; but I cannot recall a proposal that went through unscathed during the four years in which I served on the Commission.
As regards the undesirability of the Commission producing reports, I do not think any commissioner or any commission official would say he has a monopoly of wisdom. They realise that they do not have such a monopoly of wisdom as the Parliament constantly criticises those reports and Ministers constantly criticise the reports. They should do so as there is nothing inviolate or sacrosanct about the reports. The treaty imposes a duty on the Commission in many respects to offer an opinion on a wide variety of matters.
I should also say to my noble friend that as regards the question of accountability one can never remove the significance of the personal relationships that a commissioner has with those with whom he or she has to deal. That applies whether it is a question of
86
government Ministers, the Members of the European Parliament with whom the commissioner has a particular relationship because it is their dossier the Parliament is considering, or whether it concerns the relationships between commissioners themselves. My noble friend seems to attach no significance to this whatsoever. I assure my noble friend that that is how it works in practice.
Tonight my noble friend dismissed the whole question of accountability through an ombudsman—he dismissed this more fervently in another speech he made—and through the power of the Parliament to investigate cases of maladministration. However, I know for a fact that the Commission has welcomed that accountability although it may regret that later. The Commission has always asked for greater accountability. It recognises the shortcomings that have emerged from the situation thus far in terms of a democratic deficit.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. said he would feel happier if the European Parliament more closely resembled a parliament with powers such as the British Parliament. My noble friend Lord Stoddart immediately rebuked him for saying such a terrible thing. I am not at all sure that in this Parliament—notwithstanding the noble efforts of the Select Committee of this House to scrutinise European Community legislation—we have anything to be proud of—for this Parliament fulfils a limited role in this regard. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, would be the first to recognise that the Select Committee on which he served, and other committees, have done a wonderful job. However, it is a limited job. They cannot cover the whole panoply of European Community legislation.
We ought to consider that aspect before we criticise the European Parliament. Perhaps we could also learn from the German Parliament where Members of the European Parliament sit alongside German Members of Parliament in order to scrutinise legislation and quiz members of the Commission and others.
The suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart that the European Parliament is anxious to consider the Commission as the government of Europe is fanciful. A speech or two to that effect may be made by an aberrant Member of the European Parliament but there is no cogent evidence to suggest that that is what Members of the European Parliament want. Nor should they.
I believe that the noble Baroness is right. There is the beginning of greater accountability on a formal basis. I welcome that, but I believe that there is still a great deal of ground to be covered in that regard.
Finally, it is also a strange notion to suggest that this all-powerful Commission thinks up every idea on its own and then embarks upon initiating legislation. Again I can speak from experience. I support the views of Commissioner Bruce Millan, expressed in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place. In paragraph 89 of that committee's report he explained that despite the Commission's ostensible sole right to initiate Community legislation,
"in fact most of the ideas have not come from the Commission at all … The Member States themselves have had a lot of the responsibility".

87
When one attends a Council meeting one knows that. The Council asks the Commission to undertake this, that or the other. The European Parliament, in its own initiative reports, has played a notable role. For example, the European Year of the Environment stemmed from an own initiative report of the European Parliament, as did Road Safety Year and the present Year of the Aged.
It is an amalgamation of ideas, emerging from all the institutions, which tends to produce the legislation. It is not a monopoly which is exercised by the Commission. It has the formal right to propose legislation. It has responsibility in that regard. But there are also many other factors to be considered.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this has been an unusual debate. After the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it hardly seems necessary—except for one or two matters that he mentioned—that I should rise to reply for the Government. Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
I share the noble Lord's view that Ministers do read their papers. In the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, there is a certain mystique about what happens in a Minister's life in preparing for a Council meeting. The first thing I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is that one does not and cannot possibly cope with Community legislation if one prepares on the day, which is the impression he gave. The second thing I would say to him is that there are many intricate details which may not form part of the overall case. But if Ministers, as most do, find themselves at some time in a restricted session at which there are only Ministers, the commissioner and a couple of presidency clerks at the table, and they have not done their homework, then woe betide them. They do not have available the devices which are sometimes deployed in another place or in government to get them out of trouble. They really are on their own. I have watched Ministers from other countries in great trouble. I am glad to say I have never known any of my colleagues experience that problem because they make sure that they are properly briefed. One may go through the final briefing on the aircraft. That is a good use of time. I do not believe in wasting time and nor do my colleagues. However, although that final briefing is valuable, it will certainly not be the first time one has read the documents.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, yes, Ministers need time to cope, especially in European affairs. But they are certainly not baffled by their officials. They are very much helped by their officials. In this country we are particularly fortunate in our briefing. There are also permanent representatives in Brussels who make sure in advance of any meeting that one knows exactly what position might have been taken overnight by Ministers from other countries, who may have had more last-minute briefing than the noble Lord realises.
The working of the Commission is not as the noble Lord described it. It is a good deal more organised. It is certainly undertaken in much greater depth. If the
88
Commission worked in the way that he described I would agree with him that the whole situation was crazy. It just so happens that it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, went on to speak of a situation which is very far from reality. I know how important it has been for Members of the European Parliament to share in the overall construction of the Community that we seek to build. I believe that my noble friend Lady Elles was absolutely right in what she said about the European Parliament.
It is normal Community practice to review periodically the role and functions of each institution, not just the Commission. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, concentrated exclusively on the Commission in what he said tonight. That review also applies to the other institutions.
It is clear that from time to time all governments will find aspects of the working of the Commission which they do not like. However, when one has built up the relationships of which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke tonight, one learns why those things are happening. It may be the result of some fault in the preparatory work in Brussels or in Council meetings; it may be the fault of the Civil Service here at home which has not understood the proposition which is being put forward. It is sometimes hard for Members of Parliament in this country to understand the complications and the need for communication and co-operation between all parties—the Members of the European Parliament, the civil servants working at home and in Brussels and, above all, the Ministers—if the Commission is ever to succeed with any of the proposals it puts forward.
It is not merely the proposals which the Commission puts forward which eventually come into our forward planning, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said. It is also ideas which come from national parliaments. Indeed, we spoke of toy safety earlier. I remember working very hard to try to ensure that toys were safe for children's sake. It seemed to me to be a sensible consumer regulation. However, it took some time to persuade other governments and the Commission. We certainly needed the help and support of Members of the European Parliament to achieve it. Eventually it was the Commission which rightly came up with the proposal. That, if I remember rightly, was amended as a result of the discussion process at the time. I do not believe that that is a bad thing in reaching sensible, workable proposals.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, moved, refers to the periodic review of the Commission. The noble Lord also said a great deal about the powers of the Commission. Perhaps I may say a little about the powers, as outlined in Article 155 of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission's role is to ensure that the Community's treaties are applied as well as to bring forward those proposals for the Council to consider. That is unaffected by Maastricht. The Commission is not a decision-making body. The Council of Ministers takes decisions on the basis of the Commission's proposals. The Commission may take decisions itself, but only where powers have been specifically delegated to it by the Council under carefully drawn conditions.

89
Let us take, for example, the provisions for the negotiation and conclusion of external agreements with third countries, as outlined in Article 228 of the Maastricht Treaty. The Commission has the power to conduct those negotiations on behalf of the Community. It makes sense for the Twelve to speak as one in such cases. But it only goes into such negotiations when authorised to do so by the Council of Ministers and on the terms agreed by the Council of Ministers. Similarly, the Commission will conduct negotiations in consultation with special committees appointed by the Council to assist it. But it has to be within the framework of guidance and instructions given by the Council.
I disagreed strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his sowing of a little doubt this evening. In making so much of the role of the Commission in Articles 103 and 104, he repeatedly laid stress only on what the Commission would do. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, in other words, he skated over the Council's role. Article 103.3 states that,
"The Council shall … monitor".
Article 103.4 states that,
"The Council may … make".
Article 103a.1 states that,
"The Council may … decide".
The point that exists the whole way through the treaty is that although the Commission may propose, only the Council will decide.
Such powers as the Commission enjoys are also subject to improved scrutiny under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, under the treaty, the role of the European Parliament in monitoring the Commission is substantially reinforced. Not only does the European Parliament have the powers that she described, it also has the right to establish committees of inquiry, to receive petitions from individuals and to invite the ombudsman to investigate maladministration.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, described the Commission as appointed officials, and I believe that he said "leakers" at one point. I am not sure whether that is parliamentary; it is certainly not complimentary. The Commission goes to very considerable lengths to maintain a good working relationship, otherwise it would never make progress on any of the areas of work which we ask it to carry through.
I wish to comment briefly on one further point on the amendment, that is, the main change relating to the appointment of the Commission which is outlined in Article 158 of the treaty to which my noble friend Lady Elles referred. The article itself provides for an increase from 1995 in the terms of office of the president of the Commission from two years to five years, and of ordinary commissioners from four years to five years. That will make their terms of office coterminous with the European Parliament. We believe that to be sensible because Article 158 also subjects the Commission, as a body, to a vote of approval in the European Parliament. That represents a welcome step forward in the running of the Commission. But the important factor is that the Commission will now be subject to a greater democratic scrutiny, and member states will retain
90
their right to nominate their own commissioners and to appoint both the president and the commissioner. Therefore I believe that it is another step forward.
I find the Maastricht Treaty an improvement on the previous Community treaties. It clarifies and codifies what the Community should do. It makes clearer than ever what it may not do. In areas such as education., health and culture, harmonising measures are explicitly excluded. We know that the Community may not involve itself, for example, in national health care systems. There are other examples too. The point that we make is that any action in those areas is restrained by the specific treaty bases in Maastricht. I believe that that is indeed a protection.
A number of other points were made by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The noble Lord described his tear and anxiety about the European Parliament wanting new powers. I understand a little as to why he is anxious. But we cannot have greater scrutiny regarding all that is done in the European Community unless the European Parliament also plays its part alongside that of national parliaments. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I, for one, will be very much happier if other member states' parliaments scrutinised half as much as the British Parliament in both its Houses. One of the weaknesses in many countries is the fact that their own parliaments scrutinise insufficiently. We should never allow ourselves to reach the stage where we rely on the European Parliament to do all the scrutiny. That would be wrong. It should be a dual function between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. While we cannot put right what may be wrong in other parliaments, I can tell your Lordships' House that there has been considerable praise for the way in which this Parliament, and indeed the Danish Parliament, have scrutinised by comparison with other parliaments within the European Community.
The amendment is interesting, but it is not necessary for the good working of the Bill and of the treaty. I believe that it would simply slow down and harm our progress. To require the Government to formulate, within 12 months of the Act coming into force, proposals for reviewing the new areas of competence of the Commission and the term of office of commissioners, would mean that after those 12 months we might not have the chance to act as we should. I, for one, do not intend that we shall be forced to react to others' proposals when we have good proposals to put forward. Therefore I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the response that she gave to the amendment and the remarks that I ventured to make on it. If she will permit me to say so, I always admire the way in which the noble Baroness meets the questions head on and answers them honestly. I am second to none in my admiration for the way in which she carries out her existing duties. Being quite an innocent person herself, in the sense that she would never conceive of anyone doing anybody down about anything, her defence of the

91
Commission will arouse immediate approbation in Brussels and thereafter in the Berlaymont. She will be canonised from now on.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Berlaymont is closed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I believe that at considerable expense a new headquarters has been erected which, fortunately, is free from asbestos, otherwise there might have been much combustible material flying about!
I should like to offer the House an immediate apology if I used the term "conspiracy" in regard to the attitude of the two Front Benches towards the Back Benches. The term "conspiracy" was not used within the context in which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis used it in the legal sense, it ought to have been put in quotation marks and expressed in terms of a "tacit understanding". I sincerely hope that my revision of the term to "tacit understanding" will meet the point.
I was fascinated with the explanations given by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We must have been sitting in two different places at two different times, because my recollections of the Commission—which are to some extent personal—do not square entirely with his. The presumption of lily-white innocence in the intentions of the Commission which he put forward no longer correspond to reality, although they obviously obtained during his tenure of office. One need only examine what the Commission has said—and I have sufficient material to paper the walls of this Chamber from top to bottom with some of its more ridiculous utterances—to realise that these days the members are not quite of the same calibre as they were during the sojourn of my noble friend in the headquarters of the Commission.
I do not feel called upon to answer the observations that have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. He ventured to comment on my attitude in the Select Committee but if he wants an inquest on those proceedings under his chairmanship, I shall be happy to provide it. Had the opportunity been afforded to me, I should have been only too delighted on some occasions to question commissioners. However, the noble Lord did not understate the time he himself took as chairman to question various witnesses, to the point where some of us felt that perhaps other people could have asked questions as well as our distinguished chairman, for whom we have the utmost regard.
I shall not deal with the matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, raised about the European Parliament as it will form the subject of later observations from me when it comes to budgetary control, with which the noble Baroness will undoubtedly be familiar. Therefore, I shall reserve my comments until then.
In the meantime, I wish to thank your Lordships for listening so patiently to the observations I have thought it proper to make. I do not claim any monopoly of wisdom, but I claim that what I ventured to put forward represents my true and sincere belief as
92
to the position. I am not trying to fool anyone, but I hope that when in due course your Lordships come to a decision it may be helpful to consider whether there is much in what I have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Subsidiarity
(". Within six months from the coming into force of this Act, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a Command Paper which—

(a) lists those areas

(i) which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community, and

(ii) which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community; and

(b) lists those cases which have come to the notice of Her Majesty's Government which involve activities which are carried out wholly within the territory of the United Kingdom but which whose regulation lies in areas falling within the exclusive competence of the Community.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to be constructive and helpful to the Government not only in the process of getting the Bill through but in its operation after it has been enacted. That is the general intention. With that in mind, my inclination at the moment is not to think of putting it to a vote. Its purpose is to see whether the Government have different ideas in terms of going into more detail about subsidiarity than they have so far. It is very important that they should.
I believe that this amendment on subsidiarity is tied very closely to the amendment which we recognise as the main one that is likely to be debated at Report stage. The subsidiarity point is very close indeed to the referendum issue, which I suppose will be the main point for debate. I believe that noble Lords in this House and people in the country prefer for the most part to adhere to the conventional parliamentary way of dealing with issues; that is, that Members of Parliament, who are supposed to have opportunities for going into greater detail as to what various pieces of legislation mean, argue and put their different views and come to a conclusion which becomes the legislation that is accepted. By and large, I believe that people outside, as well as most people inside Parliament, want that to continue as the main way of conducting our parliamentary business. If we want it to continue, I think that we must not have it infringed.
I believe that, for the most part, people outside Parliament would say that it is better that the parliamentarians themselves should deal with such questions as the interpretation and scope of the Bill; how it refers to GATT; and the Commission's powers and the terms of office. People outside would say, "Those are subjects about which we know nothing. They require a great deal of detailed knowledge which we have had no opportunity to research. We should like to leave that to the Members of Parliament, whose job it is to acquaint themselves with the detail." That applies to almost all the amendments that we are likely to deal with at this Report stage, except for the one on

93
subsidiarity. The subsidiarity point is one in which people outside, if they are not already terribly interested in it, will become very interested in the future. When one talks outside this House one recognises that the general reaction of people to the Maastricht Treaty is: how will it affect my way of living; how will it affect things with which I am concerned; what does it mean?
It is vital that, so far as we can, we should spell out what subsidiarity really means and identify the points that are likely to be covered by the protection of subsidiarity as regards the independence of people in this country. If, as this amendment asks, we could spell out or indicate in a much better way than we have done so far what subsidiarity is likely to protect and reserve for local decision, I do not believe that there would be much demand for a referendum. I believe that people would recognise, as with most of the other problems, that it is better for the parliamentarians to deal with it with their special knowledge and their special powers. They do feel, whoever "they" are—and I agree—that subsidiarity has been dragged in as a sort of excuse to get over a rather tricky part of the treaty of which nobody, including the Government, is particularly proud. Subsidiarity is the answer to many of the fears expressed in newspaper reports and by many other members of the Community that sovereignty and the power that goes with it will be lost. There are instances where the Commission has tried to interfere with, say, where we should cut a road surrounding London and other matters of that sort—matters which are nothing to do with anybody except this country and the people in this country. That is the fear. If we could know, not exactly, because that would be asking too much, but in greater detail, what subsidiarity will cover by way of preserving our independence here at home, I believe that that would remove many of the fears that people have as to the overriding effect that the Maastricht agreement will have, if it is left as it is now.
It is not only during the period in which the Bill is put on to the statute book that we need to have reassurance. Things will go wrong afterwards. There will be many problems. The treaty will not develop smoothly and be without any quibble or concern. We know that all kinds of things will happen. I have given one example; namely, trying to alter the road surrounding London. But if, before Parliament and the people have given their acquiescence to the Bill, they have been told exactly what the treaty is likely to cover, there is less chance of having to face problems after the Bill has become an Act and is effective.
I do not want to push this issue to a vote, even though colleagues in this House may believe that it is worthy of coming to a decision tonight. I should like to give the Government a chance between now, Third Reading and the passage of the Bill to take on board this particular point.
In responding during Committee stage to an appeal similar to the one that I now make, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said that such a list would bore the reader and it would be impractical to draw up a list. I do not think that it would be boring. I believe that it is a vital ingredient if we want
94
Maastricht and the spirit of Maastricht to work as the Government have described. On another occasion the noble and learned Lord said:
"if someone wishes to attempt a list, I should be happy to comment on it".—[Official Report, 28/6/93; col. 653.]
Why cannot the Government draw up a list and allow us to be happy to comment on that list? They are in a much better position to be able to produce a list that has some strength and some significance. I believe that it would be in the Government's interest to do so. I believe that many of my noble friends may have different feelings about the vital vote on the referendum which will take place in a couple of days' time if the Government said—particularly if it came through the mouth of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that they would look at the matter and try to produce in greater detail the general idea of what subsidiarity meant. At the end of the day, my amendment does not call for anything to be done overnight. The amendment says:
"Within six months from the coming into force of this Act. Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a Command Paper which … lists those areas … which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community".
That is the basis of the argument. If there is an undertaking or promise—it need not be an undertaking or need to be as deeply interpreted as an undertaking—we shall look at it and attempt to produce a list so that we can see what it covers. At the moment it seems reasonably clear to me that neither the Government nor anyone else have produced a list to cover the meaning of subsidiarity because nobody knows what it means. All the members of the Community have different interpretations of what is meant by "subsidiarity".
When the Maastricht Treaty was agreed and subsidiarity was first announced, we gave the Prime Minister many plaudits for the work that he had done. My first comment, which is on the record, was a question: what does subsidiarity mean? I said that it would satisfy me if it meant that each country makes a decision as to what it thinks ought to be dealt with at home, and that decision cannot be interfered with by anybody else. If we could say, "We can decide whether we ought to build a road or do lots of other things that will come within the range of the Maastricht Treaty", that would satisfy me. But we know that that is not possible because it is known already that almost every separate member of the Community has different ideas.
We also know that the general idea of the Commission is that it does not want to be tied in that way. We also had it clearly—I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has ever shirked this point—that the decision on whether subsidiarity will work and whether decisions shall be made on the home ground will at the end of the day be made by the European Court. If people think differently from ourselves on, for example, the fishing quota, or on what will happen with regard to internal planning, or on what kind of directives come forward telling our restaurants how to run their shows, and if those decisions are to be made by other people—although the other people may well be the European Court—

95
those are the issues which people who are pushing for the referendum will want to be certain are left on our home ground.
The purpose of the amendment is to do no more than the very easy-to-read words say. There is nothing difficult about them. No legal interpretation is required. The amendment asks: what does subsidiarity mean? We have been told that it means that powers will be left to us to settle things ourselves and that we shall not be interfered with even by the European Court. We say, right, how far does that go? What does it cover?
I conclude my brief comments on this constructive amendment by telling my noble and learned friend who is to reply that some of us are entitled to be suspicious. I repeat what I have said before. I do so not from any point of view of wanting to make a personal statement but because it adds to the point that it is not an overnight feeling. It is a fact that I resigned as a Minister in the Macmillan government on the issue of the Treaty of Rome because I did not think that it was satisfactory. I thought that it would infringe on the sovereignty and powers of this country to look after the interests of the people in this country. Once we had signed the treaty I felt, despite that kind of plea, that it was everyone's duty to try to make it work. I felt that the right thing to do was to know more about it if I could. So I got myself elected to the European Parliament to see if there one could find the real meaning of the treaties that we had signed which I instinctively felt were not in the best interests of this country.
What I learnt there—and the reason I intervened on the question of what the parliamentary powers should be—confirmed some of my doubts. We were told, when we were arguing 22 years ago about certain dangers such as we are doing now, that certain things could not happen and that we had the veto; that we could stop it and that we would if these things happened. In the 22 years that have elapsed, during the period when I was in the European Parliament and certainly in the Parliament here, we have seen the power of the veto whittled away to an extent that makes it only a skeleton of what we were told it would be. If that happened to the veto, which got us on the way to the European treaty, will the same thing happen to subsidiarity? We were told when we questioned it that subsidiarity would put that right. Then we asked: what does subsidiarity mean? No one knows. Different countries have different interpretations of what they think it means.
All I am asking in this amendment is for the Government to say, "Yes, we will look to see if it is possible to sketch out in some detail what subsidiarity covers; what kind of things will protect our freedoms and what kind of things will be outside that competence". If we can have that it will help the Government to get their Bill and it will help the Government and the Community afterwards to operate it if it becomes part of the powers of the European Community. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, at Second Reading I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the beginning of June the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had written:
"Subsidiarity must be the guiding principle of Community legislation".
How splendid if that were actually to come about, as opposed to being no more than an over-optimistic aspiration, as the failure to achieve any real progress on subsidiarity at the Edinburgh summit seemed to indicate. Mr. Hurd went on to write:
"The body of existing legislation should be regularly culled".
Extremely welcome though such an outcome would be, it seems even more over-optimistic in that such an aspiration is apparently stymied by the Berlin Wall of the acquis communautaire which Article B of Title I of the treaty stipulates must be maintained in full. I emphasise the qualification "in full".
Quite apart from the problem over the wording of the treaty which I have just mentioned, the other difficulty is that one is up against human nature. People who have been given too much power over others get to enjoy wielding that power and become most reluctant to give it up, especially when they have managed to convince themselves that they are exercising that power wisely and altruistically. To paraphrase a well-known saying current in Britain in the late 1940s, in Brussels nowadays the gentlemen in Berlaymont know best. A truly confederal system might be able to check that tendency, but unfortunately the Community is drifting towards federalism even if the actual "F" word has been censored out of the treaty.
We know from the experience of Australia and the United States of America how power becomes gradually more and more concentrated at the centre under any federal system, even in countries with a common law tradition and with a broad Anglo-Saxon bias in favour of freedom which is certainly not the case on the continent of Europe.
Let it not be thought that only the British worry about power being centralised and nation states being deprived of the right of independent action. Less than a year ago M. Jean-Louis Giral, who is president of La Fedération Nationale du Patronat Francais (the French employers' federation) in opposing ratification of the Maastricht Treaty by France, wrote that despite the apparent devolution of powers conferred by the principle of subsidiarity, from his own very considerable experience in negotiating with Community institutions, Brussels simply could not resist interfering in everything and trying to regulate everything and that accordingly there was a danger that subsidiarity in practice would amount to very little.
It is vital therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has indicated, to help the Government in their proclaimed objectives by putting some teeth into the concept of subsidiarity. The amendment is an essential step in that direction because it helps to clarify various ambiguities. The ultimate aim must be strictly to limit the Community's

97
competence to matters which have cross-border implications, leaving purely national matters to nation states. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, gave the example of road building and, indeed, we have had much trouble over the M.3 extension and Oxleas Wood. The Belgians, Portuguese, Greeks and Germans have no more business interfering in the building of our roads than we have in the building of theirs.
Perhaps I may take another example. For years, the British people have been conned into believing that "Europe" has given them pure water. The EC has given them nothing at all. What it has done effectively is to force them to pay through the nose for their water by way of much higher charges. The Sunday papers yesterday—the broadsheets, not the tabloids—reported that water charges would at least double, and quite probably treble, within the next seven years. If the British electorate really wanted to wash their cars and to flush their lavatories with distilled water they would only have to vote into power a government who promised to raise taxes and water charges to the extent necessary to make that possible. The fact that they have not done so suggests that they would rather have slightly less salubrious water in return for saving vast sums of money. However, the paternalists and busybodies of the EC decided otherwise—backed up, it is only fair to say, by paternalists and busybodies in certain national parliaments.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, surely one cannot be totally nationalistic in the matter of the cleanliness of water. The North Sea, for example, is fed by many rivers from the Continent of Europe and greatly affects us. Surely, therefore, it is not sensible to take a nationalistic approach and to argue subsidiarity on that particular matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord. We are talking about drinking water, not about the pollution of the seas, which is another matter. I agree that anything that is discharged into the sea and affects other countries is a proper matter for cross-Community action, but drinking water is a purely internal matter.
The EC's action was popular so long as the British people believed that they were getting something for nothing. It will not be popular much longer now that the bills are thudding onto their doormats. I contend that matters such as this, which have no cross-border effects—I emphasise that once again to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—should be returned to the competence of national parliaments. If I have understood the press reports correctly, even M. Jacques Delors agrees. Being a fair-minded man, I am pleased to pay tribute to M. Delors where tribute is due. I hope that the Government will agree that the amendment usefully paves the way for power to be devolved back to where it belongs—the British Houses of Parliament.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I listened to the—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Liberal!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's apology and look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with the greatest interest. I respect his resignation on the grounds that the Treaty of Rome would lead to a diminution or a de facto pooling of our sovereignty. That is something with which I have always agreed and, in advocating our signature, I never pretended that it would do anything else. However, he said something else with which I also agreed but, I suspect, for rather different reasons than those which he offered. He said that what he was asking the Government to do was to spell out—I think that I am quoting him correctly—what subsidiarity really means. He went on to say that all members of the Community have a different interpretation of "subsidiarity". Those are two extremely interesting statements that have implications which, it seems to me, the noble Lord did not fully recognise.
In point of fact, he is asking for a written constitution. The only way in which one can spell out exactly what subsidiarity means is by producing a written document which defines the powers that are held centrally and those that are held by the different component parts of the Community. That is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do and it produces—or should produce—the clarity which the noble Lord advocated. It is what was clone in Philadelphia—I believe I am right in saying—in 1787. It is an extremely complicated process, and cannot be done in six months. Secondly, it cannot be done unilaterally by Her Majesty's Government. To avoid the second danger of all members interpreting it differently, to which the noble Lord referred, it would presumably have to be agreed by all member states. We should have to have a kind of constitutional convention. What we should end up with is not merely a written constitution, but a federal constitution.
I always thought that noble Lords who opposed Maastricht, opposed it because, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it was drifting towards federalism. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is not drifting towards federalism, he is driving straight at it full speed ahead. I happen to think that that is not a wholly bad thing, but I cannot believe that it is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, or the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. They tell us that the great danger is that we shall have a federal constitution. Here we have an amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in which a straight federal constitution is advocated. The result of that will be that when there is some dispute as to whether one of the nations is interpreting the constitution correctly, the only way in which the problem will be solved will be by having a supreme court. Therefore we should be giving more power to the European Court of Justice to interpret the constitution.

99
I point that out only because it is interesting that that view, which is not totally alien to that which I share, should come from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is one point upon which I should like to hear the noble Lord's reaction. If it is not possible—that is what he is suggesting—for the I2 members of the Community to reach agreement on such an intimate and important matter, is there not a message in that as to whether the Maastricht Treaty itself is something of which we should be in favour?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hope that we should obtain an agreement. I suspect that we should, because there would be a will to do so. All I am saying is that the result would be a federal constitution.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I did not intend to speak this evening, but I am bound to say that it is tiresome that we have these arguments over and over again. In Committee, a vast miasma of suspicion and obfuscation was erected around the word "subsidiarity". The term was explained with absolute clarity by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend Lord Slynn of Hadley explained how it would work in the Community. Here again, we have this evening a declaration that no one knows what subsidiarity means and no one knows how it will work.
In fact, the only real excuse for the amendment is that it is one of the few which bears any relation to the Bill, because the term "subsidiarity" is, for the first time, introduced into a European treaty, and it is highly important that it should be.
Subsidiarity is perfectly explicable. It means that a decision should not be made by any decision-maker more remote from the person affected by the decision which could be made reasonably by some institution or decision-maker closer to the person affected. In domestic terms, it means that the parish council should not decide any matter that can properly be decided by the parishioner, and so on up the hierarchy to Whitehall. Whitehall should not decide any matter which could reasonably be decided by a county council, a district council, a parish council or the parishioner himself. That is easily transferable to the European institutions. Nothing should be decided by Brussels which cannot reasonably he decided by Whitehall or some subordinate decision-maker.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I have been colleagues for many years and I should like to flatter myself with friendship. However it is absurd to say that the situation has not been explained. Theologians know a condition called "invincible ignorance" whereby whatever the explanation the recipient cannot take it in. It excuses the recipient from everlasting damnation. I am glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is so excused.
This is an important innovation into the treaty for the reason that I ventured to explain. I hope that we need no longer have any obfuscation about what subsidiarity means or its value.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale: who decides whether a decision is taken at the level of the local council, the district council or—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I believe that I am in order. I must remind the noble and learned Lord of the wording in Article 3b which states:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity".
There is nothing in the guidance as to who takes that decision.
The only guidance that we have is contained in the Edinburgh declaration, which I imagine all members of the Community agreed. One must therefore ask whether the famous Article 3b will in any way change the acquis communautaire. It is worth quoting that declaration, at the end of which I shall ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether he agrees that that is the declaration and how Her Majesty's Government will try to reverse it. The declaration states:
"The principle of subsidiarity does not relate to and cannot call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty as interpreted by the Court".
The words "as interpreted by the Court" are important. During our proceedings many noble Lords will have become convinced that the Court is merely the engine of the treaty and is not a court of justice as we understand it. The declaration continues:
"It provides a guide as to how those powers are to be exercised at Community level, including in the application of Article 235. The application of the principle shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, including the 'maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire', and it shall not affect the primacy of Community law nor shall it call into question the principle set out in Article F(3) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
Those who support this Article 3B and pretend that it is some shield for our national sovereignty have to say clearly either who will be taking the decisions in question or they have to make a list as to what is protected by the shield of subsidiarity and what is not so protected.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall be brief because the question of subsidiarity was canvassed at length in our previous debate and, with the greatest respect, nothing new has been said this evening.
I believe that there is perhaps a need on the part of the Government to listen to the advice given by the Select Committee in another place as regards its suggestion that it would be helpful if the Government were to report regularly—perhaps by way of six-monthly reports—on developments in the European Community as to how the principle has been applied. But I do not believe that apart from that, and perhaps consideration by Select Committees and scrutiny committees in both Houses as regards the

101
application of the issue in practice, it would be helpful to list the matters of subsidiarity in the way proposed in the amendment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said so effectively, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt extensively with the issue as to how the question of what is and what is not justiciable may be applied. There is really nothing to add in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the question of building roads. I recommend him to look at paragraph 2 of Article 130 where he will see specific exclusions from the application of qualified majority voting as regards environmental proposals. The drinking water directive goes back to 1980 when it was accepted unanimously by the governments of the Community, including the Conservative Government. There is nothing more to be said about that.
I believe that this is a thoroughly impracticable proposition. I hope that if the opinion of the House is tested on the matter, it will reject the amendment although the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that he does not intend to push the matter to a vote this evening. I believe that he is very wise because the amendment does not add up.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may recommend to his colleagues that the application of the suggestion made by the Select Committee in another place would be helpful to Parliament as a whole.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with that last point. Obviously, the arrangements to be made for the scrutiny of activities within the Community require to be reviewed from time to time. I have no doubt that the various suggestions made in that connection will be taken into account as we progress.
I wish to say a few words about the amendment and some of the comments that have been made about it. I believe that I have answered already all the questions which have been put this evening but that may not necessarily preclude me from doing so again.
As regards the acquis communautaire—that is, the standing law of the Community—what has been said is that that law stands. Obviously, it would be a very difficult situation to think of that law as affected by the principle without further enactment. However, it does not mean that standing law may not be reviewed in the light of' the application of the principle and then modified by subsequent enactment. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch understands that.
Reference was made to pretence. I repudiate any suggestion of any kind of pretence. I have sought to explain as clearly as I can the words which are used in Article 3b. There is no pretence about it whatever. In order to avoid any pretence, I have declined to prophesy exactly what would happen in any particular case. I have not done so because the words of Article 3b—as is so often true in the law—while being very clear and precise, have to be applied to particular circumstances. The judgment of how they should be
102
applied to particular circumstance is something that will ultimately be the responsibility of the judicial authority that will be charged with the ultimate decision.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked who would decide the matter. I have sought to answer that question. His answer is that the European Court of Justice, notwithstanding its name, is not a court of justice. I do not know what my noble friend's attitude is to the Treaty of Rome. However, the Treaty of Rome set up the Court of Justice. That treaty, and those who acceded to it, considered that if you were to have a Community legal order, then it was necessary to have a court which decided questions of Community law in a way that applied throughout the Community. Accordingly, it was necessary to have the European Court of Justice, with members from each of the constituent member states, which would have such responsibility.
I altogether repudiate the notion that it is not a court of justice. It is possible that it comes to decisions from time to time with which my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch does not agree. Indeed, that may occasionally happen even for me. However, that does not mean that it is not a court of justice. I should point out that about 50 per cent. of those who go to the courts come away a little dissatisfied with the answer received. I suppose that even one of the mothers who appeared before King Solomon was a bit dissatisfied with the answer. However, that does not mean that it was not a just answer and the best answer that a just judge could give in the circumstances.
The ultimate question of the application of the doctrine of subsidiarity in Community matters, in so far as it is a matter of Community law and it is made so if Maastricht is ratified by the inclusion of Article 3b in the Treaty of Rome, as amended, is a matter for the European Court of Justice to determine.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for seeking to help the Government to find the right answer in the referendum vote. I am sure that he is doing everything that he possibly can to help us obtain that answer. Therefore, I wish to respond to him as fully as I possibly can. I have sought to do so by explaining the criteria under which one decides whether or not under the existing treaties (and, as amended by Maastricht, if it is approved) the areas of exclusive competence are to be determined.
In areas of exclusive competence, there is no room for the question as to whether it is a member state or the Community that should legislate. The agreement between the member states has determined that question by stating that it is the Community that should legislate. But even in that area, Article 3b provides that the Community legislature should
"not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of"
the treaty. Those are clear words. I believe that I know what they mean. They can be applied to test any Community instrument.
In so far as the option is left between the Community legislating and the member states legislating, the second paragraph of Article 3b makes it plain that the Community is to legislate,

103
"only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
All those are quite simple words to be applied to test the question in any particular case.
As regards a list of areas of exclusive competence, I have explained—I hope clearly—the reasons why it is not really possible to frame a list in the sense which my noble friend mentioned. I have sought to indicate the general areas in which this occurs. They are the common agricultural policy, the common commercial policy, the common fisheries policy as regards conservation, and the common external tariff. Those are the general areas but, as I have explained, one has to delimit within them in considerable detail before one can say one is discussing an area of exclusive competence.
In practice, a proposal is made and tested against the power under which it is proposed. One then examines that power. The idea of trying to do that in the abstract, which is what my noble friend is seeking to do, is quite impractical. If he tried to undertake that by reference to particular cases, he might understand the position better.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that my noble friend was making rapidly towards a federal constitution. I am sure that is about the last thing my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls would want to do. Even in a federal constitution there are questions on how the division of powers between the constituent bodies applies. Noble Lords who have any familiarity with the development of the law of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Australia will know of a case or two in which that question has been raised. It is quite impossible to exclude litigation altogether in these areas because of the imprecise nature of language as an instrument and because of the difficulty of forecasting, at the time an instrument is made, all the possible situations to which it shall apply. I believe that the clarity of Article 3b matches the clarity of any such division of powers in the kind of constitutions to which I have referred.
As regards existing law, I believe that the Community will review it to see to what extent it should be modified in accordance with the terms of Article 3b. Article 3b itself will not have that effect, as I have sought to explain, but I believe the Community will embark on such a review. As the Edinburgh Summit showed, the Community has already done that. For what it is worth, I confirm that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has correctly quoted from the Edinburgh communiqué but in my view that does not advance his cause one iota.
I hope your Lordships will not wish to give effect to this amendment. I understood that my noble friend desired simply to help me by probing me to the ultimate and that he did not really intend to press the amendment. I commend that view to him.
10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that no new points had been put forward and that he had answered the points that had
104
been raised. However, the noble and learned Lord has not answered those points. What he has done, on three occasions now, is to give an answer but he has not answered the points. He has given an answer to assuage some of the doubts that some people have on this important problem. He may have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but he has not satisfied a lot of others.
I accept that what this amendment asks for would not be easy to provide. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that six months would not be enough time for the matter in question. If the Government could have said that they would attempt to recognise where the powers are and how far they extend, that would have signified some progress. However, the noble and learned Lord has given an answer but not the answer.
We still have Third Reading on this Bill. I believe that the answer to this matter is tied up with whether the nation will be satisfied with anything less than a referendum. I believe that a clearer answer on this question might well have minimised that risk.
I am also satisfied that if this Bill becomes an Act and is put into operation, in years to come problems will have to be faced from disgruntled people in this country who would not have been disgruntled if they had known what it all meant before the final decision was taken.
Having said that, and having tried to help the Government—whether I am a federalist or the opposite of a federalist, whatever that is—I do not believe that it is appropriate at this stage to push the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Frontier protection
(". Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring the abandonment of restriction of any measures in force at the periphery of the territory of the United Kingdom for—

(a) the purpose of control of drug traffic, terrorism and other criminal activity, and

(b) the passage to and from the United Kingdom of persons who are not citizens of the Union.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment standing in my name is to try to obtain from Her Majesty's Government an undertaking, or at least an assurance, that the declaration negotiated at the time of the negotiation of the Single European Act has some force in law.
Noble Lords will recall that the Single European Act inserted into the Treaty of Rome a new article (Article 8a) which provides for the establishment of the internal market by 1st January 1993. That short article states quite clearly that:
"The internal market shall comprise an area without frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
On the face of it that provision would appear to require that both customs points and passport controls should be abolished as from 1st January 1993. Obviously, the British Government are firmly against the removal of such controls at points of entry

105
to the United Kingdom. That is a position with which I agree entirely, and I believe that many of your Lordships are also in agreement.
As a result, a declaration was negotiated at the time of the negotiating of the Single European Act, which is also mercifully short, which reads:
"Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques".
The dilemma lies here. Her Majesty's Government maintain that that declaration gives them the right to maintain passport and customs checks at their borders but the Commission and others challenge that interpretation. I have one question for my noble friends on the Front Bench. Who is right: Her Majesty's Government or the Commission?
If Her Majesty's Government are right in thinking that by securing that declaration, which they and other members regarded at the time as reserving a right to maintain border controls for those purposes, the wording is hardly explicit. The reference in Article 8a to areas without frontiers does not sit happily with the right to maintain general checks which is claimed by Her Majesty's Government. In addition, a declaration has less legal strength than a treaty provision. It is my submission that it is persuasive or illustrative rather than having substantive legal force.
It is on that issue, and that issue alone, that I would welcome clarification and undertakings from my noble friends on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I venture to suggest that, on this the ninth day of our deliberations on the Maastricht Bill, we put a little discipline into our proceedings. My noble friend who moved the amendment referred to the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act but he did not refer to the Maastricht Treaty. He did not refer to it for the very good reason that there is nothing whatever in the Maastricht Treaty which refers to frontier controls. If that is correct, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that the amendment falls outside the Long Title of the Bill. if that is right, in my submission your Lordships should not trouble yourselves further.
There is another reason why you should not trouble yourselves further. If your Lordships examine the Treaty of Rome and the provisions concerning the free movement of goods and persons, your Lordships will discover that there is adequate power in the Treaty of Rome to deal with the matters that worry my noble friend. For that secondary reason, I suggest that your Lordships should not trouble yourselves further with the amendment and should proceed to the next one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose underlying the amendment. However, as I understand it, the Government have covered the matter by reserving our position on more than one occasion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I have heard the
106
arguments before. They are the ones put forward by the Scots after 1603 for keeping a Customs post at Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Labour Party supports the maintenance of frontier controls. We believe that nothing in the treaties damages that aspect. We believe that many of the provisions of the treaty will help in combating terrorism and drugs.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in encapsulating that I say, "And so say all of us". However, in fairness to my noble friend, he requires more of an answer than that.
The issue of frontier controls has been discussed both in your Lordships' House and in another place on many other occasions. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they do not accept the European Commission's interpretation of Article 8a (now to become Article 7a) in relation to free movement of persons.
The free movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome apply, in our view, only to European Community nationals. When my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke put forward a similar amendment at Committee stage, I again reiterated that we have no intention of abandoning frontier checks, including immigration controls on all non-European Community nationals who want to enter the United Kingdom.
We have always been emphatic that frontier controls between the United Kingdom and other member states should be maintained, and it was for that reason that we obtained in 1985 the declaration which is attached to the Single European Act: that we (and other European Community states) have the right to prevent drug trafficking, terrorism and illegal immigration from entering our respective countries.
We believe in co-operating closely with our partners in the European Community on immigration and asylum matters, on the fight against drugs, terrorism and other serious forms of crime, where we all face common problems. That is why we argued for, and why there now is in the Maastricht Treaty, the inter-governmental interior and justice pillar. That is the reason for that inclusion.
Of course, the Twelve member states operate different immigration systems, and each state is subject to different levels of different forms of pressure. We in the United Kingdom happen to be an island and happen to be surrounded by water. That happens to provide us with natural safeguards whose effectiveness we have no intention whatsoever of compromising.
The United Kingdom's position is well known on these matters. The Maastricht Treaty does not alter the position regarding internal frontiers one iota, or the ability of citizens or member states to move freely between the states.
There is therefore no reason to amend the Bill, and the United Kingdom's position will not be strengthened by inserting a provision of the kind suggested by my noble friend. I hope he will agree that it would be best not to be so altered.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, when I moved the amendment I made it as clear as I could that it was in the nature of a probing amendment. In thanking my noble friend, all I have to say is that rarely have I received an answer so close to the one I sought. For that, I am extremely grateful to him and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Common Foreign and Security Policy: operational expenditure
(". Her Majesty's Government shall not, in the Council or in any other institution of the Community or the Union, agree to the payment out of the Community budget of any operational expenditure in the field of foreign and security policy under Article 199 of Title II of the Treaty on European. Union unless such specific agreement shall first have been authorised by Act of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that the groupings today did not include Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which relate to defence and security matters, with an amendment which was moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Statements were made about the Community's likely responsibilities in the field of security which are of relevance to the proposals for the pillar affecting matters in the Treaty on European Union which we are discussing. It is a pity that my noble friend Lord Finsberg is not in his place since he spoke at some length on the topic. Even in his absence, I am afraid I must say that the picture which he drew about the relations of WEU and NATO and our own responsibilities in the area was misleading. The fact is that there has been, in relation to security and defence matters and foreign policy matters—which are entangled with them—a high degree of ambiguity which has not been resolved.
Noble Lords may have seen the admirable paper on the subject prepared by the House of Commons Library; Research Paper 93/27 issued in March. It points out—and I think this is unanswerable—that at the heart of the discussion as to whether there should be a security aspect of the Community's affairs there has lain an unanswered question. Although it is said that it is in some way a relationship between NATO and WEU which will be the instrument there are, and have been, two totally different conceptions as to what that relationship should be. On the one hand, there is the conception which is supported by Her Majesty's Government and certain other governments—notably that of the Netherlands—that WEU should simply be a way of strengthening the European component of European defence, but that the overall responsibility should remain entirely with NATO which alone has the capacity to mobilise and direct forces if those were needed.
On the other hand, there is the view held notably by the French, and to some extent, the Spaniards, that WEU should look towards replacing NATO because it does not believe in the perpetuity of the American and Canadian participation in our defence. As the
108
research paper points out, those issues have never been resolved; they are always fudged when we come to debate them and it is important in relation to the Treaty on European Union. The point of the amendments is to try to obtain further clarification.
Although it is said of the treaty that the pillar relating to defence and security matters is not part of the Community—that is to say, it is not part of the legal and administrative machinery by which the Community operates—it is made clear that it is the intention that the Community itself should eventually be superseded by the European Union, and in that case this difference will cease to exist. There will be one set of institutions; namely, the institutions of the European Union. That is made clear by another quite important document, the draft by the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament entitled The Constitution of the Union, which makes it abundantly clear that the institutions of the Union will comprise, like the institutions of any state, responsibility in matters of security and defence.
The difficulty throughout our discussions on the Maastricht Treaty has been that the Government and their supporters constantly refer to the limitations in the Treaty of Maastricht itself, the safeguards that exist and those that have been promoted by Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, those of us who express doubts are more concerned with the movement which is implicit in the treaty towards European union—that is to say, towards a European state. The example that we have here in the field of defence and security is perhaps the most obvious. It is indeed so obvious that I do not wish at this hour to prolong the discussion. However, I have one particular question that I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench. Before agreeing to the inclusion of the defence pillar in the treaty (or next to the treaty) were the defence advisers, the defence chiefs, of the United Kingdom consulted as to the practicability of the proposed institutional set-up? It is very important for us to know whether, in going ahead in this way, the Government are taking with them the Armed Services, on which ultimately our defence and security depend. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 16, which, among other things, refers to payments out of the Community budget. Before doing so, I should like to offer the House, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, my apologies. Owing to an undertaking given to terminate the debate as close as possible to eleven o'clock, I shall be unable to move those amendments which would have enabled me to enlarge on the role of the European Parliament and the whole of the budgetary impact. Subject to the exigences of business tomorrow, I shall endeavour to seek a peg upon which to hang that particular hat. If I do not succeed, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
In regard to the particular amendment under consideration, quite an amount of expense is incurred in carrying out the European policy. These matters are dealt with in an undated document issued by the Foreign Office, reference FCO/EC Lords/1/93, which

109
sets out the whole of the financial basis in an indirect sense in carrying out the common foreign and security policy.
It is quite clear that expenditure will cover a number of heads. I should like the noble Baroness in her reply to confirm that the expenditure will be incurred under those heads, that it will be properly accounted for and that we shall be notified of the expense involved. It is quite clear that from time to time the Foreign Ministers of member states and representatives of the Commission will meet regularly, at least three times a year. That will cause extra public expenditure. Then the political directors from the member states and the Commission meet regularly once a month to discuss EPC issues and to prepare Ministers' discussions. Incidentally, it will be useful to find out more about those strange animals—political directors. By whom are they appointed? What are their precise functions? However, I pass over that point for the time being.
The Foreign Office memorandum goes on to say that European correspondents from member states and the Commission meet regularly, usually in parallel with the political directors, and are responsible for the day-to-day co-ordination of the European policy structure. From time to time experts from member states and the Commission meet regularly in working groups to discuss EPC issues in detail and report to the Political Committee. Could we have more particulars, including costs of the maintenance of the Political Committee? There is also an EPC secretariat, staffed with secondees from member states, based in Brussels and providing administrative back-up for the presidency. All that costs money. One likes to know where the money comes from, where it appears in the budget and who approves it.
Then there is also the confidential communications system which was set up in 1973 and which provides a direct communications link between member states, the EPC secretariat and the Commission. That also has a cost which surely it would be in order for us to know about. Finally, there are the member states' ambassadors and representatives of third countries who meet from time to time.
That all amounts to a formidable network or apparatus of committees, political directors, political committees, correspondents, ambassadors and everybody else, all set up under the Single European Act but now to be incorporated in a separate pillar. All we ask is for information about that. We should like to know how the cost will be covered in budgetary terms and, if I may say so, whether it will be subject to the same kind of Treasury scrutiny as the Treasury is reputed to exercise over the Community Budget. All that information would be very helpful. To provide it would be in the spirit of the amendment which I trust the noble Baroness will not take amiss and with which she will readily agree.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to speak specifically to Amendment No. 17, with which Amendment No. 16 is grouped. The Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that notwithstanding the partial concessions on sovereignty made in the Treaty of Rome, the Single European
110
Act and now the Treaty on European Union, essentially he favours a Europe of independent nation states not so very far removed from de Gaulle's L'Europe des patries.
This amendment ensures that there will be no creeping progress towards a unitary state and that the triple pillars of the treaty will remain intact. It does no more than dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of assurances already given to us by the Government. For that reason I hope that it will be accepted.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I had intended to speak at greater length but given the lateness of the hour I shall spare everybody my better glimpses of the obvious and make one statement on which I feel very strongly. I believe that it is not reasonable to accept once again a major commitment without the resources to match. Any great enterprise is only as successful as the investment and effort put into it. It is absolutely vital, if we are going wholeheartedly into the Community, that we should have an adequate supply of experienced diplomats and experts from the ministries, backed up by a new entry which is continually renewed, that will be available at an early stage to scrutinise proposals and Green Papers, to be involved in the early stages of policy-making and to play an active part working within or with the whole Community infrastructure of committees, where the French and others are so well established, as well as reinforcing the permanent representation in Brussels. They must also be in sufficient strength at home to brief Ministers. New Ministers will necessarily initially have only a superficial and peripheral knowledge of the complex European machinery.
The same argument holds good for the Ministry of Defence officials and the staff officers who will be increasingly called upon to perform the same task when it comes to harmonising the Community, the WEU, CSCE and NATO. To judge by the new defence White Paper, many such officers will be expected to wear three or four hats. They are doing so already. We must have enough skilled staff in the areas of foreign, defence and security policy to protect the paramount position of NATO and to ensure that the implications of any proposed action are properly related to our other national commitments and the resource implications clearly identified.
I expressed my anxiety at Committee stage over the fact that the Select Committee on Defence in the other place alone took no evidence on what the implications of Maastricht were. The implications will have to be clearly identified and recognised and provided for. The Minister's observations on Amendment No. 8 earlier today have said it all. It would be a classical case of Treasury short-term false economy, and a high cost will be paid by the nation for mistakes if we allow cuts in the FCO budget, already charged with such extraordinary commitments as Operation Rockingham, and the MoD and defence budget in this coming Autumn Budget.
We must first ensure that we have enough people with the right skills and experience to defend our interests and make our positive contribution in all areas of Community decision making. Otherwise the

111
skilled negotiation which won us the pillar concept and much else will have been wasted and we shall lose, not gain, from our entry because we shall be at risk of being unable to exercise influence for lack of staff resources. One of our chief strengths compared with other members of the Community has been the professional skills of our negotiators and the experience of our civil servants. We must not make their task impossible. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us on this question of adequate human resources.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is she really suggesting that the Government are incapable of running this country?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, naturally not. But I think that I am entitled to express anxiety.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it appears to me that Amendment No. 16 forces the United Kingdom to block spending on operational action under foreign and security policy unless prior consent for spending has been granted by an Act of Parliament. I do not know whether that is a realistic situation to place the United Kingdom in because very often decisions which may have to be made with other European countries jointly may have to be taken in an emergency and very quickly indeed. It leads me to think that it would be folly to place obstacles in the path of common funding of operational matters should those matters need to be decided on quickly and speedily.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House very long and unlike my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in speaking in an earlier debate on the powers of the Commission, I do not intend to play the Minister's role in responding to what has been said. I would, however, like to make one or two comments.
I was not entirely clear in what respect the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was speaking to the amendment, although I have to admit that I agree with him that there are some ambiguities in relation to the position on a common defence policy. Indeed, I raised those at Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us a little more on what the Government think will be the likely outcome of the arrangements that are made in the treaty with respect to a common defence policy.
But it is true that there are differences between different countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, and they are set out in the House of Commons' research paper. But there are of course differences between members of the European Community on a wide range of issues. That does not mean that at some point we cannot work out those differences and come to an agreement.
I wish briefly to comment on what my noble friend Lord Bruce has said. I was puzzled by some of his remarks. Foreign ministers already meet regularly to discuss European political co-operation. Experts have been meeting regularly to discuss foreign and security questions. Although it costs money for foreign
112
ministers to meet, we should welcome the fact that they do meet. In an increasingly interdependent world that is a relatively small amount of expenditure which we can well afford. I have no doubt that the Minister will confirm that. I suspect that she will agree with what I am saying; namely, that the amount of extra expenditure involved in these new arrangements for the consideration of security and foreign policies is minimal over and above what is already spent in that area.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in responding to this debate on Amendment No. 16 which is taken with Amendment No. 17, I find myself in some difficulty, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. My noble friend Lord Beloff, except rather tangentially, did not actually refer to the content of Amendment No. 16 which he was moving.
However, he asked one or two key questions which I shall do my best to answer. In addition to that, perhaps I may ask him to read again the debates which we had both at Second Reading and at Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and the debate which we had on Amendment No. 2 earlier this evening. Nobody in this House would thank me if I were to regurgitate everything that was said on that amendment this evening so I do not intend to do so.
However, it is important to get clear in our minds that the common foreign and security policy pillar is very much a natural evolution from the European political co-operation which we have enjoyed since 1986–87 and the passing of the Single European Act. I say that having participated for about three years in the deliberations concerning -European political co-operation both with my noble friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, when he was Foreign Secretary, and on my own account when he could not be present.
We have evolved—mainly through the hard work of my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—a sensible way forward on common and foreign security policy; that is, that we do together, and by unanimity, those things which we decide to do. But as I made clear to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in an earlier debate, we can leave outside those defence questions which are covered by Article J.4(3) in our deliberations.
There was one real fear in what my noble friend Lord Beloff said tonight in moving Amendment No. 16. He referred to a draft paper of the European Parliament as if it were an established fact. He referred to commentaries in House of Commons' papers as if they also were established fact and not commentary. Neither is established fact. I know that the draft paper of the European Parliament expresses aspirations for the future of a kind which have often been expressed in the European Parliament. But it is not those issuing such papers or even writing them, who have decided such matters in the past and neither will they decide them in future. It is the member states by common accord under the CFSP pillar which will decide what happens in this vein. I can assure my noble friend Lord Beloff that nothing will happen without the agreement of the United Kingdom and other member states, such

113
as Denmark, which to a large extent share our views on the development of the Community. I really do believe that he is seeing ghosts where none exists.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Beloff who also commented about consultation with the defence staff before going down this path. If it was another noble Lord, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me. However, I must advise the House that it is Ministers who make policy in this country. We value greatly our Chiefs of Staff, as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth knows, but they advise the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. We rarely move except in concert, but occasionally Ministers will have to make decisions which, with all due respect to our excellent Chiefs of Staff, both currently and previously, they may not agree with in every detail. But it is Ministers who are elected to govern and Ministers who must take the responsibility for decisions based on the advice which is freely given. I know of nothing that we have done in moving towards the common foreign and security policy which is at variance with those normal procedures. I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will accept that such anxieties have no basis.
Amendment No. 16 is of considerable importance if one realises that its purpose is to prevent the Government agreeing to the payment of operational expenditure under the CFSP pillar from the Community budget without Parliament's specific approval. That brings me to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who queried the meetings of Foreign Ministers, political directors and European correspondents. Perhaps I may try to explain exactly what that entails. As I have said before, it is a natural evolution from European political co-operation in which we needed to have a proper means of communication between Foreign Ministers, the EPC secretariat and the Committee when it is actually sitting. European political directors are nominated by their own national governments. In our case, the political director is usually a deputy under-secretary of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They are subject at all times to the direction of Ministers in the discussions they undertake. They are, indeed, advised by working groups, as are many different parts of the Community. If I want a medical judgment taken for family planning purposes, for instance, in the development field, as I am not an expert on family planning I have a working group of experts to advise me.
The same policy planning goes on with European political co-operation, shortly to be CFSP. The political directors, therefore, are national civil servants who meet together on a monthly basis under the direction of their Ministers to work out resolutions and the common positions which we frequently take to other bodies, such as the United Nations Security Council, in order to try to find a way forward to resolve some very deep problems. I give one example of the way in which EPC has worked together in the past. I refer to the Middle East peace process, where the directors have met, often after the defence chiefs have talked together, and have then advised Ministers who meet in political co-operation themselves.
114
The costs are no greater than the costs of the way in which we operate at the moment. The European correspondents, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, are in fact the resident representatives in Brussels of the member states and carry out what I call the "day-to-day devilling" of the wording before the political directors come from London for their political director meetings in order to support Ministers when they meet in EPC. There will be no additional cost, but like the running costs of any organisation, it is subject to Treasury and departmental scrutiny. So one of the things that I should like to say on Amendment No. 16 is that the Community budget will be used for administrative expenditure. A decision to use the Community budget for any operational expenditure requires the unanimity of member states meeting in CFSP. The UK therefore has a block on its use if we do not agree. There may be circumstances in which it makes sense to use the Community budget to implement a policy agreed by unanimity. I do not want to chance my hand at guessing what that might be. I believe that we should have the possibility of agreement by unanimity.
If the agreement of Parliament to paying for expenditure under the CFSP pillar (properly chargeable to the Community budget under Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome, which would only be properly chargeable if it were a unanimous decision) were withheld for any reason, the UK would not be able to meet its treaty obligations. The whole of Amendment No. 16 goes against the spirit of the CFSP which my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary fought so hard to obtain upon the basis that we have now secured it. The article relating to that is Article J.11.2. I say that for reference only.
We went from discussing Amendment No. 16 and wider matters to some of the anxieties felt by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I understand her anxieties. I know that she wishes to be helpful when she speaks of future budgetary discussions, but those have not yet taken place and your Lordships will be well aware that I would not be at liberty to disclose the content of those discussions even if they had taken place. But I can assure my noble friend that we have highly skilled staff. We are constantly ensuring that we have excellent new young skilled staff coming up the promotion pipeline to serve this nation at home, in the CFSP, in NATO and in the WEU. I see no reason for that to be changed. With the end of the cold war, we may find different ways of using those staff resources and better ways of using modern technology, but we intend to obtain the best possible value from all such resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke to Amendment No. 17. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear on Second Reading on 8th June that the European Union has no legal personality. It is the Community which has that legal personality and therefore concludes international agreements on trade. It is not the Union that concludes those agreements. In the area of the common foreign and security policy, it is the member states that act and conclude any treaties that arise.

115
Therefore, the noble Lord's anxieties do not have the force that he gave them. It is clear that under CFSP it is the member states that act.
It would not be appropriate to include in legislation a new clause that binds the Government, such as Amendment No. 17 provides. It would not ,be appropriate to give the European Community a legal personality, because that would require, first, the accord of all member states at an inter-governmental conference; and, secondly, ratification by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Here, that would require a further Act of Parliament. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wants.
I hope that your Lordships will conclude from what I have said about Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 that neither are appropriate to what we are trying to achieve. We have safeguards to cover the expenditure problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred when speaking to Amendment No. 16.
As regards Amendment No. 17, I do not believe that the matter is appropriate for legislation. It is a matter for the conduct of foreign policy. Therefore, I ask my noble friend not to press Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If they should be so pressed, I ask the House to reject them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, since it is well past my bedtime I am particularly glad that the Minister has done her best to dispel my nightmares. Whether she has succeeded is a matter I must think about. Of course, I appreciate that what is said by one committee of the European Parliament is not an enormously important piece of evidence as to what may be going on, although it is not without its interest. However, I recollect that throughout the years we have constantly been assured that things which seem to us extravagant would never happen have still happened. I consider that I have a dynamic view of Europe's history whereas those who support the treaty have a static view. However, at this time of night I shall not pursue that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ESTONIA: RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
  ESTONIA: RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
  GIBRALTAR: GOVERNOR'S RESIDENTIAL STAFF
  GIBRALTAR: GOVERNOR'S RESIDENTIAL STAFF
  ZIMBABWE: ECONOMIC REFORM
  ZIMBABWE: ECONOMIC REFORM
  HOMICIDES AND SUICIDES BY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE
  HOMICIDES AND SUICIDES BY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE
  PLANNING: APPEALS TO MINISTER
  PLANNING: APPEALS TO MINISTER
  MoD: MARKET TESTING
  MoD: MARKET TESTING
  MoD AND ARMED FORCES: REDUCTIONS IN SENIOR POSTS
  MoD AND ARMED FORCES: REDUCTIONS IN SENIOR POSTS
  VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS OUTSIDE SCHOOLS
  VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS OUTSIDE SCHOOLS